Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Widewing on November 23, 2009, 09:43:59 AM
-
Claimed to be a hacker, Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia emails have been released to the public. Many IT experts consulted don't believe that this is the work of a hacker, but rather an insider whistle blower.
Fascinating how they manipulate data to support their case. More fascinating is that they openly admit it in the emails.. Priceless exposure of evil science and a total lack of honesty. Intimidation and threats are part and parcel of the methods described in the emails. Amazing stuff.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Heard about it this morn.. will be checking it out more at lunch.
-
Fraud, dry-labbing, and smoothing data points all have a long history in science. But to say that this discredits the danger of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere does not follow.
edited
-
Fraud, dry-labbing, and smoothing data points all have a long history in science. But to say that this discredits the danger of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere is laughable.
It does however, cast reasonable doubt on the degree and immediacy of that danger, and demands a renewing of reasonable debate, don't you think? Science maybe about facts, but scientists are human and so are people with agendas. I've heard enough reasoned arguments against man-made GW to at least question the conclusions of those who support that theory.
-
From the conspiracy site Disclose.TV
http://www.disclose.tv/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fjamesdelingpole%2F100017451%2Fclimategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science%2F
-
There's always room to look at the data and debate its meaning. The internal debate among these scientists is why they fudged their results; they didn't want it to appear that they were not a united front for fear that people wouldn't take the issue seriously.
Sorry you quoted me above, I tried to get rid of the appeal to ridicule but was too late. :o
---------------
For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability. The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic. The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.
-
I agree Sabre, too much has been said, seen and done not to step back and have people with unbiased opinions look into this matter.
Strip
-
For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability. The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic. The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.
Do you carry 4 spares in your car? Waterpump.... hoses, torque converter???
Seems a lot of dinos, plants and animals were once wiped out from a catastrophe. The earth recovered nicely I thought. I see this crock as another way for someone to milk those with money to babysit those without.
-
For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability. The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic. The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.
That's easy for you to say, since you're probably not worried where you next meal is coming from, or if malaria is going to kill you. The resources that global warming alarmists want spent on reducing cabon emmissions will cut into getting food to third world countries that need it, or efforts to reduce malaria, or supply of clean water to many of these needy people across the globe.
-
"The resources that global warming alarmists want spent on reducing cabon emmissions wil
cut into getting food to third world countries that need it, or efforts to reduce malaria, or
supply of clean water to many of these needy people across the globe. "
Phew. For a moment I got worried they would find the money to feed the hungry, cure the
sick and clean the environment by cutting spending on military boondoggles, reducing the
poor oil corporations subsidies or taking back some of the bank and automaker golden
parachut__, er, bail outs!
Think we'll have a rubber-tire bonfire party this weekend since it's all been so much b.s!
Light em if you got em!
-
Some of those emails are wow just wow, especially the 5 page pdf flyer on how to condition the public in order to believe the faked science :lol most of it is research data that cant be deciphered without the programm they used tho :frown:
Here a sneak peak
Chapter 2 has 10 diagrams showing these data, but only one thoroughly confusing diagram (Figure 2.12) for other methods of global temperature measurement. The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming. There is insufficient attention paid to the evidence that this is so, which is
A quadrupling of human population and increases in human prosperity in the last century have led to a great increase in buildings, fuel consumption and vehicles in the vicinity of weather stations.
Weather stations do not take any precautions against these influences
Many remote weather stations do not show a warming
Much recent warming has been from a rise in the minimum temperature rather than the maximum
Recent warming took place mainly in cold climates, in winter, and at night
Two thirds of the weather stations operating in 1975, mainly rural, have been closed down
Many scientific studies have identified “urbanization” effects, but these have been underestimated, because “rural” stations are assumed to be free of such effects.
Vegetation growing around stations usually increases, but is rarely reduced.
Airports have made a transition from “rural” to “heat island”
Surface temperature compilations make inadequate corrections for urban effects
A human influence on climate from these effects is highly likely. An influence from emissions of greenhouse gases is yet to be established.
The treatment of scenarios is confusing. There is only one reference (in Chapter 13) to a document describing the SRES set of IPCC scenarios and incomplete information is spread around several Chapters. There is a whole Chapter 13 on “Scenario Development” which does mention the IPCC SRES scenario as authored by Nakicenovic, and “under review” but gives no further details. . Several Chapters give model results from the obsolete IS92a scenario, thereby “selecting” it, in defiance of the IPCC claim that they do not favour one scenario over another. There is evidence in Chapter 4
You can go back to sleep now, your government is in control
-
For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability. The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic. The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.
The problem is, the cost of being wrong could be catastrophic as well. Your logic here is divorced from reasonable cost-risk analysis. The negative impacts to emerging economies of CO2 reduction laws and treatise, as well as to developed nations, is already being felt, and have proven largely ineffective. The percent certainty is important in determining if it is more cost effective to attempt to reduce CO2 (and hopefully but not certainly) slowing warming, take other proposed measures to counter-act warming, or instead to mitigate it's effects. What if the science dictates that CO2 has done all the warming it can do (a claim I've heard)? The forcing function of CO2 are, I've read, an exponential decay; i.e. as the concentration goes up, the impact per unit of increase goes down in an exponential decay pattern. Could that not explain why GW has essentially halted for the last decaded, even though CO2 concentration has been rising still? What I'm saying is, the nature of the malady must be understood, if we're going to have a cure (or even need a cure) that does not do more harm than the malady. Having honesty from the scientific community is essential, and these emails intimate that we're not getting it.
-
Global warming, or 'climate change' as the parliance du jur in the face of contrary data, is not an anthropogenic phenomenon.
What is unfortunate is true environmental stewardship has been lost to the shrill absolutism in the environmental movement that places carbon at the very top of the agenda.
Many have become so emotionally invested in this carbon issue that they cannot be reasoned with. Pointing to contrary evidence is only to become labelled as a 'denier'
Take for example biofuels. The evidence is indesputable that creating biofuels actally creates more of a carbon footprint than using fossil fuels, and increases food prices of to boot. Yet this is still happening, and heavily subsidized.
What is more is countries like China and India are the leading emmitters of carbon and have absolutely no intention of hamstringing their economies with carbon reduction. Al Gore would have you believe the US needs to do just that, so that we can create a 'moral authority'. The naivete is staggering.
Millions across the world die from hunger, disease, lack of clean water, etc. Imagine if the global warming movement dedicated it's resources to those issues.
-
But....but....but that would just make to much sense!
Strip
-
if your computer model does not give you the results you wanted, change your computer model.
-
The problem is, the cost of being wrong could be catastrophic as well. Your logic here is divorced from reasonable cost-risk analysis. The negative impacts to emerging economies of CO2 reduction laws and treatise, as well as to developed nations, is already being felt, and have proven largely ineffective. The percent certainty is important in determining if it is more cost effective to attempt to reduce CO2 (and hopefully but not certainly) slowing warming, take other proposed measures to counter-act warming, or instead to mitigate it's effects. What if the science dictates that CO2 has done all the warming it can do (a claim I've heard)? The forcing function of CO2 are, I've read, an exponential decay; i.e. as the concentration goes up, the impact per unit of increase goes down in an exponential decay pattern. Could that not explain why GW has essentially halted for the last decaded, even though CO2 concentration has been rising still? What I'm saying is, the nature of the malady must be understood, if we're going to have a cure (or even need a cure) that does not do more harm than the malady. Having honesty from the scientific community is essential, and these emails intimate that we're not getting it.
There's other problems associated with CO2 besides warming, the acidification of the ocean being a big one. Do you like seafood? ;)
Really, I think you've made my point for me nicely. Inconvenience from making more efficient use of our energy resources is a safe bet. I'm not going to Vegas with the integrity of the biosphere, no thank you.
-
Carbon emissions or not, oil is a finite resource upon which modern society is dependent. Demand increases daily, and while new fields are indeed capable of extraction with new technology, they too will not last forever. Not to sound like an alarmist, but to do nothing as a society to wean ourselves off this dependency is at best negligent and at worst suicidal.
Now coal and natural gas are somewhat different situations. Both are finite, but we won't run out of either for many hundreds of years. That being said, coal in particular releases all sorts of fun toxins when combusted (yes, even with scrubbers) and therefore has it's own inherent risks.
What it comes down to for me is (regardless of whether or not man-made climate change is a reality) it makes absolutely zero sense for the most advanced nations in the world to cling to outdated technology sourced in finite resources.
But I digress...
-
No, No, No, You see I've figured it all out, global warming IS man made, but it IS NOT Co2.
Here's what's happened; As the population of the world increases, so to does the number of wicked heathens and infidels, and more and more of these people are dying everyday and going to hell. Now... as we all know hell is "down there" in the middle of the earth, and those souls in hell are burned in agony for eternity.
So it's simple you see; the fires of hell are growing bigger each day, with each new soul damned for eternity, thus causing the earth to warm from the inside. :aok
-
No, No, No, You see I've figured it all out, global warming IS man made, but it IS NOT Co2.
Here's what's happened; As the population of the world increases, so to does the number of wicked heathens and infidels, and more and more of these people are dying everyday and going to hell. Now... as we all know hell is "down there" in the middle of the earth, and those souls in hell are burned in agony for eternity.
So it's simple you see; the fires of hell are growing bigger each day, with each new soul damned for eternity, thus causing the earth to warm from the inside. :aok
Then again... You may just have discovered a new energy source!
-
Its impossible for me to take this thing seriously when people like Gore live like they do demanding everyone reduce their carbon footprint. Everyone but them.
The data has been skewed to fit their agenda. It will be difficult at best to find a group to study the data in an impartial manner. To many will NEVER admit they could be wrong on BOTH sides of this. Just isnt gonna happen. The core samples from ice showing a normal warming and cooling trend were all dismissed in the name of doing "good" for the planet. How can these people be taken seriously? When they held the conference in DC the guy running it wanted it on the statisticly warmest day in DC and they cut off the Air conditioning.He was on TV gloating about it!!!
No,Im not buying it when so much deception went into proving their opinion on the matter.
-
Do you carry 4 spares in your car? Waterpump.... hoses, torque converter???
Seems a lot of dinos, plants and animals were once wiped out from a catastrophe. The earth recovered nicely I thought. I see this crock as another way for someone to milk those with money to babysit those without.
though i don't give a damn about global warming.
that's a shoddy analogy. the Earth will not change if you blow out your tires...
-
What these supposed scientists say is all bulls*it . However you cannot keep polluting the earth it will give way in time . Oh and Gore can talk when he cleans up his act .
Nutte :devil
-
The Earth's biosphere is a self-balancing, self-cleaning system. It's the only way it could have survived numerous cataclysmic events and countless disasters throughout its existence.
That said, we shouldn't go out of our way to pollute it. After all, it is our habitat.
-
SO go chop down 2 billions christmas trees and throw them in the trash that should help. :bolt:
. Some one is going to hit the nuke button long before we get there.
I believe we should be good stewards of what we have regardless of Golbal Warming or not. You can only pollute so much before your forced to drink or eat it.
-
Thank God for Man made global warming.
If those darn pre historic guys weren't driving their monster trucks during those Mammoth hunts, or watching The Caveman Games on their big screen TV's we'd still be in an Ice Age. :banana:
-
doesnt Al Gore care about the plants? CO2 is required for plants to live and grow...... if we drastically reduce it then the plants will die.......
poor poor plants......... then what will vegetarians eat?
promote global warming..... long live the plants........ they have feelings
-
though i don't give a damn about global warming.
that's a shoddy analogy. the Earth will not change if you blow out your tires...
It's a good one..... but it requires a little thinking.
The person I quoted said that GW was a possibility so we should do something about it now.
I asked this question of him.... not you..... to see if he did the same in his daily life. His vehicle could break down at any time. Was he prepared. It could be catastropic for him and his family if he was not.
-
A lot of people say Al Gore is a hypocrite, but I don't think so.
As you can see he kisses cows instead of eating them.
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/AlGoreTipperKiss3.jpg)
-
Really, I think you've made my point for me nicely. Inconvenience from making more efficient use of our energy resources is a safe bet. I'm not going to Vegas with the integrity of the biosphere, no thank you.
Can't say as I see how :headscratch:, but suit yourself. You're pulling a bait and switch with the acidification remark. How high CO2 can go before the oceans become untenable for marine life is another topic entirely. The discussion is whether the planet is warming due to man-made influences. If that's not the scientific problem, then quit talking about GW and let's talk instead about acidification.
One problem I have with this whole discussion is the assumption by some that if a person does not agree with Cap-N-Trade policies and CO2-induced GW that, (a) I don't care about pollution and (b) I'm against energy independence. Both are as far from truth as can be. In regards to the first, I care deeply about avoiding unnecessarily polluting our environment. The problem is in the definition of "pollution"; CO2 isn't...indeed, it is essential to life on our planet (did you know that plants grow faster, and with less water, when CO2 levels are elevated?). In regards to the second, I am a champion of gaining long-term energy independence for my country. Again, the devil is in the details. For me, energy independence means abundent energy produced indigenesly, enough to power strong economic growth. It does not mean starving our economy to meet meaningless reductions in CO2 emisions, particularly if the actual un-adulterated science doesn't support the need. Take CO2 emissions out of the equation and energy independence can be achieved easily: First, remove artificial roadblocks to tapping into domestic fosil fuel sources; stop subsidizing corn ethenol, streamline the approval/construction/certification of nuclear power; take the money being wasted on corn ethenol/carbon sequestration/Cap-N-Trade regulation and put it into incentives for R&D of alternate energy.
-
SO go chop down 2 billions christmas trees and throw them in the trash that should help.
Ever been to a xmas tree farm, the xmas tree are grown as a crop, when trees are harvested new ones are planted. It's called a business, people work there.
-
Can't say as I see how :headscratch:, but suit yourself. You're pulling a bait and switch with the acidification remark. How high CO2 can go before the oceans become untenable for marine life is another topic entirely. The discussion is whether the planet is warming due to man-made influences. If that's not the scientific problem, then quit talking about GW and let's talk instead about acidification.
It's not a bait and switch at all. It was a direct response to your claim that we should weigh the alternative of reducing warming in ways other than CO2 reduction...
The percent certainty is important in determining if it is more cost effective to attempt to reduce CO2 (and hopefully but not certainly) slowing warming, take other proposed measures to counter-act warming, or instead to mitigate it's effects.
...Because that misses the point that increasing atmospheric CO2 has other negative impacts that go beyond average temperature. If that were not the case, then you would be right that we could apply a more traditional cost/benefit calculus to the correct course of action.
I understand that the point goes beyond global warming, but that's also why the term "climate change" is preferable. The ocean is just as important to our climate as the air we breathe.
It's a good one..... but it requires a little thinking.
The person I quoted said that GW was a possibility so we should do something about it now.
I asked this question of him.... not you..... to see if he did the same in his daily life. His vehicle could break down at any time. Was he prepared. It could be catastropic for him and his family if he was not.
No, your analogy is crap, but I will answer it anyway. I have a jack and a spare (oh wait, also have some flares, water, flashlight, quart of oil). If anything goes wrong beyond that, I have AAA...because hey, it's not like the sea level's rising or something. :neener:
-
Anax "Climate change" is now being used ONLY because they know the whole MMGW is bs.
Nothing said will dissuade my opinion on that.
-
Anax "Climate change" is now being used ONLY because they know the whole MMGW is bs.
Nothing said will dissuade my opinion on that.
Bronk, you do realize that's the equivalent of "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"
Three points are clear to me:
1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.
2. CO2 levels are rising.
3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.
Draw your own conclusions from these points.
-
Bronk, you do realize that's the equivalent of "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"
Three points are clear to me:
1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.
2. CO2 levels are rising.
3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.
Draw your own conclusions from these points.
Late 70's we were going to freeze... 90's we were all going to cook. Now you tell me we are going to freeze again? It's a BS scam to grab $.
Like I said I don't believe a word of it.
The earth was colder and the earth was hotter long before we got here. Probable do the same long after we are gone.
-
Any body ever find out what the best temperature for Earth is anyway? How about you Northern hemispheric countries, bet you'd like a little warm up before the ice storms. I got another question but this is for Anaxogoras, are you a vegan?
-
Carbon emissions or not, oil is a finite resource upon which modern society is dependent. Demand increases daily, and while new fields are indeed capable of extraction with new technology, they too will not last forever. Not to sound like an alarmist, but to do nothing as a society to wean ourselves off this dependency is at best negligent and at worst suicidal.
Now coal and natural gas are somewhat different situations. Both are finite, but we won't run out of either for many hundreds of years. That being said, coal in particular releases all sorts of fun toxins when combusted (yes, even with scrubbers) and therefore has it's own inherent risks.
What it comes down to for me is (regardless of whether or not man-made climate change is a reality) it makes absolutely zero sense for the most advanced nations in the world to cling to outdated technology sourced in finite resources.
But I digress...
A old Discovery Channel? Film showed something that might make your statement not entirely true.
Was about a deep sea rov going way down and finding a chimney blowing out some really dark material.
They took a sample and low and behold it was OIL and it was being created by tiny bacteria that was dieing as it was exposed to the ocean water...................
haven't seen that particular episode since.
-
Just my $.02 but I believe this GW is just ol' Mother Earth going through her natural phases. Some geologists say ice ages happen approx. every 30,000 years or so and that they are preceeded by climate warming. Don't know if the gurus are right or not (wasn't here 30k yrs ago), but it seems probable.
-
Seriously, I just hope and pray that the US will not sign the coming global climate treaty next month in Copenhagen. It will make our sovereignty subservient to a new global climate government (unelected of course), which would have the power to come in and over ride anything we do in the name of "the greater good", regardless of our own laws and constitution. As well as redistributing our wealth to China and India. You can call me crazy but I have read those parts of the treaty, it specifically says "government" but never mentions "elections" or "democracy" it is basically the first step to an unelected one world government. Scary stuff :uhoh
-
Man made global warming is a farce that was cooked up to bilk money out of the public to subsidize the lavish lifestyles of those that do not care.
-
Just my $.02 but I believe this GW is just ol' Mother Earth going through her natural phases. Some geologists say ice ages happen approx. every 30,000 years or so and that they are preceeded by climate warming. Don't know if the gurus are right or not (wasn't here 30k yrs ago), but it seems probable.
Didn't you get the memo? It's no longer GW,NOW it is "Global climate change"... sisnce it appears it's getting cooler now. :rolleyes:
-
i seriously believe that anyone that didn't already suspect something like this was hiding under a rock.
but then everyone calls me paranoid when i talk like this.
-
A lot of people say Al Gore is a hypocrite, but I don't think so.
As you can see he kisses cows instead of eating them.
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/AlGoreTipperKiss3.jpg)
Just remember that cow almost got away with forcing censorship onto us.
-
We will have to stop producing so much CO2 so that we can continue eating red meat. Now I know there are some people (that shall go unnamed but we all know who I am talking about) that will try to keep all the beef to themselves. So we need to make sure that there is plenty to go around and that no one hoards it all. Even one here is well aware what happens when hordes hoard and we certainly dont want to go there. So... whats the solution? We stop buying chinese goods that are really american goods made in china? Stop driving cars that run on gas? Stop flying planes? Building computers? No more soda drinks? No more breathing? What then?
Just leave me some beef man! :bolt:
-
We will have to stop producing so much CO2 so that we can continue eating red meat. Now I know there are some people (that shall go unnamed but we all know who I am talking about) that will try to keep all the beef to themselves. So we need to make sure that there is plenty to go around and that no one hoards it all. Even one here is well aware what happens when hordes hoard and we certainly dont want to go there. So... whats the solution? We stop buying chinese goods that are really american goods made in china? Stop driving cars that run on gas? Stop flying planes? Building computers? No more soda drinks? No more breathing? What then?
Just leave me some beef man! :bolt:
the fact is that the earth cycles. it will cycle with humans living on it, and it will cycle long after humans are gone.
for anyone to think that the human race(a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things) can actually affect mother earth in normal day to day living is pretty much asinine.
when the earth has had enough, we'll disappear.........
-
Is Al Gore (the father of the internet) going to go to jail? :confused:
-
i seriously believe that anyone that didn't already suspect something like this was hiding under a rock.
but then everyone calls me paranoid when i talk like this.
YOU ARE PARANOID! :O
There..... feel better? :neener:
I get it too :rofl :cheers: :bolt:
-
A old Discovery Channel? Film showed something that might make your statement not entirely true.
Very interesting Wrag, I'll have to check it out. Still, we would need an incomprehensibly large amount of said bacteria to be dying *constantly* to come close to even US consumption, let alone anyone else. (21 million barrels/day x 42 gallons per barrel = 882,000,000 Gallons / day. That's a lot of dead stuff)
-
Three points are clear to me:
1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.
2. CO2 levels are rising.
3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.
Draw your own conclusions from these points.
Actually point 1. is inaccurate and that is not disputed. Human activities added about 3.5% of the total CO2. I don't have a reference to hand but it's easily checked. Yes it's really that low. You have been conned. When you factor in other greenhouse gases like water vapour, man's actual contribution drops well below 1%. Again all this is easily checked.
You can draw you own conclusions based on that inconvenient truth.
-
the fact is that the earth cycles. it will cycle with humans living on it, and it will cycle long after humans are gone.
for anyone to think that the human race(a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things) can actually affect mother earth in normal day to day living is pretty much asinine.
when the earth has had enough, we'll disappear.........
Uh... yeh... I was being goofy man! But you know there are people in California that actually believe a plastic bag will destroy the Earth and also that stinky feet will bring plague and pestilence. :confused:
-
Very interesting Wrag, I'll have to check it out. Still, we would need an incomprehensibly large amount of said bacteria to be dying *constantly* to come close to even US consumption, let alone anyone else. (21 million barrels/day x 42 gallons per barrel = 882,000,000 Gallons / day. That's a lot of dead stuff)
Should have seen the cloud of stuff comin out! And the speed it was goin was FAST!
IIRC back in the mid seventies I recall a guy telling me that ALL the U.S. oil wells had refilled. Said oil and natural gas came from a small microbe/bacteria that lived in the soil under extreme heat and pressure and it died when exposed to oxygen or the pressure got too low or the temp got too low. And that when it died it became a sludge like substance we call crude oil.
AND it tended to flow into pockets, usually the same pockets, and filled or refilled them.
Wondered about it for years and after seein the stuff comin out of that underwater chimney I tend to believe what he told me.
Another little point you might want to think on is not too long back there was a report in the news about some scientist types discovering a small microbe that MIGHT produce oil, IF it was genetically enhanced, but they were going to have to research it.
Interesting info. Wish I had saved the article!
-
Actually point 1. is inaccurate and that is not disputed. Human activities added about 3.5% of the total CO2. I don't have a reference to hand but it's easily checked. Yes it's really that low. You have been conned. When you factor in other greenhouse gases like water vapour, man's actual contribution drops well below 1%. Again all this is easily checked.
You can draw you own conclusions based on that inconvenient truth.
You're right. What I was reading clearly limited the scope of the claim to the burning of fossil fuels being the largest man-made contributer. It then went on to compare the kg of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels to the kg of CO2 from volcanoes, etc. I was not conned, but I did get ahead of myself with some sloppy reading.
-
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller at a UN dinner in 1994
-
CO2, it's what plants crave.
-
It's not a bait and switch at all. It was a direct response to your claim that we should weigh the alternative of reducing warming in ways other than CO2 reduction......Because that misses the point that increasing atmospheric CO2 has other negative impacts that go beyond average temperature. If that were not the case, then you would be right that we could apply a more traditional cost/benefit calculus to the correct course of action.
I understand that the point goes beyond global warming, but that's also why the term "climate change" is preferable. The ocean is just as important to our climate as the air we breathe.
I think you may be confused on the order of posts, and what was in response to what, but that is inconsequential. It IS a bait and switch, as is the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". When one argument starts to fall apart, or evidence comes to light that refutes it (facts are very pesky to people with agendas), shift to an argument that was never central to the debate (acidification of the oceans!), or change the name ("climate change") so one can broaden one's definition of supporting evidence. Where as "climate" has always been taken to mean weather patterns and such, now with a single word change you're claiming ocean PH balance is now included!?! Seems like bait and switch to me, and the bait is smelling mighty stinky :eek:.
Oh, and has already been pointed out, man is not the major source of CO2, and CO2 is a mere fraction of the so-called greenhouse gases (and is by far not the most important). And again I'll point out that the heat-trapping properties of CO2 are not linear as levels go up. In otherwords, doubling of CO2 causes x amount of additional heat to be trapped; doubling it again causes x/2 additional heat, and so on. This may be one reason why CO2 has continued to climb in the last 10 years, but global temperatures have not. Just a thought.
By the way, I've heard pretty much nothing in the media about the coming oceanic acidification disaster; even today, the claims of armegedon still focus on higher temperatures and their associated effects (floods, drought, famine, rising sea levels, to name but a few of the claims). I don't believe even Al Gore's propaganda "fictu-mentary" mentioned that as a danger, even in passing (could be wrong, of course). I do suspect that if global temperatures remain stagnent or start to decline, someone will trot out acidification of the oceans as the "real" danger of CO2 ("We never said warming was the main danger, honest!"), to keep that horse twitching and justify draconian and global measures to curb them. Oh, and what is the tipping point, CO2-level wise, where we cause catastrophic damage to marine life due to acidification? How many PPM? Based on what models? As long as we're shifting the focus from "warming" to "acidification", I'd like to know.
-
CO2, it's what plants crave.
Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
-
Sabre, I don't appreciate being accused of bait and switch tactics in the face of a clear explanation of how what I said directly addressed your post. Therefore I'm afraid there cannot be fruitful discussion.
regards,
Gavagai
-
Fascinating how they manipulate data to support their case. More fascinating is that they openly admit it in the emails.. Priceless exposure of evil science and a total lack of honesty. Intimidation and threats are part and parcel of the methods described in the emails.
not that surprising, the whole climate science arena reeks of this kind of manipulation, its like they learnt the scientific method from the ID guys. I particularly like that because I dont buy into all of this pseudo-science I'm apparently a "climate denier". lovely phrase that, with its subconscious association with "holocaust denier" and therefore neo-nazis. the manipulation runs deep, all the way from the raw data to its ultimate presentation.
biggest shame is that this stuff is important, and the undoubtedly good work of a small % of these scientists is obscured by the dogma of the rest.
-
at the current trend of pH changes in the ocean (based on data from the last 240 years or so according to them) if you base is strictly on the data and not emotional response with a skewed view toward proving a point........ it would be over 1000 years before getting close to a danger point of acidification
-
The goal of this scare is to put a tax on CO², which is a biproduct of all animal life on the planet. The result => a tax on life itself. This is what they want, together with a global government. During the Copenhagen meeting in December this year Obama is poised to cede US sovereignty to a new global government. Likewise will the EU subdue to this global entity, and at the flick of a pen we will have this "New World Order" that the politicians have been mentioning every now and then the last 20 years or so, but never spoken clearly of. Climate change is all part of the charade to scare the populace into submission.
-
Uh... yeh... I was being goofy man! But you know there are people in California that actually believe a plastic bag will destroy the Earth and also that stinky feet will bring plague and pestilence. :confused:
i kinda figured that........but there's people in here taking this poop too seriously.
:aok
-
at the current trend of pH changes in the ocean (based on data from the last 240 years or so according to them) if you base is strictly on the data and not emotional response with a skewed view toward proving a point........ it would be over 1000 years before getting close to a danger point of acidification
Try a few decades, unless you base your response on your specific inclination to deny scientific data. Corals are already in danger of losing the ability to make calcium carbonate skeletons. Lowering the pH makes it impossible.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/11/ (http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/11/)
-
"In contrast, some researchers have concluded that, despite a decrease in ocean pH and aragonite saturation, calcification in corals may increase, owing to an increased metabolic response driven by warming associated with increased anthropogenic CO2. Although such findings remain controversial, they emphasize the fact that critical gaps exist in our knowledge of how coastal tropical-marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, will respond to global changes brought about by increased atmospheric CO2."
This taken from the link you provided
as I stated if you look at data without your purse strings attached........ at a minimum it will take centuries and in all probability at least a millenium or more before "acidification" (a GW scare word) will even bring the oceans to a neutral pH level
the level was approx 8.179 in the 1750s...... 8.104 in 1994 a .075 drop in 250 years....... the last 50 at the very minimum of heavy industrialization........ neutral is 7.0 even if you consider a slight rise of decrease (which isnt probable) and say it will decrease at .1 every 250 years that would approximate 2750 years before reaching a neutral pH level
nature has a funny way of running its course despite what some biased scientist writes as a theory..... which is why the facts just dont support the scientists
-
"In contrast, some researchers have concluded that, despite a decrease in ocean pH and aragonite saturation, calcification in corals may increase, owing to an increased metabolic response driven by warming associated with increased anthropogenic CO2. Although such findings remain controversial, they emphasize the fact that critical gaps exist in our knowledge of how coastal tropical-marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, will respond to global changes brought about by increased atmospheric CO2."
This taken from the link you provided
as I stated if you look at data without your purse strings attached........ at a minimum it will take centuries and in all probability at least a millenium or more before "acidification" (a GW scare word) will even bring the oceans to a neutral pH level
the level was approx 8.179 in the 1750s...... 8.104 in 1994 a .075 drop in 250 years....... the last 50 at the very minimum of heavy industrialization........ neutral is 7.0 even if you consider a slight rise of decrease (which isnt probable) and say it will decrease at .1 every 250 years that would approximate 2750 years before reaching a neutral pH level
nature has a funny way of running its course despite what some biased scientist writes as a theory..... which is why the facts just dont support the scientists
You show how little you know about the marine environment. Try keeping a marine fish alive at less than 7.8 pH or so. Any salt water aquarist will laugh at you.
Hint: They die, under long term exposure.
And that bit about it "increasing calcification in corals" was not written by a coral biologist. It was forced into the USGS by pseudo science studies by some of your cohorts.
Kinda like they're attempting with "intelligent design". Forcing it, against the evidence.
-
Bronk, you do realize that's the equivalent of "Lalalala, I can't hear you!"
Three points are clear to me:
1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.
2. CO2 levels are rising.
3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.
Draw your own conclusions from these points.
CO2 does NOT reflect thermal radiation, give it up http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
-
CO2 does NOT reflect thermal radiation, give it up http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
I'm really sorry that you think a wordpress blogger is a citeable source.
I had to make one of those blogs in undergraduate school, in a technical writing class.
-
I'm really sorry that you think a wordpress blogger is a citeable source.
I had to make one of those blogs in undergraduate school, in a technical writing class.
Mayhap you would at least click on the link before dissing it...an MIT prof who has testified before the Senate is a bit more than a blogger
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-
FYI, I already corrected point 1, which should have said "the burning of fossil fuels contributes more CO2 than other human activities. As for thermal radiation, I'll have to defer to my old chemistry professor and leave it at that. What really scares me is the certitude with which you deniers attack science, when what you are attacking has never claimed certitude, only reason for caution. Even worse is that when scientists do voice questions or debate their data, you guys go "Aha! Gotcha!" It's pretty clear to me who the real demagogues are.
-
When someone in whom you place boundless trust turns out to be a liar(s), everything they've ever stated comes into question. Such things go far beyond scientists
-
There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data. Sometimes there has been outright fraud. But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples. So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.
FYI, the field where the most fraud occurs is medical science, but that hardly means we stop going to the doctor.
-
There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data. Sometimes there has been outright fraud. But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples. So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.
FYI, the field where the most fraud occurs is medical science, but that hardly means we stop going to the doctor.
Going to the doctor is a choice.
Being hoodwinked into granting a few power over the masses is not a choice.
-
There is no field in science where someone has notbeen caught fudging their data. Sometimes there has been outright fraud. But it's a rare thing for a whole field of research to be discredited because of a few bad apples. So, yes, I will continue to place some confidence in the overall body of research.
the problem here is that the overall body or research is based on the data fudged by these liars......... they have conspired as a whole to hide the truth
I find it interesting that you tag right along with the models they give you............ when they run the models beginning in the past with known data the model is inaccurate 99% of the time up to present ......... it cant even predict the past and its supposed to be believed on the future
as far as marine life and 7.8pH Ill be the first to admit Im not a marine biologist so I dont know what the exact pH needs to be........ but using your value of 7.8 and historical data then that gives us what 1000 years before marine life is effected (current trend is .075 decrease every 250 years) ....... my mistake
as far as increased calcification being forced into the report...... the report is non factual to begin with........ it clearly states that they "believe" (before testing) that acidification is the cause for decreased calcification....... it states they have taken samples for further study....... it says nothing about results from those studies because they have no results yet...... theyre simply telling you its fact because they say it is and they know some sucker will hinge on their every word...... because they say so
if you choose to buy into the hoax thats just fine for you ......... but dont try to force your religion on others
-
FYI, I already corrected point 1, which should have said "the burning of fossil fuels contributes more CO2 than other human activities. As for thermal radiation, I'll have to defer to my old chemistry professor and leave it at that. What really scares me is the certitude with which you deniers attack science, when what you are attacking has never claimed certitude, only reason for caution. Even worse is that when scientists do voice questions or debate their data, you guys go "Aha! Gotcha!" It's pretty clear to me who the real demagogues are.
they're not fossil fuels.
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
-
Moray I have to ask how much you know about the marine environment? You have studied it for how long? You do realize that the marine environment has changed over the millenia? It has to be time for the next change in the environment and maybe that means man is doomed and maybe not but I know one thing... Earth will survive.
-
Moray I have to ask how much you know about the marine environment? You have studied it for how long? You do realize that the marine environment has changed over the millenia? It has to be time for the next change in the environment and maybe that means man is doomed and maybe not but I know one thing... Earth will survive.
unless some love muffin pushes the RED button :noid :noid :bolt:
-
There is no red button.....only whopper.....or was it BigMac?
:uhoh
-
Even if the planet was nuked it would survive and life would return... one day.
-
Earth will survive.
Now I feel better! :lol
-
they're not fossil fuels.
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
Did everyone ignore this? This is part 2 of my input to this thread.......
"Should have seen the cloud of stuff comin out! And the speed it was goin was FAST! (reference to a Discovery Channel episode showing a dark cloud of stuff spewing into the ocean from an undersea chimenyTHAT THEY GOT A SAMPLE OF AND DISCOVERED WAS CRUDE OIL THAT WAS FORMING FROM SMALL MICROBES AS THEY DIED!)
IIRC back in the mid seventies I recall a guy telling me that ALL the U.S. oil wells had refilled. Said oil and natural gas came from a small microbe/bacteria that lived in the soil under extreme heat and pressure and it died when exposed to oxygen or the pressure got too low or the temp got too low. And that when it died it became a sludge like substance we call crude oil.
AND it tended to flow into pockets, usually the same pockets, and filled or refilled them.
Wondered about it for years and after seein the stuff comin out of that underwater chimney I tend to believe what he told me.
Another little point you might want to think on is not too long back there was a report in the news about some scientist types discovering a small microbe that MIGHT produce oil, IF it was genetically enhanced, but they were going to have to research it.
Interesting info. Wish I had saved the article!"
-
I always wondered how dinosaur guts got down so many miles into the Earth. :D
-
And what's the bet that science will suddenly discover HOW to create oil?
We may be facing one of the BIGGEST fraud cover ups the world has ever seen!
The money involved here is astronomical in scope!
-
Even if the planet was nuked it would survive and life would return... one day.
Or...stated another way...We are a pimple on the Earth's ass
-
I always wondered how dinosaur guts got down so many miles into the Earth. :D
they used diamond tipped low speed drills? :neener:
-
Did everyone ignore this? This is part 2 of my input to this thread.......
"Should have seen the cloud of stuff comin out! And the speed it was goin was FAST! (reference to a Discovery Channel episode showing a dark cloud of stuff spewing into the ocean from an undersea chimenyTHAT THEY GOT A SAMPLE OF AND DISCOVERED WAS CRUDE OIL THAT WAS FORMING FROM SMALL MICROBES AS THEY DIED!)
IIRC back in the mid seventies I recall a guy telling me that ALL the U.S. oil wells had refilled. Said oil and natural gas came from a small microbe/bacteria that lived in the soil under extreme heat and pressure and it died when exposed to oxygen or the pressure got too low or the temp got too low. And that when it died it became a sludge like substance we call crude oil.
AND it tended to flow into pockets, usually the same pockets, and filled or refilled them.
Wondered about it for years and after seein the stuff comin out of that underwater chimney I tend to believe what he told me.
Another little point you might want to think on is not too long back there was a report in the news about some scientist types discovering a small microbe that MIGHT produce oil, IF it was genetically enhanced, but they were going to have to research it.
Interesting info. Wish I had saved the article!"
the sites i linked earlier, i had found after talking to two friends of mine. one is air force intelligence.,..the other army.
they had both mentioned of some wells in texas that had been looooooong dried up....the owners fired up the pumps, and found there was a LOT of oil in em.
-
Or...stated another way...We are a pimple on the Earth's ass
i think i kinda said that.....either here or over at fw........ :D
-
Moray I have to ask how much you know about the marine environment? You have studied it for how long? You do realize that the marine environment has changed over the millenia? It has to be time for the next change in the environment and maybe that means man is doomed and maybe not but I know one thing... Earth will survive.
The oceans have been the most unchanged biota on the planet. This is why many of its' inhabitants cannot handle shifts in pH, they've evolved without a need to.
-
Moray are you claiming that this very same shift has never happened before? :O
-
the fact is that the earth cycles. it will cycle with humans living on it, and it will cycle long after humans are gone.
for anyone to think that the human race(a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things) can actually affect mother earth in normal day to day living is pretty much asinine.
when the earth has had enough, we'll disappear.........
You're not giving us enough credit. Fifty years of man made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have a caused a noticeable and measurable effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere. There was enough consensus on this that CFCs were more or less banned in 1979. (One-world government did not immediately follow.)
To deny that a large industrial society will have any effect at all on the environment seems disingenuous at best and well, asinine at worst.
As to the issue of these particular scientists cooking the books on global warming I don't doubt it l but I do think perhaps their aims and motivations have been overstated. These guys were basically in the global warming industry - they worked at the University of East Anglia's "Hadley Climate Research Unit". It was in their self-interest for there to be a global warming crisis. They weren't taking orders from Al Gore and some mysterious organization dedicated to the "new world order" - they just wanted to get paid.
-
Thats the point shiv (about everyone on the one side of the debate) meaning they want the money and they are perpetrating a hoax to get it.
On the subject of chlorofluorocarbons... explain again please how a complex and heavy carbon compound can get into the stratosphere? I understand the lower atmosphere is turbulent and things get shaken up a bit and the atmosphere near the ground gets a nice mix but up top there isnt much of that going on. I believe that in order for ozone to even exist in the stratosphere it must actually be created there because its mass is high enough it should sink down at some point which would be a BAD thing since it will be extremely harmful to us humans. However breaking ozone up actually makes more oxygen as I understand it.
CFCs good. Ozone bad! :D
-
You're not giving us enough credit. Fifty years of man made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have a caused a noticeable and measurable effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere. There was enough consensus on this that CFCs were more or less banned in 1979. (One-world government did not immediately follow.)
To deny that a large industrial society will have any effect at all on the environment seems disingenuous at best and well, asinine at worst.
As to the issue of these particular scientists cooking the books on global warming I don't doubt it l but I do think perhaps their aims and motivations have been overstated. These guys were basically in the global warming industry - they worked at the University of East Anglia's "Hadley Climate Research Unit". It was in their self-interest for there to be a global warming crisis. They weren't taking orders from Al Gore and some mysterious organization dedicated to the "new world order" - they just wanted to get paid.
pour a cold glass of water, and watch what it does on a sweltering hot day. it releases some of its cold, and absorbs some heat.
would it not also make sense that the atmosphere does the same thing?
so......it "leaks" out? to a point?
and who gave us the data on the chloroflourocarbons? it wouldn't be those very same scientists, would it? or their predecessors?
i'm not saying we don't affect the planet. i'm saying that we don't affect the planet to nearly the point that these "scientists" would scare us into believing.
-
The climate police is already being set up, they will serve not the US Federal Govt but under a global entity which will effectively be a global government. In NYC they are already doing inspections albeit on a small scale so far. The climate police will be able to shut down your entire life if you are discovered to emit too much CO² into the atmosphere. A tax on CO² is a tax on all animal life on the planet, thus ultimately giving this global government control over all animal life we know of.
-
On the subject of chlorofluorocarbons... explain again please how a complex and heavy carbon compound can get into the stratosphere?
My guess would be diffusion. Gravity is a relatively weak force and frequently isn't strong enough to prevent the tendency of gasses and solutions to homogenize. You can see a similar effect when you dissolve sugar in water. Sugar is a complex carbon molecule and has a much heavier molar mass than water molecules, but the sugar will dissolve into an equal concentration in the solution.
And if you think about it, what would happen if gasses didn't diffuse but instead layered out according to their respective masses? You would have a layer of CO2 and other heavier gases at the bottom, O2 above that, N2 above that, etc.
-
i'm not saying we don't affect the planet. i'm saying that we don't affect the planet to nearly the point that these "scientists" would scare us into believing.
I believe there are more "pressing" matters than global warming. A few come to mind:
Overfishing (Japan)
Smog (Just look at a major city)
Acid Rain (anywhere NE of detroit)
Litter (Everywhere)
Hunting a species to extinction (Whales are not doing too well)
Effective disposal of harmful chemicals (putting it in 55 gallon drums and just leaving it someplace doesn't seem like a bright idea, though some work is being done here)
Near where I live in Virginia, there are streams and creeks where nothing lives in or near them. This is from the gold rush some 100 years ago, things we do can lead to long lasting problems.
I just feel there are more noticeable and destructive things we do to the planet than global warming.
I think the problem CAP is that we as a species are growing in number, the number or industrialized nations is increasing. Eventually there will be some major issues we can no longer brush to the side.
My 2 cents
-
I am glad this has come out. Because there are profiteers from this fraud. Al Gore is one of them.
Enviromentalism is a Globalist agenda that undermines the industrial power of the US and others by taxing Carbon use. Cap and trade to be exact. They do not want another industrial power like the US so Global-Warming is the excuse.
This I hope stops them in their tracks.
-
Moray are you claiming that this very same shift has never happened before? :O
No, I'm stating the last time the pH shifted in the oceans.....99.9% of all life died, due to a cascading failure of the biomes that depended upon the ocean, then onto the terrestrial ones that were indirectly linked. You may begin your research now.
-
No thank you Moray. Its obvious to me the oceans recovered nicely and this is perfectly normal. You may resume your research now.
-
And if you think about it, what would happen if gasses didn't diffuse but instead layered out according to their respective masses? You would have a layer of CO2 and other heavier gases at the bottom, O2 above that, N2 above that, etc.
Yes... and just as obvious its a classic case of 'trickle down molecular diffusion' and not the other way round. The problem is none of the gases are so energetic as to climb without the inherent turbulence of the atmosphere and that does not exist at higher altitudes (stratosphere). However the ozone will diffuse downwards and without some mechanism in place to break up the molecules (thank you CFC inventors) ozone could become a real problem in time.
Note CFC wasnt listed as a problem gas until the patent expired and HCFC became available. Look to the patent holders.
-
No thank you Moray. Its obvious to me the oceans recovered nicely and this is perfectly normal. You may resume your research now.
Dos Gringos called. They want their song back. :airplane:
-
That song is a lot older than Dos Gringos but nice try defusing the fires. :aok
-
That song is a lot older than Dos Gringos but nice try defusing the fires. :aok
Fires? lol. You think I care? It's not your fault you didn't pay attention in science class, or never had any exposure to science at all. That becomes increasingly obvious with every post you write.
You're probably a nice guy, and I respect our discussions. Your blatant inaccuracies are telling though.
-
Christopher Monckton, a leading expert on the climate and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher says in a new paper for SPPI entitled Unequivocal "Consensus" on "Global Warming":
"There is ... no sound or scientific basis for the notion that there is a scientific 'consensus' to the effect that anthropogenic 'global warming' has occurred, is occurring, will occur, or, even if eventually it does occur, will be significant enough to be dangerous."
The SPPI paper reveals the following facts that are usually overlooked or ignored:
* Science is not done by "consensus": the argument from consensus is an instance of the Aristotelian logical fallacy known as the "head-count" fallacy.
* The decision by the UN's climate panel to attribute more than half of the past 50 years' warming to humankind was taken by an unscientific show of hands.
* The UN's chapter attributing most of the past half century's warming to humankind was rejected by most of the UN's own official reviewers.
* The warming rate from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had some influence, was the same as the rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940, when humankind's influence was negligible.
* There is no anthropogenic signal at all in the global temperature record.
* For 15 years there has been no statistically-significant "global warming".
* For 7.5 years there has been rapid but largely-unreported global cooling.
* The greatest warming rate in the past 300 years was from 1645 to 1715, before the Industrial Revolution began. That warming rate was eight times the 20th-century warming rate.
* The warming of the past 300 years is indeed unequivocal, but the mere fact of the warming tells us nothing of its cause. There is no scientific basis for attributing most of it to humankind.
* The notion that "2,500 scientists" personally agreed with the 2007 assessment report of the UN's climate panel is nonsense.
* The largest-ever survey of scientific opinion - the largest to date - found more than 31,000 scientists did not consider the human contribution to "global warming" significant enough to be dangerous.
* Much of the UN's reports are written by environmental campaigners, not scientists.
---
They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.
-
Christopher Monckton, a leading expert on the climate and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher says in a new paper for SPPI entitled Unequivocal "Consensus" on "Global Warming":
"There is ... no sound or scientific basis for the notion that there is a scientific 'consensus' to the effect that anthropogenic 'global warming' has occurred, is occurring, will occur, or, even if eventually it does occur, will be significant enough to be dangerous."
The SPPI paper reveals the following facts that are usually overlooked or ignored:
* Science is not done by "consensus": the argument from consensus is an instance of the Aristotelian logical fallacy known as the "head-count" fallacy.
* The decision by the UN's climate panel to attribute more than half of the past 50 years' warming to humankind was taken by an unscientific show of hands.
* The UN's chapter attributing most of the past half century's warming to humankind was rejected by most of the UN's own official reviewers.
* The warming rate from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had some influence, was the same as the rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940, when humankind's influence was negligible.
* There is no anthropogenic signal at all in the global temperature record.
* For 15 years there has been no statistically-significant "global warming".
* For 7.5 years there has been rapid but largely-unreported global cooling.
* The greatest warming rate in the past 300 years was from 1645 to 1715, before the Industrial Revolution began. That warming rate was eight times the 20th-century warming rate.
* The warming of the past 300 years is indeed unequivocal, but the mere fact of the warming tells us nothing of its cause. There is no scientific basis for attributing most of it to humankind.
* The notion that "2,500 scientists" personally agreed with the 2007 assessment report of the UN's climate panel is nonsense.
* The largest-ever survey of scientific opinion - the largest to date - found more than 31,000 scientists did not consider the human contribution to "global warming" significant enough to be dangerous.
* Much of the UN's reports are written by environmental campaigners, not scientists.
---
They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.
it's torque dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :neener: :neener:
sorry......couldn't resist :aok :noid :bolt:
-
They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.
my quote of the week :aok
-
I believe there are more "pressing" matters than global warming. A few come to mind:
Overfishing (Japan)
Smog (Just look at a major city)
Acid Rain (anywhere NE of detroit)
Litter (Everywhere)
Hunting a species to extinction (Whales are not doing too well)
Effective disposal of harmful chemicals (putting it in 55 gallon drums and just leaving it someplace doesn't seem like a bright idea, though some work is being done here)
Near where I live in Virginia, there are streams and creeks where nothing lives in or near them. This is from the gold rush some 100 years ago, things we do can lead to long lasting problems.
I just feel there are more noticeable and destructive things we do to the planet than global warming.
I think the problem CAP is that we as a species are growing in number, the number or industrialized nations is increasing. Eventually there will be some major issues we can no longer brush to the side.
My 2 cents
I agree with your thoughts.
I'm one who never bought into the man-made global warming theory. I was convinced very early-on that it was one of the worst instances of junk science I have seen in my lifetime. Besides, if Al Gore swore that the sun would rise in the morning, I still wouldn't take his word for it.
I do, however, believe that a concerted effort must be made to reduce the damage to the environment (globally). Comprehensive recycling plans (not just for plastics and paper), cleaner fuel sources, stopping deforestation, protect the oceans, lakes and streams and so on.
It's unfortunate that some lump those who want to preserve or clean up the environment in with the global warming mob.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Fires? lol. You think I care? It's not your fault you didn't pay attention in science class, or never had any exposure to science at all. That becomes increasingly obvious with every post you write.
You're probably a nice guy, and I respect our discussions. Your blatant inaccuracies are telling though.
I believe the same is true of you despite your 'degree.' :neener:
-
I agree with your thoughts.
I'm one who never bought into the man-made global warming theory. I was convinced very early-on that it was one of the worst instances of junk science I have seen in my lifetime. Besides, if Al Gore swore that the sun would rise in the morning, I still wouldn't take his word for it.
I do, however, believe that a concerted effort must be made to reduce the damage to the environment (globally). Comprehensive recycling plans (not just for plastics and paper), cleaner fuel sources, stopping deforestation, protect the oceans, lakes and streams and so on.
It's unfortunate that some lump those who want to preserve or clean up the environment in with the global warming mob.
My regards,
Widewing
I couldn't agree with you more. True environmental stewardship is being lost in the shrill cacophony of the global warming alarmists.
-
I couldn't agree with you more. True environmental stewardship is being lost in the shrill cacophony of the global warming alarmists.
I'll never criticize one of Dredgers silly little missions again :aok
-
I wonder how many folks are embarrassed that they bit into the global warming farce and are really just defending their ego.
-
I wonder how many folks are embarrassed that they bit into the global warming farce and are really just defending their ego.
Careful, you'll upset the "true believers".
-
I wonder how many folks are embarrassed that they bit into the global warming farce and are really just defending their ego.
As one of the initial global warming "alarmists" a few years ago, I made a classic mistake of trusting others (more "prominent" scientists than myself) to do my research and draw conclusions for me. But looking into it myself and interpreting the satellite data over the last 30 years. I find there is an "overall" upward trend, but it is not as severe as the global warming scientists would like us to believe. The last 10 years or so the global temperatures have remain fairly constant.
The Earth has been warmer and cooler in the past, and may we be contributing this time? The answer in my mind is maybe, other activities that we do such as deforestation may be having a larger impact upon the environment than driving cars around. Who knows for certain. There are way too many variables to make an accurate prediction.
The "junk" science of the global warming hypothesis is that too much money is involved and the data is not looked upon objectively. Myself being in the scientific community there is much pressure from fellow scientists to follow the bandwagon. I have been done following for a while now and think we should concentrate on the problems that are noticeable and damaging in a reasonable and responsible way as I posted earlier.
I am a proponent of hydrogen fuel cells (combining hydrogen with oxygen to get water) in cars over using hybrids (due to the creation and disposal of batteries). Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, we will never run dry of it. As long as the methods of extracting hydrogen from water and the like are efficient and a "true" solution.
-
I wonder how many folks are embarrassed that they bit into the global warming farce and are really just defending their ego.
more than a few i'd imagine. they'll never admit it though. :bolt:
-
Bigger thing is..What % of this research is an agenda looking for a particular outcome? No end of things in this world whose cure seems to be diminishing capitalism somehow
-
As one of the initial global warming "alarmists" a few years ago, I made a classic mistake of trusting others (more "prominent" scientists than myself) to do my research and draw conclusions for me. But looking into it myself and interpreting the satellite data over the last 30 years. I find there is an "overall" upward trend, but it is not as severe as the global warming scientists would like us to believe. The last 10 years or so the global temperatures have remain fairly constant.it's been more than 10 years i think. actually, i've noticed generally cooler summers in the area i live.
i don't know what to even say about a scientist(i assume you are by your statements?) letting others do his research. i'm a diagnostician, and if i take over a job others couldn't figure out, i NEVER take their info. i start from scratch, and do all of my own testing. and compared to what we're talking about, what i do is relatively simple.
The Earth has been warmer and cooler in the past, and may we be contributing this time? The answer in my mind is maybe, other activities that we do such as deforestation may be having a larger impact upon the environment than driving cars around. Who knows for certain. There are way too many variables to make an accurate prediction. yes.........she cycles.........but i still believe that the human race is nothing more than a spec of dust in the grand scheme of things.
as for deforestation.....i whole heartedly agree i've been saying this for many many years. it doesn't take a scientist to grasp blatantly obvious things like this. point? most plant live breathes in co2, and breathes out o2. the more plant life we eliminate, the less of a co2 "sink" we have.
The "junk" science of the global warming hypothesis is that too much money is involved and the data is not looked upon objectively. Myself being in the scientific community there is much pressure from fellow scientists to follow the bandwagon. I have been done following for a while now and think we should concentrate on the problems that are noticeable and damaging in a reasonable and responsible way as I posted earlier.glad you woke up. now if more would do the same. it's human nature to want to "jump on the bandwagon", and the ones that want to push this watermelon know that, and use it.
I am a proponent of hydrogen fuel cells (combining hydrogen with oxygen to get water) in cars over using hybrids (due to the creation and disposal of batteries). Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, we will never run dry of it. As long as the methods of extracting hydrogen from water and the like are efficient and a "true" solution. hybrid cars could be better than what they are. but i think that with current technology, they are the best solution, if we really feel the need to change things. i personally don't care for hybrids(i'm a hot rodder), but i do realize we need to do something.
-
Bigger thing is..What % of this research is an agenda looking for a particular outcome? No end of things in this world whose cure seems to be diminishing capitalism somehow
i've never been one of the most intelligent people in the circles i hang with. i have, however, always been one of the smartest.
i tend to over-analyze things. i tend to never take things at what they seem. often this makes me appear paranoid. it annoys some of my friends.
but...when you REALLY read things, and pay attention to what you read, you don't even have to dig into the scientific parts to realize this was all a ginormous sham.
as long as i can remember, i've been saying it was bs, and now it's finally coming out.....
-
Alas, still no MSM comment on Climaquiddick...other than the occasional print story about an investigation of privacy/theft, etc.
-
CAP
I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Master of Science in Education with a concentration in Meteorology. If that doesn't qualify not sure what does, I would like to get my PhD someday is Astrophysics or the like (my true love), but that is a while off due to cash limitations.
A few years back I was a lab supervisor for an environmental consulting firm (2 years), and a clean up company for a year or so. You would be amazed at how much crap is out there leeching into the soil and water supply.
I am not a primary researcher (never have been), just look at the data on my free time is all. Honestly, the trends of temperatures for 20 years there were definitely increasing, the last 10 not so much (even a downward trend depending on how you look at the data). The raw data is pretty easy to find from weather satellites all the way back to December of 78 through to the present.
I do respectfully disagree with you about humans being a spec on the Earth, we cause way more harm than good IMO. Maybe not from a climate change perspective, but in many other areas it gets pretty bad.
-
I called BS on the global warming scam from day one.Just due to the fact Al Bore jumped on the band wagon. Glad to see they have been called out for it. Question is,Will Obama continue to be an idiot and give the cap and trade a blank check and toss the US into a global controlled asset? I wuld bet he does.
-
I wonder how many folks are embarrassed that they bit into the global warming farce and are really just defending their ego.
All of them.
The data is the data, no matter how much some people may want to "touchy feely" it. This farce has been foisted on the stupid (but well intentioned) for far too long. We cannot hurt this planet. We can hurt ourselves however. which could prove a blessing given how stupid we've become as a people. Darwin Awards for all who see Al Gore as the Messiah.
-
Earth Cools and heats on it's own. Look at the past 50,000 years. We've been steadily warming from a previous Ice Age.
Don't see the big deal, if it kills us, it kills us.
-
I was reading a page belonging to a New Zealand Computer Scientist that reveals much about the Global Warming mob and their Nazi-like sense of intellectual superiority.
This little ditty is striking:
"'Stop calling people who disagree with you "deniers"'.
That's not why we call anti-science denialists "deniers". We call them "deniers" because they're anti-science denialists."
Wow! This is stunning. I'm a well educated man, and I'm utterly amazed at the overwhelming arrogance seen here. Moreover, it is not isolated, but common among the Global Warming zealots
These folks sound not unlike those promoting the Aryan master race nonsense of the 1930s, as documented by Nazi "scientists", except they have reversed it to nearly equate GW skeptics with holocaust "deniers". I'll say it again, this is remarkable.
They use other terms, like "denidiots" as well.
Another poster writes describing Anthropomorphic Global Warming skeptics:
"I think these people were the retards at school who've grown up into adults who are profoudly (sic) jealous of the vast numbers of people whose intelligence exceeds theirs by a considerable margin. They hold contrarian views as a form of revenge against the intelligence which eluded them."
You can read all of this incredible stuff right here (scroll thru the whole page): http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Looks like it might cause an election in Australia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8382069.stm
-
I called BS on the global warming scam from day one.Just due to the fact Al Bore jumped on the band wagon. Glad to see they have been called out for it. Question is,Will Obama continue to be an idiot and give the cap and trade a blank check and toss the US into a global controlled asset? I wuld bet he does.
he will. he's too stupid to do otherwise.
-
They stifle the hard evidence. Tree rings,ice cores,perhaps Weather stations NOT planted in the middle of a huge city but that computer program nobody can have access to the coad to is perfect.
-
By signing the Copenhagen treaty in december Obama will cede US sovereignty to the new global entity controlling the carbon taxes. The Copenhagen treaty is the first major step in creating the new world government. After the treaty is signed they will focus more on gun laws in the US and intenet control worldwide.
-
just seen this on bbc website, note the reaction of the audience and dimbleby (the chair/host) when someone uses evidence to challenge the MMGW ideology ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm)
(the bbc are fully signed up to this stuff btw :rolleyes:)
-
We're all gonna die. :neener:
-
By signing the Copenhagen treaty in december Obama will cede US sovereignty to the new global entity controlling the carbon taxes. The Copenhagen treaty is the first major step in creating the new world government. After the treaty is signed they will focus more on gun laws in the US and intenet control worldwide.
he signs that, we're all screwed. funny, i think most in the US don't want it...and our govt. is supposed to do what we want. guess that's only in theory, not reality.
-
just seen this on bbc website, note the reaction of the audience and dimbleby (the chair/host) when someone uses evidence to challenge the MMGW ideology ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm)
(the bbc are fully signed up to this stuff btw :rolleyes:)
not available in your territory. that;s what it says when i click the link.
-
hmm thats annoying
-
A Brit commentator hit the mark as he commented on western main-stream media ignoring "Climategate" in the hope that it will magically go away.
“Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”
My regards,
Widewing
-
A Brit commentator hit the mark as he commented on western main-stream media ignoring "Climategate" in the hope that it will magically go away.
“Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?”
My regards,
Widewing
A few minutes ago, I scoured the enTIRE CNN site...found no mention of it. But they DID have a story (yesterday) about the Chinese premier acknowledging the need to join Obama in Copenhagen next month and combat CO2-fueled global warming (no frikin WAY they would really do that, of course, but it makes the press happy). As of yesterday, Obama apparently still plans to offer a path to reducing US CO2 output by 17% in the year 2020 (from 2005 levels) It's quite possible the White House doesn't know about the CRU emails, as they obviously ignore Fox, and most any other right-of-center publication
-
...Obama apparently still plans to offer a path to reducing US CO2 output by 17% in the year 2020...
Anyone care to guess why he doesnt want it to happen sooner? :D
-
Well yea.Were all dead meat in 2012 anyway,so hes gonna do nothing for now :banana:
-
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/wut.jpg)
-
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/katrina-gore-2.jpg)
-
You know? I just skimmed through this thread, and I think George Carlin (rest in peace) is spot on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
-
You know? I just skimmed through this thread, and I think George Carlin (rest in peace) is spot on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
so THAT:S the meaning of life!!!! the earth wanted plastic all for itdself, and neeed us for it
-
Well yea.Were all dead meat in 2012 anyway,so hes gonna do nothing for now :banana:
We saw 2012 today. It's a decent movie. ;)
-
hmm thats annoying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ekwUj82wG0
I believe this may be the show RTHolmes posted.This is part 3 on Youtube and they are hitting on climate change.The other parts are there to watch as well.
Why have debates based on facts when you can simplify it and just use very emotional "labels".
If you question or disagree with......................
Bush...you were againts the troops
Obama...your a racist
Global Warming... your a denier "I am sure they will work on makeing that even worse"
For heavens sake someone push the button!
Yours
Pipz
-
well done, thats the clip :aok
-
Read the description of the clip posted by that individual. The description itself is intended to squelch any opposing viewpoint and is without merit.
-
I think you can assume a big </sarcasm> tag at the end of that desc
-
You guys are all really jumping the gun on this. Using data that was hacked and then cherry picked by people with an agenda is not the most reliable way to go about things. The scientists in question have said that only partial transcripts were released picked to make their debates over data look like they were faking stuff.
I know people love to embrace things that affirm their world views, but that isn't a healthy way to evaluate data.
-
I would call the opinion that global warming is man-made... pompous... arrogant... vainglorious... ostentatious... unrealistic.
-
Well the 'concensus' (nice word, the AGW 'scientists' like it) is that it was a whistleblower inside the CRU and not a hacker that released the emails.
What seems to be evident from them
a) Manipulation/falsification of data to fit their models.
b) Coding that I think HT and co would balk at.
c) Totally skewed peer review, i.e. only reviewed by people who already agree in the premise. They even mention redifining the peer review process so they can keep out dissenting points of view!
d) Shutting out of scientists who are sceptical.
e) Manipulation/intimidation of scientific bodies.
f) Hiding behind data protection laws, when this fails the destruction of the data to avoid FOIA requests. (One response to a FOIA request was 'his dog ate it'! Never worked for me at school :-( )
g) Manipulation of the media.
In the UK the BBC hasn't done a news story on the contents of the Climategate emails, merely mentioned the 'hack'/leak. I watched Question Time last week and was surprised when the subject was alluded to by one of the questioners. However the 'debate' that followed wasn't about Climategate it was just the usual 'official line' by all the panellists apart from one. Even David Dimbleby never brought up Climategate, so it seems as though he was also toeing the 'party' line.
Here is the UK Met Office prediction for our Winter - There is a 50% chance it will be a warmer one.
So I guess also a 50% chance it will be a colder one! Talk about covering your bases.
So these guys can't event predict 2-3 months in advance, yet they can predict years, decades in advance. Give me a break.
There has been enough doubt cast on the voracity of the main scientists involved, the data, and the models that it is high time for a complete unbiased, independent review of all their work.
-
Winter Predictions:
Some parts of the world will see warmer temperatures than normal. These areas will be spotlighted.
Some parts of the world will see record cold temperatures. These areas will be ignored.
Also I want to point out that if you go to the ice cap in summer guess what? The ice is melting. Go back in winter and have another look. :aok
-
You guys are all really jumping the gun on this. Using data that was hacked and then cherry picked by people with an agenda is not the most reliable way to go about things. The scientists in question have said that only partial transcripts were released picked to make their debates over data look like they were faking stuff.
I know people love to embrace things that affirm their world views, but that isn't a healthy way to evaluate data.
Karnak, did you read the emails, at least the bulk of them? They clearly indicate a determined effort to skew the data that since 1999 indicate a leveling of and then the rapid falling of global temperatures. They cherry-picked data to show that 2009 was going to be the warmest year in recorded history, yet the truth was it was the coldest year in decades.
You wrote: "I know people love to embrace things that affirm their world views, but that isn't a healthy way to evaluate data."
This is exactly what the AGW cultists have been doing for the past 15 years.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You guys are all really jumping the gun on this. Using data that was hacked and then cherry picked by people with an agenda is not the most reliable way to go about things. The scientists in question have said that only partial transcripts were released picked to make their debates over data look like they were faking stuff.
I know people love to embrace things that affirm their world views, but that isn't a healthy way to evaluate data.
"The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim"--The Wall Street Journal
-
Latest report over here in the UK.
ALL the original data upon which the modified/massaged figures were based on.......
GONE!
Digital and hardcopy were allegedly destroyed during a building move.
Who in their right mind doesn't keep the original data to refer back to? Leaves you wide open to accusations of data manipulation.
More likely it was destroyed when the story broke, as was advocated in one of the emails.
Phil Jones - "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send"
-
Winter Predictions:
Some parts of the world will see warmer temperatures than normal. These areas will be spotlighted.
Some parts of the world will see record cold temperatures. These areas will be ignored.
Also I want to point out that if you go to the ice cap in summer guess what? The ice is melting. Go back in winter and have another look. :aok
was talkin to mom about this the other day. her reaction?
"yea, that's why the ice caps are melting."
now...since it was mom, i hadda stay nice. had to try to get the point through to her that while they're melting at point"A", they're re-forming at point "B". tried to explain to her, that those who wish us to panic about this simply highlight tha parts convenient to them. namely the parts that're going through their normal cycle, and melting.
BTW, if i recall correctly from reading, as recently as 1969, the lost squadron(the p-38's and b-17's) that landed in greenland in 1944(?), were still visible on the surface.
in 1989, they were under 250 feet of ice.
-
You guys are all really jumping the gun on this. Using data that was hacked and then cherry picked by people with an agenda is not the most reliable way to go about things. The scientists in question have said that only partial transcripts were released picked to make their debates over data look like they were faking stuff.
I know people love to embrace things that affirm their world views, but that isn't a healthy way to evaluate data.
and the "scientists" :rolleyes: in question don't have an agenda?
-
Submarines AT the North Pole in open water March 1959.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/)
So surely it was warmer then?
-
I dont remember Miami being under water? Isnt that what the 'warmers' are saying will happen in another six years when Greenland is green again? :D
-
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. Their excuse? The data was dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.... They managed to retain "adjusted data" (IE: Massaged to suit their needs).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I dont remember Miami being under water? Isnt that what the 'warmers' are saying will happen in another six years when Greenland is green again? :D
Will happen?
Al Gores film in 2006 said a 20ft sea rise was IMMENENT!
Mind you at the same time he was buying a waterfront condo, so maybe not huh?
Google-
For the first day or so of the 'Climategate' scandal typing 'Climategate' into Google search would prompt an auto-complete.
Not any more. Guess who is a senior advisor to Google? Yup good old Al. The 'fix' is starting.
Probably a shame they can't control the Internet, yet.
-
Must admit that I was up until very recently a believer in global warming. Started having my doubts earlier this year, seeing how many environmental organizations are owned and/or managed by the same people running certain other businesses.
Started to see and make the connections, and then the CRU emails put the final spike in. Let me tell you, this stuff is not limited to global warming research. I only just recently realized how interconnected this is to the bigger picture.
:noid :noid :noid
-
Yeah, I just got thru reading that.
You know, at my age, having been around the block a few times, I'd figure I'd seen enough BS not to be shocked anymore. But I have to admit, reading that I was open-mouthed incredulous.
I'd always suspected there was BS involved in this debate. I assumed though that it was a disagreement based on good-faith misinterpetation of data and "heated" debate.
It's over. This just fraud. Simple, plain, viscious, intentional fraud with malice of fore-thought. If the powers that be continue to try and use this charade to make their one-world climatocracy grab for power and tens of trillions of dollars in crippling carbon taxation powers then there is nothing left but open revolution in the streets.
Regards,
Wab
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. Their excuse? The data was dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.... They managed to retain "adjusted data" (IE: Massaged to suit their needs).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
My regards,
Widewing
-
And still I can find nothing on this amazing story on CNN. Equally unbelievable.
Wab
-
And still I can find nothing on this amazing story on CNN. Equally unbelievable.
Wab
You can almost see the sarcasm dripping . :lol
-
Hehe :lol
-
Im wondering if Goreboi dumped his stock yet?
-
i've never been one of the most intelligent people in the circles i hang with. i have, however, always been one of the smartest.
i tend to over-analyze things. i tend to never take things at what they seem. often this makes me appear paranoid. it annoys some of my friends.
but...when you REALLY read things, and pay attention to what you read, you don't even have to dig into the scientific parts to realize this was all a ginormous sham.
as long as i can remember, i've been saying it was bs, and now it's finally coming out.....
Me too. Never bought into it. Never made sense to me. I know some people who just insanely stay with this nonsense.
-
Well, 200 kilometers south from arctic circle the change in mean temperature of Nov/Dec is quite noticeable by the lack of snow -and the change has taken less than 10 years.
Be it man made or not, such rapid change cannot be very good if it's not just a glitch in long term weather.
-C+
-
Cant speak to that but if there is 250 feet of snow on top of the 'Glacier Girl' site and sea water was no higher in the 1940s my money is on it not getting a whole lot higher if that snow melts. :D
-
Cant speak to that but if there is 250 feet of snow on top of the 'Glacier Girl' site and sea water was no higher in the 1940s my money is on it not getting a whole lot higher if that snow melts. :D
Because the only other place in the world that that water could have possibly ever been was the ocean. Period. It's either the ocean, or as snow on top of Glacier Girl, right? Can't be anywhere else in the world.....? Definately not as fresh water in rivers. Not snowpack in the Alps. Not water vapor. It's either ice over Glacier Girl, or it's in the ocean.
Such linear myopic vision, but, be as it were.
And you're right, sea level was no higher in the 40's.... it was LOWER in the 1940's. Whether you believe it or not, it is true. We may dance as to why it's happening. But the sea is rising. Look up the Mid Pacific Islanders that are losing their islands without subsidence of the coral atolls. (The land isn't sinking....and if the land isn't sinking....there's only one other thing that can be happening. Unless the gravitational field has lessened, and it only affects water.)
(http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/Jevrejeva_sea_level.jpg)
(http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/q_and_a/images/lbr.gif)
-
Actually moray I dont think I even implied it ALL had to go back into the ocean just that the ocean was not higher. Personally I know of a few lakes that could use the water so lets melt it! :D
Way to be myopic yourself and then thrust that on me! :old:
-
Actually moray I dont think I even implied it ALL had to go back into the ocean just that the ocean was not higher. Personally I know of a few lakes that could use the water so lets melt it! :D
Way to be myopic yourself and then thrust that on me! :old:
You're right. The ocean was LOWER in the 1940's.... :headscratch: :aok
-
Im sure it will be LOWER again just as soon as we can get some more ice melted...
Im going to go vent my old Dodge of the freon tomorrow maybe that will do it. :D
-
Im sure it will be LOWER again just as soon as we can get some more ice melted...
Im going to go vent my old Dodge of the freon tomorrow maybe that will do it. :D
lol. Someday I'll buy you a beer.
-
It's foolish to think that we are not affecting the environment. However, it's also foolish to think it's about saving the planet. Like Carlin so elegantly put it; "The planet is fine. The people are buttered." And yes people are very self-important and we somehow have been led to believe by television shows and movies that we will some time in the future travel the stars. That's just bull, pure fantasy. We have too many issues with ourselves.
It's also foolish to believe in institutionally controlled research. Institutions who only serve their masters and not public interest. Science can be, and is being, manipulated. It doesn't take a genius to realize that our "laws of physics" as we describe them are not entirely correct.
So I guess what I'm saying is, don't put your faith in authority. No matter what type of authority it may be. It's the authorities that needs to be questioned it's only healthy to do so. Put your faith in the truth, whatever it may be, and keep searching for it.
One of my favorite quotes:
"They will find it difficult. Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist
-
we're all gonna die, who cares? Everything living must die. Its our fate :aok
-
(http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/Jevrejeva_sea_level.jpg)
(http://www.pol.ac.uk/home/q_and_a/images/lbr.gif)
I'd say looking at data from 200 years when the mean global temperature cycle has a period of 100-150,000yrs would be a neat illustration and extreme example of myopia.
unfortunately this is all I see when MMGW proponents attempt to argue their case, the instant I see yet another graph with a couple of hundred years on the x axis is the instant that they lose all credibility for me because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the system.
-
I've been reading this thread now for a week. Just a few observations:
1. The most horrific attrocities of the present era were originally based in a scientific theory that was fad in the early 1900's--Eugenics. It is, in my opinion, frightening to see the parallels between the progression of eugenics into Nazism, and the evolution of global warning "science". Fascism is fascism, regardless of its orgin. Silencing the voices that support or question the global warming theory is wrong, period.
2. How much of our statistical data can be honestly considered scientifically credible given that our planet is 4 billion years old, and most of our climate information has only been recorded over the past 50-100 years?
3. I believe that necessity is the mother of invention, and that, when the Earth truly needs new energy sources, we will develop them.
4. I believe that it is good and necessary that we explore alternative means to do everything in our lives. Maximizing the most cost-effective use of our available resources is mandatory at all times, and not simply when crisis is real or perceived.
-
I'm really disappointed to see you compare anything in this thread to Nazism. Isn't there a name for this in debate, where the moment you bring in a Nazi comparison you automatically forfeit?
Ah yes, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
-
I'm really disappointed...
I know its not the first time I've done it and it surely won't be the last...
Wasn't comparing anything or anyone in this thread to nazism--merely comparing the potential fascism that can arise from the global warming debate. Do some reading on eugenics and tell me I'm wrong, especially when you read the lists of very smart and famous people that supported the theory as hard science back in the day...
-
We have global climate data spanning much more than 100 years. Much much more. The oldest living organ on the planet is actually about as old as civilizaton itself.
It is frequently said that the earth went through this and that and is just fine. Billions of years etc. But bear in mind that the delicate and favourable conditions that fostered homo sapiens from gritty survival into the space age take place in very short time.
You don't want a Dino-climate, in fact many of the earth's wilder days would wipe out almost all mankind in a whiff.
So, always step carefully in a minefield. It's been said it's probably mines around, but not how many and so on. Our climate is delicate and surprizingly stable. Want to jostle it a bit? Well, I'd rather not go discoing in a minefield.....
-
(http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/Jevrejeva_sea_level.jpg)
If I'm reading the chart right... according to your data, sea levels have increased about 90mm or a bit over 3 inches in 50 years. I have seen a program showing serious flooding claiming they are going to be wiped out in a few years with rising sea levels just as you seem to claim here. Now, how noticeable is 3 inches in reality?
-
If I'm reading the chart right... according to your data, sea levels have increased about 90mm or a bit over 3 inches in 50 years. I have seen a program showing serious flooding claiming they are going to be wiped out in a few years with rising sea levels just as you seem to claim here. Now, how noticeable is 3 inches in reality?
dunno, but i don't see any differences in the beaches in nj.......cept that they're more crowded now......
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA
If you do some searches of new technology, such as 'water fuel', there are a lot of information to be found suggesting that it is indeed possible to run a car on ordinary water. Now, there are plenty of corporations, big corporations, who have a conflict of interest with anyone who would try to market the idea. There was one inventor who got the technology patented (I believe it's the man in the video above) and a contract with the US DoD. The day after the contract was signed he died of food poisoning. The patent... well it's now in all probability owned by one of the oil corporations or perhaps a bank. Doesn't matter who own it, whoever does don't want it to be used.
Here is another example of tech oppression: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U2Q_ZuLk8
The bottom line is that, just because you don't comprehend the theories and practical workings of a technology doesn't mean it can't be done. Also, just because a scientific institution says it can't be done doesnt mean it can't be done.
-
Of the East Anglia Scientists:
"They Controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited 'peer-review' as evidence of their 'concensus'. Wall Street Journal
-
If you do some searches of new technology, such as 'water fuel', there are a lot of information to be found suggesting that it is indeed possible to run a car on ordinary water.
oh cmon ... :rolleyes:
-
oh cmon ... :rolleyes:
Of course, this reaction was expected. Remember that there would be no new discoveries if everyone had the same mindset as you Sir.
"To Robert Fulton What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
- Napoleon I, 1769-1821
-
people with "my mindset" know snake oil when we see it, it means we can spend our time on more useful things. :)
-
Sure.
-
... like the laws of thermodynamics for example.
btw if this thread is stressing you out at all I have a small bottle of water ... ahem ... homeopathic remedy I can send you. just send $20 paypal and tell me the ailment and I'll print off the appropriate label and mail it over :D
-
So you believe the laws of thermodynamics to be flawless? They are 100% correct?
Just making a point of the fact that you believe completely in the system you've been taught. Which isn't perfect, and we know it isn't.
Not entering a debate with you, you've already shown that nothing positive can be expected.
-
there is an overwhelming body of theoretical and experimental work which supports the laws of thermodynamics.
there are a couple of guys on the internet who claim to be breaking them, although they have no credible theory or experimental results to prove it.
I'm >99% sure that the laws of thermodynamics are sound. If I was 100% sure I couldn't claim to be a scientist could I?
:)
-
we're all gonna die, who cares? Everything living must die. Its our fate :aok
So I guess you want to sloppily get it over with. Same with your kids maybe?
Oh, And 3 inches of sea rise may not seem a lot in 50 years, - but it is quite a bit of water. Now, who's the first to bring that volume calculated. Hmmm. A ball, 40.000 kilometers of a belt, with some 70% covered in water of mere 3 inches. Easy isn't it?
Anyway, since there have been preachers here of global cooling, where did them 3 inches come from???
-
If I was 100% sure I couldn't claim to be a scientist could I? :)
You could claim to be a Climatologist. :rolleyes:
Wab
-
Oh, by the way, people here seem to belive that the Ice-age meant that the globe was simply frozen over.
Not so, it was mostly in the north. Lookie:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png)
Now, your Ice-age has quite a span. Dozens of thousands of years. Roll into it and you'd better move to...N-Aussieland.
But seriously, Ice and SL is a good indicator of what is actually happening. And what we know is that SL does not rise without some water being added. Which goes rather in harmony with the land-based Ice that is added. Bear in mind that sea-ice melting does NOT raise SL, while the melting of it is a good indicator of what is going on.
Freezing over apparently takes a lot less time than thawing. (Well, any northerly working farmer will tell you that!). Anyway, once ice starts piling up, it bounces back the sun-heat and accelerates things into some equilibrum of an ice-age, that then stays and will give in when conditions are more....warm. So, that's how it looked:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Northern_icesheet_hg.png)
Not a completely uninhabitable planet, but somewhat different from today.
So....what are 3 inches in 50 years?? They actually indicate the same melting as 80.000 years of Ice-age did on the opposite. Except that the Ice-age started much faster. And yet not, for most of the melting that has occured does NOT cause a rise in SL, since that ice is already in the water.
You may ask....so what? Okay, look at the Ice-age map again. Plenty of habitable space on earth. Then see this one, - a classic example of what greenhouse gases are capeable of doing.....not much life there and no Wallmart.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Venus_globe.jpg)
Hot, ain't she??? :devil
-
Climate change is inevitable. We've also had climate catastrophes long before we had industry farting on the planet. To say the climate is changing and then pin it on Man is obviously a debatable assumption. However, we are in a Brawndo age where the extreme voices of both sides are the loudest and claim there is no debate.
I don't have a problem with common sense and preservation. It's preservation without common sense that has two sides fighting each other. We can get more efficient as time goes by. Alarmists want the change today at any cost because they have no common sense. People that don't give two flips about improving our waste management and or industry standards are as clueless as the Alarmists.
Crippling our economy to appease a small amount of experts who's beliefs and fudged #'s are debated by another small amount of experts with opposing views is ridiculous.
Screw it. Time to go :airplane:
-
Then see this one, - a classic example of what greenhouse gases are capeable of doing.....not much life there and no Wallmart.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Venus_globe.jpg)
Hot, ain't she??? :devil
You're seriously going to compare Venus with the Earth as an object lesson? What a great comparison, one with a blanket of sulfuric acid clouds and the other with a tiny bit of CO2. Of course we might want to consider that it's 23million miles closer to the sun than the Earth and takes almost one Earth year to rotate once around it's axis. I'm pretty sure that could have something to do with its unusual atmosphere....or was the internal combustion engine actually invented there first?
Other than those issues I guess it's a perfect exemplar of the hazards of MMGW.
-
It's all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that man made estrogens being released into the water will get us long before any other catastrophic event does.
:salute
-
I know its not the first time I've done it and it surely won't be the last...
Wasn't comparing anything or anyone in this thread to nazism--merely comparing the potential fascism that can arise from the global warming debate. Do some reading on eugenics and tell me I'm wrong, especially when you read the lists of very smart and famous people that supported the theory as hard science back in the day...
You are absolutely right.. Eugenic "racial hygiene" theory is no different that the AGW mob's "intellectual hygiene" being practiced today.
My regards,
Widewing
-
This is from the Wall Street Journal:
Another story, appearing on the Reuters Web site but attributed to something called SolveClimate.com, has a defensive quote from the hockey-stick guy:
Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context. "What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.
Ah yes, they were speaking a language that the outside world doesn't understand. One of our readers, in an admittedly somewhat juvenile spirit, tested the notion by searching the East Anglia emails for a versatile but obscene four-letter word--a word that everyone knows but that is not printable here. He found a few hits, including this September 2003 email from Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., to East Anglia's Keith Briffa:
"Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all)."
"We know with certainty that we know f***-all." That pretty well sums up the state of climate science after the East Anglia revelations.
Well, at least one climate scientist almost thinks he knows he's honest.
-
just checking..................... ........................ nope not dead yet :noid
-
Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.
-
Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.
Actually, venus and mercury are good test cases for atmospheric models. The problem with earth atmosphere is that it is just one specific case and it is very easy to tailor the model to fit the current atmosphere, but you have no confidence in the prediction of such a model for different conditions (say, double the CO2 content). A good test is to apply such models to other atmospheres, like Venus. Yes, green house effect is very dominant in venus but atmospheric radiative transfer models used in earth climate science fail to predict the correct temperature. They over predict it by almost factor of two if I remember correctly. I don't know of other component of global climate models but I know that their radiative transfer is brown and smelly. Note: This is independent of whether there is or isn't strange climate effects, I just think that the catastrophic claims and hysteria spreading are totally un-scientific.
-
It's all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that man made estrogens being released into the water will get us long before any other catastrophic event does.
:salute
:aok
-
Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.
You can add Mars as well. Anyway what makes Venus special is that it's a good bit further from the Sun than Mercury, but due to atmospheric gasses, it's much warmer.
Mars is also warmer than it ought to be due to the distance from the Sun.
So, call it ignorant to compare planets....well, I won't loose much sleep from that :D
-
It's OK.... climate change bias safeguards
http://www.disclose.tv/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2F2009%2Fnov%2F29%2Fipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails
-
Oh, by the way, 3 inches of sea over the globe equals to a chunk of ice some 27.000 cubic kilometers (if my calculation is right). That is about the Ice that has been added from land based glaciers, since melting of sea ice does not give an effect. Now go and look at the Volume of some glaciers, and you will see this is quite some chunk.
-
I'm conservative, and in honesty my bias was against believing in global warming...until I saw widespread changes in ice and glaciers. Seeing things like the ice line recession at Glacier National Park, and later the loss of polar ice, make it pretty hard to believe that worldwide average temperatures aren't actually rising.
If this is manmade, we want to minimize manmade destabilizations. If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further.
It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.
-
It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.
There's a big flaw with your logic. Why would natural heating be a bad thing?
-
I'm conservative, and in honesty my bias was against believing in global warming...until I saw widespread changes in ice and glaciers. Seeing things like the ice line recession at Glacier National Park, and later the loss of polar ice, make it pretty hard to believe that worldwide average temperatures aren't actually rising.
If this is manmade, we want to minimize manmade destabilizations. If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further.
It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.
A salute to a cool minded and good post Simaril ;) A total opposite to a complete lack of understanding in the reply of "Why would natural heating be a bad thing?", since you already say "If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further".
Anyway, to my little calculation, 27.000 cubic kilometers of land based ice that has melted, - not mentioning what would have melted in the sea, - go to Wiki and look up how big a mass those glaciers are as a total compared to what 27.000 km3 make up. Quite something of a shock, now isn't it....
-
<snip>
and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded.
-
A salute to a cool minded and good post Simaril ;) A total opposite to a complete lack of understanding in the reply of "Why would natural heating be a bad thing?", since you already say "If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further".
Anyway, to my little calculation, 27.000 cubic kilometers of land based ice that has melted, - not mentioning what would have melted in the sea, - go to Wiki and look up how big a mass those glaciers are as a total compared to what 27.000 km3 make up. Quite something of a shock, now isn't it....
But Indy makes a good point. The glaciers didn't just start melting once we started throwing CO2 into the air. They've been melting since the last Ice Age, and I think we'll all agree that man didn't cause that warming. The problem is that no one can accurately quantify exactly what contribution man-made CO2 has made to the on-going and pre-existing glacial melting.
-
What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?
-
What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?
actually, if it's not stopped now, we're all screwed. once it's in place, it's there for good.
-
... but lets avoid that conversation please.
I think the man-made part of it is pure lie. The scientists themselves admit that they dont know enough to predict the outcome so how is anyone can say for a fact that it is mans fault? Also I dont think that man in any way has enough power to kill the earth or the biosphere more precisely. Yes man has over-hunted species before but I also think that mans 'protection' of species has caused more harm than good and there are always rules to get around the 'protection' when it is expedient to do so. That in itself leans to the conclusion that its never about the species or the biosphere.
-
But Indy makes a good point. The glaciers didn't just start melting once we started throwing CO2 into the air. They've been melting since the last Ice Age, and I think we'll all agree that man didn't cause that warming. The problem is that no one can accurately quantify exactly what contribution man-made CO2 has made to the on-going and pre-existing glacial melting.
Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....
And Indy:
"and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded."
I guess you must be living below sea level. And I guess people lived fine with the Dinos. Oh, forgot that we got created only a short while ago perhaps. Anyway, I think that the rather "delicate" climate in the later and less violent times of our earth did indeed help with us becoming...."intelligent creatures", but however, reading these threads make me think if that is the case at all.....
-
Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....
And Indy:
"and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded."
I guess you must be living below sea level. And I guess people lived fine with the Dinos. Oh, forgot that we got created only a short while ago perhaps. Anyway, I think that the rather "delicate" climate in the later and less violent times of our earth did indeed help with us becoming...."intelligent creatures", but however, reading these threads make me think if that is the case at all.....
soooooooooo..........
if the ice is melting this fast, then the rest of the lost squadron should be exposed pretty soon/.?
-
Yes. In bits from under the glacier roots. Just like the B-17 that's partially delivering itself from a neighbour of mine.
However the Middle of the Greenland Glacier will take a while. Depends on what the Gulf stream does when the sea ice will seize to keep it at bay. I am thinking about a slab of farmland in...the Kola noodleula, when the Gulfstream passes Iceland northbound to Asia. Europe will freeze over, and I am not sure how the return sea will be to the US coast.
Note the map I posted, - the last Ice-Age was mostly in the northern hemisphere. You still had vast deserts etc.....
-
Well, Dr. Jones is gone.
It's a good start. Many more heads need to roll.
Wab
-
Yes. In bits from under the glacier roots. Just like the B-17 that's partially delivering itself from a neighbour of mine.
However the Middle of the Greenland Glacier will take a while. Depends on what the Gulf stream does when the sea ice will seize to keep it at bay. I am thinking about a slab of farmland in...the Kola noodleula, when the Gulfstream passes Iceland northbound to Asia. Europe will freeze over, and I am not sure how the return sea will be to the US coast.
Note the map I posted, - the last Ice-Age was mostly in the northern hemisphere. You still had vast deserts etc.....
but now here's my point on that.
in 1969, those aircraft were reported still on the surface. yet, in 1989 when they went up there to find them, they had to borough(did i spell that right?) through 250 feet of ice. that means that while the ice was melting somewhere else for 20 years, it was forming in the area of the lost squadron during that same 20 years.
this is the point i'm trying to make. while it melts in one place(or region) it is simultaneously re-forming in another area(or region).
this is nothing more than the normal life cycle of the planet.
now, do i believe we can/do affect the environment on a local basis. yes, i do. especially when i look out over philadelphia from the air in south jersey.....i can see the smog lingering in that city in the summer time.
as for global warming/global climate change.........it is not brought on by human beings, it is not directly affected by human beings, it will not be sped up by human beings, and it will not be stopped by human beings.
for anyone to think that we are more than a pimple on the arse of the planet, is asinine.
i don't mean that as an attack on anyone...........
-
What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?
Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns... ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns... ;)
My regards,
Widewing
:aok
-
Well, there's one factor not recognized by the "scientists". Something that has been a human legacy for centuries. While the Global Warming mob owns most of the politicians, the "Deniers" own most of the guns... ;)
My regards,
Widewing
so far
-
this of course will be the next wave of their takeover.......... the gases released from firing a gun cause global warming......... there will be charts and graphs which clearly show that since the invention of the gun the earths temperatures have steadily increased......... if we dont ban all firearms worldwide the earth will soon burst into a giant flaming ball
-
this of course will be the next wave of their takeover.......... the gases released from firing a gun cause global warming......... there will be charts and graphs which clearly show that since the invention of the gun the earths temperatures have steadily increased......... if we dont ban all firearms worldwide the earth will soon burst into a giant flaming ball
LOL. Actually, while the gas release causes global warming the lead increases ventilation and a significant decrease in long term production of CO2 and body temperature so it's a net benefit. :devil
-
Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....
I'm not "pondering" the accuracy of our contribution--I want to know specifically how much of what has occurred since the ice age is because of man? I agree with Simaril--let's not indiscriminately pollute the atmosphere--conservation, more efficient utilization of energy, etc. is important regardless of whether or not there's a crisis. BTW, unless I'm missing something, sea ice melting shouldn't affect the sea levels when it melts, right?
-
Correct. Sea ice is already in the water.
Land based ice is the more scary one, since there is quite a bit of it. 30 × 10 6 km3 on Antarctica, enough ro raise SL for at least 250 feet, some figures estimate up to 500. (64 x 10 6 km3)
Of course that's not going to happen that quickly, but only a fraction of both the bigh chunks, Greenland and Antarctica will do a lot of hurt.
As for how much the human contribution is, that is a question that will never be completely answered, but it is being worked on. For the first several thousands of years after the Ice age, man did almost nothing, but has been gaining in the last 1000 years or so, and impressively in the last 200, stunningly in the last decades.
The contribution of CO2 can be calculated, however the effect of the increase is more of a challenge.
It's all sad really, - you have 2 camps, - the corporates and the environmentalists, both use dirty tricks, and there are scientists in both camps, although I suspect that most of them are just trying to do their jobs
-
I'm not "pondering" the accuracy of our contribution--I want to know specifically how much of what has occurred since the ice age is because of man? I agree with Simaril--let's not indiscriminately pollute the atmosphere--conservation, more efficient utilization of energy, etc. is important regardless of whether or not there's a crisis. BTW, unless I'm missing something, sea ice melting shouldn't affect the sea levels when it melts, right?
There is absolutely no proof that ANY warming of the Earth is because of Man. Glaciers have been shrinking at a constant rate since 1800, that's before the industrial revolution and increases in hydrocarbon emissions. "Scientists" such as Michael Mann have promulgated MMGW through the use of tools such as his discredited "Hockey Stick" graph (a bald faced lie featured prominently by the IPCC in 2001). It alleges a steady, gradual decline in NH temperatures for the past 1,000 yrs and the a "sudden" and rapid rise in temperature starting in the early 1900's conveniently corresponding to the Industrial Revolution. It doesn't even take a rocket scientist to see it's a bunch of bunk as it completely, and totally ignores both the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, both of which are irrefutably known to have occurred. In Mann's graphic they're not just "minimized" they're actually gone, POOF!
I'm also a conservationist and don't believe in the indiscriminate polluting of our world and my degree is in engineering and I believe in science....it's scientists who are suspect. Scientists are human and, as humans, subject to the same self-interests as the rest of us. According to records obtained by the Wall Street Journal, Phil Jones the head of the CRU received over $19 MILLION in funding between 2000 and 2006. The latest funding from the European Commission for this "research" is about $3 BILLION. Of course, there are those that claim that "denialists" are getting massive funding from evil corporations. In 2008 Exxon made over $45 BILLION in profits in 2008 yet only contributed $125 THOUSAND to two organizations which promoted a skeptical viewpoint on MMGW. Jeeze, Exxon is either really cheap or getting a huge advantage from a paltry sum. Who do you think has the most to gain/lose from this discussion? Who's agenda should create the greatest concern?
-
There is a flaw in your argument.
You see, forests have a cooling effect. They absorb heat. Hence, deforestation has a warming effect. And that one has been going on at increasing speed for the last 1000 years or so.
CO2 has a warming effect. There is a known rough value for human CO2 emissions in the past few hundred years (guess what, some of it holds hands with deforestation) and it fits uncomfortably well with the CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
So, in short, you cannot vastly change the surface of the planet as well as the quantity of greenhouse gasses without some effect. The only valid debate is the extent of it, - is it serious or minimal....
-
ok angus how does your human intervention theory explain the massive rise in CO2 130,000yrs ago, and 240,000yrs ago, and 330,000 years ago, and ... etc?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png)
note: this same cycle goes back in the same way for millions of years
-
There is a flaw in your argument.
You see, forests have a cooling effect. They absorb heat. Hence, deforestation has a warming effect. And that one has been going on at increasing speed for the last 1000 years or so.
CO2 has a warming effect. There is a known rough value for human CO2 emissions in the past few hundred years (guess what, some of it holds hands with deforestation) and it fits uncomfortably well with the CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
So, in short, you cannot vastly change the surface of the planet as well as the quantity of greenhouse gasses without some effect. The only valid debate is the extent of it, - is it serious or minimal....
i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?
-
i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?
Controlled experiment: isolate a gas, see what happens when you subject it to thermal infrared radiation.
-
Can the "climate change experts" answer me something?
Several thousand years ago, the area where New York City now stands was under 900ft of ice. Geologic evidence PROVES this. Marine fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains which PROVES that once upon a time that area was under water. There are the ruins of entire cities sitting on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. They've been surveyed and photographed by divers. Did the people build them underwater or did something change?
Back then there were not enough people around to cause the climate and planet to change, yet it did all on it's own. Glaciers melted, sea levels changed, it got hotter, then colder, ect. So WHY all of a sudden do people think WE are now causing something to happen, that has historically happened all on it's own, and now we as a species NEED to pay someone to "fix" something that we have absolutely NO control over.
No one can "prove" that we as a species are effecting the climate. All the "climate change" community has is a theory with no evidence to back it up, and now we find that what they claim to be evidence has been cooked to fit the theory, we're supposed to just blindly follow along?
I don't buy it. The HARD evidence proves that the climate and Earth has and will continue to change no matter if there are people on this rock or not. The theory that humans are all of a sudden somehow causing the climate to change has no hard data to back it up, yet the weak minded buy into it, and the people promoting it are getting rich or gaining personal power from it.
-
:aok
-
Can the "climate change experts" answer me something?
Several thousand years ago, the area where New York City now stands was under 900ft of ice. Geologic evidence PROVES this. Marine fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains which PROVES that once upon a time that area was under water. There are the ruins of entire cities sitting on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. They've been surveyed and photographed by divers. Did the people build them underwater or did something change?
Back then there were not enough people around to cause the climate and planet to change, yet it did all on it's own. Glaciers melted, sea levels changed, it got hotter, then colder, ect. So WHY all of a sudden do people think WE are now causing something to happen, that has historically happened all on it's own, and now we as a species NEED to pay someone to "fix" something that we have absolutely NO control over.
No one can "prove" that we as a species are effecting the climate. All the "climate change" community has is a theory with no evidence to back it up, and now we find that what they claim to be evidence has been cooked to fit the theory, we're supposed to just blindly follow along?
I don't buy it. The HARD evidence proves that the climate and Earth has and will continue to change no matter if there are people on this rock or not. The theory that humans are all of a sudden somehow causing the climate to change has no hard data to back it up, yet the weak minded buy into it, and the people promoting it are getting rich or gaining personal power from it.
do you have computer models to prove this? no? didn't think so. you must be wrong. we must pay pay pay. :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
do you have computer models to prove this? no? didn't think so. you must be wrong. we must pay pay pay. :noid :noid :noid :noid
You don't need a computer model when you can hold the physical evidence in your hand and look at it :aok
-
You don't need a computer model when you can hold the physical evidence in your hand and look at it :aok
I KNOW........was being sarcastic. :D :bolt:
-
I KNOW........was being sarcastic. :D :bolt:
I know......you and I tend to think alike on this "issue" just making sure the zealots don't try to jump on the computer model thing as being evidence when we both know it isn't. :aok
-
I know......you and I tend to think alike on this "issue" just making sure the zealots don't try to jump on the computer model thing as being evidence when we both know it isn't. :aok
WOuldn't it have been hilarious, though, if they had(and you know they would've)? :devil
-
Someone probably will anyway. You can't convince a true "climate change" believer that their data is wrong, after all the "model" says they're right, physical evidence be damned!!
-
ok angus how does your human intervention theory explain the massive rise in CO2 130,000yrs ago, and 240,000yrs ago, and 330,000 years ago, and ... etc?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png)
note: this same cycle goes back in the same way for millions of years
No problem at all. When our emission is in harmony with an increase. Oh, there is no debate that there have been violent changes of the earth's atmosphere many times over. However, what is funny now is that it's happening pretty fast, -so rather than having 100.000 years or so in the swing, we'd be looking at perhaps some 200. Unless we stop of course.
Will be back with some B-17 a'la glacier explanation soon. Actually I think it's the wrong plane, - I have in mind a b-17 that's almost in visible range from me and I have seen the engine block......
-
However, what is funny now is that it's happening pretty fast, -so rather than having 100.000 years or so in the swing, we'd be looking at perhaps some 200. Unless we stop of course.
:headscratch: look at the data again
-
I just have to ask a simple question for all those who believe in MMGW. It requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. We have evidence within these emails and files (some containing some of the code used to produce the temperature data sets) that points to a wide spread and systematic effort to manipulate the data to support the MMGW theory, and to squash or otherwise marginalize legitimate scientific dissent to MMGW. Explanation has been offered by the accused, but as yet without evidence to back up their claims of innosense. They had the capability, the opportunity, and the motive (money, infuence, and prestige to name just a few) to do what they are accused of doing.
Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?
If your answer is "yes", then you must also agree that the allegations themselves must first be investigated by impartial and independent parties before committing to national or international action at Copenhagen. If you answered "no", then you are acting on faith, and not on logic or science. What say you?
-
Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?
You seem to be assuming that this one climate research center in the UK is the ultimate authority on the subject, when in fact there are scientists studying the topic all over the world. If it turned out that all of the scientists who support AGW were smoothing data points and cherry-picking evidence, then, yes, I would want our political leaders to rethink our course of action.
-
You seem to be assuming that this one climate research center in the UK is the ultimate authority on the subject, when in fact there are scientists studying the topic all over the world. If it turned out that all of the scientists who support AGW were smoothing data points and cherry-picking evidence, then, yes, I would want our political leaders to rethink our course of action.
herd mentality.
the "scientists" in the uk say it's so. they show "proof" that it is so. so the rest of the countries' "scientists" follow their lead.
i agree, that our course of action should be re-thought.
-
I just have to ask a simple question for all those who believe in MMGW. It requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. We have evidence within these emails and files (some containing some of the code used to produce the temperature data sets) that points to a wide spread and systematic effort to manipulate the data to support the MMGW theory, and to squash or otherwise marginalize legitimate scientific dissent to MMGW. Explanation has been offered by the accused, but as yet without evidence to back up their claims of innosense. They had the capability, the opportunity, and the motive (money, infuence, and prestige to name just a few) to do what they are accused of doing.
Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?
If your answer is "yes", then you must also agree that the allegations themselves must first be investigated by impartial and independent parties before committing to national or international action at Copenhagen. If you answered "no", then you are acting on faith, and not on logic or science. What say you?
Good point.
Bear in mind that if you put the debaters into "camps", you have the scientists both with the corporates (Where the big money is) as well as (mostly perhaps) in the fund money pool (where the smaller money is). However most of the observers of GW have no moneytary interest in it being so-or-so.
Odd, I have not seen (maybe bad eyes?) anyone here claiming GW is a hoax. Just the MMGW part. And that's exactly the possibility being researched in the first place. And belive me, there is very big money about who has an absolute benefit of MMGW being debunked. Be it wrong or right. The hangover comes after the party anyway....
-
Big loser is science itself.
The destruction of the original data (unforgiveable and unethical) means that their findings can neither be proved or refuted.
They were prepared (maybe did) to delete files rather than supply them under FOIA requests. (Illegal)
Subverted the peer review process.
Used their 'clout' to replace sceptics with sympathisers at influencial bodies.
For those alone not one of the players involved should ever be allowed to draw another public paycheck again!
But i guess thats what happens when scientists get too much involved in a political agenda, and it should serve as a warning/wake up call to the rest.
Would be kind of ironic if the man at the center of it all (Al 'baby') gets destroyed by the very thing he claimed to create (the Internet), wouldn't it?
-
Pictures for those that cant comprehend the written word..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
-
herd mentality.
No, that's a rhetorical device you're using to score a point as if this were cable TV.
-
Pictures for those that cant comprehend the written word..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
LoL. HuffnPuff Post??? You might as well quote Pravda. :rolleyes: I haven't seen so much spin since Break Dancing was in style. :rofl
Manipulating data and encouraging others to delete email to hide conspiracy is apparently enough to cost Jones his career. The civil suites they are getting slapped with will hopefully destroy him, and those like him financially. The next step is to turn up the legal "heat". Looks to me like data protected under the FOI act has been destroyed with direct quotes from Jones that that was his intention. Start squeezing some of the academic thugs with possible jail time unless they give up the whole story and all those even slightly involved. UEA and other institutions should be completely excluded from public monies until they've totally clean house and assisted fully with all subsequent procecutions (i.e. turn over all original data, email databases, documents, internal memos, etc).
Regards,
Wab
-
ROFL... citing the paint huffer post as any type of proof you may as well have just quoted Al Goreski as the basis of fact
-
No, that's a rhetorical device you're using to score a point as if this were cable TV.
you don't believe me?
go outside at a mall, or right outside your work. stand there looking up. watch how many people do the same.
-
herd mentality.
the "scientists" in the uk say it's so. they show "proof" that it is so. so the rest of the countries' "scientists" follow their lead.
i agree, that our course of action should be re-thought.
You aren't really familiar with science or scientists, are you?
-
i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?
Controlled experiment: isolate a gas, see what happens when you subject it to thermal infrared radiation.
This is actually a good question.
The "green house effect" is caused by the way radiation transfers through the atmosphere. Different kind of gases are opaque to different wavelengths of light in a very complex way. Tracking the energy flow through the atmosphere (influx from the sun heating and out flux from the earth cooling) is radiative transfer. The spectrum changes as it goes through the atmosphere and calculating this is a very difficult business both in terms of computing power and interms of the physics of matter-radiation interaction involved.
The layman argument is that CO2 is mostly transparent to the sunlight but absorbs and reflect IR, therefore it lets the sun heat the earth but does not let the earth cool by emitting IR. This is not oversimplification - it is just plane wrong. The net energy flux that goes in is exactly the same as goes out, otherwise the earth (or your green house) will heat forever. What it does is that it forces the spectrum to change in order to pass through. Yes, one way in which the spectrum changes is when the emitting body gets hotter. This shifts the spectrum into shorter wavelengths in which more radiation can pass. But there are many other effects that can suddenly make the atmosphere more transparent. For example: much of the absorption and re-emission of molecules happens in specific wavelengths (or "lines"). Once there is enough molecules to make the lines saturate (not letting any photon to pass), adding more gas has almost no additional effect. If the atmosphere itself gets warmer, the wavelengths at which the molecules absorb become "smeared" by the Doppler effect (the molecules are moving faster when hotter). They absorb in a wider range of wavelengths but less at each and suddenly spectral lines (emission at specific wavelength) that were completely absorbed can pass through, while re-emitted radiation by this gas has its spectrum blurred and shifted out of the absorption wavelengths of the next atmospheric layer. Now mix may of these gases together, in a varying vertical structure and try to propagate the spectrum through it.
A controlled experiment can give us the parameters we need for the quantum radiation-matter interactions, but will not help us solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, nor many many other secondary effects. Simplified computer models can give "good" approximations, but not good enough for the whole climate debate, where simplification induced errors are larger than the expected effect. Recent improved calculations with a MUCH better treatment of the radiation transfer show that most of the effect of increased CO2 is changing the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere, but almost no effect at ground level even if the CO2 content is increased by factor 10. This however only refers to the specific problem of radiation transfer and disregards plethora of other issues.
-
Bozon that was perhaps the best post so far. :aok
Anyone who claim this issue to be settled, is just plain lying.
-
You aren't really familiar with science or scientists, are you?
don't really need to be. what i see is obvious.
-
This is actually a good question.
The "green house effect" is caused by the way radiation transfers through the atmosphere. Different kind of gases are opaque to different wavelengths of light in a very complex way. Tracking the energy flow through the atmosphere (influx from the sun heating and out flux from the earth cooling) is radiative transfer. The spectrum changes as it goes through the atmosphere and calculating this is a very difficult business both in terms of computing power and interms of the physics of matter-radiation interaction involved.
The layman argument is that CO2 is mostly transparent to the sunlight but absorbs and reflect IR, therefore it lets the sun heat the earth but does not let the earth cool by emitting IR. This is not oversimplification - it is just plane wrong. The net energy flux that goes in is exactly the same as goes out, otherwise the earth (or your green house) will heat forever. What it does is that it forces the spectrum to change in order to pass through. Yes, one way in which the spectrum changes is when the emitting body gets hotter. This shifts the spectrum into shorter wavelengths in which more radiation can pass. But there are many other effects that can suddenly make the atmosphere more transparent. For example: much of the absorption and re-emission of molecules happens in specific wavelengths (or "lines"). Once there is enough molecules to make the lines saturate (not letting any photon to pass), adding more gas has almost no additional effect. If the atmosphere itself gets warmer, the wavelengths at which the molecules absorb become "smeared" by the Doppler effect (the molecules are moving faster when hotter). They absorb in a wider range of wavelengths but less at each and suddenly spectral lines (emission at specific wavelength) that were completely absorbed can pass through, while re-emitted radiation by this gas has its spectrum blurred and shifted out of the absorption wavelengths of the next atmospheric layer. Now mix may of these gases together, in a varying vertical structure and try to propagate the spectrum through it.
A controlled experiment can give us the parameters we need for the quantum radiation-matter interactions, but will not help us solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, nor many many other secondary effects. Simplified computer models can give "good" approximations, but not good enough for the whole climate debate, where simplification induced errors are larger than the expected effect. Recent improved calculations with a MUCH better treatment of the radiation transfer show that most of the effect of increased CO2 is changing the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere, but almost no effect at ground level even if the CO2 content is increased by factor 10. This however only refers to the specific problem of radiation transfer and disregards plethora of other issues.
wow. :aok
best reply yet......
-
And therefor, through the history of the globe, co2 never had any influence on the temperature :rolleyes:
-
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.
We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, but we definitely need better scientists who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.
Edit: spellcheck :P
-
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.
We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, and we definititely need better scientists too who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.
ok......according to the great karnak, you also must not be familiar with science or scientists. :neener:
-
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.
We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, but we definitely need better scientists who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.
Edit: spellcheck :P
Sow how many of you all belive that the human terraforming (read deforestation) as well as added components into our atmosphere has no impact at all????????
(FYI, I belive that since co2 has reached enormous amounts in the past, it won't be the end of times with some GW, just VERY uncomfortable when "hell" breaks loose, - much more uncomfortable than the measures being taken, - and even I am a bit sceptic on them)
-
Yet more, since I just browsed the news. Has a little to do with biology, but it is nothing we get told with emailing greensiding "scientists", rather with the reality of life. My neighbour, the Inuit folks of Greenland:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/2009/12/03/bradnun_dregur_ur_veidum/
Hope the link works.
The bottom line there is that the sea ice is turning into little chunks and mush while quite some areas of land are opening up to the possibility of mining and oil search. Fish is migrating differently, so the catch is a bit screwed up.
This is not something out of a "scientists" mouth, but really from the horse's mouth. Greenland-Iceland-UK (Read GIUK, hehe) region of ocean body is changing and that is quite rapidly. Since I've been in both the fish (land based and at sea) as well as the agriculture, -and I have been to Greenland, - I can absolutely confirm what those neighbors of ours say. Same goes with Norway. For us who work with nature, GW is not a theory, but rather a part of the job, and we are already making measures to both defend ourselves against the negative sides as well as gaining from the positive sides. No joke!!!!
Planning on rapeseed oil next year.....
-
Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.
-
Sow how many of you all belive that the human terraforming (read deforestation) as well as added components into our atmosphere has no impact at all????????
(FYI, I belive that since co2 has reached enormous amounts in the past, it won't be the end of times with some GW, just VERY uncomfortable when "hell" breaks loose, - much more uncomfortable than the measures being taken, - and even I am a bit sceptic on them)
actually, i believe that deforestation is a much much larger problem than anything else we could do to hurt the climate.
just like anything.....it's not too bad....in moderation. but as humans, it appears as if we cannot do anything in moderation. we push it.
-
Yet more, since I just browsed the news. Has a little to do with biology, but it is nothing we get told with emailing greensiding "scientists", rather with the reality of life. My neighbour, the Inuit folks of Greenland:
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/2009/12/03/bradnun_dregur_ur_veidum/
Hope the link works.
The bottom line there is that the sea ice is turning into little chunks and mush while quite some areas of land are opening up to the possibility of mining and oil search. Fish is migrating differently, so the catch is a bit screwed up.
This is not something out of a "scientists" mouth, but really from the horse's mouth. Greenland-Iceland-UK (Read GIUK, hehe) region of ocean body is changing and that is quite rapidly. Since I've been in both the fish (land based and at sea) as well as the agriculture, -and I have been to Greenland, - I can absolutely confirm what those neighbors of ours say. Same goes with Norway. For us who work with nature, GW is not a theory, but rather a part of the job, and we are already making measures to both defend ourselves against the negative sides as well as gaining from the positive sides. No joke!!!!
Planning on rapeseed oil next year.....
correct. those areas ARE indeed warming some.
the point i keep trying to make(and others too) is that while those areas are warming, other areas are cooling. in time it'll change yet again. it is the natural life cycle of the earth............and again...we cannot stop it, nor can we change it. if one could flip a switch, and every single human being was instantly gone from the planet, along with everything manmade, the planet would continue along just as it is now. it just wouldn't have us fighting over silly stuff.
-
Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.
it's quite notable and funny, that as we developed automotive emissions systems, co2 was good to see in the exhaust. it's a byproduct of the catalytic converter doing its job.
-
Besides, if they want to tax CO² emissions, why not tax the companies supplying these fuels? Why not go straight to the source of the problem? Of course that's not an option, because that'd cut corporate profits. So instead they put the tax burden on the people, already heavily laden with taxes. They just keep pounding the punchbag taxpayer for more money. So how far does this circus have to continue before people wake up and realize just how small our crumbs are while the corporations (banks primarily) take our money?
-
Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions.
...
it's quite notable and funny, that as we developed automotive emissions systems, co2 was good to see in the exhaust. it's a byproduct of the catalytic converter doing its job.
Vortex hit the real issue with CO2 scare. It sends way too much resources that need to be used to fight the real and much more imminent environmental issues. Deforestation, pollution, etc. As CAP1 says, CO2 is a good by product. It is a natural gas is easily processed in the biological eco system. It is even essential and having a little excess of it is not likely to cause sever damage (according to some scientists). Other pollution is much more dangerous on a much shorter timescales and the bad effects are undisputable. The scientists that I know to work on the atmospheric radiation transfer get into it (they are astrophysicists) because they consider the CO2 bluff to be a danger to the environment by sidetracking the efforts and resources, not to mention discrediting science.
-
I see Al 'baby' has cancelled his trip and talk at Copenhagen, hmmmmmm, wonder why? :x
Seriously though.
If a scientist in any OTHER field of research -
a) Destroyed primary data
b) Subverted the peer review process
Would be totally discredited.
For
a) Blocking FOIA requests
b) Deleting data subject to FOIA requests
They would be prosecuted and sacked.
Lets see the results of the CRU investigation, business as normal I bet.
-
I see Al 'baby' has cancelled his trip and talk at Copenhagen, hmmmmmm, wonder why? :x
HOPEFULLY we(the US) stay away from there too......
-
HOPEFULLY we(the US) stay away from there too......
Obama is going, isn't going to change.
Only thing that will de-rail the whole thing is if the majority of people turn against AGW. As soon as that happens watch the politicians change their minds when there are more votes from being anti AGW.
Lets face it, in reality politicians only do what is good for them, the actual issue is irrelevent.
An example-
Wind and solar energy can never totlly replace our current methods of generating power etc. They just aren't efficient enough.
The only current tech that can is Nuclear power, but thats a no no because of the Green vote.
-
Obama is going, isn't going to change.
Only thing that will de-rail the whole thing is if the majority of people turn against AGW. As soon as that happens watch the politicians change their minds when there are more votes from being anti AGW.
Lets face it, in reality politicians only do what is good for them, the actual issue is irrelevent.
An example-
Wind and solar energy can never totlly replace our current methods of generating power etc. They just aren't efficient enough.
The only current tech that can is Nuclear power, but thats a no no because of the Green vote.
yea, i know that about them. it's been that way longer than anyone will admit.
i believe that even if the majority did turn against it, he'd still sign though. he's a non-caring sob.
-
He will sign it, no doubt about that. There could be a full scale revolution in the streets of the USA and he'd still sign it. The politicians don't need the votes when the system can be rigged, and it can. Not necessarily in terms of vote counts but when it comes to promoting candidates. If you really think that Obama is running the show, think again. He's a major league puppet, the #1 puppet I'd say. Who's pulling the strings then you might wonder, well look in the direction of the banks for the answer to that question. The elite prefer to be anonymous, and they remain in the shadows.
:noid
-
Deforestation is probably of bigger concern than fossil fuel CO² emissions. However there are some big international corps making huge profits on deforestation so they won't touch that issue. Deforestation is not just about CO² it also releases water bound by the trees. Enough to make the sea level rise? I don't know, but it may have an impact. Every tree hold on average 2000 liters, or 2 m³ of water.
Absolutely! And it also alters the surface of the earth quite a bit!
-
The bulk of deforestation comes from the dirt-poor in 3rd world countries, using it as building materials and firewood. The "evil corporation" theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
-
So that's what they are using the rain forest for!
:lol
-
How many trees have been killed printing out and distributing false #'s by the MMGW wacko's? :aok
-
Global warming in Deer Park Texas..... just east of Houston.
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/Photo0211.jpg)
My daily driver...
-
Rather difficult to know what to believe.
I'm probably crossing the Skuzzy line a bit but...I have some distrust for current, in power politicians who seem to be uncomfortable, if not ashamed of the place that America has had in this world.
Indeed, some seem to travel the world, apologizing for our nation and would rather be known as citizens of the world rather than citizens of the USA.
It makes me wonder if some of these things like "global climate change" legislation are designed more to take us down a peg and reduce our standard of living to something more like the other nations of the world, a "global wealth redistribution plan."
:noid
Of course, these elitists know that their personal standard of living won't be affected.
Certainly, many other world leaders who have long resented America's dominance, were openly rooting for this "change."
I wonder why?
-
Of course it's a global wealth redistribution plan, I don't understand how you could think of it otherwise? The banks will be the big winners, as always.
-
Global warming in Deer Park Texas..... just east of Houston.
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/Photo0211.jpg)
My daily driver...
a buddy of mine moved to el paso a couple years ago. it snowed there the other day. not even a dusting. he said nothing stuck.
he also said they closed schools early, there were accidents all over the place, and in general, mass stupidness in the snow........
-
I'm amazed my atempt to hijack this thread went all but unnoticed.
If you think GW is a huge problem,well it pales in comparrison to man made estrogen.
In the greatlakes the problem has already come to light,many specises of fish are having difficulty reproducing,lack of males,the birth rate of children has a 4 to 1 ratio of girls to boys in certain areas.
So I think long before any global warming gets us,we'll stop reproducing,which may or may not be a good thing,I guess it depends on your outlook.
On the upside,Dr's specializing in reproduction stand to make a boatload of cash,trying to help couples bare children.
Oh and I'll ask where does this estrogen come from???? hint,it's not from flushed birth control pills as some news reports are saying.
:salute
ps: I'm glad I'm one of these... :old: ... cause I dont have to worry,I'll be long gone before the tihs hit the fan.
-
Supporting the Hijack a bit, Scientists actually warned about this, but were boo'ed on. I saw a British documentary on this some qhile back, must have been 15 years ago.
And now becoming evil, hormones in meat as well as milk have been a big debate. Allowed in USA and Canada and getting an import ban on such in Europe triggered quite some jostling between them. But the theory is that it will affect the male body in such a way that some functions of a male become more....female. Getting fat for instance will therefore put fat on your arse and hip rather than your stomach. So if I see an overweight guy which is fat in that way, I am sad to say that the origin is often what I thought.
The mutuality with that and the gw debate is that it was detected and warned inforehand and met a lot of scepticism. "Bloody green lake-scientists trying to get more grants" etc.
Oh, and the estrogen partially comes from the piss of pill-eating ladies, but there are plastics breaking down in nature that the body of many an organ reads as an estrogen. Can't remember the name, but It'll come around ;)
-
ummm seeing if we are dead from this so called "global warming". hmmm, nope, we're still kicking and talking about it
-
Supporting the Hijack a bit, Scientists actually warned about this, but were boo'ed on. I saw a British documentary on this some qhile back, must have been 15 years ago.
And now becoming evil, hormones in meat as well as milk have been a big debate. Allowed in USA and Canada and getting an import ban on such in Europe triggered quite some jostling between them. But the theory is that it will affect the male body in such a way that some functions of a male become more....female. Getting fat for instance will therefore put fat on your arse and hip rather than your stomach. So if I see an overweight guy which is fat in that way, I am sad to say that the origin is often what I thought.
The mutuality with that and the gw debate is that it was detected and warned inforehand and met a lot of scepticism. "Bloody green lake-scientists trying to get more grants" etc.
Oh, and the estrogen partially comes from the piss of pill-eating ladies, but there are plastics breaking down in nature that the body of many an organ reads as an estrogen. Can't remember the name, but It'll come around ;)
BUT THEer is also a difference............at that time, the hormone thing was newly discovered.
the global warming stuff has been going on for what? 15 years or so? and there's still nothing solid to base their claims on. after 15 years.
-
Angus,
Oh you so right!! but the vast majority of estrogen comes from PVC manufactoring.
The great lakes are the center for much of the petrochemical manufactoring and this has lead to the release of byproducts into the wateshed,the city of Sarnia is facing the brunt of this right now!
The amount of miscarrages and the boy/girl ratio is way beyond the mean norm.
Oh well 2012 is just around the corner,maybe a big rock will solve these problems for us.... :devil
:salute
-
Poly Vinyl Chloride as in PVC pipe? I guess other stuff is made out of it as well. Being a plumber thats the first thing that comes to mind... What in the world is estrogen used for. ? Or how is int used in the process?
<S>
-
How does global warming affect our daily lives in the present? zilch
What impact will have for the next 10 years? very little
How much an impact in 25 years? small amounts
How much an impact in 50 years? sustained small amounts
In 100 years? ice melting, ocean water levels rising, more hurricanes, increase in tornados, oxygen masks, soylent green food commodities, cats and dogs becoming a new source of food, third world countries employing gladiatorlike games to trim the populations, and my favorite, end of the world cults making civil war on the governments.
All of this is subjective, easy to manipulate and fun to imagine. Realistically, I believe before all that happens some idiot will start a mushroom convention on a global scale and the humans will have to deal with the mutants.
-
How does global warming affect our daily lives in the present? zilch
What impact will have for the next 10 years? very little
How much an impact in 25 years? small amounts
How much an impact in 50 years? sustained small amounts
In 100 years? ice melting, ocean water levels rising, more hurricanes, increase in tornados, oxygen masks, soylent green food commodities, cats and dogs becoming a new source of food, third world countries employing gladiatorlike games to trim the populations, and my favorite, end of the world cults making civil war on the governments.
All of this is subjective, easy to manipulate and fun to imagine. Realistically, I believe before all that happens some idiot will start a mushroom convention on a global scale and the humans will have to deal with the mutants.
lay off the sci-fi movies bro. theyre rotting your brain
-
cats and dogs becoming a new source of food
Glad to know Chinese food will still be around...
-
i'm 47.
when i was around 10 or so years old, i remember getting snow..not just flurries, but inches of the stuff......as late as mid april. often in march.
yet, if that happened today, people would be screaming like girls, and running for the hills, claiming the wolrd is about to end.
sheesh people!!
there IS climat change happening. it was going on long before man inhabited the earth, it';s going on now, and it will continue going on long after man is erased from the earth.
the only problem with climate change, is/are the companies that make their bazillions off of this crap...well, them, and the people who empower them,
-
...well, them, and the people who empower them,
You mean the idiots, don't you? :)
-
You mean the idiots, don't you? :)
in a rare moment, i was trying to be nice. :headscratch: :noid :rofl :aok
-
lay off the sci-fi movies bro. theyre rotting your brain
Are you sure? They sound more like science fact. These are the facts that NASA put gag orders on their scientists to not alarm the public of global warming.
1) melting polar ice resulting in raising of sea level and cooling of certain water current streams
NASA and NOA and other maritime organizations know about it but will take 2 to 3 centuries to happen
Hollywood make movies on those premises.
2) Carribean Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been recorded with higher water temperature by the scientists
scientists have predicted that more powerful and more frequent hurricanes will result in the next 25 years
3) The quadrupling of world's population to 7 billion currently and projected to 12-14 billion in next 50 years
This along with de-forestation, resources dwindling, and plankton being reduced will lead to problems
a) fresh water and food shortages
b) rising levels of carbon dioxide without enough plants and trees to turn back to oxygen
c) plankton dies and beging the breakdown of marine ecosystems leading to land ecosystem failures
d) goverments will lose all control of social services and control of territories to crime and warlords
These are real world problems happening now in most of 3rd world nations in Africa, Asia, and South America in regards to military dictatorships and ethnic cleansing. These are blueprints to what is yet to come in the next 50 to 100 years unless cheap and re-usable energy sources are discovered. Fossil fuels are now in the category of being "finite" until technology is created to get to the fossil fuels underneath the tundra of Siberia and the continent of Anatartica.
The weather problems associated with global warming are just now being realized. However, we know what needs to be done but it still revolves around one premise. This will happen long after I'm dead, so why should I care? That's the point of view of many people in government who have to worry about re-election.
I, myself, will be dead around 2060 or so. At that time, I'll be 87 years old relying on an oxygen mask. Not for my lungs since I don't smoke. It will be from lack of global oxygen falling to 18% or lower. I'll be eating food that will be processed from non-meat, non-fruit, non-vegetable, and non-dairy sources but from labratory created food to contain protein and carb substances. I'll be running the risk of so called "social programs" to end the life of elderly people to ease the burden on the existing younger population from either government, military, or religious leaders.
Global warming is a problem. Mother nature always finds a way to correct any problems. Humans make too many problems too fast before Mother Earth can fix them.
Then again, this could all be a bunch of hogwash and nothing will happen and I can look forward to chasing the nurses in the retirement home in my levitating chair with thrusters!!!!!!!!
-
Mother nature always finds a way to correct any problems. Humans make too many problems too fast before Mother Earth can fix them.
Do you have any examples of this?
Specifically, I'm interested in problems caused by man, that Mother Nature has fixed.
If that isn't possible, any examples of other problems she's corrected would be fine.
Thanks in advance!
-
Do you have any examples of this?
Specifically, I'm interested in problems caused by man, that Mother Nature has fixed.
If that isn't possible, any examples of other problems she's corrected would be fine.
Thanks in advance!
I heard Carbon is an evil man-made element. Oh wait, is it not a basic element of life? :headscratch:
-
I heard Carbon is an evil man-made element. Oh wait, is it not a basic element of life? :headscratch:
So is H2O (well, a molecule if you want to get technical). Drink about 3 gallons of it quickly. (Warning: Don't do this)
You'll die from that "basic compound of life", by hypnoatremia.
-
Do you have any examples of this?
Specifically, I'm interested in problems caused by man, that Mother Nature has fixed.
If that isn't possible, any examples of other problems she's corrected would be fine.
Thanks in advance!
Long before man started the industrial revolution. Mother nature took care of overgrowth of foliage with forest fires. Forest fires were taken care of by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms precipitated overgrowth of foliage. Hence one of the cylcles of nature most kids learn in Jr. high school during physical science. Mother nature took care of the Earth very neatly.
Mother nature also had a few tricks up her sleeve to change things up a bit. Tornadoes and hurricanes as wild cards. Ice ages and earthquakes to work on erosion and landscaping.
Man comes along and creates marvelous wonders of technology that actually hurt the enviroment and cause global warming. Industrial age gives way to fossil fuels choking the atmosphere. One of the most beneficial achievements to our society that saves lives and makes thing readily accessable - plastic. The one creation that's not bio-degradable and has made quite a mark in the center of both the Atlantic and especially the Pacific Oceans. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. There is a smaller one in the Sargasso Sea. Never leave out the big guns that hammered the Bikini Island Atolls. That plus the other testing sights in the world will have an impact also.
Mother nature has yet to solve these problems. If all the humans disappeared, maybe in 10,000 years she might be able to heal all the wounds we scarred upon her.
The only thing I know of that Mother nature has helped with in a very slow process is the Ozone. The ozone hole is still there and according to reports is still growing. However, the growth does have a slight reduction every once in awhile. Lightning strikes does create O3, ozone. Not very abundant but a few molecules here and there.
All of this I learned in school and watching the science and discovery channels. After awhile, you formulate a general consensus of what's going on. The real questions are do you believe that all interviews with scientists, politicians, and clergy are 100% truthful? Are they telling the truth with the data that they say is accurate? How do we as laymen know id the data is true or false? Do we take their word for it at face value?
This thread is about whistle blowing in our governments. Politicians make policy. They tell what the scientists can say and what not to say. Scientists that come forward to show that the party line is false become targets of retribution.
To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones from the film Men in Black, "Individuals are smart. People are dumb. Everybody knew 2000 years ago that the world was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everyone knew that the world was flat. 15 minutes ago you knew that we were the only life in the universe. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow. People don't need to know, they got a good bead on things." I know there's some more to that speech but it has been the most simplest explanation of many things.
If the government scientists from around the world knew with 100% certainty that all the emissions from human manufacturing, automobiles and other sources was going to destabilize the Ozone Hole, do you think that the corporations would stop doing business as usual from any government agency? Profits are the most important thing in this world. If the world was to go to hell in a handbasket 100 years from now, CEO's and politicians wouldn't care because they won't be here to see it. Why stop all those profits?
Governments treat their citizens as children. What we don't know won't scare us. What we don't know won't hurt us. Governments might know some stuff on global warming. They choose to not acknowledge it as factual to prevent one thing. Anarchy. If people knew that the world was going to have major climate shift changes 25 to 50 years in advance, how would this information affect the world stage? An individuual would understand. 100 million people would panic and create a breakdown of society.
This is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home. Botton line is that the average citizen has no real power to make the government tell the truth 100% of the time. Once the words National Security is evoked, all matters are instantly dropped and the gag orders are put into affect. Civil liberties are suspended for the greater good of the country.
I love the good ole US of A! Where every American is my equal but my government is my superior and all the alphabet agencies will be my watchdogs.
-
Then again, this could all be a bunch of hogwash and nothing will happen and I can look forward to chasing the nurses in the retirement home in my levitating chair with thrusters!!!!!!!!
:aok
Dont believe half of what you see and all of what you read and hear
-
Long before man started the industrial revolution. etc...
:aok to me, man made things like dioxins and radioactive waste present a much more massive threat to our environment than CO2 production, because there are already mechanisms to regulate CO2 concentrations in the long term. then again we already have the answer to disposal of man made toxins like these, its just a matter of implementing it.
-
Long before man started the industrial revolution. Mother nature took care of overgrowth of foliage with forest fires. Forest fires were taken care of by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms precipitated overgrowth of foliage. Hence one of the cylcles of nature most kids learn in Jr. high school during physical science. Mother nature took care of the Earth very neatly.
Mother nature also had a few tricks up her sleeve to change things up a bit. Tornadoes and hurricanes as wild cards. Ice ages and earthquakes to work on erosion and landscaping.
Man comes along and creates marvelous wonders of technology that actually hurt the enviroment and cause global warming. Industrial age gives way to fossil fuels choking the atmosphere. One of the most beneficial achievements to our society that saves lives and makes thing readily accessable - plastic. The one creation that's not bio-degradable and has made quite a mark in the center of both the Atlantic and especially the Pacific Oceans. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. There is a smaller one in the Sargasso Sea. Never leave out the big guns that hammered the Bikini Island Atolls. That plus the other testing sights in the world will have an impact also.
Mother nature has yet to solve these problems. If all the humans disappeared, maybe in 10,000 years she might be able to heal all the wounds we scarred upon her.
The only thing I know of that Mother nature has helped with in a very slow process is the Ozone. The ozone hole is still there and according to reports is still growing. However, the growth does have a slight reduction every once in awhile. Lightning strikes does create O3, ozone. Not very abundant but a few molecules here and there.
All of this I learned in school and watching the science and discovery channels. After awhile, you formulate a general consensus of what's going on. The real questions are do you believe that all interviews with scientists, politicians, and clergy are 100% truthful? Are they telling the truth with the data that they say is accurate? How do we as laymen know id the data is true or false? Do we take their word for it at face value?
This thread is about whistle blowing in our governments. Politicians make policy. They tell what the scientists can say and what not to say. Scientists that come forward to show that the party line is false become targets of retribution.
To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones from the film Men in Black, "Individuals are smart. People are dumb. Everybody knew 2000 years ago that the world was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everyone knew that the world was flat. 15 minutes ago you knew that we were the only life in the universe. Imagine what we'll know tomorrow. People don't need to know, they got a good bead on things." I know there's some more to that speech but it has been the most simplest explanation of many things.
If the government scientists from around the world knew with 100% certainty that all the emissions from human manufacturing, automobiles and other sources was going to destabilize the Ozone Hole, do you think that the corporations would stop doing business as usual from any government agency? Profits are the most important thing in this world. If the world was to go to hell in a handbasket 100 years from now, CEO's and politicians wouldn't care because they won't be here to see it. Why stop all those profits?
Governments treat their citizens as children. What we don't know won't scare us. What we don't know won't hurt us. Governments might know some stuff on global warming. They choose to not acknowledge it as factual to prevent one thing. Anarchy. If people knew that the world was going to have major climate shift changes 25 to 50 years in advance, how would this information affect the world stage? An individuual would understand. 100 million people would panic and create a breakdown of society.
This is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home. Botton line is that the average citizen has no real power to make the government tell the truth 100% of the time. Once the words National Security is evoked, all matters are instantly dropped and the gag orders are put into affect. Civil liberties are suspended for the greater good of the country.
I love the good ole US of A! Where every American is my equal but my government is my superior and all the alphabet agencies will be my watchdogs.
While I agree with some of what you say, I really have trouble buying into the Mother Nature taking care of anything idea. Sorry. That's just too romantic for me.
For one, those events (fires, thunderstorms, growth of forests) aren't really problems at all. They're all localized events, that really don't threaten anything in a global sense. Fires don't pop up because Mother Nature or the earth decide to thin out some forests. As a matter of fact, the forest wouldn't burn at all if it weren't for the forest, since it's the one supplying the fuel. And then again, the forest actually benefits from the fire. Look at Yellowstone. It might be easier to argue that the forests start fires.
Second, none of those events are intentional or intended to solve a perceived problem.
Rain doesn't start in response to a fire popping up. Neither does a hurricane. Or a tornado. Volcano's don't erupt because there are too many trees on the mountainside. Glaciers don't form because the landscape needs to be altered. While natural events will alter the planet, I'm not going to buy into the idea that their purpose is to do that. That those events will be taken advantage of by a host of living organisms I don't doubt for an instant. What I doubt is that those events occur on purpose, in order to solve a problem.
Mother Nature isn't correcting anything, because in a sense nothing needs to be corrected in the natural environment.
While I took quite a bit of science in school, the schools I went to really didn't teach much about Mother Nature. I don't remember her popping up much at all. We went over things like ecosystems, plate tectonics, biology, weather, etc, instead.
To take that into the discussion at hand, I don't see the Mother Nature stepping in to solve the current problems facing many of the earth's current residents. I don't see her saying "oops, too much smog, better make some ice!". It's a real shame that the integrity of science is played around with like this for political or monetary gain. In the event GW is real, which I'm not saying it is, who do we turn to for possible solutions? The ones we may need to trust are the ones we can't trust.
-
While I took quite a bit of science in school, the schools I went to really didn't teach much about Mother Nature. I don't remember her popping up much at all. We went over things like ecosystems, plate tectonics, biology, weather, etc, instead.
I think he's using 'Mother Nature' as a personification of all of the things you mentioned. That's generally what it's used as.
-
I think he's using 'Mother Nature' as a personification of all of the things you mentioned. That's generally what it's used as.
Even so, I don't see "her" acting with intent. The planet won't act to protect itself.
The only ones who care about us, are us. I doubt any of the non-human planetary residents have a conscious thought regarding the welfare of their species. The planet could exist just fine without us, or for that matter, without life at all. Jupiter looks to be doing fine; doesn't even look bored or lonely.
-
I love how the final denier defense always resides in the most abject cynicism. :lol :neener:
-
Jupiter looks to be doing fine; doesn't even look bored or lonely.
I hope Al gore has a plan to stop that crazy storm on Jupiter. :banana:
-
I hope Al gore has a plan to stop that crazy storm on Jupiter. :banana:
I'm sure he does. Just send him all your money and he'll tell you all about it. :D
-
Beware of Prophet's out for Profits. It's not about the money, right.
spammer
-
I love how the final denier defense always resides in the most abject cynicism. :lol :neener:
Are you saying I'm a denier? I wouldn't go that far. I plain just don't know.
I get most of my knowledge of the modern world through outlets that I cannot verify for accuracy. They may show me something on the news, and I guess I could just take their word for it. Then again, in several instances I've seen articles/topics covered in the media that I know were inaccurate, or covered/presented inaccurately. I'm not going to head up and look at the ice anytime soon. And if I did, I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how it differs from the past. I rely on others to help me there. Are they telling me the truth? Are they lying for personal or political gain? How do I know?
Is the globe really warming? I would tend to say yes, based on what I've heard and seen first-hand.
Is it due to man? Maybe. Again, I don't know. I would tend to think that we're helping push the world to a bad place, but that's just me. I don't have any proof, or way to come up with that proof. For sure, some want me to believe it's our fault. Some don't want me to believe that. Who's the most informed and honest?
Apparently I should question the "data" that's been presented as "fact", and pushed by the world's leaders. I don't have a high level of trust in our leaders anyway; this doesn't help. I guess I could just blindly do what they tell me to do, and believe what they tell me to believe. That would certainly make them happy; they can pass their agendas and make some cash.
-
Just imagine the famine and suffering that will occur once this beneficial and pleasant warming trend is over...
-
Imagine the glorious times we had at the hot times of the Dino's :devil
-
Just imagine the famine and suffering that will occur once this beneficial and pleasant warming trend is over...
LOL. Sure lots and lots I suppose, if you believe Hollywood and Al Gore...on the other hand, civilization has always flourished during warm periods. The Mediterranean became the center of Western civilization and the Roman empire arose during warming periods. The decline of global temperatures preceeded the migration of Germanic tribes to the south which contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages. The Medieval warming period saw the end of the Dark Ages and rise of Western civilization. The Little Ice Age almost undid things again as ice advanced, warm northern European summers ended and famines erupted. The Thames froze over and the Swedes were able to invade Copenhagen by simply marching across the ice. Of course for Americans that happen to know history (an abysmally small group now it seems) the Little Ice Age almost destroyed Washington's army at Valley Forge. Seems to me that warm is better for us than cold.
-
LOL. Sure lots and lots I suppose, if you believe Hollywood and Al Gore...on the other hand, civilization has always flourished during warm periods. The Mediterranean became the center of Western civilization and the Roman empire arose during warming periods. The decline of global temperatures preceeded the migration of Germanic tribes to the south which contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages. The Medieval warming period saw the end of the Dark Ages and rise of Western civilization. The Little Ice Age almost undid things again as ice advanced, warm northern European summers ended and famines erupted. The Thames froze over and the Swedes were able to invade Copenhagen by simply marching across the ice. Of course for Americans that happen to know history (an abysmally small group now it seems) the Little Ice Age almost destroyed Washington's army at Valley Forge. Seems to me that warm is better for us than cold.
Umm.... Yeah... That's excactly what my post was implying... Either I'm reading your post wrong or you read mine wrong.
When you think about it... Global warming alarmists must be FOR famine and the breakdown of society on a global and apocaliptic scale to wish to stop this current pleasant and beneficial warming trend.
Your point about the Swedes invading Copenhagen is quite ironic since the global warming alarmists will soon invade it agin...
-
LOL. Sure lots and lots I suppose, if you believe Hollywood and Al Gore...on the other hand, civilization has always flourished during warm periods. The Mediterranean became the center of Western civilization and the Roman empire arose during warming periods. The decline of global temperatures preceeded the migration of Germanic tribes to the south which contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages. The Medieval warming period saw the end of the Dark Ages and rise of Western civilization. The Little Ice Age almost undid things again as ice advanced, warm northern European summers ended and famines erupted. The Thames froze over and the Swedes were able to invade Copenhagen by simply marching across the ice. Of course for Americans that happen to know history (an abysmally small group now it seems) the Little Ice Age almost destroyed Washington's army at Valley Forge. Seems to me that warm is better for us than cold.
And in the very hot times of the planet, there were humanoids indeed, but no civilization. After all, we only have the odd 10000 years of it, - after the last ice age. There is actually a living tree about as old as civilization.....
-
The thing is that these imposters will enforce upon us this CO² tax, and then claim to have saved us because there was no global warming. :rolleyes:
The 20th century saw people dying by the millions in famine, various wars and even outright slaughter of whole ethnic groups, political groups or the entire population of countries. What we have before us in this century, is not the death of millions... but billions of people. Rest assured that those in power will see to it that it happens even if we haven't managed to screw things up for us bad enough already. Population control in the most extreme meaning of the word is what it's all about. Have you guys heard of the VeriChip? They are trying to market it as the swine flu issue is blown out of proportion in the media. There's a version of it that can detect if you have been infected by a virus, when, and what type of virus.
-
The thing is that these imposters will enforce upon us this CO² tax, and then claim to have saved us because there was no global warming. :rolleyes:
The 20th century saw people dying by the millions in famine, various wars and even outright slaughter of whole ethnic groups, political groups or the entire population of countries. What we have before us in this century, is not the death of millions... but billions of people. Rest assured that those in power will see to it that it happens even if we haven't managed to screw things up for us bad enough already. Population control in the most extreme meaning of the word is what it's all about. Have you guys heard of the VeriChip? They are trying to market it as the swine flu issue is blown out of proportion in the media. There's a version of it that can detect if you have been infected by a virus, when, and what type of virus.
wow....i thought i was the only one that saw this...................
wonder how they'll collect taxes from the geese in the lake out back? hell.....on a related note, i wonder what goose(canadian) tastes like?
-
The Swine flu, despite the measures taken, has now about the same amount of victims in the USA as the IRAQ war since 2003. I wonder which one had more media cover. Or money in it....
As for the CO2 tax, I think it's a load of crap as it i being played with.
-
There are several competing forces at play here. The GW group who are all set up to profit on the measures taken to "save the planet", and the war mongerers who profit on the war on terror. It's the perfect conflict, one that can never be won, never be ended and it allow them to write new legislations that give them more power and more insight into people's lives than ever before. The top tier banks of course have their hands in all of this, but it's clear that there is some competition between the two camps. Al Gore would have pressed the environmental issue had he been elected. Bush on the other hand represent the oil and arms industry so he pushed their agenda.
Hard to fathom? Well open your eyes it's in plain sight.
-
Lots of talking points.
They predicted increased hurricanes 5 years ago. Didn't happen.
The Earth has cooled the last 10 years. Didn't pedict that.
How can free floating North Polar ice melting rise sea levels? (Try dropping an ice cube into a glass of water, see what happens.)
South Polar ice is melting on the West side, increasing on the East side.
The GW fingerprint (heating in lower/mid atmosphere) is missing according to latest satellite data.
The big problem I have -
Every other science you have a model. If data does not agree with the model you look and see is wrong, or what is missing from the model.
In GW you start with the model is correct and massage the data to fit the model.
This is not science boys and girls.
If you want a real laugh -
http://www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org)
Group doing a survey of US temperature monitoring stations. If that doesn't convince you the reliabilty of surface temperatures in the US is very suspect, then I don't know what will. It's shocking!
-
Thanks for the link! :aok
-
The Swine flu, despite the measures taken, has now about the same amount of victims in the USA as the IRAQ war since 2003.
over 100,000 people have died from swineflu in the US? :huh
-
Perhaps this is overly simplistic...but most folks agree that the average world temp has increased 3/4 of ONE degree Celsius in the last 100-odd years. Exactly HOW does that kill off the Polar Bears and melt the Polar ice caps? Were said ice caps previously at 0 Centigrade, and now they are +3/4?
-
Perhaps this is overly simplistic...but most folks agree that the average world temp has increased 3/4 of ONE degree Celsius in the last 100-odd years. Exactly HOW does that kill off the Polar Bears and melt the Polar ice caps? Were said ice caps previously at 0 Centigrade, and now they are +3/4?
Don't you know? Every time a European flies in an airliner, polar bears fall out of the sky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ&feature=player_embedded
-
Global warming or no global warming.... the debate rages on... Having grown up in large cities where air pollution was visible and obviously destructive to human health, whether its co2 or carbon monoxide, or 1000+ other chemicals that are the byproducts of impartially combusted carbon based chemicals, as humans, our health can only benefit from reducing the amount we release, regardless if the earths temperature is increasing. On a more personal note, I have a cousin who does not smoke, did not grow up in a household that smoked and yet at 35, acquired lung cancer due to air pollution! we can only gain from cleaning our environment.
-
I feel bad about your cousin and all but I find it a stretch that his cancer was diagnosed as caused by air pollution.
-
Study from uni of Minnesota
Quote - shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent. - unquote
Could it be a simple cheap solution is just to plant more trees to replace the gazillions that have been cut down?
EPA declares CO2 a danger to humans.
How long before 1st lawsuit from someone breathing on another person ;-)
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stop_breathing_epa.jpg)
-
Study from uni of Minnesota
Quote - shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent. - unquote
Could it be a simple cheap solution is just to plant more trees to replace the gazillions that have been cut down?
EPA declares CO2 a danger to humans.
How long before 1st lawsuit from someone breathing on another person ;-)
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stop_breathing_epa.jpg)
yes, it could be that simple...as planting trees i mean.
as for deadly gases? co is much more deadly then co2. nox is MUCH MUCH more deadly than either co or co2.
-
yes, it could be that simple...as planting trees i mean.
as for deadly gases? co is much more deadly then co2. nox is MUCH MUCH more deadly than either co or co2.
Add in halitosis and you have a gas that even Hitler couldn't have dreamed up...
-
Add in halitosis and you have a gas that even Hitler couldn't have dreamed up...
i don't know what that one is......
-
i don't know what that one is......
Sorry to hear your google's busted...
http://www.google.com/search?q=halitosis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
-
Sorry to hear your google's busted...
http://www.google.com/search?q=halitosis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
hah!! bad breath??? :rofl :rofl :rofl
and my google's not busted. i went outside to unload my van, then came back in.........looked it up, came here and saw this. :rofl :aok :neener:
-
I feel bad about your cousin and all but I find it a stretch that his cancer was diagnosed as caused by air pollution.
oh really?
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Air_Pollution_Linked_to_Deaths_From_Lung_Cancer.asp
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20031203/air-pollution-may-up-lung-cancer-risk
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-03-05-pollution.htm
-
oh really?
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Air_Pollution_Linked_to_Deaths_From_Lung_Cancer.asp
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20031203/air-pollution-may-up-lung-cancer-risk
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-03-05-pollution.htm
Yeah, really.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL9FkkDhOwg
EPA suppressing opposing scientific reports.
-
Study from uni of Minnesota
Quote - shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent. - unquote
Could it be a simple cheap solution is just to plant more trees to replace the gazillions that have been cut down?
Yes, in all honesty it could. But, then again, it would take a lot of trees, and a lot of trees aren't cheap either. One single adult tree absorbs about 48 pounds of CO2 to use in metabolic processes per YEAR. But......just to negate the top two producers of CO2...
Country
Total Emissions
(Million metric tons of CO2)
(Tons) (per capita)
1. China 6017.69 4.58
2. United States 5902.75 19.78
11900X1,000,000= measured metric tonnes
119,000,000,000 mt = 262,350,092,000,004 lb =Amount of CO2 in english pounds.
262350092000004 lb CO2 / 48 lb per year by one adult tree= 5.46x1012 trees just to neutralize the top two producers.
That's 546,000,000,000,000 trees.
Pick up your shovel.
Like I've said before, I feel it's already too late: I'm already seeing shifts in movements of the species I study. The sun is at the lowest output measured...and still we see melt. I measured the highest temperatures yet over coral reefs in the Florida Keys, in an ongoing 20 year study not related to climate. I never dreamed I'd actually see a measurable and verifiable pH shift in the ocean in my career. As a species, we've drug our feet too long already. Most of you say there isn't even a problem, and are convinced by the very same people who reap the profits from it. No wonder OPEC funds these bogus studies.
The problem with most of your arguments, is that you started with a biased opinion. The whole theory of constructing an argument is to begin from a point of zero bias and work your way to formulating ideas, then constructing an approach to your argument. Most of you have started with an idea and went looking for something to back up your predisposition.
I'm sorry, but one stolen batch of emails (whose credibility has not been established) by one single researcher does not refute the scientific body of knowledge on the subject.
-
Yes, in all honesty it could. But, then again, it would take a lot of trees, and a lot of trees aren't cheap either. One single adult tree absorbs about 48 pounds of CO2 to use in metabolic processes per YEAR. But......just to negate the top two producers of CO2...
11900X1,000,000= measured metric tonnes
119,000,000,000 mt = 262,350,092,000,004 lb =Amount of CO2 in english pounds.
262350092000004 lb CO2 / 48 lb per year by one adult tree= 5.46x1012 trees just to neutralize the top two producers.
That's 546,000,000,000,000 trees.
Pick up your shovel.
Like I've said before, I feel it's already too late: I'm already seeing shifts in movements of the species I study. The sun is at the lowest output measured...and still we see melt. I measured the highest temperatures yet over coral reefs in the Florida Keys, in an ongoing 20 year study not related to climate. I never dreamed I'd actually see a measurable and verifiable pH shift in the ocean in my career. As a species, we've drug our feet too long already. Most of you say there isn't even a problem, and are convinced by the very same people who reap the profits from it. No wonder OPEC funds these bogus studies.
The problem with most of your arguments, is that you started with a biased opinion. The whole theory of constructing an argument is to begin from a point of zero bias and work your way to formulating ideas, then constructing an approach to your argument. Most of you have started with an idea and went looking for something to back up your predisposition.
I'm sorry, but one stolen batch of emails (whose credibility has not been established) by one single researcher does not refute the scientific body of knowledge on the subject.
and how many have been cut down, killed, destroyed, etc in the last 100 years or so?
also, i believe plankton is a major source of co2 absorption, and o2 production?
-
Perhaps this is overly simplistic...but most folks agree that the average world temp has increased 3/4 of ONE degree Celsius in the last 100-odd years. Exactly HOW does that kill off the Polar Bears and melt the Polar ice caps? Were said ice caps previously at 0 Centigrade, and now they are +3/4?
<bonk bonk> Is this thing on?
-
<bonk bonk> Is this thing on?
to be honest, i don;t see any differences in the weather in general between now, and when i was a kid. i'm speaking locally of course. the only real change is me. i'm a LOT less tolerant of cold weather, and a little less tolerant of really hot weather.
this past summer here in the nj area, never got hot enough for me to even run the a/c at my house, or in my van. think we only had a few days in the 90's.
but then, according to some, it's getting cooler, because of the global warming. :aok :noid
and this isn't a shot at you dude.
-
I love how anyone who says global warming is not a problem is an OPEC oil loving retard.
Strip
-
I love how anyone who says global warming is not a problem is an OPEC oil loving retard.
Strip
I never said that Strip.... I simply pointed out the source of funding for most denial-skewed studies. OPEC has funded almost all of them, followed by EXXON-Mobil.
It's easy to look up. You can do it too, without the understandable backlash at the messenger. Remember, I don't care what you think. I already believe it's too late. We're seeing interdisciplinary effects now (Biology, Ecology, Physics, Meteorology, Hydrology, etc etc...).
Whether you think it is or isn't, the funding isn't a mystery. Corporate profits are clouding the collective facts.
-
Just as grant grabbing has clouded the rest?
-
EPA has weighed in....and they freely admit that IPCC is among their largest references. Any companies who were thinking about opening up shop in the US has definitely decided to go elsewhere now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
-
Global warming?
I'm quarter-Welsh and half-Scottish, and tired of the cost of heating the house - bring it on!
:cool:
-
Just as grant grabbing has clouded the rest?
If you understood the grant process, you may not see it that way.
Your argument is moot, as you don't grasp even a minute bit of what you're even talking about.
-
Government grants go to groups looking to prove MMGW....any study that aims to refute that, is invariably funded by private enterprise, and thus, instantly derided, science-be-damned
-
Government grants go to groups looking to prove MMGW....any study that aims to refute that, is invariably funded by private enterprise, and thus, instantly derided, science-be-damned
that couldn't be. our governments would never betray the very people that placed them in power that way.
or would they? :noid
-
Im still mad at those cave men that ended the last ice age with their fires and destroyed any chance for me to meet Snuffleustudmuffinas by hunting them into extintion. As you can see, the human species could not survive their greed.
Damn you caveman!
Edit: It wont let me type snuffle uf agus
-
actually taking that into consideration........ if we accept that those pesky cavemen created such a disasterous scenario here on earth............ then I propose its GEICO thats doing it again....... with all those dang cavemen running around on their commercials........ destroy GEICO and the world is saved
-
I'm sorry, but one stolen batch of emails (whose credibility has not been established) by one single researcher does not refute the scientific body of knowledge on the subject.
a) Was not 'one single researcher' it was the top group of researchers at the CRU and abroad.
b) Credibility - Not one of the above has said they are fake.
I can only guess you haven't read them or you would know a) already.
Oh and there is allegedly another 100mb to come.
-
Just to put this in perspective... think of Galileo.
Galileo did the research and made observations and came to undeniable conclusions about Copernicanism. Scientists of the day did what? At least the philosophers of the day denounced him to the Roman Inquisition.
Galileo was also wrong because he did not fully understand the physics involved but not wrong in the way scientists of the day thought.
I believe we have the same issues today. Scientists are enjoying the new found power and sudden interest (controversy) in climate science and yes they will deny anything that comes up that might detract from the spotlight upon them.
I have been saving freon cans for decades and now Im going to go vent another one. :bolt:
-
The squirming of the worms the last few weeks has been most enjoyable. You'd almost think they might not be so bold in refusing to practice what they preach, but you would be wrong...
Let me give credit to a FW in "another forum" for posting this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
-
The last thing they want to cut is their own spending. It will continue that way.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Australia has voted down climate change laws
Thats actually not true
Tronsky
-
(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stop_breathing_epa.jpg?w=510&h=408)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
HOLD THE PHONES!!!!!!!!!
I just ran some figures and made calculations and they have it all wrong... the sun is about to SUPERNOVA and we are all going to die in a flaming fireball!!!
There is no where to run and taxes wont stop the supernova so... BOHICA!!!!!!!! :cheers:
-
Australia has voted down climate change laws
Thats actually not true
Tronsky
Did you find an error? Then I guess we need to dismiss the entire story. Sound familiar? :aok
What is this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8389909.stm
-
If you're interested about the climate sciences and the issue of global warming, then I suggest that you head here: http://www.realclimate.org/ (http://www.realclimate.org/)
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.
In addition you can also find lots and lots of the raw data, tools, and models used by the scientists in the research. All are available there so if you believe that something wrong or even rigged for false results, feel free to come and present your own results.
I have found the site highly informative :aok
-
well, this might get skuzzyfied, but I give it a try:
Its Al Gore signing books, when some young men ask him some questions about climate-gate. Its getting interesting after 2:10 min.
->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6mXfdfp_Y&feature=player_embedded :rolleyes:
But anyhow, if we have GW or GC. The whole discussion should lead mankind not to pollute the earth and to take care, that the people who come after us will have the same opportunities to live and explore this earth, like we had the possibility. And if companies, politicans and scientists lie to us...what shall we do about it? I am more than confused the more i read and hear.
SF
-
Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.
http://www.loftslag.is/?page_id=225
From 1880, this is the conclusion:
10. 1997 0,4618
9. 2008 0,4869
8. 2001 0,4939
7. 2004 0,5332
6. 2007 0,5499
5. 2006 0,5524
4. 2003 0,5566
3. 2002 0,5575
2. 1998 0,5768
1. 2005 0,6058
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif)
I think that there is no way talking yourself out of GW. Funny how few I see that debate HW, now it's down to MMGW. Still no way of talking yourself out of GW....
-
well, this might get skuzzyfied, but I give it a try:
Its Al Gore signing books, when some young men ask him some questions about climate-gate. Its getting interesting after 2:10 min.
->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA6mXfdfp_Y&feature=player_embedded :rolleyes:
But anyhow, if we have GW or GC. The whole discussion should lead mankind not to pollute the earth and to take care, that the people who come after us will have the same opportunities to live and explore this earth, like we had the possibility. And if companies, politicans and scientists lie to us...what shall we do about it? I am more than confused the more i read and hear.
SF
dude could've filed assualt charges there.
that being said.......he did more damage than good, by yelling like a loon.
-
Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.
http://www.loftslag.is/?page_id=225
From 1880, this is the conclusion:
10. 1997 0,4618
9. 2008 0,4869
8. 2001 0,4939
7. 2004 0,5332
6. 2007 0,5499
5. 2006 0,5524
4. 2003 0,5566
3. 2002 0,5575
2. 1998 0,5768
1. 2005 0,6058
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif)
I think that there is no way talking yourself out of GW. Funny how few I see that debate HW, now it's down to MMGW. Still no way of talking yourself out of GW....
What about the rest of the 4.54 billion years into the past, a chart with a mere 120 years is nothing when you are talking long time climate changes. We still can't grow grapes in Scotland like we used to today. One thing is for sure the climate has always and will always change.
But go ahead give them all your money and believe in their empty promises, its good to know someone pays for their private jets to fly around the world and tell us all how guilty we are.
-
Latest news of GW. The temperature record list since the 19th century. This is referred to as a temperature anomaly.
that is not an anomaly, that is entirely expected behaviour if you've bothered looking at the data from the last 500,000 years. take human civilisation out of the equation and at this point in the glacial cycle you would expect to see rising temeratures. expect them to rise another ~2deg until at some point (possibly this millennia) it peaks, followed by a very rapid decline in temps by ~12deg, ie. the next ice age.
Is climate change real? yes, the climate changes.
Is global warming real? yes, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up.
Is man-made global warming real? no, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up, regardless of human activity.
Is man-assisted global warming real? possibly, but its almost impossible to determine the extent.
... and now the key questions ...
Can we stop or reverse global warming by reducing carbon emmissions? no, at this point in the glacial cycle the world is warming up, regardless of human activity.
Can we slow down global warming by reducing carbon emmissions? possibly, but its almost impossible to determine the extent.
-
Did you find an error? Then I guess we need to dismiss the entire story. Sound familiar? :aok
What is this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8389909.stm
In the context of the original article it uses the issues with the ETS as sign of a change of attitude towards climate change as a whole, when infact the reasons the ETS failed to pass the senate was far more complex, and mostly to do with politics and dollars than to back a growing international skepticism of global warming. It is true the new liberal leadership (through a convoluted leadership change) in Australia have taken on a stronger counter view and a number of the louder flat earthers are suddenly having a greater influence on their policies - the ETS initially also failed to pass the senate because the govt was unable gain support from the smaller number of Greens senators who wanted it to be tougher on emission targets.
Tronsky
-
If you're interested about the climate sciences and the issue of global warming, then I suggest that you head here: http://www.realclimate.org/ (http://www.realclimate.org/)
In addition you can also find lots and lots of the raw data, tools, and models used by the scientists in the research. All are available there so if you believe that something wrong or even rigged for false results, feel free to come and present your own results.
I have found the site highly informative :aok
realclimate.org is basically a mouthpiece for the CRU (check the emails).
For the otherside of the coin try http://camirror.wordpress.com/
-
realclimate.org is basically a mouthpiece for the CRU (check the emails).
For the otherside of the coin try http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Again, quoting a website run by a guy with ties to oil, Steve McIntyre. Seriously, when do you guys get it? Do you even back check this stuff, or just swallow what it says because you already agree?
In addition to all this, and as noted in his wiki Bio, Steve until recently served as a "Strategic Adviser" to CGX Energy Inc. and the Northwest Exploration company, two companies engaged in oil and gas exploration.
-
No more than you swallow the other sides opinion....
Instead of attacking the credibility of people based on ties alone you could try attacking their data.
Or would that be too much to ask?
Strip
-
Again, quoting a website run by a guy with ties to oil, Steve McIntyre. Seriously, when do you guys get it? Do you even back check this stuff, or just swallow what it says because you already agree?
generally, when one starts attacking the other sides sources, is a sign that the attacker is out of good arguments, and/or unwilling to consider the other side of the discussion.
-
generally, when one starts attacking the other sides sources, is a sign that the attacker is out of good arguments, and/or unwilling to consider the other side of the discussion.
+1
Personally, I'd like to see what the fedzilla intends to do when this country is bankrupted from the fee structure and taxes levied by the climate change loons. Where will these scientists get their grants then?
-
generally, when one starts attacking the other sides sources, is a sign that the attacker is out of good arguments, and/or unwilling to consider the other side of the discussion.
Lol... so it's ok if you guys tell me I'm a scientist sucking out grants however I can....(last page)...
But, if I conclusively show that your source's motivations are tied intricately and directly to oil profits, then I'm in the wrong?
That's rich.
There is really no need to consider the other side at this time, like considering evolution over intelligent design. There isn't a debate anymore. Whether you think you are making one at this point is moot. I started out in the middle as a skeptic to either side. It took me over a decade to look over the information and the papers, and talk directly with researchers tied to my institution. The body of evidence is overwhelming, no matter which small inconsistency you choose to attack. For every poorly run study, that you attack, there are hundreds of incredibly detailed and verifiable (and repeatable) studies that show what is happening. Can any single one of you honestly say you've looked into a SINGLE study for more than a passing glance?
Science rarely agrees on anything. It's the nature of the system. Whenever there's greater than 90% agreement, it's pretty damn close to consensus. No matter what you've heard, that consensus from a lot of egg headed lab geeks is about 99% on climate as of right now. In my institute, it's at 100%.
-
The largest force behind the push for carbon trading is linked directly to the corporations that stand to profit the most from it.
-
For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability. The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic. The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.
There has been a cry to "do something" about a litany of problems throughout history. Too much of the "doing something" has ended in oppression and corpses for my taste. If "doing something" means you want to drive a hybrid and encourage me to do the same, well and good. If "doing something" involves giving *any* power to ANYBODY to do more than "encourage", then a pox on it. That is all I have to say about that, and will stick to that answer, completely independent of who is "right" about global warming.
-
The largest force behind the push for carbon trading is linked directly to the corporations that stand to profit the most from it.
+1
Al Gore stands to become a billionaire from his investments. These guys SURE dont want to see any dissent on the issues.So they attack the source and hope that the people on the other side of the debate are as stupid as their own. The global warming data has been shown to be rigged. What didnt fit was thrown out or destroyed.That speaks VOLUMES.But yet some still dont get it. Amazing. :rofl
-
+1
Personally, I'd like to see what the fedzilla intends to do when this country is bankrupted from the fee structure and taxes levied by the climate change loons. Where will these scientists get their grants then?
they'll print more money in the basement of the whitehouse.
-
The largest force behind the push for carbon trading is linked directly to the corporations that stand to profit the most from it.
I do agree with you there. I don't think that that (carbon trading) is a solution. either. The reason it ever arose, was an attempt to make it feasible to lower our output without destroying our economy.
-
Lol... so it's ok if you guys tell me I'm a scientist sucking out grants however I can....(last page)...
But, if I conclusively show that your source's motivations are tied intricately and directly to oil profits, then I'm in the wrong?
That's rich.
There is really no need to consider the other side at this time, like considering evolution over intelligent design. There isn't a debate anymore. Whether you think you are making one at this point is moot. I started out in the middle as a skeptic to either side. It took me over a decade to look over the information and the papers, and talk directly with researchers tied to my institution. The body of evidence is overwhelming, no matter which small inconsistency you choose to attack. For every poorly run study, that you attack, there are hundreds of incredibly detailed and verifiable (and repeatable) studies that show what is happening. Can any single one of you honestly say you've looked into a SINGLE study for more than a passing glance?
Science rarely agrees on anything. It's the nature of the system. Whenever there's greater than 90% agreement, it's pretty damn close to consensus. No matter what you've heard, that consensus from a lot of egg headed lab geeks is about 99% on climate as of right now. In my institute, it's at 100%.
the point i was trying to make(as i generally respect your posts) is that you seem to be failing to see that those "scientists" that are proporting man made global warming, are driven by the corporations that stand to profit from it.
those against it more than likely stand to gain somewhere also, but the fact is that if man disappeared tonight, nothing would change(on a global scale).
the planet will continue the current cycle with or without us here. the planet went through these cycles before man(common sense would dictate this) it's going through cycles now, and it will continue to go through cycles when we're gone.(again, common sense would dictate this)
as for talking to researchers? it's been proven that information can(and most probably HAS) been skewed. if it serves for job security, and extra money, then they'll make the information appear as they need it to appear.
this can happen with anything. in any field.
although it's only local, i go by what i see outside. here at home, and in orlando, i see the same weather now, that i saw 30 years ago, with the exception, that it never got hot enough here to run my a/c this past summer.
my brother said he had his on in central florida, but he runs it if the temp goes above 70F.
as for the carbon trading crap? c'mon. it also was here before man, and will be when we're gone. how can they tax a natural substance?
-
the point i was trying to make(as i generally respect your posts) is that you seem to be failing to see that those "scientists" that are proporting man made global warming, are driven by the corporations that stand to profit from it.
those against it more than likely stand to gain somewhere also, but the fact is that if man disappeared tonight, nothing would change(on a global scale).
the planet will continue the current cycle with or without us here. the planet went through these cycles before man(common sense would dictate this) it's going through cycles now, and it will continue to go through cycles when we're gone.(again, common sense would dictate this)
as for talking to researchers? it's been proven that information can(and most probably HAS) been skewed. if it serves for job security, and extra money, then they'll make the information appear as they need it to appear.
this can happen with anything. in any field.
although it's only local, i go by what i see outside. here at home, and in orlando, i see the same weather now, that i saw 30 years ago, with the exception, that it never got hot enough here to run my a/c this past summer.
my brother said he had his on in central florida, but he runs it if the temp goes above 70F.
as for the carbon trading crap? c'mon. it also was here before man, and will be when we're gone. how can they tax a natural substance?
I will say, a lot of the scientists I've spoken to recently are really concerned that we're currently seeing a "masking effect" from the sun. Solar output is at an all time minimum, and the current solar cycle hasn't ramped up....it seems the sun is on "pause", and is well below historical norms. The past two years have shown a definitive decrease, with output being so low, of atmospheric heating. (the so called big years of GW 1998-2000 showed the sun at a normal output range)
Oceanic heating hasn't slowed, and rose faster than prior years, probably due to lag/ time effects in the heating of water over air. I for one, have seen firsthand exactly how warm it's getting in the water. Molasses Reef in the FL Keys showed heat stress on corals down to 30 meters. Inshore, most corals bleached out and were overgrown with macroalgae. Those that didn't were the the most heat resistant genomes, when we tested. The upper crest of Hens and Chickens Reef (<5 meters) died. Sombrero Reef showed 5 weeks of temperatures in the 87-90F degree range@15m depth. Our highest reading, on a flat that had corals two years ago but was choked with algae this year, was 92 F. Corals start bleaching at ~84 or so, species dependent.
I've actually documented species population shifts and movement down the reef slope, of some less light dependent but less heat tolerant species. A reef tract system that's been intact and remarkably stable for ~15,000 years doesn't die in 20 if things aren't changing.
The only parameter that changed in the past 20 years (besides a high organic phosphate count in the mid 1990's that is back to a relative norm now) is the temperature. But, I must be careful to include that this is only a snapshot of the whole picture, and one cannot rely on singular local events to diagnose the situation. The combination of worldwide events does point to temperature forcing. Precip patterns have shifted, along with a measurable sea level rise. (ask Bangladesh and low lying Pacific Islands)
I've repeatedly said, if this solar cycle ever starts, and activity pulses up back into historical (+- 10,000 years) norms (and sooner or later, it will), we will see exactly where we stand.
And again, I think CO2 trading is a horrible idea. It allows, basically, the issue to be unresolved and for people to make money off it.
-
I had earlier made what I thought would be my last post in this thread, considering it has become blatantly obvious that the sky is falling crowd wont let facts get in their way.......... all us flat earthers and our silly facts and truth cant stop them
however I felt the need to once again point out a silly fact and truth.........
moray I feel real bad for Bangladesh and the low lying Pacific Islands......... as bad as I do for New Orleans and their below sea level civilization...... that doesnt change that fact that when you look at GLOBAL sea levels they have declined in the past few years
this is another case of scientists skewing data to fit their needs.......... throwing out any numbers that dont benefit them or fall into their desired result
-
Science rarely agrees on anything. It's the nature of the system. Whenever there's greater than 90% agreement, it's pretty damn close to consensus. No matter what you've heard, that consensus from a lot of egg headed lab geeks is about 99% on climate as of right now. In my institute, it's at 100%.
Science by consensus? That is an interesting view. So does the mathematics behind Newtonian physics work because there is a consensus of engineers and scientists that agree upon it?
What is interesting about this 'climategate' situation is this. If those scientists at East Anglia were so convinced of the science behind their hypothesis, why did they feel the need to skew the evidence in their favor by conspiring to omit dissenting views?
Or for that matter, when they they cite 'consensus views', would that be the consensus of empirical evidence they deemed worthy of inclusion as their claims of consensus. In other words, consensus for these scientists appear to be limited to those that agree with their own hypothesis.
I think it is prudent to be somewhat skeptical of claims made by those who have a vested interest in the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.
-
Science by consensus? That is an interesting view. So does the mathematics behind Newtonian physics work because there is a consensus of engineers and scientists that agree upon it?
thats pretty much how it works for empirical science, yes.
-
moray I feel real bad for Bangladesh and the low lying Pacific Islands......... as bad as I do for New Orleans and their below sea level civilization...... that doesnt change that fact that when you look at GLOBAL sea levels they have declined in the past few years
Please cite your source for this statement.
-
they'll print more money in the basement of the whitehouse.
But that doesn't do any good since they can't give it to themselves. So they give it to the banks who in turn loan it to the government who has to pay it back with interest. Go figure we are in debt.
-
Ooops.
Wrong graph, will repost later.
-
Ooops.
Wrong graph, will repost later.
I thought maybe I was just stupid not understanding.
-
No just me :)
Anyway might all be moot.
Love the way anything our Prime Minister Gordon 'Doom' Brown gets involved in invariably starts to turn into a big steaming pile of brown gravy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?CMP=AFCYAH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?CMP=AFCYAH)
-
Please cite your source for this statement.
that information is widely available.......... there are hundreds of measuring stations setup around the world
when you take their measurments and do some basic math (which I assume even a scientist can do) its very easy to see that in the past few years sea levels have on average declined globally (using the trend of the past 3 years data shows on average sea levels will decline 20 inches over the next 100 years) ........ when taken in a 10 year average theyve held pretty consistant with only a very small increase (by small increase the data shows if using the current 10 year trend the sea level will rise 1 inch over the next 100 years globally).......... prior to that there is very sparse data (selectively omitted I presume) on a global scale so no conclusion could possibly be reached (you cant take a handful of measurements worldwide and conclude anything on a global scale)
-
that information is widely available.......... there are hundreds of measuring stations setup around the world
when you take their measurments and do some basic math (which I assume even a scientist can do) its very easy to see that in the past few years sea levels have on average declined globally (using the trend of the past 3 years data shows on average sea levels will decline 20 inches over the next 100 years) ........ when taken in a 10 year average theyve held pretty consistant with only a very small increase (by small increase the data shows if using the current 10 year trend the sea level will rise 1 inch over the next 100 years globally).......... prior to that there is very sparse data (selectively omitted I presume) on a global scale so no conclusion could possibly be reached (you cant take a handful of measurements worldwide and conclude anything on a global scale)
Like this one? Showing rise?
. Higher values are related to the occurrence of montmorillonite as the predominant clay mineral present. Review of tide gauge records indicates that gauges not affected by land subsidence or other local secular effects have been sinking relative to sea level since 1940 at rates averaging about 2.5 mm/yr, of which 0.6 mm/yr is ascribed to glacio-isostatic adjustment to unloading of North America resulting from melting of late Pleistocene glaciers, and about 0.9 mm/yr is ascribed to steric sea-level rise related to ocean warming.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l18584555k627686/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l18584555k627686/)
How about this one?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/index.shtml (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/index.shtml)
And all these trends...
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northatlantictrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northatlantictrends.html)
(http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northatlantictrends.html)
No falling sea levels there.
Maybe it's the Pacific you mean that's falling....
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html)
Sea level is FALLING.... in Alaska only....oh yeah... Alaska is being raised up by geologic processes... so that's out.
Let's try the tropics for ya.....
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/northpacifictrends.html)
Again.... rising.
Must be a large scale global phenomenon...This sea level fall....
(http://www.agmates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sea-level-rise-450.jpg)
Uhhh.... Nope.
Where did you get your facts from again? That sea level is falling? There isn't a single peer-reviewed paper stating this.
-
so let me get this straight......... you want to cite an article from 1987 as proof that sea levels have risen in the last few years............
you would certainly never try to skew data to fulfill your agenda
DOH
I might suggest you try finding some recent GLOSS data........ or if nothing else look for the most comprehensive compilation available online which is at the University of Hawaii's site
EDIT: ROFL are you seriously going to keep editing that same comment until you have skewed the data enough? Thats your third edit already since I just posted. Come on man give it up....... youre proving the point exactly....... scientists will tend to lie to fit their agendas
I just checked your other links........ which btw still do not use CURRENT data...... and at best your links show an average global sea rise of 6 inches in the next 100 years..... you gotta work harder if youre going to skew data and still come out behind
-
so let me get this straight......... you want to cite an article from 1987 as proof that sea levels have risen in the last few years............
you would certainly never try to skew data to fulfill your agenda
DOH
I might suggest you try finding some recent GLOSS data........ or if nothing else look for the most comprehensive compilation available online which is at the University of Hawaii's site
EDIT: ROFL are you seriously going to keep editing that same comment until you have skewed the data enough? Thats your third edit already since I just posted. Come on man give it up....... youre proving the point exactly....... scientists will tend to lie to fit their agendas
I just checked your other links........ which btw still do not use CURRENT data...... and at best your links show an average global sea rise of 6 inches in the next 100 years..... you gotta work harder if youre going to skew data and still come out behind
Why wouldn't I? Did it change? How is using a data set in 1987 not ok? I mean, all I hear is how people are skewing the data to fit climate change agendas. This paper was prior to any "agenda" with climate change.....One would think that would lend more weight to a denialist such as yourself. I thought the current data was flawed somehow?
An old mentor once said something that I still remember. I was attempting to research citations for one of the first peer reviewed articles I published. I was trying desperately to find papers with more recent dates on them. Finally he said to me, "Things change, but they don't change so fast that good science in 1965 isn't good science in 2005." It's not uncommon to have people cite Linnaeus' initial classification for many organisms. Those being middle to late 1700's.
Back on topic, since you understand how GLOSS is working, you already realize that it is very susceptible to "shifting baselines syndrome". For example, if you start out with a glass of water 50mL, and add water in 1ml increments for 30 repetitions, after 30 repetitions your baseline "norm" is 80 mL. Now, if you take out 2 successive 5mL increments, a person like yourself will proclaim that that is proof we don't have a problem, as we've seen successive loss of water level, and the levels are declining.
When, in reality, the baselines shifted to become the "norm" from which you measured.
GLOSS in 2001, BTW.
(http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/hist/tp_products/dev/Fall_2001_Deviation.gif)
GLOSS data averaged and incorporated into long term station data
(http://efdl.as.ntu.edu.tw/research/sea_level/pic/image004.gif)
-
I personally feel that NOAA is about as corrupt as they come. How is it not plausible that they are cooking data and colluding just like the Brits were. I mean it's not like they stand to benefit from increased funding or anything. :rolleyes:
-
I personally feel that NOAA is about as corrupt as they come. How is it not plausible that they are cooking data and colluding just like the Brits were. I mean it's not like they stand to benefit from increased funding or anything. :rolleyes:
While I can't specifically agree or disagree, I will say the few NOAA people I've worked with were incredibly good scientists. Incredibly good.
NOAA's funding isn't tied to its' publications, either, Bodhi. This is the case with some University structured systems, though thankfully fewer than it used to be. I would suggest that you may simply cease to contribute, rather than blatantly slander an agency that encompasses such a large spectrum of work. NOAA would not see an increase in its' funding, more likely, it would be directed by Congress to allot a certain amount or focus their energy towards that research during the budget oversight process.
As well, being a governmental agency, you have access to all raw data NOAA produces. Feel free to check their data sets....it's public information.
-
Why wouldn't I? Did it change? How is using a data set in 1987 not ok? I mean, all I hear is how people are skewing the data to fit climate change agendas. This paper was prior to any "agenda" with climate change.....One would think that would lend more weight to a denialist such as yourself. I thought the current data was flawed somehow?
An old mentor once said something that I still remember. I was attempting to research citations for one of the first peer reviewed articles I published. I was trying desperately to find papers with more recent dates on them. Finally he said to me, "Things change, but they don't change so fast that good science in 1965 isn't good science in 2005." It's not uncommon to have people cite Linnaeus' initial classification for many organisms. Those being middle to late 1700's.
Back on topic, since you understand how GLOSS is working, you already realize that it is very susceptible to "shifting baselines syndrome". For example, if you start out with a glass of water 50mL, and add water in 1ml increments for 30 repetitions, after 30 repetitions your baseline "norm" is 80 mL. Now, if you take out 2 successive 5mL increments, a person like yourself will proclaim that that is proof we don't have a problem, as we've seen successive loss of water level, and the levels are declining.
When, in reality, the baselines shifted to become the "norm" from which you measured.
GLOSS in 2001, BTW.
You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........
and then you go on to make my very point for me.......... its not my contention that sea levels will decline until the middle of the pacific is a desert....duh.........
simply that sea levels AS PROVEN by current data ARE declining ..... in your words until they reach their "norm" .... after which they may still decline some more or they may rise some more back and forth...... its natural......... this is something that has happened throughout world history and will continue to happen
I do enjoy the pretty picture you posted.......... nicely for those of us not challenged by an agenda .... the picture clearly shows a global balance of rise and decline
-
I'll ask again---It is generally accepted the the Earth has increased ~ 3/4 of one degree Celsius in the last century or so....and that seemingly small amount is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears? Or is it that more serious warming is yet to come as predicted by collected data/ computer models? In 20 years of this, I've never seen an answer to this very basic question...I'm truly interested in the answer
-
I almost forgot to ask.............. being that you obviously had such a wise mentor </sarcasm>.......... should we then take all annual temperatures from 1965-present and simply ignore them when we are discussing how the sky is falling and the oceans are boiling? after all....... we know the science of global temperatures leading up to 1965....... thats clearly good enough..........
using this set of temperatures and other data leading up to 1965 (still good science) .... do you honestly believe you can make a case for global warming?
-
I'll ask again---It is generally accepted the the Earth has increased ~ 3/4 of one degree Celsius in the last century or so....and that seemingly small amount is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears? Or is it that more serious warming is yet to come as predicted by collected data/ computer models? In 20 years of this, I've never seen an answer to this very basic question...I'm truly interested in the answer
Let me just say that in every computer model ran......... they cannot successfully predict past (known) temperatures........... if they plug in all data up to 1970....... they dont even get close to any actual temperatures we reached 1970-2009....... the models dont work......... if they cant predict known temperature changes...... they cannot predict unknown changes
they do however look fancy and sound impressive when you need some of that free govt money
-
You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........
and then you go on to make my very point for me.......... its not my contention that sea levels will decline until the middle of the pacific is a desert....duh.........
simply that sea levels AS PROVEN by current data ARE declining ..... in your words until they reach their "norm" .... after which they may still decline some more or they may rise some more back and forth...... its natural......... this is something that has happened throughout world history and will continue to happen
I do enjoy the pretty picture you posted.......... nicely for those of us not challenged by an agenda .... the picture clearly shows a global balance of rise and decline
Why do I continually try to have debates with troglodytes? It's nothing personal, relax. I'm sorry if I offend you with actual citations by people that do the real work. I've yet to see a single one by you.... only derision. I guess it's much easier to attack an individual than to actually look into your facts.
Instead of throwing mud, something I have not done to you, throw some real data back. I never said I was a climate scientist.... convince me. Gravity is, after all, just a theory. You still have a chance to disprove it.
-
You do realize how insanely ridiculous that sounds right? To disprove the fact that sea levels HAVE on average declined in RECENT years you cite a report written 22 years ago using data older than that........ and then ask why that data would NOT be valid in consideration of CURRENT sea level conditions.........
The old report establishes a known or base sea level rise. (Pre-Global Warming Hysteria/ Denialism.)
The 5 other sources on the page establish up-to-date station readings, recognizing a current relationship to the old work, through which any underlying trend can be established.
It's really not hard to follow along, if you tried, without preconception. You seemed to be a little educated until the berating began.
-
Let me just say that in every computer model ran......... they cannot successfully predict past (known) temperatures........... if they plug in all data up to 1970....... they dont even get close to any actual temperatures we reached 1970-2009....... the models dont work......... if they cant predict known temperature changes...... they cannot predict unknown changes
they do however look fancy and sound impressive when you need some of that free govt money
Funny. This graph is a three run GCM (Global Climate Model) with the observed real-world readings in red. (Meaning it was run three times and mated with observed measurements) It seems pretty close.
(http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/hansen%20original%20gwdebate.jpg)
-
While I can't specifically agree or disagree, I will say the few NOAA people I've worked with were incredibly good scientists. Incredibly good.
NOAA's funding isn't tied to its' publications, either, Bodhi. This is the case with some University structured systems, though thankfully fewer than it used to be. I would suggest that you may simply cease to contribute, rather than blatantly slander an agency that encompasses such a large spectrum of work. NOAA would not see an increase in its' funding, more likely, it would be directed by Congress to allot a certain amount or focus their energy towards that research during the budget oversight process.
As well, being a governmental agency, you have access to all raw data NOAA produces. Feel free to check their data sets....it's public information.
NOAA stands to receive a sizable increase in their budget if the global warming paranoia proceeds to garner enough Congressional support. It would be foolish to say otherwise. Being a governmental agency, it is not out of the realm to believe that it will do what it can to ensure survival. That's how governmental agencies work.
-
“More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much”
-
I'll ask again---It is generally accepted the the Earth has increased ~ 3/4 of one degree Celsius in the last century or so....and that seemingly small amount is melting the polar ice caps and killing polar bears? Or is it that more serious warming is yet to come as predicted by collected data/ computer models? In 20 years of this, I've never seen an answer to this very basic question...I'm truly interested in the answer
I saw an interview with Dr James Hansen last night who bought up an interesting point about an amplifying effect brought on by ice melting etc.
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well that's what makes climate a really dangerous situation, because of the inertia of the system. It takes the ocean a long time to warm up, it's four kilometres deep, and it takes icesheets a long time to get started to move, they're very thick and have a lot of inertia.
The problem is that as these changes begin to occur, and they are beginning to occur - Greenland is losing ice faster and faster and Antarctica is beginning to lose ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year - as you get to a certain point, you can get to a point where the dynamics of the system begins to take over.
If the icesheets begin to collapse, by that time it's too late. You've passed the tipping point and the icesheet is going to end up in the ocean. So, that's one of the tipping points. Another one is methane hydrates. We're beginning to see methane bubble out of the tundra as it's melting.
There's a lot more methane hydrates on continental shelves. As the ocean warms that methane hydrate can also begin to release methane, which is a very strong greenhouse gas and can cause amplifying feedback which makes the global warming much larger.
And this is not idle speculation, because we can look at the history of the earth. And in past global warming events we have seen those kind of amplifying feedbacks which then make the change extremely large.
I'm not sure if thats what you were asking about, but he did bring up a few interesting responses about the emails and the ETS/Cap and Trade.
Video: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv)
Transcript:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm)
Tronsky
-
Funny. This graph is a three run GCM (Global Climate Model) with the observed real-world readings in red. (Meaning it was run three times and mated with observed measurements) It seems pretty close.
(http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/hansen%20original%20gwdebate.jpg)
scenario c is the only close one.
why is there 3 scenarios? what is the reason for that?
-
I saw an interview with Dr James Hansen last night who bought up an interesting point about an amplifying effect brought on by ice melting etc.
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well that's what makes climate a really dangerous situation, because of the inertia of the system. It takes the ocean a long time to warm up, it's four kilometres deep, and it takes icesheets a long time to get started to move, they're very thick and have a lot of inertia.
The problem is that as these changes begin to occur, and they are beginning to occur - Greenland is losing ice faster and faster and Antarctica is beginning to lose ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year - as you get to a certain point, you can get to a point where the dynamics of the system begins to take over.
If the icesheets begin to collapse, by that time it's too late. You've passed the tipping point and the icesheet is going to end up in the ocean. So, that's one of the tipping points. Another one is methane hydrates. We're beginning to see methane bubble out of the tundra as it's melting.
There's a lot more methane hydrates on continental shelves. As the ocean warms that methane hydrate can also begin to release methane, which is a very strong greenhouse gas and can cause amplifying feedback which makes the global warming much larger.
And this is not idle speculation, because we can look at the history of the earth. And in past global warming events we have seen those kind of amplifying feedbacks which then make the change extremely large.
I'm not sure if thats what you were asking about, but he did bring up a few interesting responses about the emails and the ETS/Cap and Trade.
Video: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv)
Transcript:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm)
Tronsky
greenland is losing ice now.
30 years ago, it gained it.
30 years from now, it'll more than likely gain back what it's losing right now.
\
the wheels on the bus go round and round
the cycles of the earth go round and round.
-
No what you have done is given part of the data........ the part that suits your needs........ I told you where to go to find the "up-to-date" station readings............ you want to cite information that is in the past and relate it to current today data......... doesnt work that way...... in case you didnt see the </sarcasm> tag....... your mentor is a fool if he thinks 1965 science or even pre-1987 science which you seem to want to rely on is proof enough to yell the sky is falling today....... you have to take the data in its ENTIRETY (none of this "we are scientists so we can omit this and nobody will know" crap)...... then form a pattern based on ALL the data........ something you obviously cannot grasp
GLOSS has readings as current as you want them......... not ending in 2006 like the alarmists want to use......... thats because 2006-2009 shows a decline in sea levels......... lets throw that data out...... dont need that....... doesnt help our cause
when you add 2006-2009 numbers to the trend........ it shows steadying to a minor increase as I mentioned earlier an inch or few over the next 100 years
another pretty picture you posted...... the source has been taken down thats shown on it......... you are aware of course that NASA is currently being sued by one for fudging their climate modeling numbers and destroying the data to avoid the FOIA right? just read that last week myself so you may not have had the chance to catch that little tidbit yet.......... certainly gave me a chuckle in light of the other crap goin on in the GW farce
interestingly have you gone to GISS and read their methodology for analysis? they actually state right on their site that they modify their data to fit their model
-
of course this is why I originally left this conversation and will now do so again........
alarmists wont let the facts get in the way of their opinions.......
better buy a special hat and a heavy duty umbrella........ the sky is falling :noid
-
here's the problem as i see it.
those of us with our beliefs have them, and personal and local experience to go with.
"scientists" who are trying to convince us that global warming is man made have an agenda. they get more grants, as long as they continue to keep people convinced in it.
large corporations see a pot of gold in this stuff, and jump on the bandwagon, throwing in their muscle, and weight. they can and WILL make more money than anyone can imagine on this crap.
"scientists" who are trying to convince us that global warming is not man made also have their agenda. while not as big as those trying to prove it is man made, they will continue to get grants from someone.
there's not enough money to be made if the theory is disproved, so they don't get the corporations on board, and don't pull the weight they otherwise could.
the thing we all have to remember, is that while it may be warming in region "A", it is cooling in region "B". chances are good that region "B" just finished a warming cycle, just as "A" just finished a cooling cycle.
this is normal. it has, and always will happen. there is nothing the human race can do to speed it up, there is nothign the human race can do to slow or stop it.
sea levels? same thing. if they're rising in region "A", chances are they're receding in "B".
remember...the earth doesn't rotate perfectly on its axis. it "wobbles". this can and will cause these types of changes, along with other factors.
if any of you have ever watched discovery green(i was channel surfing), there was a show where the discovery channel is sponsering ideas to slow down global warming. this is clue #1 there's a problem. they would not involve themselves if there wasn't a LOT of money to be made off of this.
some of the ideas? THESE are truly scary.
1) load trillions of tiny mirrors on a space ship, and blast em into outer space. they'll reflect sunlight away from the planet, or some of them being prism type lenses, they'll "bend" the suns energy, deflecting it around the earth.
2) run unmaned ocean liners about the seas, blasting a mist(creatred from sea water) pretty much creating a sort of cloud, again, blocking the suns energy from reaching us.
3) sea tubes. these are "wave" powered, go 1,000 ft deep into the ocean. they;re supposed to bring plankton to the surface. this almost makes sense, as i think plankton absorbs more carbon dioxide than trees and plants do.
my point is who are the effin loons that want to deflect the suns energy from our planet??? we NEED its energy. are these nutballs trying to create an endless winter??
the problem with these ideas, once again, is that corporations are looking at these things, as a way to make money. money from something that is not a problem to begin with.
do you all realize that co is MUCH more dangerous than co2, right? co2 is heavier than air. it does not go up into the atmosphere. co on the other hand is lighter, and can.
read this page.
http://www.dupagehealth.org/health_alert/co2_alert.html
back yet? cool. now, by that, realize that co will kill you more quickly, and insidiously than co2.
after you realize that, then realize that nox is 10 times more deadly than co.
i wish i had the answers, but i don't.
what i DO know, is that the weather here where i live has remained mostly unchanged for as long as i can remember. i'm 47. the biggest change i've noticed, is that it never got warm enough for me to run my a/c this past summer. in fact, i only had to open my windows to be comfortable.
so....all of you....forget the data, because both sides really only present us with things that favor what they want it to favor.
look back, if you've lived in your area for a long time. was the weather noticably different 20 years ago? 30?
we can come up with our own conclusions right here if everyone is honest in their answers, as there's people all over the world reading these threads.
i'd bet that our conclusions are much different than what out "scientists" would like them to be.
my brother moved to central florida when he was 18. he's now 45. he says that the weather there is the same as when he moved there.
-
Anderson Cooper just told me that he visited the Ice cap and it is in fact melting. The fact that I did not see a woman in the interview leads me to believe that those guys were rollin around creating unatural friction that has melted the caps.
We need to stop those flamers from melting the caps.
-
Viperius:
"What about the rest of the 4.54 billion years into the past, a chart with a mere 120 years"
Where was civilization in the past billions of years. Wait a minute, it's only some 10.000 years old! And modern times some mere 100 years.
Trust me, civilization would quickly collapse if you'd give it some jurassic weather :D
-
Viperius:
"What about the rest of the 4.54 billion years into the past, a chart with a mere 120 years"
Where was civilization in the past billions of years. Wait a minute, it's only some 10.000 years old! And modern times some mere 100 years.
Trust me, civilization would quickly collapse if you'd give it some jurassic weather :D
Your whole argument is based on that human civilization has caused this warming when all data from the past (and not just a 100years) show that CO2 levels have and will always fluctuate, its a very cheap trick to take 120years and go look it goes up because of us, while ignoring the huge spikes that happened over the last billion years.
Humans account for 0,0019% of all the CO2 today in other words 99.9981% is out of our control. Climate changes as it did for billion of years and it will continue to change till the Sun ends it all in a few billion years when it consumes earth before dieing.
And besides if politicians and their lobbist friends really wanted to make a difference they would immediately stop all deforestation and other things that really mess up our environment but that wouldnt fill their pockets.
I can't wait for the next big profit scheme were they will probably tell us that we have to stop the tectonic plates from shifting or some other BS.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/Sx76KzKJlfI/AAAAAAAAEzQ/6dHucnfeJGw/s400/moncton2.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/Sx76pixVFqI/AAAAAAAAEzY/mb19kj01IIo/s1600-h/moncton3.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/SxqtBKvSrqI/AAAAAAAAExA/1Kmmz4wNyWc/s400/Here+is+what+happens+with+more+CO2.jpg)
-
What is the deal with the recent media blitz that is pro global warming?
I just sat through a segment on CNN that was full of so many blatant lies that it couldn't even be considered journalism.
Is there some vote coming up?
Whos agenda is getting shoved down the craw of the masses?
-
Hunt up the oldest person you can find and ask them. :D I dont care to answer and get banned. :devil
...but to anyone that lived through the last seventy years or so it would be obvious.
-
What is the deal with the recent media blitz that is pro global warming?
I just sat through a segment on CNN that was full of so many blatant lies that it couldn't even be considered journalism.
Is there some vote coming up?
Whos agenda is getting shoved down the craw of the masses?
Whoever wants to establish a world government and control the entire world. I'm confident in my view of who is behind all this but I know it wouldn't sit well with the general crowd here. What goes on with the GW issue today runs through the entire society of the entire western world. GW is not the only lie they mislead the people with. It all revolves around control and money is today the most important means of controlling people, more so than ever before. We are all caged up and unable to ever gain the power and leverage to be a threat to these elitists. They have during the course of a couple hundred years secured their position at the top and built a fortress of lies and even a legislation to support them. Even a good portion of our tax money go to these people. Nothing will remove this entity short of a full scale revolution to root out the problem.
-
I saw an interview with Dr James Hansen last night who bought up an interesting point about an amplifying effect brought on by ice melting etc.
JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, well that's what makes climate a really dangerous situation, because of the inertia of the system. It takes the ocean a long time to warm up, it's four kilometres deep, and it takes icesheets a long time to get started to move, they're very thick and have a lot of inertia.
The problem is that as these changes begin to occur, and they are beginning to occur - Greenland is losing ice faster and faster and Antarctica is beginning to lose ice at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometres per year - as you get to a certain point, you can get to a point where the dynamics of the system begins to take over.
If the icesheets begin to collapse, by that time it's too late. You've passed the tipping point and the icesheet is going to end up in the ocean. So, that's one of the tipping points. Another one is methane hydrates. We're beginning to see methane bubble out of the tundra as it's melting.
There's a lot more methane hydrates on continental shelves. As the ocean warms that methane hydrate can also begin to release methane, which is a very strong greenhouse gas and can cause amplifying feedback which makes the global warming much larger.
And this is not idle speculation, because we can look at the history of the earth. And in past global warming events we have seen those kind of amplifying feedbacks which then make the change extremely large.
I'm not sure if thats what you were asking about, but he did bring up a few interesting responses about the emails and the ETS/Cap and Trade.
Video: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/lateline/video/podcast/r482937_2469107.wmv)
Transcript:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm)
Tronsky
Yes...but he doesn't address my basic, seemingly EASY to answer question: HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?
-
realclimate.org is basically a mouthpiece for the CRU (check the emails).
For the otherside of the coin try http://camirror.wordpress.com/
Well the data sources are available in there: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/)
Both raw and processed data is freely available. Same thing goes for the climate models, you can get the source code for them and really check out if the models are somehow rigged for false results.
Also if you believe those who say that the CO2 has no effect and actually is good for plants, I suggest that you check out these six simple steps just why the CO2 poses a problem: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/)
If you don't like to read too much then I can suggest to watch this video lecture series: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html (http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html)
It is a class for non-science majors in the University of Chicago and ran by Professor David Archer. You can also find his email address there if you got some questions or think that he got some facts wrong.
-
Yes...but he doesn't address my basic, seemingly EASY to answer question: HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?
Here's an article which in some way answers to that: http://science.howstuffworks.com/global-warming.htm/printable (http://science.howstuffworks.com/global-warming.htm/printable)
Pay attention especially to this part:
t's also important to understand that even small changes in climate can have major effects. When scientists talk about "the Ice Age," you probably envision the world frozen, covered with snow and suffering from frigid temperatures. In fact, during the last ice age (ice ages recur roughly every 50,000 to 100,000 years), the earth's average temperature was only 5 Celsius degrees cooler than modern temperature averages [Source: NASA].
Ice age and only five degrees of difference. It surely does not sound much, but the effects are huge. If you wonder how much ice there exactly was, the wikipedia has an article about ice ages and also illustrations of the ice coverages.
There are also some diagrams of temperature variations and from those you can see that the variations are not very big. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age)
-
Your whole argument is based on that human civilization has caused this warming when all data from the past (and not just a 100years) show that CO2 levels have and will always fluctuate, its a very cheap trick to take 120years and go look it goes up because of us, while ignoring the huge spikes that happened over the last billion years.
Humans account for 0,0019% of all the CO2 today in other words 99.9981% is out of our control. Climate changes as it did for billion of years and it will continue to change till the Sun ends it all in a few billion years when it consumes earth before dieing.
And besides if politicians and their lobbist friends really wanted to make a difference they would immediately stop all deforestation and other things that really mess up our environment but that wouldnt fill their pockets.
I can't wait for the next big profit scheme were they will probably tell us that we have to stop the tectonic plates from shifting or some other BS.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/Sx76KzKJlfI/AAAAAAAAEzQ/6dHucnfeJGw/s400/moncton2.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/Sx76pixVFqI/AAAAAAAAEzY/mb19kj01IIo/s1600-h/moncton3.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MAIDScDNy6I/SxqtBKvSrqI/AAAAAAAAExA/1Kmmz4wNyWc/s400/Here+is+what+happens+with+more+CO2.jpg)
You missed my point. My point is that we have been so fortunate to live and develop in very gentle atmosphere in the last 10.000 years or so, compared to millions of years before. And now in the last 100 years or so, we've been making a mess of things. Not all co2, the whole co2 screaming actually blurs our some really serious things.
As for the co2 being plantfood, you are not telling me any news. It is after all used for instance in greenhouse growing. An old classmate of mine is a greenhouse farmer, and told me that when we get a good breeze from the mainland of Europe, he can turn off the co2 flow....
-
What is the deal with the recent media blitz that is pro global warming?
I just sat through a segment on CNN that was full of so many blatant lies that it couldn't even be considered journalism.
Is there some vote coming up?
Whos agenda is getting shoved down the craw of the masses?
BBC America's world news tonight is doing the same crap.
-
Yes...but he doesn't address my basic, seemingly EASY to answer question: HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?
it doesn't/
-
You missed my point. My point is that we have been so fortunate to live and develop in very gentle atmosphere in the last 10.000 years or so, compared to millions of years before. And now in the last 100 years or so, we've been making a mess of things. Not all co2, the whole co2 screaming actually blurs our some really serious things.
Quite true unfortunately. Again I post more videos :) Here is an excellent and very beautifully made documentary movie called HOME - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU)
It is not that much related to global warming or to CO2, but to the environment in general and does a great job illustrating how dependant we really are of a low cost, easy to get energy source called oil. I can recommend this video just for its really nice nature scenes.
-
co2 is heavier than air. it does not rise. there are much much more deadly gases than co2.
nox
co
-
Quite true unfortunately. Again I post more videos :) Here is an excellent and very beautifully made documentary movie called HOME - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU)
It is not that much related to global warming or to CO2, but to the environment in general and does a great job illustrating how dependant we really are of a low cost, easy to get energy source called oil. I can recommend this video just for its really nice nature scenes.
:aok for that ;)
-
LOL millions of years
Heres one for ya. IF the sun is unsing energy, therfore it is getting smaller and losing heat, getting cooler. That means
that the sun uses to be bigger and put off more heat and energy. If you go back millions of years you get a sun that is so hot that it would have fried the whole experiment. LOL YOU even say it only has to be 5 degrees to make a difference.
How hot would it be if you went back hundreds of millions of years. :neener:
-
:huh
Sonicblu, I think it would do you good to do basic some reading about the sun and stars in general. You can start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun)
Pay special attention to the chapter "Life Cycle".
-
How can free floating North Polar ice melting rise sea levels? (Try dropping an ice cube into a glass of water, see what happens.)
South Polar ice is melting on the West side, increasing on the East side.
The GW fingerprint (heating in lower/mid atmosphere) is missing according to latest satellite data.
This is one point which I'd like to comment. The north polar ice cap is indeed mostly a freely floating and if it melts it does not add to the sea level directly (just stops reflecting the heat coming from the sun). But what you missed is the ice in Greenland, which is mostly over ground. To see what is going on there, all you need to do is to give keywords "greenland ice" to Google and check out the links.
Here are some of them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/01/sermilik-fjord-greenland-global-warming (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/01/sermilik-fjord-greenland-global-warming)
The wall of ice that rises behind Sermilik fjord stretches for 1,500 miles (2,400km) from north to south and smothers 80% of this country. It has been frozen for 3m years. Now it is melting, far faster than the climate models predicted and far more decisively than any political action to combat our changing climate. If the Greenland ice sheet disappeared sea levels around the world would rise by seven metres, as 10% of the world's fresh water is currently frozen here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8357537.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8357537.stm)
The Greenland ice sheet is losing its mass faster than in previous years and making an increasing contribution to sea level rise, a study has confirmed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427354.100-greenland-ice-loss-behind-a-sixth-of-sealevel-rise.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427354.100-greenland-ice-loss-behind-a-sixth-of-sealevel-rise.html)
GREENLAND lost 1500 cubic kilometres of ice between 2000 and 2008, making it responsible for one-sixth of global sea-level rise. Even worse, there are signs that the rate of ice loss is increasing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092741.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612092741.htm)
The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected, according to a new study led by a University of Alaska Fairbanks researcher and published in the journal Hydrological Processes.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/14/sea-level-rise-greenland-ice-sheet-melting/ (http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/14/sea-level-rise-greenland-ice-sheet-melting/)
The eastern United States must plan on the very real possibility that total sea level rise by 2100 will exceed 6 feet on our current emissions path. Sadly, the Washington Post got the only story half right.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3606 (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3606)
What might at first be mistaken for a series of images showing the approach of summer on the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in fact shows an increase in melting over the past several years. The three images above show the melting in June of 2001, 2002, and 2003.
These are simple facts observed in Greenland. The is melting there and if it continues, it will be a real problem. I believe it would be far cheaper to try to prevent this than try to cope with it. Especially if the worst case scenarios of 7 meter sea level rise just from the Greenland ice ever come true.
Here is an tool which you use to visualize the effects of sea level rise with different parameters: http://flood.firetree.net/ (http://flood.firetree.net/)
Even a rise of "just" couple of meters will have dramatic effects into most of the most heavily populated areas of the globe.
-
Funny enough do you know why Greenland is called "Green"land? :lol
Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly.
Face it the only thing that is certain is that the climate has always and will always change, trying to stop it is futile.
-
Being a neighbour of Greenland, as well as probably the only one on this thread to have actually been there, I will give to you the most commonly accepted explanation of the name.
The discovery of Greenland took place in the 10th century, and the explorer was Eric the Red, - a Norseman who had (due to trouble) settled in Iceland, then again, (trouble) explored westwards and came across some nice valleys to farm, - on the west coast. He crossed the cape and went further, - I have only been ineastern Greenland.
Anyway, his son then went on to exploer some odd part of the USA/Canada. (Leif the lucky, or Leifur Eiríksson)
Back then, there was this lovely spark of GW,not MMGW. So Greenland back there, as well as Iceland, were even friendlier than today.
The name is belived to be the first big ad-hoax in world's history, since it was after all, a big continent being mostly a mountanious glacial area, and NOT big green grazing grounds. However, Due to the green hillsides in contrast with blue sea and white icebergs, the landscape really gives you a green image....in certain /sailing) times of the year.
BTW the Greenland glacier is very much older.....than civilization.
-
Hi,
I watched this video on youtube a several times, but I still don´t get the point. As for my understanding this kid compares temperatures in urban and rural places. But what is the conclusion? :headscratch:
Regards
SF
-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded
-
:huh
Sonicblu, I think it would do you good to do basic some reading about the sun and stars in general. You can start from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun)
Pay special attention to the chapter "Life Cycle".
How do they know 99% of that is speculation.
I perfer to go with what we know for sure. What is observable.
But lets use your info according to that article and that "belief" about what happened,what was it 4 billion years ago. The Sun was coolder so just reverse the hot for cold accourding to the article it would have been to cold to start the experiment. The only way they can get around the problems they have is giving it more time. hundreds of millions are now billions of years. Its not science because they cant prove it. Its just a Guess.
My point is it doesnt have to be a lot hotter or colder is just has to be a little bit to cause serious problems.
Happy to chat more later
-
Thats why we have to jump on this Gobal WArming thing right away it only takes 5 degrees... for an ice age. :bolt: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Maybe my computer will stop over heating tho :devil
-
This is one point which I'd like to comment. The north polar ice cap is indeed mostly a freely floating and if it melts it does not add to the sea level directly (just stops reflecting the heat coming from the sun). But what you missed is the ice in Greenland, which is mostly over ground. To see what is going on there, all you need to do is to give keywords "greenland ice" to Google and check out the links.
Point taken about the Greenland Ice Sheet. Was originally pointing out that North Polar ice would have no effect on sea level as it is free floating.
So what about the claims that yes the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting around the edges, but over 1500ft it is gaining mass?
Its the hysteria (thankfully not on here) thats bugs me. On the BBC's "Have Your Say" I have seen posts allowed through that blame earthquakes and tsunamis on CC.
Which raw data is on realclimate? They get theirs from the CRU who 'claim' they destroyed ALL their original data back in the 80's?
Is it raw data or their value added data (their term not mine)?
-
Point taken about the Greenland Ice Sheet. Was originally pointing out that North Polar ice would have no effect on sea level as it is free floating.
So what about the claims that yes the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting around the edges, but over 1500ft it is gaining mass?this is what i keep talking about. as it melts in one place, it freezes in another.
Its the hysteria (thankfully not on here) thats bugs me. On the BBC's "Have Your Say" I have seen posts allowed through that blame earthquakes and tsunamis on CC.
Which raw data is on realclimate? They get theirs from the CRU who 'claim' they destroyed ALL their original data back in the 80's?
Is it raw data or their value added data (their term not mine)?
-
So how long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere?
At first the IPCC said 200 years.
Then in 1997 revised it down to 100 years.
Peer reviewed ( gotta love it ) studies -
(http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi)
Very important part of the jigsaw!
So where does the IPCC figure (as of 1997) of 100 come from???? Any takers????
-
So how long does CO2 stay in the atmosphere?
At first the IPCC said 200 years.
Then in 1997 revised it down to 100 years.
Peer reviewed ( gotta love it ) studies -
(http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi)
Very important part of the jigsaw!
So where does the IPCC figure (as of 1997) of 100 come from???? Any takers????
well....it DOESN'T stay in the atmosphere. it gets converted to o2 by trees, and pretty much anythign green that grows. plankton too.
now here's the kicker.
co2 does not, and cannot go to the upper atmosphere. it weighs more than air. unless of course the laws of physics have changed, and no one told us? :D
-
There is a large group of people in the world,and always has been,that feel inspired to try to make things better for their fellow man. There is any of a zillion causes out their. Many are legit,many more are just others taking advantage of this groups naivety,and willingness to jump on the bandwagon. While many may have started out with good intentions,they devolved into an elitist mentality that "they know whats best."
The followers of this Climategate will never admit they were taken for a ride by others making billions in profits from their gullibility. Its just not going to happen. They wont look at the data no matter HOW you present it. You can show them tree rings from hundreds of years,you can show them ice cores,you can show how the rural data has been shamelessly dropped from the data used to show temp levels,you can show them e mails and huge holes in the data stream that showed a downward trend in temps. None of it will matter to them.
-
There is a large group of people in the world,and always has been,that feel inspired to try to make things better for their fellow man. There is any of a zillion causes out their. Many are legit,many more are just others taking advantage of this groups naivety,and willingness to jump on the bandwagon. While many may have started out with good intentions,they devolved into an elitist mentality that "they know whats best."
The followers of this Climategate will never admit they were taken for a ride by others making billions in profits from their gullibility. Its just not going to happen. They wont look at the data no matter HOW you present it. You can show them tree rings from hundreds of years,you can show them ice cores,you can show how the rural data has been shamelessly dropped from the data used to show temp levels,you can show them e mails and huge holes in the data stream that showed a downward trend in temps. None of it will matter to them.
there's only one thing that's needed to show them.
look out the window.
-
Another day goes by, and no response from the MMGW peanut gallery:
"HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?"
-
Another day goes by, and no response from the MMGW peanut gallery:
"HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?"
it doesn't
-
Another day goes by, and no response from the MMGW peanut gallery:
"HOW DOES 3/4 OF ONE DEGREE CENTIGRADE OVER 100 YEARS MAKE THE ICE CAPS MELT?"
Because 3/4 C is an "average". Meaning some places show extreme change, while others don't. The number is an average taken from the system, not an average applied to the system.
-
CC that, so how many degrees does it take to melt said ice caps?
-
CC that, so how many degrees does it take to melt said ice caps?
more than 3/4.
on a related note.......check this out.
i guess things really are getting hotter, since this thing isn't melting.
http://news.aol.com/article/giant-iceberg-heading-toward-australia/809967?icid=webmail|wbml-aol|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fgiant-iceberg-heading-toward-australia%2F809967
-
Anyone notice how Moray completely skipped Kev367th post?
(Quite frankly just like he has done with many other posts.)
For the record I agree with DrDea.....
Strip
-
here's the problem as i see it.
those of us with our beliefs have them, and personal and local experience to go with.
"scientists" who are trying to convince us that global warming is man made have an agenda. they get more grants, as long as they continue to keep people convinced in it.
large corporations see a pot of gold in this stuff, and jump on the bandwagon, throwing in their muscle, and weight. they can and WILL make more money than anyone can imagine on this crap.
"scientists" who are trying to convince us that global warming is not man made also have their agenda. while not as big as those trying to prove it is man made, they will continue to get grants from someone.
there's not enough money to be made if the theory is disproved, so they don't get the corporations on board, and don't pull the weight they otherwise could.
the thing we all have to remember, is that while it may be warming in region "A", it is cooling in region "B". chances are good that region "B" just finished a warming cycle, just as "A" just finished a cooling cycle.
this is normal. it has, and always will happen. there is nothing the human race can do to speed it up, there is nothign the human race can do to slow or stop it.
sea levels? same thing. if they're rising in region "A", chances are they're receding in "B".
remember...the earth doesn't rotate perfectly on its axis. it "wobbles". this can and will cause these types of changes, along with other factors.
if any of you have ever watched discovery green(i was channel surfing), there was a show where the discovery channel is sponsering ideas to slow down global warming. this is clue #1 there's a problem. they would not involve themselves if there wasn't a LOT of money to be made off of this.
some of the ideas? THESE are truly scary.
1) load trillions of tiny mirrors on a space ship, and blast em into outer space. they'll reflect sunlight away from the planet, or some of them being prism type lenses, they'll "bend" the suns energy, deflecting it around the earth.
2) run unmaned ocean liners about the seas, blasting a mist(creatred from sea water) pretty much creating a sort of cloud, again, blocking the suns energy from reaching us.
3) sea tubes. these are "wave" powered, go 1,000 ft deep into the ocean. they;re supposed to bring plankton to the surface. this almost makes sense, as i think plankton absorbs more carbon dioxide than trees and plants do.
my point is who are the effin loons that want to deflect the suns energy from our planet??? we NEED its energy. are these nutballs trying to create an endless winter??
the problem with these ideas, once again, is that corporations are looking at these things, as a way to make money. money from something that is not a problem to begin with.
do you all realize that co is MUCH more dangerous than co2, right? co2 is heavier than air. it does not go up into the atmosphere. co on the other hand is lighter, and can.
read this page.
http://www.dupagehealth.org/health_alert/co2_alert.html
back yet? cool. now, by that, realize that co will kill you more quickly, and insidiously than co2.
after you realize that, then realize that nox is 10 times more deadly than co.
i wish i had the answers, but i don't.
what i DO know, is that the weather here where i live has remained mostly unchanged for as long as i can remember. i'm 47. the biggest change i've noticed, is that it never got warm enough for me to run my a/c this past summer. in fact, i only had to open my windows to be comfortable.
so....all of you....forget the data, because both sides really only present us with things that favor what they want it to favor.
look back, if you've lived in your area for a long time. was the weather noticably different 20 years ago? 30?
we can come up with our own conclusions right here if everyone is honest in their answers, as there's people all over the world reading these threads.
i'd bet that our conclusions are much different than what out "scientists" would like them to be.
my brother moved to central florida when he was 18. he's now 45. he says that the weather there is the same as when he moved there.
like this one too?
-
Concerning sea level rise: Blame the system of measurement.
-
CC that, so how many degrees does it take to melt said ice caps?
Just staying like it is will do nicely with a good part of them....
-
Seems like most of the questions from guys here who do not believe that the climate change is happening or that man could somehow affect to it are basically the same frequently asked questions as always.
BBC has collected the answers to these top frequently asked questions, you can check them out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm)
Also this blog with its list covers more points and questions than ever could be done in this forum, this is something which I really recommend to read:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php)
edit: typo
-
Whoa! Good links here mate ;)
-
Seems like most of the questions from guys here who do not believe that the climate change is happening or that man could somehow affect to it are basically the same frequently asked questions as always.
BBC has collected the answers to these top frequently asked questions, you can check them out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm)
Also this blog with its list covers more points and questions than ever could be done in this forum, this is something which I really recommend to read:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php)
edit: typo
Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.
Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.
(If it works like they say water vapor alone would cause runaway global heating and the planet would be consumed)
-
Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.
Speaking of trust, this is an excellent blog dealing with just that and the human psychology in general:
http://climatedenial.org/ (http://climatedenial.org/)
I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.
-
Yes very CLEVER but it does not refute facts.
-
I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.
These Scientists changed data to fit their goals.They destroyed data that didnt.They mercilessly attacked those that opposed them.They even discuss it in their e mails.Swiftboating? please. By the very definition of science,they are charlatans.
-
NASA is next on the Climategate list I bet.
-
Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.
Cleverness and wisdom are two distinct characteristics also and though the BBC is clever they fail at wisdom. Our scientists have let us all down and now you cant find a single one you can trust.
(If it works like they say water vapor alone would cause runaway global heating and the planet would be consumed)
actually, water vapor could absorb heat. ever notice in the summer time, when it rains, the temp drops?
now of course, water vapor can also release heat too............
if anyone ever watches discovery green? there was a show on there that'd make ya think these scientists are romper room rejects.
lessee.......ideas to stop what's happening.
1) launch a rocket with trillions of little prismatic lenses....they'll bend the sunlight around the planet. :rofl
2) unmanned ocean liners cruising the oceans spraying a mist of ocean water into the air, creating a cloud. :rofl
3) lets give the snow and ice a blankee........ :rofl
in all honesty, i can't believe that these people don't realize this is all a natural occurrence, and it will continue on its current path regardless of what we do.
even worse, i can't believe so many of the masses fall for this bologna, especially in light of the doubt that's been cast.
-
Speaking of trust, this is an excellent blog dealing with just that and the human psychology in general:
http://climatedenial.org/ (http://climatedenial.org/)
I recommend especially the first two entries named "SWIFTBOATING THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" and "WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE". I think the man has some very good insights there.
how come it's "climate change" now? and not "global warming"? seems they had to change it to keep this going.
-
NASA is next on the Climategate list I bet.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-Declares-Climate-Dissent-Scientific-analysis-must-conclude-the-basic-theory-wrong
or here's a blogger.....
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/1/46C08C9809474F01/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
-
Ha! I love the bit about water vapor does this but without clouds... as if they are denying clouds and water vapor are two forms of the same thing.
water vapour is the gaseous phase of water, clouds are an aerosol of the liquid phase. like ice is the solid phase. the phases all have very different properties.
there's only one thing that's needed to show them.
look out the window.
this will prove nothing, your extrapolationg from 1 datapoint. put it this way, a customer brings in his camaro and says its running a bit rough. I'm guessing that if you hear it idling for a few mins, then take it for a test drive and listen to it under a range of loads and rpms you could make a decent guess as to the problem. otoh if they play you a recording of 0.01s of it idling you wont be able to diagnose the problem.
if you have a couple of thousand people spread around the world looking out their window, making consistent observations for 500,000+ years you would have a pretty good idea of the effects of climate change. this is the kind of data that combining recent data from met stations through paleoclimatology and a bunch of other sources in between attempts to reconstruct.
our climate is an extremely complex dynamic system, research teams with 100s of years combined experience in the field cant agree on how the system works as a whole, trying to second guess their findings using your own personal experience wont get you very far. put another way, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :)
-
water vapour is the gaseous phase of water, clouds are an aerosol of the liquid phase. like ice is the solid phase. the phases all have very different properties.
this will prove nothing, your extrapolationg from 1 datapoint. put it this way, a customer brings in his camaro and says its running a bit rough. I'm guessing that if you hear it idling for a few mins, then take it for a test drive and listen to it under a range of loads and rpms you could make a decent guess as to the problem. otoh if they play you a recording of 0.01s of it idling you wont be able to diagnose the problem.
if you have a couple of thousand people spread around the world looking out their window, making consistent observations for 500,000+ years you would have a pretty good idea of the effects of climate change. this is the kind of data that combining recent data from met stations through paleoclimatology and a bunch of other sources in between attempts to reconstruct.
our climate is an extremely complex dynamic system, research teams with 100s of years combined experience in the field cant agree on how the system works as a whole, trying to second guess their findings using your own personal experience wont get you very far. put another way, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :)
my point was that we all realize there are changes. they are not caused by us though. they are natural occurrences :aok.
-
As far as glacial ice recession....
Wasn't it just a few (10-20?) thousand years ago that the Great Lakes were covered in ice flows?
My point being recession in a natural event and will continue its own course.
Strip
-
These Scientists changed data to fit their goals.They destroyed data that didnt.
So what data are you exactly referring to? When you answer, could you please provide a direct link to the source of these claims?
If you are talking about the emails hacked from the East Anglia University, I have not so far seen or heard of a single data set, which would have been "changed to fit their goals". Especially no evidence of such has been found to my knowledge. So far what I have seen are few lines of text quotes taken from a decade worth of emails and a piece of Fortran code that seems to have values designed to generate results for the so called 'hockey stick' graph. But when you actually read the code, those values are not used anywhere.
But in a more general point of view if we assume that the data is actually wrong, do you mean that if one data is not correct then everything else is wrong too? Are you saying the climate is not in fact changing? Or pehaps that the greenhouse effect is not existing? Or that CO2 is not in fact a major player in greenhouse effect? If so, I would be more than happy to see the evidence of it.
Just for the record, I really really wish the research would indeed be wrong about the climate change/global warming. It would mean that I could keep on with my snowboarding hobby here in Finland and in the Alps, because if the common predictions are true it will be the end of winters here and there. Heck, most of the ski centers in the Alps are already in serious trouble because of the lack of snow and melting glaciers.
-
OK "climate guys" I have a question. Why did they adjust the temp data upwards for weather data stations that are located in highly populated areas? Wouldn't common sense dictate that if you have a weather station located in an area with a high number of artificial heat sources to compensate for that by lowering the temp data?
That's not what they did though is it? Nope they took data from weather stations in high population areas with large numbers of artificial heat sources and adjusted the temp data higher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04&feature=player_embedded)
This kid gets it, wonder why so many grown adults don't? Pride maybe? To afraid to admit they've been duped and don't want to look stupid?
Kinda makes sense huh? If you live in a city surrounded by millions of heat emitters i.e. cars, trucks, buildings, air conditioner units, and people, the ambient air temp is going to be higher, yet out in the country less than 100km away from all those cities the average tempurature over the last 100 years hasn't changed at all. That's hard data this kid looked up and compared. Also his data timeline regarding urban areas tracks right along with urban growth.
So when these climate "scientists" use urban temp data, then artificialy adjst it upwards, they're manipulating the data to get the dramatic rise in "global" temps that isn't accurate at all when compared to rural temps.
-
Hornet33, here is the link to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies surface temperature analysis data set. From there you can find descriptions how the urban heat is taken into account. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
This is a quote from there:
The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
So as I read that, the urban data is indeed handled pretty well.
Edit: And of course you have to remember that there's a whole lot of additional ways to measure the temperature change. Just name a few - satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions and permafrost melt.
-
OK so explain WHY the rural temps have not increased at all over the last 100 years. Urban ambient temps have risen which is to be expected when you put that many heat sorces in a confined area. I also understand taking 4-5 stations in an urban area and averaging their temps to get an "overall" average for that urban area. Any manipulation of the data should have STOPPED right there, but instead they decided to "adjust" those averages upwards on temp data that was ALREADY artificialy elevated.
Now you also just touched on the whole "glaciers are melting OH NOEEEESSSSSS" that proves man made gloabl warming. OK just for giggles, explain what happened to the 1/2+ mile tall glacier that used to sit on top of what is now New York state a couple million years ago. There weren't any humans driving around in SUV's or flying all over the place in commercial aircraft back then, yet a glacier that used to cover a large part of North America disappeared. There is AMPLE geological evidence to prove it was there.
Based on that, and tons of other evidence, it's safe to assume that the earth has repeatedly gone through heating and cooling trends. Less than 1000 years ago the earth was in a warming period, then rapidly moved into a cooling period, hence the medieval warming period, then the little ice age.
I'm an electronic technician/engineer by training so I have a good understanding of data collection, trends, and methods to analyze data. I've looked at tons of data regarding this topic from lots of differant sources, and so far I've found nothing to convince me that humans are causing the climate to change in any radical way.
My biggest problem with the whole "man made global warming" crap is that it's nothing but a scam for a select few to get rich, gain power and control over a large portion of the population. Carbon Credits?? Really?? Now don't get me wrong and think I'm someone who doesn't care about the enviroment because I do. I'm an outdoorsman. I love to hunt, fish, go camping and like being outside. I think there are plenty of things we as a species can do to "improve" the planet. Recycling is high on that list, and over the last 20 years it's caught on and as an industry it continues to grow and does good work at reducing polution and renewing our resources. I'm also all for finding renewable energy sources, and when the market starts to demand it, as it's starting to, more and more smart people are going to work the problem and develop solutions, BUT the government CANNOT mandate inovation for the sake of political gain. That never works and only causes problems, yet that's what is happening with this meeting in Denmark, Cap & Trade, and this latest bombshell from the EPA. I have a problem with politicians and scientists manipulating a natural cycle of earths climate continuing on it's way of change like it's always done, and then telling me I need to be taxed, controled, and forced to comply so "we can stop climate change".
We can't stop it, we can't control it, we can't cap global temps (yes that was a proposal from one of the countries over there, cap global temps to 2 degrees and not let it go any higher). How do you do that? Tell Mother Nature, "Bad girl, you can't get any hotter."?
All we can do is keep the place clean. If your worried about CO2, plant some trees, you know Mother Natures natural CO2 scrubbers/fliters?
All in all though, I believe the hysteria concerning global warming is way over the top, and anyone who buys into it, and thinks we can somehow control the eviroment, is out of their mind. We don't control the enviroment, it controls us. Always has, always will. If it's going to get hotter, it's going to no matter we try and do. Same if it gets colder. We'll either adapt, or we wont, but throwing money at a problem tha isn't really a problem is just dumb.
-
Heck, most of the ski centers in the Alps are already in serious trouble because of the lack of snow and melting glaciers.
Sorry but no, I see the Alps every morning when I look out of the windows and their as white as they have always been. The ski centers are open for business.
-
Sorry but no, I see the Alps every morning when I look out of the windows and their as white as they have always been. The ski centers are open for business.
:rofl
-
CARBON CREDITS have nothing to do with helping the environment. they allow someone to make money on somethjing that otherwise they couldn't. another tax sort ofg.
-
Sorry but no, I see the Alps every morning when I look out of the windows and their as white as they have always been. The ski centers are open for business.
strange, I worked near Vevey a few years back and there was definitely more snow on the Alps when I arrived in April than when I left in June ...
-
strange, I worked near Vevey a few years back and there was definitely more snow on the Alps when I arrived in April than when I left in June ...
Seasons Holmes :) some of the snow melts away during the summer and it comes back in winter. Only the permasnow on the highest peaks stays all year.
Looks like this at the moment:
(http://fotowettbewerb.hispeed.ch/original/195618/berneralpen_panorama/eiger_monch_jungfrau_winter_landschaft.jpg)
-
Sorry but no, I see the Alps every morning when I look out of the windows and their as white as they have always been. The ski centers are open for business.
Excellent :aok
Obviously I can then dismiss all news articles like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19851586/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19851586/) from the recent years as a complete BS. It is also good to know that there is plenty of snow, because I will be spending the February snowboarding there in Sölden. Really looking forward to it :aok
-
Excellent :aok
Obviously I can then dismiss all news articles like this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19851586/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19851586/) from the recent years as a complete BS. It is also good to know that there is plenty of snow, because I will be spending the February snowboarding there in Sölden. Really looking forward to it :aok
well, considering that the majority of the news outlets are biased in some way/shape or form.....yea, ya can dismiss them. :noid :aok
-
actually, ...
They are hinting that if you heat something the heated material adds to the heating? I mean its a little bit like the perpetual engine dont you think? Nonsense.
-
They are hinting that if you heat something the heated material adds to the heating? I mean its a little bit like the perpetual engine dont you think? Nonsense.
the heated material cannot add to its own heating. it can do two things. it can release the heat to another source, or it can retain it.
somewhat unrelated.......how low of a temp can water maintain liquid form.
cfi's should be able to answer this one. :aok
-
How would it benefit MSNBC to report man made global warming as fact?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360460/
GE inks $1.4 billion wind turbine deal
Contract for 338 turbines expected to be the largest ever
NEW YORK - General Electric Co. on Thursday said it has received a $1.4 billion contract to supply wind turbines and related services for a wind farm project that is expected to be the largest ever.
(Msnbc.com is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric). :aok
-
How would it benefit MSNBC to report man made global warming as fact?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360460/
GE inks $1.4 billion wind turbine deal
Contract for 338 turbines expected to be the largest ever
NEW YORK - General Electric Co. on Thursday said it has received a $1.4 billion contract to supply wind turbines and related services for a wind farm project that is expected to be the largest ever.
(Msnbc.com is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric).
follow the money.
-
[soap box]
For me, this whole issue with global warming isn't about whether or not there is 'climate change'. No one is going to stop believing 'something' is happening. There are two schools of thoughts however on this science. You have regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists. I cannot say I have the same respect for climatologists however. Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.
As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers. Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it. You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong. We then get more 'Ah Ha!' science moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences, knowledge, or research, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar and then collaborate to come up with a new theory. We then try to destroy and disprove the new theory - or in most cases, validate the findings using the same methodologies they used in their findings to verify the causation. That is how science works!
Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.
How unscientific indeed.
Another side-bar: isn't it interesting that climate change is about BUYING into new technologies?Buy hybrid cars, buy fluorescent lights? Isn't it amazing that even capitalism has a place in this?
-
[soap box]
For me, this whole issue with global warming isn't about whether or not there is 'climate change'. No one is going to stop believing 'something' is happening. There are two schools of thoughts however on this science. You have regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists. I cannot say I have the same respect for climatologists however. Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.
As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers. Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it. You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong. We then get more 'Ah Ha!' science moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences, knowledge, or research, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar and then collaborate to come up with a new theory. We then try to destroy and disprove the new theory - or in most cases, validate the findings using the same methodologies they used in their findings to verify the causation. That is how science works!
Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.
How unscientific indeed.
Another side-bar: isn't it interesting that climate change is about BUYING into new technologies?Buy hybrid cars, buy fluorescent lights? Isn't it amazing that even capitalism has a place in this?
I agree with you except for one thing. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING TO THE CLIMATOLOGISTS!!! THERE'S NO TIME FOR DEBATE, WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!!! :x At least that's what they want everyone to believe because as long as they can get away with that, they'll continue to get their money.
-
CAP its not about science is the point but it is about abusing science to conjur up a belief system and gain even more power over populations. In fact the very next step will be to control populations through forced abortions and surgical procedures and eventually forced euthanasia in order to 'save the planet.'
-
CAP its not about science is the point but it is about abusing science to conjur up a belief system and gain even more power over populations. In fact the very next step will be to control populations through forced abortions and surgical procedures and eventually forced euthanasia in order to 'save the planet.'
I know........ :aok
-
Looks like this at the moment:
(http://fotowettbewerb.hispeed.ch/original/195618/berneralpen_panorama/eiger_monch_jungfrau_winter_landschaft.jpg)
fantastic :aok really enjoyed my stay in switzerland, if I had to move it would be near the top of my list. I even managed a swim in lac leman, it was ... refreshing :D
-
Greenland ice core RAW data.
Last 600 years - Ooooh look a hockey stick!
(http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png).
But hold on, not so fast - Going back to 800AD, thers the MWP
(http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png)
Back to 8500 years ago - OK, so what is unusual about the warming or cooling then?
(http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png)
-
Seems like the EPA has its own "climate gate" going on also. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) disclosed a report by EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who they hit with a gag order which you can read at http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Followup_Letter_to_EPA_on_Carlin_Report.pdf. You can read his EPA report at http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf
"The principal comments are as follows:
As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of
global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a
scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of
these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data." from page 4 of the report.
Doesn't sound like a consensus even at the EPA.
-
The look of scientist who realize they don't need biodumb...
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/qx17qv.jpg)
-
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ) has a blistering take on all this. Haven't seen him derided as a 'denier', nor have I seen his views challenged. He cannot be explained, so he is ignored. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
a link to his pdf 'Deconstructing Global Warming' http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.
The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."
For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.
There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.
What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA (globally averaged temperature anomaly), to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.
-
You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!
-
You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!
Will we run out before we have other sources that are affordable? Or will we run out of sources we are allowed to use because of alarmist law?
-
You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/unfreezable.html
-
You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!
Oil is one of the excuses but in reality it cannot be shown to even be a problem except through this same form of BAD SCIENCE.
-
Oil is one of the excuses but in reality it cannot be shown to even be a problem except through this same form of BAD SCIENCE.
and if i recall correctly, didn't they do this in 73 or 74? claim we were about to be out of oil?
-
BAD SCIENCE indeed, it doesn't stop there though.
I'd advise everyone with common sense and a level head to be ready for anything in the coming year. Hold on to your hat and pants, the stack is about to be reshuffled. :rock
-
and if i recall correctly, didn't they do this in 73 or 74? claim we were about to be out of oil?
Actually the planet is not ever going to completely run out of oil. As the consumption constantly increases, it will be harder and harder for the producers to meet the growing demand and that will lead to increasing prices. It is simple market economics.
I have no doubt that when this current economic recession starts to clear and and the global economy gets back to the growing trend again the oil prices will hike up again.
-
No Have it is a problem only when refineries are limited in number and when new refineries are forbidden by law or treaty. There is plenty of oil in the Earth right now and plenty of sites that could be producing more oil and the profits from oil sales could be pushing technology research even more than it is... but instead production is being limited and productive wells are not being used or new wells drilled. Why? :bolt:
-
You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!
Necessity is the mother of invention. Have faith...
-
Exactly Stoney, exactly :D
-
Actually the planet is not ever going to completely run out of oil. As the consumption constantly increases, it will be harder and harder for the producers to meet the growing demand and that will lead to increasing prices. It is simple market economics.
I have no doubt that when this current economic recession starts to clear and and the global economy gets back to the growing trend again the oil prices will hike up again.
your first statement above is true. the rest? not so true.
oil is not fossil fuel. it is indeed renewable.
-
Greenland ice core RAW data.
Last 600 years - Ooooh look a hockey stick!
(http://i1006.photobucket.com/albums/af186/Sundowner02/Sun/hockeystickgraph.png)
:D
Regards,
Sun
-
http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacific_Ocean_sea_levels_falling.htm
Hmmm...sea levels FALLING? Dang...they were sposed to be rising....
4 Jul 05 - The tiny country of Tuvalu is not cooperating with global warming models. In the early 1990s, scientists warned that the Pacific coral atoll of nine islands - only 12 feet above sea level at their highest point - would vanish within decades, swamped by rising seas. Sea levels were supposedly rising at the rate of 1.5 inches per year.
Understandably, the residents of Tuvalu were concerned, so Tuvalu's official meteorological agency began measuring sea levels.
Ten years later they were shocked to discover that sea levels had fallen 2.5 inches during that time. Similar sea-level declines have been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands. (London Telegraph, 6 Aug 2000)
Tuvalu somehow “lost” those record, and has started the measurement process again.
Update:
Tuvalu sea levels STILL falling
4 Dec 09 - All this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, says Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, Mörner launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. (italics added)
If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner. His findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
See Rising sea levels 'the greatest lie ever told' (http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_sea_levels_the_greatest_lie_ever_told.htm)
-
Are you sure? They sound more like science fact. These are the facts that NASA put gag orders on their scientists to not alarm the public of global warming.
1) melting polar ice resulting in raising of sea level and cooling of certain water current streams
NASA and NOA and other maritime organizations know about it but will take 2 to 3 centuries to happen
Hollywood make movies on those premises.
2) Carribean Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been recorded with higher water temperature by the scientists
scientists have predicted that more powerful and more frequent hurricanes will result in the next 25 years
3) The quadrupling of world's population to 7 billion currently and projected to 12-14 billion in next 50 years
This along with de-forestation, resources dwindling, and plankton being reduced will lead to problems
a) fresh water and food shortages
b) rising levels of carbon dioxide without enough plants and trees to turn back to oxygen
c) plankton dies and beging the breakdown of marine ecosystems leading to land ecosystem failures
d) goverments will lose all control of social services and control of territories to crime and warlords
These are real world problems happening now in most of 3rd world nations in Africa, Asia, and South America in regards to military dictatorships and ethnic cleansing. These are blueprints to what is yet to come in the next 50 to 100 years unless cheap and re-usable energy sources are discovered. Fossil fuels are now in the category of being "finite" until technology is created to get to the fossil fuels underneath the tundra of Siberia and the continent of Anatartica.
The weather problems associated with global warming are just now being realized. However, we know what needs to be done but it still revolves around one premise. This will happen long after I'm dead, so why should I care? That's the point of view of many people in government who have to worry about re-election.
I, myself, will be dead around 2060 or so. At that time, I'll be 87 years old relying on an oxygen mask. Not for my lungs since I don't smoke. It will be from lack of global oxygen falling to 18% or lower. I'll be eating food that will be processed from non-meat, non-fruit, non-vegetable, and non-dairy sources but from labratory created food to contain protein and carb substances. I'll be running the risk of so called "social programs" to end the life of elderly people to ease the burden on the existing younger population from either government, military, or religious leaders.
Global warming is a problem. Mother nature always finds a way to correct any problems. Humans make too many problems too fast before Mother Earth can fix them.
Then again, this could all be a bunch of hogwash and nothing will happen and I can look forward to chasing the nurses in the retirement home in my levitating chair with thrusters!!!!!!!!
The effect humans have on earth are exteremely small in regards to the big picture. The earth has had many events that dwarf anything humans have done and she keeps on going. Alarmist love pointing at anything they can reap monetary reward from.
-
As the debate rages here.....In the real world...
Both maps are combined land/sea temps... satellite, remote and direct observations
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2009&month=9&ext=gif)
Global Highlights
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th Century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). This was the second warmest September on record, behind 2005, and the 33rd consecutive September with a global temperature above the 20th Century average. The last below-average September occurred in 1976.
* The global land surface temperature for September 2009 was 0.97°C (1.75°F) above the 20th Century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), and ranked as the second warmest September on record, also behind 2005.
* The worldwide ocean temperature tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest September on record, 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th Century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F). Warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures were widespread, particularly in lower latitudes. The near-Antarctic southern ocean and the Gulf of Alaska featured notable cooler-than-average temperatures.
* For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C (58.5°F) was the sixth-warmest January-through-September period on record. This value is 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th Century average.
* A weak El Niño persisted across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during September. Sea surface temperature observations in the equatorial Pacific Ocean during the month remained above average. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2009-2010.
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif)
Global Highlights
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).
* The global land surface temperature for October 2009 was 0.82°C (1.48°F) above the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F), and ranked as the sixth warmest October on record.
* The worldwide ocean temperature was the fifth warmest October on record, with an anomaly of 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average of 15.9°C (60.6°F).
* For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record. This value is 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average.
The 85% of the planet is above average, including oceanic temps (historically lagging).
This with the sun still barely "on". (this solar cycle is disturbingly inactive, and the solar output is way down.)
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2009 total: 259 days (75%)
Since 2004: 770 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
www.spaceweather.com
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&byear=2009&bmonth=1&year=2009&month=9&ext=gif)
-
your first statement above is true. the rest? not so true.
oil is not fossil fuel. it is indeed renewable.
Renewable? If you refer to fossil oil, you'd better get prepared for some patience. Say some odd MILLIONS of years...
(I wonder if you understand at all what I refer to)
-
Renewable? If you refer to fossil oil, you'd better get prepared for some patience. Say some odd MILLIONS of years...
(I wonder if you understand at all what I refer to)
A rather large minority do not believe that oil is rotted dinosaurs. Silly, huh?
-
As the debate rages here.....In the real world...
Both maps are combined land/sea temps... satellite, remote and direct observations
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2009&month=9&ext=gif)(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2009&month=10&ext=gif)
The 85% of the planet is above average, including oceanic temps (historically lagging).
This with the sun still barely "on". (this solar cycle is disturbingly inactive, and the solar output is way down.)
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&byear=2009&bmonth=1&year=2009&month=9&ext=gif)
someone please buy this "scientist" a dictionary so he can lookup the word ANOMALIES.....
then buy him an ink pen........ Im sure his are dry from all the grant applications
-
A rather large minority do not believe that oil is rotted dinosaurs. Silly, huh?
unless all the dinosaurs went to what is now saudi arabia to die.
-
someone please buy this "scientist" a dictionary so he can lookup the word ANOMALIES.....
then buy him an ink pen........ Im sure his are dry from all the grant applications
Seriously...when all you can manage are attacks on me, and no meaningful contribution nor even an attempt to refute my post....you've already lost.
-
someone please buy this "scientist" a dictionary so he can lookup the word ANOMALIES.....
then buy him an ink pen........ Im sure his are dry from all the grant applications
Just so I know I'm understanding the chart correctly... it's pointing out average temperatures for those areas that are anomalies compared to the average temperature from 1971-2000? Or the entire century?
-
lol Wonder what the scare mongers will do when the earth's poles shift. They have in the past.
-
Taking a small section of the world you can take and average temperatures over many different periods and guess what? The anomalies disappear.
Central England Average Temperatures (°C)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Annual Avg
1961 to 1990 3.8 3.8 5.7 7.9 11.2 14.2 16.1 15.8 13.6 10.6 6.6 4.7 9.5
1880 to 2004 3.8 4.1 5.7 8.0 11.3 14.2 16.1 15.7 13.5 10.0 6.5 4.5 9.5
1659 to 2005 3.2 3.8 5.3 7.9 11.2 14.3 16.0 15.6 13.3 9.7 6.0 4.1 9.2
-
Seriously...when all you can manage are attacks on me, and no meaningful contribution nor even an attempt to refute my post....you've already lost.
I do agree with Moray37 on this, although we are on opposite sides reverting to personal insults gets us nowhere.
I just wish there was unadulterated raw data available so that we could see what the 'changes' are that are made to it.
Even GISS has started massaging data - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/)
Buoys - Were orignally showning a temperature decrease, but after deciding the earlier buoys were reading too high and the later buoys too low and, 'adjusting' the data, they now also show a warming (surprise)
-
Alas, in many cases (CRU at the forefront) the original ANALog data covering 150 years, was THROWN away, allegedly in the 80's whilst they were moving, in order to 'save space' Now we have naught but their word, which is obviously in question.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation....
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The only reason we even know about this is Freedom Of Information requests.
-
Seriously...when all you can manage are attacks on me, and no meaningful contribution nor even an attempt to refute my post....you've already lost.
Why do I continually try to have debates with troglodytes?
-
Oh the humanity! :D
-
thanks!!
i couldn't find that. :rofl
-
Oh the humanity! :D
(http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k4a7a43d7f8.jpg)
-
Just so I know I'm understanding the chart correctly... it's pointing out average temperatures for those areas that are anomalies compared to the average temperature from 1971-2000? Or the entire century?
All the charts NOAA puts out there are referenced in two distinct ways. The actual chart itself is contextually referenced to a period of ~20 years (1971-2000) to determine a baseline. The reason this is done is to establish a trend line, to be able to show patterns from future observations. (Deeper historical data sample streams (>40 years and <300) are fraught with issues, and you can't take ice cores from everywhere on the earth) Many were against this particular methodology, because it artificially undercut any "trend line positive warming" because it included the period of 1992-1999, during which rapid intensification of the the temperature anomalies was noted. Many out there will understand that the inclusion of the 1992-2000 period will "shift baselines" due to the inclusion of the especially high 1997-1998-1999 period. The determination made was to use that 1971-2000 time period as a marker to establish a baseline from, because the data was uncorrupted by sampling variance in the past. There are quite a few that think NOAA is even deliberately undercutting its own data by doing this, as it includes those incredibly scattered high readings, especially from '98 and '99.
Secondarily, the explanations are tied back into historical observations.
-
Perhaps you might look into the previous 4 posts he put up there. And also what followed.
I might ask, did you have to look up troglodyte? We both know you did. :aok
-
Perhaps you might look into the previous 4 posts he put up there. And also what followed.
I might ask, did you have to look up troglodyte? We both know you did. :aok
:rofl Typical elitist attitude that gets you no respect. :aok
You claim a moral place high above others for not insulting them...forgetting that you had done the same only days before. That is all I pointed out. Then you attack my intelligence.
At least I know criticism directed at you won't hurt you. You are incapable of even comprehending how peons such as I could even dare.
-
:rofl Typical elitist attitude that gets you no respect. :aok
You claim a moral place high above others for not insulting them...forgetting that you had done the same only days before. That is all I pointed out. Then you attack my intelligence.
At least I know criticism directed at you won't hurt you. You are incapable of even comprehending how peons such as I could even dare.
Some people can't take a little ribbing. You're obviously one of em. I'm not claiming, nor do I wish to claim a "moral high ground". Also, I'm not looking for internet "respect".... I really don't care. I have a rich, full life, that needs no reassurance from the internet. I will continue to respond with facts, and I will defend myself from attacks directed at me. If you don't like it, tough. Buy a helmet.
I responded to repeated attacks directed at me. You, like many others, tend to be incapable of doing anything but demeaning anyone who doesn't agree with your myopic views of the world. You also seem to have absolutely nothing better to do than to follow me around this BBS, like three or four others.
If you think that was a personal attack....this may be found at your local pharmacy.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/test-area/68007d1240802426-upload-test-dr-phil-fam_midol_max_strength_caple-5300.jpg)
Thank you for participating.
-
Some people can't take a little ribbing. You're obviously one of em. I'm not claiming, nor do I wish to claim a "moral high ground". Also, I'm not looking for internet "respect".... I really don't care. I have a rich, full life, that needs no reassurance from the internet. I will continue to respond with facts, and I will defend myself from attacks directed at me. If you don't like it, tough. Buy a helmet.
I responded to repeated attacks directed at me. You, like many others, tend to be incapable of doing anything but demeaning anyone who doesn't agree with your myopic views of the world. You also seem to have absolutely nothing better to do than to follow me around this BBS, like three or four others.
If you think that was a personal attack....this may be found at your local pharmacy.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/test-area/68007d1240802426-upload-test-dr-phil-fam_midol_max_strength_caple-5300.jpg)
Thank you for participating.
Like I said, you reek of elitism. Add hypocrite as well. You reject personal attacks as showing signs of loss when that is what you had previously resorted to. That is all I have pointed out. Your responses only magnify your high opinion of yourself and enormous disdain for all who would be so bold as to disagree.
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/ferris_bueller_maitre-d-chez-jonath.jpg)
-
Here is a cookie for you. From Have's link:
The Sceptic:
Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have expanded in both size and energy use. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.
Answer:
"Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979. "
One can easily add to this.
1- Moving migrations currently happening. Be it birds, insects, fish or plants
2- Changes in agriculture, where plants for warmer climate can suddenly be grown successfully in what were cooler regions.
3- Tree rings. Yes, they were mentioned, but going back for quite some time, they give an interesting datapool.
4- Seeds. If you excavate some good deep soil, it is possible to determine the flora in ancient times.
5- History. One of the reasons we know that much about both the medieval warming period, and the little Ice age. In my area the MWP is supported with History, archeological remains, and seeds.
6- Glacial scratches and Glacial landscaping. It does not have to be entire valleys, but since glaciers advance and as mostly today, - retreat, - this helps to tell where the glaciers were at best in ancient (but historic) times.
Anyway, all point the finger more or less in the same direction. A warming trend. BTW, do not confuse climate with weather, - if I recall right, the climate is measured in a min. 30 years span.
Have a nice day ;)
-
My favorite being the Troglodytes troglodytes or uncommonly the Troglodytes troglodaes...
No I think you meant the slang definition the way you used it. Calling someone a small brown wren is just not done. :D
-
Like I said, you reek of elitism. Add hypocrite as well. You reject personal attacks as showing signs of loss when that is what you had previously resorted to. That is all I have pointed out. Your responses only magnify your high opinion of yourself and enormous disdain for all who would be so bold as to disagree.
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/ferris_bueller_maitre-d-chez-jonath.jpg)
I also hate it when the colour blind tell me there isn't green or red.....
-
"Elitism" is an empty accusation these days when our nation is drowning in bellicose egalitarianism...
-
"Elitism" is an empty accusation these days when our nation is drowning in bellicose egalitarianism...
Don't remember ever hearing bellicose. I had to look it up. Heavy words are so likely thrown. :D
-
Strange - 2009 was one of the coldest years on record for Western Canada and this decade has also been unusually cold for Canada. The arctic has had some warm summers, but the rest of us are freezing our butz off in the summer time. Then again, no one has been accurately recording temperatures in Canada for more than 100 years. Even getting temperatures out of old ice is still a 'best guess' science.
How about the mass consumption of our natural resources and the pollution that it creates be the #1 topic at Copenhagen? Not this trade-carbon-credits money baloney.
-
My favorite being the Troglodytes troglodytes or uncommonly the Troglodytes troglodaes...
No I think you meant the slang definition the way you used it. Calling someone a small brown wren is just not done. :D
Someone is quick. :aok I was going to put a picture back there, but figured it would be lost in translation (how elitist, I know) ...it had me laughing though. Very nice, sir :cheers:. This is why I like our debates.
(http://www.fatbirder.com/photos/caadce60f850eb63499e72c6239f0f28Cheshire3.jpg)
Sure is a bad thing.... being called a small brown wren. :lol It's also a geeky science joke that's been around a loong time.
-
Like I said, you reek of elitism. Add hypocrite as well. You reject personal attacks as showing signs of loss when that is what you had previously resorted to. That is all I have pointed out. Your responses only magnify your high opinion of yourself and enormous disdain for all who would be so bold as to disagree.
No, I responded to his repeated attacks to me with facts, until it got to the point that it was no longer even close to any form of debate.... it was only his repeated vehement attacks on me personally. If the only thing he understands is that... then I'll reference him as this.
(http://www.hiltonpond.org/images/WrenWinter04.jpg)
Troglodytes troglodytes
And then watch as you (and anyone else that comes running.... they always do when one of their own is getting trounced) scream foul.... err fowl? :rofl Entertaining at the least. Keep it up.
-
Carry on enlightened ones. The rest of us lemmings are waiting for you to save us with your graphs and your "facts" that will obviously lead to Man controlling the Earth's environment. After all, Earth is better off exactly how it is, right?
When you get that thermostat working let us know so we can bow to you for saving us from ourselves.
Good luck with all that. :aok
-
Im still waiting for you to post a fact.... all youve posted so far is the same crap thats already been proven false time and again.......
as I said in an earlier post.......... you certainly never let facts get in the way of your conclusions
the only thing I did was point out your false information ......and obviously that hit a little too close to home for you....... guess we know who else is mooching a living off of this BS
-
Carry on enlightened ones. The rest of us lemmings are waiting for you to save us with your graphs and your "facts" that will obviously lead to Man controlling the Earth's environment. After all, Earth is better off exactly how it is, right?
When you get that thermostat working let us know so we can bow to you for saving us from ourselves.
Good luck with all that. :aok
Cmon, an obvious John Mayer fanatic such as yourself, really can't be so bitter.
(http://3.gvt0.com/vi/9H-bJs-Ib-s/0.jpg)
-
So, has anyone figured it out yet?
Is the world gonna end from Global Warming as they say?
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/fear-global-warming.jpg)
Or is it all bologna?
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/payn071226_CMYK.jpg)
:headscratch:
Oh wait, its a bird, its a plane, No, ....... its Carbon Man!!!!
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/gore_saves_planet.jpg)
-
In their minds they've figured it out and ended the debate. All who are not convinced or even question whether MMGW is real or not are labeled as Pseudoskeptics by them.
You either believe what they claim is fact, or you are just closed minded.
Thats why they have such a problem with anyone even debating. To them, there is no debate.
-
In their minds they've figured it out and ended the debate. All who are not convinced or even question whether MMGW is real or not are labeled as Pseudoskeptics by them.
You either believe what they claim is fact, or you are just closed minded.
Thats why they have such a problem with anyone even debating. To them, there is no debate.
No. Bring some real evidence to the table. Then we'll debate it.
Sitting here calling me names without even attempting to disprove my postings with your supposed "facts" is not debating. In fact, you've brought absolutely zero to this discussion, besides deriding me personally, which gets you applause from the peanut gallery, but in reality, shows how little you understand the topic, or how much time you've even spent doing any research, let alone back-checking any of it.
And again, I'm not even really concerned about it. We'll face ecosystem collapse from ocean acidification (FROM CO2) long before AGW is strong enough to affect human living conditions.
The problem is, you have nothing to debate with. Zero. The empirical data is there. The historical data is there. Stop having your looney croney "scientists" at EXXON-MOBIL tell you it isn't, and open a few books up to understand. Usually, and unfortunately, they're the books without pictures.
-
It is a fact that the climate has changed at higher rates than what it has in the last 300 years of mans machines and his love of methane producing ranches.
It is also a fact that some alarmists will isolate certain fluctuations over periods of time to persuade people into believing their theories as facts.
-
So, has anyone figured it out yet?
Is the world gonna end from Global Warming as they say?
No, it will not.
The species that are already adapted for a changed climate will thrive, while those that aren't, will die. It's happened before, it will happen again. It's just this time the culprit is one of the species residing upon the planet, and not a shift in solar radiance or cosmic rays or orbital mechanics (the usual culprits). (We happen to live in one of the quietest times in the history of the solar system, in between arms of the galaxy)
-
It is a fact that the climate has changed at higher rates than what it has in the last 300 years of mans machines and his love of methane producing ranches.
It is also a fact that some alarmists will isolate certain fluctuations over periods of time to persuade people into believing their theories as facts.
While your claim is true, that the "climate has changed at higher rates....etc etc etc", there is no evidence supporting the forcing of climate now based upon those historic changes.
There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance. (It's not the sun.)
There is a documented understanding of orbital mechanics. (It's not the earth's current position relative to the sun)
There is not a documented event that supports a change in Earth's climate. (Volcanism is lower, and there hasn't been an impact in a few thousand years)
Background cosmic radiation, X an Gamma rays, has maintained a lower than historical norm for thousands of years. (We're in between arms in our galaxy now, in some of the most peaceful areas this solar system has ever been through)
All of that "faster climate change" you noted has been documented to known and understood methods.
-
While your claim is true, that the "climate has changed at higher rates....etc etc etc", there is no evidence supporting the forcing of climate now based upon those historic changes.
There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance. (It's not the sun.)
There is a documented understanding of orbital mechanics. (It's not the earth's current position relative to the sun)
There is not a documented event that supports a change in Earth's climate. (Volcanism is lower, and there hasn't been an impact in a few thousand years)
Background cosmic radiation, X an Gamma rays, has maintained a lower than historical norm for thousands of years. (We're in between arms in our galaxy now, in some of the most peaceful areas this solar system has ever been through)
All of that "faster climate change" you noted has been documented to known and understood methods.
Assuming that we know all of the causes of those historic changes is something you seem comfortable with. I do not. Whether they were solar, core related, cosmic, axis related, or a combination of many factors (as I suspect) we can only specualte. I do know one thing. Man did not cause them.
-
There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance. (It's not the sun.)
What does electromagnetic radiation have to do with global warming anyway? :huh
-
Assuming that we know all of the causes of those historic changes is something you seem comfortable with. I do not. Whether they were solar, core related, cosmic, axis related, or a combination of many factors (as I suspect) we can only specualte. I do know one thing. Man did not cause them.
What has man caused?
(http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/co2hm.gif)
What can CO2 be shown as causal to?
(http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/IceCores1.gif)
www.usgcrp.gov (http://www.usgcrp.gov)
-
What has man caused?
(http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/co2hm.gif)
What can CO2 be shown as causal to?
(http://www.exo.net/~pauld/workshops/globalclimate/IceCores1.gif)
www.usgcrp.gov (http://www.usgcrp.gov)
I've wanted to stay out of this, but... OH COME ON!!!!
Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!! It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.
Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant :huh
Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.
What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.
So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago? Mastodon farts?
-
While your claim is true, that the "climate has changed at higher rates....etc etc etc", there is no evidence supporting the forcing of climate now based upon those historic changes.
There is a documented lowering in solar irradiance. (It's not the sun.)
There is a documented understanding of orbital mechanics. (It's not the earth's current position relative to the sun)
There is not a documented event that supports a change in Earth's climate. (Volcanism is lower, and there hasn't been an impact in a few thousand years)
Background cosmic radiation, X an Gamma rays, has maintained a lower than historical norm for thousands of years. (We're in between arms in our galaxy now, in some of the most peaceful areas this solar system has ever been through)
All of that "faster climate change" you noted has been documented to known and understood methods.
Here's my theory... Mankind has only been able to observe the changes in global weather since his technology enabled him to put satellites in orbit to make the observations. Since then, they have observed things that were not possible to see before.
Like small boys who suddenly discover their winkies, they cannot avoid playing with it.
Also, your last chart correlating Co2 vs temperature... Note that Co2 levels follow a rise in temperature. This makes a rise in Co2 an effect, not a cause. It's so obvious. It's also ignored by the Climate Mafia. Note cyclic pattern of temperature rise. This same phenomena had been occurring in recent decades (an extremely narrow slice of relative time). Of course, no one can accurately explain what previously caused the temperature, and hence Co2 levels, to rise in the first place. These days we have industrialized man to blame. The fact is that they're just playing with their newly discovered collective winkies, in a figurative sense.
Has the planet been warming? It has, or at least was (the whole debate brought to light by those stolen e-mails centers on hiding the unexpected decrease in global temperatures). But clearly, Co2 was not leading the rise, but following the rise.
If it is true that Co2 follows a rise in temperature (look at you own chart, please), then the whole theory of Co2 being a primary cause is simply nonsense. Hey, a great prophet said, "when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch."
One particular notion presented by the warming cult is that warming could cause an ice age. I watched some huckleberry blathering on this on the Weather Channel.
What makes this so incredibly amusing is that there is no more overt way to cover all of the bases. This is like a weather forecast of, “Well folks, tomorrow it will rain… Or not.”
Besides, the current climate conference is nearly pure anarchy. You have the third world nations (mostly lead by utterly corrupt governments) screaming that they want a share of the wealth. Yep, they want the wealthy countries to pay for excess emissions, but they don't want their own emissions monitored to see if they comply. It's a three ring circus in Copenhagen. Today, the representative from Sudan was castigating the United States. The damned Sudan for crisake! A hell hole of murder, Genocide, deliberate engineered starvation and awe inspiring corruption thinks the USA is bad.... How to you say "drop dead Fred" in Arabic?
My regards,
Widewing
-
i should invent some garbage and sell it to you guys way over priced :rofl :rofl :rofl
You guys will buy in to anything the media tells ya.
WE'RE DOOMED!!! RUN!!!
-
Another freon can has been vented to the atmosphere! :aok
-
I've wanted to stay out of this, but... OH COME ON!!!!
Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!! It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.
Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant :huh
Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.
What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.
So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago? Mastodon farts?
Scientifically, the reason has to do with the fact that the previous warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages, as well as other factors.
In other words, historically, natural warming released CO2, which then contributed to heating the planet, as the matching curves show a causal relationship. Although, I may have this wrong, as most climate scientists say CO2 always leads in the deep record....
In the present day, CO2 is being released without a reliable uptake mechanism in the environment to mitigate it, and without exterior natural forcing. It will still serve to magnify temperatures like it always has, though.
This is why there has been a historical lag in the record.... because there was a natural mechanism behind the release historically. In this present case, we have demonstrably increased the atmospheric CO2 content, and have reduced the planet's ability to remove it. Can you argue that? Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?
(Please look at 12C/13C ratios Pre-industrialization to begin to answer this. In short burning fossil fuels produces a differing ratio than the background natural ratio of these isotopes of carbon, and these can be distinctly measured and compared. It's still carbon, but the isotopic ratios are different due to the burning of fossil fuels.)
-
Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?
I can't... in fact, the monotonous bloviating on these forums have likely drowned several polar bears independently, without any other outside influence.
-
I can't... in fact, the monotonous bloviating on these forums have likely drowned several polar bears independently, without any other outside influence.
Then don't participate. You have a choice. :aok
Boasting? Not even close.
-
Attempt to argue that mankind has not raised CO2 levels in the last 200 years?
What effect upon temperature has the mankind created CO2 levels had? What population limitations would you put in place in order to curb the rising levels? Which countries are causing the greatest problem? Who has the most to gain by controlling CO2 emissions?
If a cow farts in Africa what effect will that have upon the atmospheric temperature of Orlando, Florida? Green Acres, Alabama? What effect upon the soil in my backyard?
I say none. :D
-
I've wanted to stay out of this, but... OH COME ON!!!!
Shortly after Gore's film came out, and people looked closer at the Co2/temp graph, it became apparent that... ... OMG!! It's temperature leading Co2, no the other way around.
Now the EPA wants to classify Co2 as a pollutant :huh
Guess we all have to stop exhaling to save the planet.
What that graph DOES show is that temperatures/Co2 are on a 150,000 year long cycle, with other short cycles in between.
So what caused the warming 150,000 years ago? Mastodon farts?
Reminds me of the sceptic:
"Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans."
Which was countered thus:
"This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago. "
Anyway Chalenge, you mentioned cow farts. While truly, Methane is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, I claim that the big cow-fart theory is a scam! Why? Because BEFORE cows in industrial numbers, you had wildlife in seriously big numbers. In the USA you had the huge heards of Bisons replaced with cattle. A Bison is basically a "cow", - it will even crossbreed with domestic cattle. One big ruminant. phhhrrrtt!
As for the country with the biggest emission, - China. Per person? USA...by far. However the Chinese emit so-and-so much while producing cheap stuff for the fat USA and Euro, so I guess the conference in Copenhagen will be quite a haggle-show :D
That said, I am going to the cows, and I'll ask all my odd 20 cattle to send you a personal fart :t
-
Actually its not cow farts but cow belches that has 'them' up in arms.
Outside of that concerning ice cores: If the polar ice is melted where are the cores coming from? :x
-
Well, that is one big thing. The land based icecaps contain Ice that is up to and even beyond 600.000 years old.
So, them kissing goodbye in some odd 200 years (being careful) is indeed quite unique.
-
Angus, the cow/methane issue might have a lot to do with diet. You forget that many American cows are fed a diet not fit for a stray dog on the street, and those principally fed corn are still worse-off than a grass fed cow.
-
I have heard that, but never found data to support it.
Rest asure, I grass-feed mine. But there are more cars in my country than cattle....and we are self sustainable...
-
In other words, historically, natural warming released CO2, which then contributed to heating the planet, as the matching curves show a causal relationship. Although, I may have this wrong, as most climate scientists say CO2 always leads in the deep record....
So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control? Hmm?
-
*repeat post
-
So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control? Hmm?
It was either:
- Luck
- entrance into the solar "cool" cycle at the tip of the thing
- running out of carbon
- or..the other aspects related to the "Gaia" theory.
Anyway...I'd like the climate just as it is :D
-
So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control? Hmm?
Heat doesn't "form" CO2. It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH4, CO2 or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point. Eventually, over time the CH4 gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO2 (mostly in the deep oceans) and things come back down.
And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal. There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so. These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.
-
Which in return means that there is a period of VERY violent climate, which then come crashing down, right?
-
So... If the heat caused the co2, then the co2 created more heat, what prevented the new heat from forming new co2 and the whole thing spiraling out of control? Hmm?
Heat doesn't "form" CO2. It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH4, CO2 or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point. Eventually, over time the CH4 gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO2 (mostly in the deep oceans) and things come back down.
And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal. There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so. These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.
-
And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal. There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so. These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.
Utter crap!!
Carbon 12C and 13C are both natural isotopes. In point of fact, Carbon 12C constitutes 99% of all carbon found on earth. You sure try to sound authoritative, but people need to stop and smell the stuff you're shoveling.
Do you believe that no one here can research basic chemistry?
You won't mind if I dismiss your posts going forward, will ya?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why do you think Ive resorted to nonsense replies? Its all nonsense or as The Comedian (Watchmen) put it: Its all a joke.
-
Heat doesn't "form" CO2. It contributes to a positive feedback loop, which is eventually exhausted when there aren't more CH4, CO2 or other such gases in concentrations greater than those that are already present in the atmosphere. Consider the atmosphere a solution, where it is difficult to move past the saturation point. Eventually, over time the CH4 gets hydrated and locked up, along with CO2 (mostly in the deep oceans) and things come back down.
And the whole thing has spiraled out of control before. The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal. There isn't another source for them, and they've been accumulating in the atmosphere 9 times faster than at any other point in the past 5 million years or so. These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization.
You speak with such finality and conviction about things that are mostly unknown; just like a man of the cloth...
-
Utter crap!!
Carbon 12C and 13C are both natural isotopes. In point of fact, Carbon 12C constitutes 99% of all carbon found on earth. You sure try to sound authoritative, but people need to stop and smell the stuff you're shoveling.
Do you believe that no one here can research basic chemistry?
You won't mind if I dismiss your posts going forward, will ya?
My regards,
Widewing
Can you maybe just once read past the initial, and actually research?? C'mon Wide. Dismiss anything you wish, but at least do the research.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes will track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
-
once again youre citing as proof of your statement something that does not prove your statement.......... I just read your "proof" that 13C and 12C are only formed when fossil fuels are burned....... and it doesnt say that anywhere at all in the article
what it does say is that these isotopes exist in ALL carbon
it goes on to say that these isotopes are reduced in the atmosphere and oceans when fossil fuel is burned
what this article does is tell us something that nobody here is disputing....... it shows us how we can tell there is an increase in CO2 in the last 150 years.........we already know that...... I doubt anybody on the planet would dispute that
you could actually go a bit further and notice that they do not even say that lower isotope counts could only be derived from the burning of fossil fuels...... but that in their opinion its the most likely cause because of the convenience of coincidence....... fossil fuel consumption increased sharply during that period
but other things also increased dramatically that could account for the same thing....... just as an example........ I bet as population increased so did the burning of firewood during that same period........ this would have the exact same effect since youre burning plant material which has a lower 13c/12c isotope count
also smoking tobacco...... and the list could go on forever
as I said we all agree that CO2 has increased.......... that doesnt however cause global warming
ya know I really wonder why they push so hard against CO2 which isnt nearly has harmful to the atmosphere as CH4......... yet methane seemingly gets overlooked
could it be because the vast majority of houses in the developed world uses methane for cooking and heating? the alarmists have to pick on something that would upset fewer people?
push for regulation on using your furnace or stove and see how far the argument gets ya....... the alarmists would suddenly lose all that mooch money
-
I think what he said is that certain ratios of Carbon 12 and 13 only exist when fossil fuels are burned... not that they don't exist naturally.
That's what I got out of the original quote. Carbon 12 is the most common isotope as far as I know so it wouldn'tt make sense otherwise.
-
I think what he said is that certain ratios of Carbon 12 and 13 only exist when fossil fuels are burned... not that they don't exist naturally.
That's what I got out of the original quote. Carbon 12 is the most common isotope as far as I know so it wouldn'tt make sense otherwise.
What Moray37 wrote is, "These isotopes only form when fossil fuels are burned, this is how we can decode that the forcing is primarily being accumulated by our industrialization."
As I said, this is crap.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The first part of his post says
"The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal."
I would think he misspoke in the last sentence
-
The first part of his post says
"The only problem is that we can determine isotopic ratios of 12C and 13C in the atmosphere that only occur during the burning of oil and coal."
I would think he misspoke in the last sentence
The first sentence is also not completely accurate. The burning (carbonization) of plant material also effects the ratios.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere. Dispute that!
-
This is the thread that never ends.
I guess the Goracle is wrong on that count, the debate is not over.
Nor should scientific debate ever be over or squelched like some are doing with climate change now.
Imagine if we had squelched scientific debate like this in Darwin's day, we'd still be teaching La Marcke's theory of evolution in biology.
It amazes me that no one in the media will call out Al Gore on the fact that he flat out REFUSES to debate anyone on the subject. He won't even take questions from skeptics at a press conference, all he does is sit back and mock them, calling skeptics, "flat-earthers" and "moon landing hoaxers" and pushing his one world government agenda.
Meanwhile, he won't even give up cheesburgers to "save the planet"
-
The first sentence is also not completely accurate. The burning (carbonization) of plant material also effects the ratios.
My regards,
Widewing
and this highlights another area ignored by the AGW alarmists. Man has contributed considerably to preventing naturally occuring (CO2 contributing) forrest fires. How does this factor into their equations?
Its also worth noting this is also the biggest contributor to the huge uncontrollable fires we see around the world... not global warming. Overgrown undergrowth and forests with a too high tree density are the problem.
-
Everyone does realize that the technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/explores/carbon.html
Also 'clean' factories are also possible without having to resort to 'tax and trade' scams.
-
No matter what, I think we're going to debate and debate untill we run out of carbon. Problem cured :devil
-
We'll never run out of carbon, it's everywhere. :)
-
We'll never run out of carbon, it's everywhere. :)
Besides helium, isn't it cool that we're made of the 4 most abundant elements in the universe? C, H, O, and N.
-
Danish minister Connie Hedegaard has resigned as president of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, describing the move as "procedural".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8415899.stm
:noid
-
Everyone does realize that the technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
The amount of money I paid for my Dyson it could do the same thing..... :lol
-
If it's everywhere, why do we have to drill for it ?
Oh, I forgot to say "carbon in a burnable form" :D
-
Everyone does realize that the technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/explores/carbon.html
Also 'clean' factories are also possible without having to resort to 'tax and trade' scams.
co2 is not a pollutant.
-
Years ago where rolling fields were, they are all covered in trees now.
Mankinds fencelines have cause trees to grow where before there were none. (birds land on the fence and drop seeds)
Ice is retreating in some areas and advancing in others. (has always done this..... way before man)
Those all concerned with global warming can move up north.... or way down south.
Way before the end of earth our children's children will be burdened by the expenditures of all the money the fear mongers are wanting to spend to fight mother nature.
-
co2 is not a pollutant.
Anything is a pollutant, given enough concentration.
O2 caused the death of almost every life form on the planet when it started to concentrate in early history.
-
Anything is a pollutant, given enough concentration.
O2 caused the death of almost every life form on the planet when it started to concentrate in early history.
Humans had not even been here yet. Those pesky donosaurs and their smokey vehicles and plants.
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148&hl=en# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148&hl=en#)
-
In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...
From: Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.
Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.
That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.
As the current flat or even cooling global temperatures seem to correspond with the the solar minimum, there is correlation here. NOTE: Correlation is NOT causation, though Moray explicitly insists it is when comparing CO2 and global temp data from the ice cores. I will not dispute that greenhouse gases likely have some effect on temp. What is in dispute is how much compared with other negative and positive forcing functions. I have also read that CO2's impact on how much heat will be trapped in the atmosphere is not linear with increasing concentrations. Meaning that as concentration increases, each percent of increase has less and less affect. This may also help explain why temperatures have stabilized even though CO2 concentrations have continued to rise (also bringing doubt to the causation argument). At some point, the atmosphere is holding all the heat it can, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have not further impact.
-
Sabre... write a song about it :D
Well the CO2 that is in my brew
Is causing all heck with the friends that I knew
They're carrin' their signs and makin' their whines
I'm just sittin' here feelin' so blue.....
-
In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...
In no way am I dismissing the sun's effects. In fact I find it a bit ominous. It's waking up from a large slumber. There was a CME today as well.
The solar flux reached 82 on Tuesday. The sunspot number of 38 is a new Cycle 24 record.
The largest Solar Flare of Cycle 24 thus far took place early Wednesday morning. It registered C5.3 on the flare scale. It is small in comparison to flares at solar max....
-
In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...
From: Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
As the current flat or even cooling global temperatures seem to correspond with the the solar minimum, there is correlation here. NOTE: Correlation is NOT causation, though Moray explicitly insists it is when comparing CO2 and global temp data from the ice cores. I will not dispute that greenhouse gases likely have some effect on temp. What is in dispute is how much compared with other negative and positive forcing functions. I have also read that CO2's impact on how much heat will be trapped in the atmosphere is not linear with increasing concentrations. Meaning that as concentration increases, each percent of increase has less and less affect. This may also help explain why temperatures have stabilized even though CO2 concentrations have continued to rise (also bringing doubt to the causation argument). At some point, the atmosphere is holding all the heat it can, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have not further impact.
As for Svensmark..Though his postulation is quite interesting and deserves more study....there isn't much of a correlation. As well, if it were a correlative effect, you would see the "peaks meet the valleys or the valleys meet the peaks" between cosmic ray levels and temperature anomalies. That just doesn't happen.. When cosmic rays go up... temp anomalies go up. When cosmic rays go down, temp anomalies go up.
I agree with you that CO2 has less of a magnifying effect as it increases in concentration. [CO2] The problem is that CO2 forces the climate just enough to allow CH4 to bubble out of hydrate form. CH4 is a massive player in warming trends, much more than CO2. I mean, just the seasonal winter-summer cycle make Ch4 fluctuate.... it's right at the point.
Solar activity is the primary driver of climate, as it obviously provides the energy into the system. If you compare the solar activity chart to the temperature trend line, you'll see the high output years show up quite well. If the trend line wasn't moving up, the whole thing would be tied together. 1980... solar max... and a temp spike to go along. 1990...solar max and a temp spike to go along. If something keeps that energy.... (like a low lying gas)......the overall trend line goes up, without solar inference.
Output was well below the mean solar average for the past 3 years. We'll see what happens in the next 5 or so. ( When the furnace gets stoked again.) I feel we're in for a bad decade.
It is good to see that you aren't dismissing the actual existence of a change, though.
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg)
(http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Helioseismology/large/vir011_prev.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Methane-global-average-2006.jpg/250px-Methane-global-average-2006.jpg)
-
Humans had not even been here yet. Those pesky donosaurs and their smokey vehicles and plants.
What do you intend to prove with that???
That things cannot get screwed up without human interference? Me thinks you are holding a straw while thinking it is a sword. Same goes to all with the same method, and there are many....
-
co2 is not a pollutant.
Yes it is CAP. The UN told me so, It must be true.
STOP BREATHING NOW!!!!
-
Everyone does realize that the technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
Would this technology happen to be called plant life, or trees, or shrubberies?
-
Good god!
Think of the trees man!!!
-
Would this technology happen to be called plant life, or trees, or shrubberies?
That would be natures version of a carbon scrubber but now we can KILL ALL THE TREES and still remove the carbon.
Great stuff! :aok
BTW I think the current sea life is a wrench in the works of a clean atmosphere. The sea life must die for us to have a viable planet. :bolt:
-
Yes it is CAP. The UN told me so, It must be true.
STOP BREATHING NOW!!!!
who do i send the bill to?
i just got up off the floor. the floor is overmodeled. :noid
-
Amazing what they come up with, a CO² scrubber? Plant some trees you idiots! (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_doh.gif)
-
This device can remove one ton per day at the cost of 20 lbs of carbon. The average American produces about 19 tons per year making us the 9th largest emitter (not polluter) but what I find interesting is that while other countries have historically increased their carbon output the U.S. has remained constant due to regulation.
For evey man woman and child in the U.S. we need 19 trees of 90 cm circumference decipherous or 105 cm for pine and we have the U.S. covered. The problem therefore is not the U.S. but countries like Qatar or the UAE that have three times our output but no where near the trees we do.
So push the politicians out of the way and lets makes these countries buy carbon scrubbers from our entrepreneurs.
:aok
-
So push the politicians out of the way and lets makes these countries buy carbon scrubbers from our entrepreneurs.
:aok
Therein lies the problem. Or, we could just try to stop the international corporations cutting down the rainforest and let it recover. Much of the CO² processing capacity is right there, the rain forest, and it's being destroyed.
-
This is another 'warmer' myth. Rain forests are not efficient carbon scrubbers unlike pine and northern deciduous forests which have something on the order of 50 times the storage capabilities of rain forests on a per hectare basis.
-
Well, good! :aok
That is no excuse to cut down the rain forest though!
-
Its amazing how humans get all silly about protecting environments when if nature developed an animal that would (for instance) eat rabbits at a crazy rate and this new animal also had no predator that hunted it then rabbits would become extinct and the new animal would feel no remorse... but might start hunting pet cats or something. If we clean out the rain forest and then build neighborhoods (I honestly dont know what is the reason that rainforests are being destroyed) or something then we could also replace the rain forests with more efficient trees. True there might be a few tens of thousands fewer species... but nothing I eat will disappear! :D
I heard of a man in Florida back in the late 70s that developed a form of 'jungle rot' that would take any plant matter and reduce it through an enzymatic process into a petroleum base that with very little effort produced fuel. In fact the process he patented could have been used by every household to process leaves and grass clippings into fuel (I think he based his work on wood chips or sawdust). At the time gasoline had just come back down to just more than a buck per gallon and there wasnt any interest in the process. He died of prostate cancer about ten years later but his family still holds the patent. Im wondering if they licensed the process to Brazil or something?
-
This is another 'warmer' myth. Rain forests are not efficient carbon scrubbers unlike pine and northern deciduous forests which have something on the order of 50 times the storage capabilities of rain forests on a per hectare basis.
WOOT? Source please??? And why have they been dubbed "the lungs of the earth"??? How does that add up to the difference in crops on colder vs warmer areas????
Amyway, they're being cut down, and burned down for one reason only. MONEY.
Cutting is for lumber. Burning is to access the soil for crops. The soil is VERY rich, allowing several years of good crops before the nutrition in the soil is depleted. Then you just burn some more. This is human nature, - if there is unlimited access to a limited source, the show will go on untill there is very little left. Good example, the American Bison in the 19th century. Getting butchered from a population of several millions down to a few hundred.
Same goes for Carbon. We will argue and squabble about the effects without sacrificing much of our comfort in order to really do something. We miss the main point, we will deplete the source one day. So in that sence all that GW-CO2 discussion is good, for it will encourage work on alternative energy sources way before the market will.
-
So in that sence all that GW-CO2 discussion is good, for it will encourage work on alternative energy sources way before the market will.
Are you wavering Angus?
I would agree on that point. Whatever your view on global warming. It is stirring up ideas on possible alternatives to fossil fuels which is good. On the other hand I think the overemphasis on global warming is pushing research up blind alleys. One of the worst and most useless ideas are wind turbines and carbon trading to name but two.
I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan's famous 'Star Wars', SDI project of the eighties. It was completely mythical and was never believed by anyone except the possibly the Russians, the public and maybe Reagan himself. But all kinds of scientists snapped up the research grants and came up with many great ideas which eventually had practical uses. Hopefully something similar will happen out of AGW, a positive out of a negative.
I do believe the the loss of rainforests and other environmental damage is actually more serious than the so called dangers of global warming. But again those real dangers are lost in the panic caused by AGW mongers.
-
No no no... I can see the decades have retold the story...
Bison were killed by idiots just because they had a gun and you could see the buffalo from the railroad car. Buffalo didnt fear much and when railroads came along even that didnt scare them. Then also men would come from as far as Europe just to shoot buffalo as a test of marksmanship. One travel agency in England offered it as an adventure as a rite of passage into manhood.
In 1869 a herd held up a Kansas Pacific railroad for nine hours as a buffalo herd crossed the tracks. The head count on that herd alone exceeded three-million by the railroads estimates and they wanted the buffalo gone but it was reckless idiots that performed the act and not under corporate direction. The buffalo were not butchered for meat they were merely killed and left to rot by careless fools of the time.
Now if farmers in the cleared jungle areas misuse the soil they fall under the same category (careless fools) but there are methods available to replenish the soil through crop rotations.
Sorry I cant find the article I was reading in jungle forests and carbon storage (Abu Bakar, Malaysia) but he estimated 20 tons per hectare for the jungles of Malaysia versus 1000 tons per hectare of northern deciduous/pine (woodland) forest. Even the equatorial jungles only rate a maximum of 320 tons per hectare and a median of about 212 tons. But the point is that nature provides already for the natural occurance of this gas and that mans contribution is miniscule by comparison AND why is the U.S. or Britain being taxed and forced to pay for a problem of jungle harvest in South America? Instead of taxing us just embargo them!
-
The lungs of the earth were related to South America, and that is where the numbers are biggest.
What they leave behind after the jungle is gone does not bind much carbon at all. Crop rotation COULD be executed by replanting trees for instance, but who is ready to pay more for the coffee for that?????
One routine: Burn the jungle (releasing all the Carbon tied up in the biomass into the atmosphere), grow coffee until the soil is not fertile enough, then use the land as long as possible for grazing cattle. Cheap coffe and cheap beef.
I am not wavering BTW. My view on the whole GW is maybe a little aside from the mainstream (which is "GW is happening and its because of the CO2"). Mine is simply that we are experiencing a warming climate, and a lot of things we humans to affect the climate in exactly that direction. Modest, ain't I? And I am not fond of the carbon quota idea at all. BTW, much of the carbon released gets tied up in the oceans. As they warm up, there can be a huge spike in CO2 when it gets released (less saturation). So, we're only beginning to see things.
Now, to alternative energy....
I completely disagree about wind turbines being useless. Its just that they do not solve the whole problem.
Wind energy is unstable, and therefor difficult to keep in a power grid. However, if it can be stored like by heating water, as well as being used on systems that can take some fluctuations, it is just fine. I am well into this, since I am working on a project of testing out some few units of small turbines (3.5-5kw) on farms. The idea is to run the boiler on wind power alone, the water in the boiler being the "battery" so to speak. Those small turbines are not that expensive, - if they can be financed with low intrest rates they are completely compeatable to any powergrid price. (That is why I am doing it). I am however not so keen on those huge ones. It means many big units and a lot of fuss when something breaks.
And to Bisons....which were my example on how far humans will go in their depleting business....
Bisons in N-America were mostly wiped out because of the fur. Some meat and bones were also used. From god-knows-how-many-millions of them down to a few hundred in mere decades. It did not spoil the party that the railroad business also wanted to get rid of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison#19th_century_bison_hunts
No hijack, but cannot resist posting this one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png)
I could also mention the worldwide overfishing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_cod#Northwest_Atlantic_cod
It is the same everywhere, main rule applies. Unlimited access to a limited resource will lead to depletion....
-
I am working on a project of testing out some few units of small turbines (3.5-5kw) on farms.
No problem with those, an excellent idea and something I would use myself if I lived in the countryside.
I do have a big problem with the windfarms. They've sprung up around the countryside here. I wonder at their real utility. One of the more scary ideas someone came up with lately was this http://www.spiritofireland.org/
An insane idea to cover the countryside in windfarms store the energy in artificial seawater lakes in the valleys of Connemara and then release the water when the wind can't take up the slack. They suggest that only 1% of the countryside would need to be covered by wind farms but critics have pointed the figure is closer to 3.5% of the total land area of the Republic of Ireland. The whole of the west of Ireland would be covered in these bloody windmills. Look at that glossy website, pure fantasy.
The problem is that it's been taken seriously in some circles and to me typifies the utter distortion this whole AGW thing has produced. Effectively this would be a man made environmental disaster all in the name 'green' energy.
Fortunately the likelyhood of it ever happening is small, we're not very good at macro projects in this country. We have only just managed to link the east and west coasts by motorway. Actually we haven't yet, it opens tomorrow. We're well into 20th century developments, 21st century developments have to wait for a few years yet.
-
While we are at it lets get rid of Dyhydrogenmonoxied. It kills thousands everyday. Its one of the most dangerous things on earth :uhoh
Climate change is the new movement of the day. These Climate change guys are making a fortune.
One reason alternative energy will not happen in our lives, is they don't want it too. They say on one hand lets do it to create jobs. Then on the other hand the say it will hurt the environment.
We have a 300 million dollar hybrid alternative energy plant proposed here. Sounds great. Then the EPA steps in an halts it indefinitely because putting it up will harm the environment. And it only covers 900 acres of land. Every project that has been proposed in our area has been stopped by environmentalist. From Vertical maglev wind generators to solar electric.
Just follow the money.
-
While we are at it lets get rid of Dyhydrogenmonoxied.
Penn & Teller :rock
-
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg)
Question moray, is that the same CRU data which was adjusted, and there are no original records for? And what is the margin for error on that .5 degree C temperature rise over 60 years?
-
Why not get rid of snow? It kills thousands of people worldwide every year in traffic accidents and freezing temperatures. It should be abolished because it's a threat to all life on the planet. We could fine everyone who let snow fall on their property as it's a danger to all of us.
Not a good idea? :neener:
-
It's all starting to unravel.
Russian think tank accuses UK Met Office of cherry picking the data sent to them.
Met Office used only 25% of the data sent to them and used mostly data from urban centres.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPunkm1zYQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPunkm1zYQ)
-
A leading Russian think-tank claims the British meteorological office has been misrepresenting Russian weather data to manipulate the results and suggest rising temperature trends. The Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis alleges the Hadley Center for Climate Change used only a quarter of the data provided by Russia. Analysts for the agency imply that climate experts selectively used incomplete reporting that emphasized a warming effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPunkm1zYQ
Regards
SF
-
If those guys cherry-picked data, they're bloody fools.
If they random picked or just picked a % (old data in russian format could be a pain to register), the guy is still having his minutes of glory, and possibly a well paid job in "the other" camp.
:noid
-
A leading Russian think-tank claims the British meteorological office has been misrepresenting Russian weather data to manipulate the results and suggest rising temperature trends. The Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis alleges the Hadley Center for Climate Change used only a quarter of the data provided by Russia. Analysts for the agency imply that climate experts selectively used incomplete reporting that emphasized a warming effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPunkm1zYQ
Regards
SF
That's hilarious. Especially since the stations (121, in RED) that the Russian Institute of ECONOMIC Analysis are complaining about, actually undercut the warming shown by the worldwide stations. (476 stations, in blue)
(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/crutem3%2Brussia.png)
AGAIN.... Institute for ECONOMIC analysis.
Keep trying...but, you'll only see what you want to see. You don't even look at the data, you let some Russian do the thinking for you.
Press Release
The World Meteorological Organisation chooses the set of stations designated as essential climate stations that have been released by the Met Office. These are evenly distributed across the globe and provide a fair representation of changes in global average temperature over land. We do not choose these stations and therefore it is impossible for the Met Office to fix the data.
The global temperatures record, HadCRUT has been shown to underestimate the rise in global average temperatures over the past 30 years when compared against a fuller analysis of global temperatures. This analysis includes information from a wide range of sources such as satellites, radiosondes, and sea surface temperature data, but does not include surface observations used in HadCRUT, so is fully independent.
The analysis shows that HadCRUT under-estimates the warming in the Russian region, in particular, because of the limited availability of Northern Hemisphere high latitude observations. The Met Office is keen to publish all underpinning station data as it becomes available. We are already in the process of seeking agreement to release the underpinning data from its owners.
-
(http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Cartoon_NotAHoax.jpg)
-
This is an interesting idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science)
-
LOL, there is so much crap around. Anyway, the russian think-tank-sky has it all. So the arctic Ice is not melting, - indeed nothing is happening at all. I hope you sleep well despite smelling smoke in yer house :angel:
-
LOL, there is so much crap around. Anyway, the russian think-tank-sky has it all. So the arctic Ice is not melting, - indeed nothing is happening at all. I hope you sleep well despite smelling smoke in yer house :angel:
:rofl
How is it that species like crocodiles and sea turtles have survived dozens of warming/cooling cycles. But we (the most advanced species on the planet) are all going to turn into cannibals (really Ted Turner) and die in a fiery flood it the temperature rises a few degrees?
First off we don't even know if it is going to get warmer, all the GW people said this was going to be a HORRIFIC hurricane season because of GW. Really?!? How many hurricanes we have this past season? (wait I know this one... ... NONE) And yet we believe their playstation/XBox models about what the cilmate will be in 50-100 years.
And if it does get warmer -or colder- SO WHAT! We adapt, life goes on. Sure some places would become less hospitable, but other previously inhospitable places would become so. I bet many Canadian farmers would love for it to warm a few degrees so they have a longer growing season, and the Polar Bears are moving further inland and thriving.
So, instead of thinking about adaptation, we get the RIDICULOUS idea that we can STOP THE CLIMATE FROM CHANGING!?!?! Well, guess what, the climate NEVER has been, nor ever will be static. WE CAN"T STOP IT!
So we push for treaties and taxes which will: keep poor countries poor, make rich countries poor, destroy countries sovereignty, and further cripple the world economy.
So we can stop something that: can't be predicted, can't be stopped, would be beneficial to some, and we could easily adapt to.
WAKE UP! It is all about money, power, and ego for fear-mongers like Gore who are hellbent on scaring the pants of off the rest of us.
-
Not true there saggs... we did have a hurricane pass through here in Southern Alabama... I cant remember the name but I distinctly remember having to go out on the porch and right the lawn chair it knocked over.
-
Not true there saggs... we did have a hurricane pass through here in Southern Alabama... I cant remember the name but I distinctly remember having to go out on the porch and right the lawn chair it knocked over.
:lol
I just looked it up on the Wikipedia, (not the most reliable source I know, but I'm lazy) 3 hurricanes in 2009, none made landfall. September was the mildest since 1994.
And what a relief, the well below average season was blamed not on global warming, but on El Nino!!!!! :banana: Remember El Nino, he was big back in the early 90's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnbWa3E70zg
:aok
PS. anyone know how to get the squiggly line (I know what it's called, but can't spell it) over the second "N" in Nino?
-
ñ <- just mark this one and then copy & paste. Voila!!
;)
no, seriously, look up in your character table. Normally Alt+0241 should work, but you have to look if this character is available in your character table. Hope this helps. If not, well...just copy & paste the above one :lol
Regards
SF
-
How'd Copenhagen turn out? The polar bears celebrating?
-
How'd Copenhagen turn out? The polar bears celebrating?
we're gettin our storm early this year. there's a few inches on the ground, and it's still comin hard. vis. is about 1/4 mile.
-
Irony= Barrack Hussein Obama leaving the Global Warming Conf early due to the massive Snow Storm we are getting in DC. :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Irony= Barrack Hussein Obama leaving the Global Warming Conf early due to the massive Snow Storm we are getting in DC. :lol :lol :lol :lol
Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.
Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.
I'm not directly attributing this storm to AGW, yet you somehow feel a snowstorm in December is proof there isn't? :rolleyes: :lol
Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding
An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events. Intense precipitation can result in flooding, soil erosion, landslides, and damage to structures and crops.
Parallel to the likely increase in heavy precipitation events in winter, increased temperatures will also amplify the drying out of soils and vegetation due to increased evaporation in the summer. This is likely to result in more severe and widespread droughts where and when atmospheric conditions do not favor precipitation (see Droughts and Wildfires).
The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents. Predictions for soil moisture changes are less certain; however, models show an increase in soil moisture in high northern latitudes in winter.
Consistent with model predictions, weather observations over the last century indeed indicate an increase in precipitation over land in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Nicholls et al., 1996). For the United States, precipitation since 1970 has averaged about 5% more than in the previous 70 years (Karl et al., 1996), and cold season precipitation has increased by almost 10% during the last century. Over the period 1950 to 1990, annual snowfall increased by about 20% over northern Canada and by about 11% over Alaska (Groisman and Easterling, 1994). An increase in snowfall was also observed in the 1960s and 1970s in China. A recent analysis indicates a trend toward increasing streamflow in most regions of the United States (Lins and Slack, 1999), consistent with the observations of a wetter climate.
Some regions have also experienced an increase in extreme precipitation events, as predicted in model simulations (Nicholls et al., 1996). Observations for the last 100 years indicate that extreme precipitation events (more than 2 inches in 24 hours) in the United States have increased by about 20% (Karl and Knight, 1998). Increases in heavy precipitation have also been reported for Japan and northeastern Australia. An increase in the intensity of precipitation increases flood potential. Although streamflow has increased significantly in the United States since the 1940s, however, there has been no increase in peak flows (Lins and Slack, 1999). Further analysis is needed to reconcile the discrepancy between the findings that the increase in US precipitation has been due primarily to an increase in heavy precipitation (Karl and Knight, 1998) and the analysis that streamflows have become less extreme (Lins and Slack, 1999).
Although it is impossible to link a particular weather event directly to increased greenhouse gases, the heavy precipitation events highlighted on the map are examples of the kind of situations that are expected to become more frequent as climate warms. The magnitude of the human influence relative to natural variability is much larger for temperature compared to precipitation and atmospheric circulation, meaning that a "fingerprint" of anthropogenic warming in precipitation records will emerge much more slowly (Wigley et al., 1999). It may be decades before an unmistakable human signal emerges from the natural background noise.
References
Groisman P.Y. and D.R Easterling, 1994. Variability and trends of precipitation and snowfall over the United States and Canada, Journal of Climate 7, 184-205.
Karl, T. R, R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, and R.G. Quayle, 1996. Indices of climate change for the United States, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77 (2), 279-292.
Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight, 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (2), 231-241.
-
Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.
Moray, the references in your quote are between 9 to 15 years old. Do you have newer ones? (besides Lins and Slack from 1999)
Regards
SF
(edit: those references also only take a view on US and Canada landmass)
-
Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.
Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.
I am suprised the debacle exposed from East Anglia didn't have you crawl back into your hole on the subject.
Silly me, I didn't use the new talking point for the giant lie to change it to "climate change". Call it was it is, made up lies fueled by flawed politically driven science and flawed second rate members of academia who live on the governmental tit to usher in a new world order of global governance. Lets see, in the 1970's the same group was pushing to cover the ice caps in black soot to prevent "the coming Ice Age". Then the tactic shifted to "Global Warming". Now hell, lets just loop it into a generic "Climate Change". For the love of God, just get it out in the open for what your agenda is: Institution of a single global governance, transfer of wealth from Western Nations and generate an Orwellian Utopia.
The day will come in the not to distant future to where charlatans like yourself, who are nothing more than pawns to the Club of Rome and Bilderbergers are held directly accountable for their actions.
Thank god for the legions of real scientists and patriots, who continue to expose this hoax for what it is.
Enjoy your last twelve months of having any political clout left.
Now if you will exuse me, I have to return to snowblowing and contribute to the .0002% of CO2 that all of mankind has ever added to the enviroment.
-
Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.
Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.
I'm not directly attributing this storm to AGW, yet you somehow feel a snowstorm in December is proof there isn't? :rolleyes: :lol
i think his point may have been that it's perfectly NORMAL to have a snowstorm about this time of year.
-
i think his point may have been that it's perfectly NORMAL to have a snowstorm about this time of year.
Indeed. Historically it is. :aok (And weather isn't climate)
-
I am suprised the debacle exposed from East Anglia didn't have you crawl back into your hole on the subject.
Silly me, I didn't use the new talking point for the giant lie to change it to "climate change". Call it was it is, made up lies fueled by flawed politically driven science and flawed second rate members of academia who live on the governmental tit to usher in a new world order of global governance. Lets see, in the 1970's the same group was pushing to cover the ice caps in black soot to prevent "the coming Ice Age". Then the tactic shifted to "Global Warming". Now hell, lets just loop it into a generic "Climate Change". For the love of God, just get it out in the open for what your agenda is: Institution of a single global governance, transfer of wealth from Western Nations and generate an Orwellian Utopia.
Actually, the 1970's "Ice Age" craze was purely media driven. George Will quoted a single paper (that was not peer reviewed) in Science. The article he quoted, Hays et al., ran in a non peer reviewed rag called Science News. At no point was there any stir among scientists that this "Impending Ice Age" had any inherent truth nor even a speck of empirical data behind it. All the news outlets of the time, who, like you, didn't understand the difference between PEER REVIEWED and NON PEER REVIEWED publications, ran with it as a true research story(TIME, NEWSWEEK, etc), which it WAS NOT.
Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigious journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.
I'm sure you can actually look up the information, instead of passing utter fallacy here.
You "conspiracy theorists" are absolutely the worst of the bunch.
A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.
-
. For the love of God, just get it out in the open for what your agenda is: Institution of a single global governance, transfer of wealth from Western Nations and generate an Orwellian Utopia.
My agenda?
To die quietly as far away from people like you as possible. Preferably on the deck of a sailboat after a beautifully long dive, and with a cold beer in my hand.
It is literally insane to think that people, with such finite lives, can decidedly push an agenda that they will never see. It is much more likely that people will always support the status quo....forever.... until forced to consider another alternative.
-
This is an interesting idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science)
That is the exact model I've heard many real climatologists espousing. I've yet to look at it deeper, but it seems sensible enough.
I do fear that the simple nature of humanity will not support such common sense though. Too many see this as opportunity as opposed to a true threat to the species, unfortunately.
-
Wish you would stop citing 'peer reviewed' as a basis for any claims.
It's blatently obvious that this cabal of scientists have totally undermined the 'peer review' process.
The current UNIPCC report -
4000 scientists - Al Gore - LIE (theres a surprise)
2500 scientists - Other souces - Debateable, see below.
A little over 50 scientists put the report together, then peer reviewed it themselves!
Everyone who had anything to do with it (including dissenters) were included as having contributed to it, one guy had to threaten to sue the IPCC to get his name removed. The impression given is everyone included AGREED with the findings. All but a few critcisms were dismissed, most changes were phaseology.
The summaries were put together by politicians!
So if you can get a little group of friends together and all write papers, then review each others papers you can claim they were peer reviewed. Thats how this branch of science seems to work.
Whether it ends up that AGW/CC is a fact or not, this group has subverted/damaged/undermined the field as a whole. I hope there can now be a new UNBIASED fresh start.
That doesn't mean the UNIPCC investigating itself, thats plainly ludicrous. (fox and chickens)
-
It's all roadkill. Politics is all roadkill, entertainment is all roadkill... sometimes I can't see the difference between the two.
-
I'm currently reading an excellent book "Heaven and Earth". Its a very interesting read. It cuts right through the AGW BS. I recomend it.
-Wab
-
... until forced to consider another alternative.
Bring it. :devil
-
My agenda?
To die quietly as far away from people like you as possible. Preferably on the deck of a sailboat after a beautifully long dive, and with a cold beer in my hand.
It is literally insane to think that people, with such finite lives, can decidedly push an agenda that they will never see. It is much more likely that people will always support the status quo....forever.... until forced to consider another alternative.
To have an agenda or not to have an agenda. That is the question. I for myself wish that the future climate will be friendly enough to give my children a chance for a decent life.
How's that?
-
To have an agenda or not to have an agenda. That is the question. I for myself wish that the future climate will be friendly enough to give my children a chance for a decent life.
How's that?
This is another thing I don't get, there are REAL ISSUES that threaten us and the next generation.
AIDS
Genocide
Cancer
Malaria
Loss of family values
Starvation/Malnutrition
Energy shortage
Drug use
Extreme poverty
Fiscal security
Terrorism
to name a few
And your worry for your children's future is that it MIGHT get 2-3 degrees warmer over the next 50-100 years. :rolleyes:
Again, how come crocodiles and sea turtles have survived dozens of drastic warming/cooling cycles, but we'll all die if it warms 3 degrees. If it warms, or cools humans can and will adapt.
Maybe the UN could actually make a positive difference in the world, if instead of worrying about climate change (which is something they can do nothing about) and wasting billions of dollars on it, they did something useful. Like maybe save millions of lives every year in Africa that are lost to malaria, we have the technology to do it to. Or round up and execute all the warlords in Africa responsible for killing millions in genocide. Or do something to stop the millions killed by AIDS or Cancer each year. Or research and develop more efficient energy sources. Or bring clean water to villages ravaged by dysentery.
Naw, why worry about actually saving lives, instead let's impose billions of dollars in taxes and penalties, which will do nothing to stop nature from doing what nature does (climate change) and which will give poor countries no chance of ever giving their citizens a better life.
-
Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.
I hope you will say the same in the summertime, when its sh*t hot outside. But I guess, then its not weather anymore, but the effect of GW :rolleyes:
Regards
SF
-
Indeed. Historically it is. :aok (And weather isn't climate)
yea,,,,,and your tires aren't a part of your car
-
Its just stuff that woories me for our children and grandchildrens lives - it is not that the actual thing happening now - glacier melting - but how that affects everything else. Whether it is a natural occurence that happens every couple million years or whatever is not the point. it is how do we deal with it now to ensure that people have a home in a hundred years. to just shake your head and say it is natural lets ignore it is not going to help your grandchildren. Ther are consequences to every action or inaction.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/17239365
-
Its just stuff that woories me for our children and grandchildrens lives - it is not that the actual thing happening now - glacier melting - but how that affects everything else. Whether it is a natural occurence that happens every couple million years or whatever is not the point. it is how do we deal with it now to ensure that people have a home in a hundred years. to just shake your head and say it is natural lets ignore it is not going to help your grandchildren. Ther are consequences to every action or inaction.
But that is the crux of the problem, Nwbie. The whole focus of the talks in Copenhagen center around what may be a completely false premise, with a then predictably completely ineffective solution. It is entirely necessary to determine first: 1) if the world is continuing to warm, 2) if the cause is CO2 or natural, 3) if -- assuming it is man-produced CO2 -- the proposed measures for cutting CO2 are effective and sustainable without causing more hardship than would occur by doing nothing. If (1) is true, but natural, countries should be focused on determining how to mitigate the effects of warming, instead of wasting time trying to force draconian reductions in CO2 emmisions and redistributing wealth from other nations. If (1) is true, but is indeed being driven by man-made factors, the real debate is what combination of prevention and mitigation is best. If (1) is false, and the world is turning the corner and heading into cooling, we'd best start figuring out how to mitigate that instead, which would be a much more dire problem.
-
I hope you will say the same in the summertime, when its sh*t hot outside. But I guess, then its not weather anymore, but the effect of GW :rolleyes:
Regards
SF
I've never attributed a single weather event on a changing climate. Not a hurricane.... not a snowstorm. Not a heat wave. Nor a cold spell.
You can only attribute a multiple string of events on the larger climate factors.
-
I've never attributed a single weather event on a changing climate. Not a hurricane.... not a snowstorm. Not a heat wave. Nor a cold spell.
You can only attribute a multiple string of events on the larger climate factors.
although you did say that one of their "signs" of global warming was increased hydrological activity? i think when i mentioned the snow storm here? the snow storm which is perfectly normal?
you also alluded to the weather not being the climate.....but i believe that the different weather systems make up the climate.
-
To have an agenda or not to have an agenda. That is the question. I for myself wish that the future climate will be friendly enough to give my children a chance for a decent life.
[sarcasm]
Well, in that case, the most important thing we can do for our children is start killing people. No hybrid car or taxing of farts will solve the root of most environmental problems (GW included or not), which is that there are too many people on this planet, or at least will be really soon. Reducing CO2 emission is not even treating the symptom - it is treating the psychosomatic symptom. All that money and time is wasted on talks can be used for killing people.
I am doing my share. How about you?
[/sarcasm]
-
Its just stuff that woories me for our children and grandchildrens lives - it is not that the actual thing happening now - glacier melting - but how that affects everything else. Whether it is a natural occurence that happens every couple million years or whatever is not the point. it is how do we deal with it now to ensure that people have a home in a hundred years. to just shake your head and say it is natural lets ignore it is not going to help your grandchildren. Ther are consequences to every action or inaction.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/17239365
Your unborn already will pay a high price for all the money being spent today to fight mother nature.
-
Just ask yourself what 'them' taking 'your' money and giving it to 'others' is going to do to change 'climate.' :bolt:
-
That last word in quotations seems strange.
I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.
I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:
1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need
2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range
3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly
And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area. Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels. After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated. To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.
We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up. At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet. One may argue, why worry that far ahead?
Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend. We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today. And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.
We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here. I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas. No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.
Think about it...
-Penguin
-
1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need...
How many of the people that are making the decisions concerning 'climate change' (which I dispute is a problem at all) have ever worked manual labor at all? How many of them have ever worked at farming food?
How many of them have offered farmers money to NOT grow food. How many of them make decisions every year to let food go to waste rather than flood the market with it?
Think about THAT!
-
To refute your point:
a.) The people who are at the forefront of this issue are the agricultural scientists who stand the most to lose from temperature increases. To put it in your words, their entire life revolves around making the most food possible for the longest time
b.) Working manual labor is completely irrelevant, what does it have to do with figuring out what we can do to limit our emissions
c.) If you offer them not to grow food, you must match the price of their crop, and if you do that, un-farming will become the biggest fiscal debacle ever to face this country. In example, one could always say that one is not growing food on one's land, and therefore qualify for the money
d.) If you "flood the market" you have three new problems, you are:
1. Underselling the farmers, putting them out of buisness
2. Where will it be grown?
3. (Most importantly) Where the heck is all that food going to come from, since you are already offering
money not to grow it!
-Penguin
-
That last word in quotations seems strange.
I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.
I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:
Bullpucky, we are the most advanced species on the planet, we can and will adapt, if Polar Bears can do it why the heck can't we.
1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need
Exactly, so why don't we spend money teaching better agriculture to developing nations, instead of spending that money fighting against nature.
2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range
Yes, if the GW predictions are true some land will become more arid and less will grow there. However as the temp goes up other land which was to cold before, would now produce better crops, and some places which were arid, would see more rain. Far more people die in this world due to cold then heat, think about that.
3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly
The crop belt will just shift farther north and south out of the temperate zones. Sure the US would be growing less, but Canada would be growing more, and see a longer growing season.
And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area. Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels. After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated. To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.
Your confusing the issue here, climate change, our energy resources, two separate issues. So again why don't we spent the money and energy with R&D of more efficient energy sources, instead of penalizing job creating businesses with cap and trade, and carbon taxes.
We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up. At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet. One may argue, why worry that far ahead?
Bullpucky, I'm sure it was those Australopithecus guys burning their coal that warmed them out of the last ice age. The data shows the earth goes through a 150,000 year warming/cooling cycle, guess what? it's that time again. We are OBSERVING changes in the climate not CAUSING them.
Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend. We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today. And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.
So what's your answer? Eugenics, population control, forced abortion. Is that why the UN worries about GW instead of saving the millions who die from AIDS or malaria every year? Some people said clear back in the 50s, that we would have a population crash before the year 1990, Ummm... yea... NOPE!
We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here. I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas. No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.
Think about it...
You make a decent argument for developing more efficient energy sources, but again, that has nothing to do with climate change. I AM a conservationist, I work every summer as a backcountry guide in Wyomings Wind River range. I am certified Leave No Trace instructor. I'd dare say I've spent more nights deep in the wilderness than 99% of this forum. I support designated wilderness areas, and National Parks. I studied wildlife biology as an undergrad, I understand the environment and how delicate ecosystems are. But "climate change" (notice, they don't call it global warming anymore, since it stopped warming in 1998) has nothing to do with conservation. It is all about political, and financial power.
-Penguin
-
Just ask yourself what 'them' taking 'your' money and giving it to 'others' is going to do to change 'climate.' :bolt:
Exactly, this whole Copenhagen treaty is not about saving the planet. It's about a word I can't say here cause it might get Skuzzified.
hint: It rhymes with Smocialism.
-
Bullpucky, we are the most advanced species on the planet, we can and will adapt, if Polar Bears can do it why the heck can't we.
Americans and Europeans maybe... Africans, South Americans, and rural Asians don't seem to be liking it too well though...
Ehh nvm let's not touch that one...
-
top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.
watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.
i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.
well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".
-
top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.
watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.
i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.
well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".
One of my favorite episodes, the Yota they got for that is pretty neat! I remember people were upset with Jeremy for drinking and driving in that episode. His response "I wasn't driving, I was sailing on the frozen ocean"
-
One of my favorite episodes, the Yota they got for that is pretty neat! I remember people were upset with Jeremy for drinking and driving in that episode. His response "I wasn't driving, I was sailing on the frozen ocean"
ya....i don't generally care for toyota pickups...but i'd love to see that one sitting in my driveway. :aok
-
Here an interesting article in The American Thinker.
Two eminent Professors reveal just one of the many seamy stories that emerge from the Climategate emails. A prejudiced journal editor conspires with senior IPCC scientists to delay and discredit a paper by four distinguished scientists demonstrating that a central part of the IPCC’s scientific argument is erroneous.
-> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
Regards
SF
-
top gear is coming on at 11pm eastern. it's a re-run from earlier tonight.
watch it. they;re at the north pole. it looks perfectly fine to me.
i think one of em said something about being told they'd never get their trucks there because of things melting, global warming, etc etc.
well....they're kinda like idiots.....like the middle aged british 3 stooges of the car world.....but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists".
Is the episode on youtube? (drool).
Anyway, you can expect the N-Pole to be completely frozen in December :D Still....
-
b.) Working manual labor is completely irrelevant, what does it have to do with figuring out what we can do to limit our emissions
I would submit that the people that are making these decisions are poorly suited for any manual labor and in fact their positions more closely resemble that of thieves.
Since the 1930s agricultural price support programs have led to vast amounts of food being deliberately destroyed even when malnutrition was a serious problem in America and even when hunger marches were occuring in cities across the country. This still goes on today. This goes on in countries around the world.
These 'scientists' that you suggest are helping to determine the fair market value by destroying crops that could be used to feed the hungry? They need to keep their noses out of the situation and allow the market to determine the value. Anyone that understand just the smallest amount of economics understand that this approach to 'fix prices' has always led to solutions that only cause more problems whether it be housing automobiles or food. If you doubt this go to New York City and hunt up 'affordable housing' and see what you get.
Free markets need to remain free and unregulated in order to function correctly. Regulation and price fixing only adds waste and leads to higher costs (eventually making the situation untenable).
-
That last word in quotations seems strange.
I think that you are debating the effectiveness of wealth transferr, if I am correct.
I agree, but here is why 2-3 degrees (globally) can make or break our species:
1. Not everyone in this world is getting the food they need
2. Our crops and ecosystems involving them are approaching the peak of their optimum temperature range
3. Therefore, 2-3 degrees makes a huge difference, especially since this affects staple crops greatly
And if we are talking about degrees celcius, that's a whole other area. Anyway, climate change is irrelavent once we run out of fossil fuels. After that point, we will be living in a world where many of our once beautiful land has been obliderated. To head off the problem now will give us a better world now and later.
We have already determined our accelerating temperature increase, as soon as we started using coal, we have been blasting the temperature up. At this rate, 50 years from now we will have almost no ice left on the planet. One may argue, why worry that far ahead?
Because between 2060 and today, there will be problems facing our world that we cannot begin to comprehend. We have 7,000,000,000 people on this planet today. And that number will continue to increase exponentially until a saturation point is reached.
We as a species must be able to live within our planet's capability to sustain us if we are to remain here. I am not saying that this is the end of the world, but if we keep on going at this rate, we will literally run out of gas. No matter what your argument on climate change is, we need to develop new energy resources to power our planet.
Think about it...
-Penguin
they aren't fossil fuels, and we aren't gonna run out.
-
Is the episode on youtube? (drool).
Anyway, you can expect the N-Pole to be completely frozen in December :D Still....
it just aired lst night. they were saying that the episode could be downloaded on ituned i think?
-
they aren't fossil fuels, and we aren't gonna run out.
What aren't fossil fuels?
They need to keep their noses out of the situation and allow the market to determine the value.
Which will fall dramatically. If we let the market determine the value of food, farmers will go out of buisness.
With the farmers out of buisness, you will set off an even worse chain of events.
I will now give you an example of what you are trying to do: Enter Kenya
We are sending thousands of tons of free grain over there every day. The farmers are out of work, and now you have a capital city that has the nickname Nairobbery (Nairobi). If you try this on a nation already hit by hard times, it's a recipie for disaster.
I would submit that the people that are making these decisions are poorly suited for any manual labor and in fact their positions more closely resemble that of thieves.
1. Let's keep the ad hominem attacks out.
2. Of course they are not suited for manual labor, they spend most of their time at a desk!
3. Prove your point, explain who, what, when, how, where, and why are stealing from others, or otherwise taking from one party for their benefit.
"...but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists"."
What is your point? Is this an attack on the scientists; if so, the point is false, as there has been quite a bit of research done on the poles. Also, you have missed the point, since the north pole is more of a group of islands. Antarctica is where we are experiencing the real melting.
It doesn't matter if the interior is frozen as long as the exterior is melting, on any object. Since this force will only increase as we keep pumping out CO2, CO, CH4, and other greenhouse gasses, the interior will eventually become the interior.
Where is this debate going? This seems to be closer to a point against a false dichotomy (If it isn't A, then it is B by default: A fallacy since the possibility of C wasn't discussed). Explain how the Earth isn't getting warmer, and how we aren't wrecking the rainforests, and how the icecaps aren't being melted.
Think about it.
-Penguin
-
What aren't fossil fuels?
Which will fall dramatically. If we let the market determine the value of food, farmers will go out of buisness.
With the farmers out of buisness, you will set off an even worse chain of events.
I will now give you an example of what you are trying to do: Enter Kenya
We are sending thousands of tons of free grain over there every day. The farmers are out of work, and now you have a capital city that has the nickname Nairobbery (Nairobi). If you try this on a nation already hit by hard times, it's a recipie for disaster.
1. Let's keep the ad hominem attacks out.
2. Of course they are not suited for manual labor, they spend most of their time at a desk!
3. Prove your point, explain who, what, when, how, where, and why are stealing from others, or otherwise taking from one party for their benefit.
"...but just by going there i think they've done more than some of these "scientists"."
What is your point? Is this an attack on the scientists; if so, the point is false, as there has been quite a bit of research done on the poles. Also, you have missed the point, since the north pole is more of a group of islands. Antarctica is where we are experiencing the real melting.
It doesn't matter if the interior is frozen as long as the exterior is melting, on any object. Since this force will only increase as we keep pumping out CO2, CO, CH4, and other greenhouse gasses, the interior will eventually become the interior.
Where is this debate going? This seems to be closer to a point against a false dichotomy (If it isn't A, then it is B by default: A fallacy since the possibility of C wasn't discussed). Explain how the Earth isn't getting warmer, and how we aren't wrecking the rainforests, and how the icecaps aren't being melted.
Think about it.
-Penguin
OIL, coal, gas, etc.
-
Uhh, I don't know if you know this or not, but those fuels come from the compressed, fermented bodies of plankton and other sea creatures from the dinosaur age.
That process takes millions of years, so yes, we will run out. Not to flame, but get your facts straight!
-Penguin
-
OIL, coal, gas, etc.
I believe CAP1 is referring to the Abiotic Oil theory, basically that some oil/hydrocarbons are not made from biological material, but are created much deeper in the earth, from non-biological carbon deposits dating back to the earths creation, and slowly seeps up to the level where we can drill it. While not the most popular theory, you cannot discredit it easily either, seeing as we have evidence of non-biological hydrocarbons in the form of methane on Titan, and it's right there on the surface.
So don't be so quick to judge others, on whether they have their "facts straight"
-
Uhh, I don't know if you know this or not, but those fuels come from the compressed, fermented bodies of plankton and other sea creatures from the dinosaur age.
That process takes millions of years, so yes, we will run out. Not to flame, but get your facts straight!
-Penguin
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
RAther an old article, but it is backed up by some military people i know.
http://thesolidsurfer.typepad.com/the_solid_surfer/2005/11/oil_a_renewable.html
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
-
I believe CAP1 is referring to the Abiotic Oil theory, basically that some oil/hydrocarbons are not made from biological material, but are created much deeper in the earth, from non-biological carbon deposits dating back to the earths creation, and slowly seeps up to the level where we can drill it. While not the most popular theory, you cannot discredit it easily either, seeing as we have evidence of non-biological hydrocarbons in the form of methane on Titan, and it's right there on the surface.
So don't be so quick to judge others, on whether they have their "facts straight"
i didn't know what it was called, but yes.......that is what i was referencing.
i think the same theory explains natural gas.
coal is pretty much very old, hardened oil.
-
Uhh, I don't know if you know this or not, but those fuels come from the compressed, fermented bodies of plankton and other sea creatures from the dinosaur age.
That process takes millions of years, so yes, we will run out. Not to flame, but get your facts straight!
-Penguin
Actually, they are from Prehistoric Swamps and Marshes.
-
Right you are :cheers:
I was explaining oil, I forgot to mention coal.
-Penguin
-
Bet the poor folks shivering in Britain at the moment wouldn't object to a li'l 'instant global warming'.
<leans back into his armchair in sunny Spain>
:cool:
-
Think about it.
I have thought about it, and researched the science. When I write a white paper, I must at least prove a significant portion of my hypothesis. AGW advocates can't prove ANY portion of theirs. These is so much supposition that is blended with some limited truth that the average person can't begin to sort it out.
A second point is that the AGW mafia equates being a AGW skeptic as being anti-environmentalist. They, not the skeptics are polarizing any discussion. I'm an advocate for doing everything feasible to preserve and repair the environment. Yet, I believe AGW is nothing less than a corrupt political movement with a large number of gullible followers. These people would call me a "denier" (but not to my face, I promise you). Al Gore's, "man made global warming is settled, their is no intelligent debate remaining", is the most remarkably pompous and arrogant statement I can recall ever hearing from a public figure. Especially coming from a guy whose personal carbon footprint is an order of magnitude greater than that of your typical American family.
Seriously, this has become more that just mind boggling silliness, it's become an intellectual tragedy.
Just today, a report was released, which claims that, "Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle."
Now I get it (who said that I was slow to catch on?). The world is doomed due to far too many mutts. So, keep the Hummer, just shoot the damn dog. While we're at it, we should drown the cats too. "Cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease."
I think there's a brain disease they've overlooked.
Right now, Europe is suffering through what some are calling the coldest December since 1944. North America is experiencing the same. Last year was colder than the year before, and the year before that was colder than the preceding year. Yet somehow, using various schemes, these "scientists" insist that 2009 will be the hottest year on record. Sure, and little pink angels will fly out of my bellybutton tomorrow. The Copenhagen climate meeting (the most disorganized anarchy that I've seen in a long time) was punctuated with an "extraordinarily" rare snow storm and freezing temperatures. Few failed to notice the irony of that. Maybe this weather will not be so rare going forward...
This illogical desire to change nature to preserve the world is pure folly. Nature leaves no survivors; never has, never will.
Clean the air, clean the rivers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. That we can do.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The United Nations was not created to impose and collect global taxes, there's something behind the scenes using this scary theory to make UN more powerfull and bring the Novo Ordo Seclorum . :noid
-
OH MY GOD!! the worlds gonna end in 2012. time to restock y2k food in sod house :banana:
-
I have thought about it, and researched the science. When I write a white paper, I must at least prove a significant portion of my hypothesis. AGW advocates can't prove ANY portion of theirs. These is so much supposition that is blended with some limited truth that the average person can't begin to sort it out.
A second point is that the AGW mafia equates being a AGW skeptic as being anti-environmentalist. They, not the skeptics are polarizing any discussion. I'm an advocate for doing everything feasible to preserve and repair the environment. Yet, I believe AGW is nothing less than a corrupt political movement with a large number of gullible followers. These people would call me a "denier" (but not to my face, I promise you). Al Gore's, "man made global warming is settled, their is no intelligent debate remaining", is the most remarkably pompous and arrogant statement I can recall ever hearing from a public figure. Especially coming from a guy whose personal carbon footprint is an order of magnitude greater than that of your typical American family.
Seriously, this has become more that just mind boggling silliness, it's become an intellectual tragedy.
Just today, a report was released, which claims that, "Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle."
Now I get it (who said that I was slow to catch on?). The world is doomed due to far too many mutts. So, keep the Hummer, just shoot the damn dog. While we're at it, we should drown the cats too. "Cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease."
I think there's a brain disease they've overlooked.
Right now, Europe is suffering through what some are calling the coldest December since 1944. North America is experiencing the same. Last year was colder than the year before, and the year before that was colder than the preceding year. Yet somehow, using various schemes, these "scientists" insist that 2009 will be the hottest year on record. Sure, and little pink angels will fly out of my bellybutton tomorrow. The Copenhagen climate meeting (the most disorganized anarchy that I've seen in a long time) was punctuated with an "extraordinarily" rare snow storm and freezing temperatures. Few failed to notice the irony of that. Maybe this weather will not be so rare going forward...
This illogical desire to change nature to preserve the world is pure folly. Nature leaves no survivors; never has, never will.
Clean the air, clean the rivers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. That we can do.
My regards,
Widewing
Well said, Widewing. :aok Couldn't have said it better myself. From one educated and thoughtful person to another, :salute!
-
I have thought about it, and researched the science. When I write a white paper, I must at least prove a significant portion of my hypothesis. AGW advocates can't prove ANY portion of theirs. These is so much supposition that is blended with some limited truth that the average person can't begin to sort it out.
A second point is that the AGW mafia equates being a AGW skeptic as being anti-environmentalist. They, not the skeptics are polarizing any discussion. I'm an advocate for doing everything feasible to preserve and repair the environment. Yet, I believe AGW is nothing less than a corrupt political movement with a large number of gullible followers. These people would call me a "denier" (but not to my face, I promise you). Al Gore's, "man made global warming is settled, their is no intelligent debate remaining", is the most remarkably pompous and arrogant statement I can recall ever hearing from a public figure. Especially coming from a guy whose personal carbon footprint is an order of magnitude greater than that of your typical American family.
Seriously, this has become more that just mind boggling silliness, it's become an intellectual tragedy.
Just today, a report was released, which claims that, "Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle."
Now I get it (who said that I was slow to catch on?). The world is doomed due to far too many mutts. So, keep the Hummer, just shoot the damn dog. While we're at it, we should drown the cats too. "Cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease."
I think there's a brain disease they've overlooked.
Right now, Europe is suffering through what some are calling the coldest December since 1944. North America is experiencing the same. Last year was colder than the year before, and the year before that was colder than the preceding year. Yet somehow, using various schemes, these "scientists" insist that 2009 will be the hottest year on record. Sure, and little pink angels will fly out of my bellybutton tomorrow. The Copenhagen climate meeting (the most disorganized anarchy that I've seen in a long time) was punctuated with an "extraordinarily" rare snow storm and freezing temperatures. Few failed to notice the irony of that. Maybe this weather will not be so rare going forward...
This illogical desire to change nature to preserve the world is pure folly. Nature leaves no survivors; never has, never will.
Clean the air, clean the rivers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. That we can do.
My regards,
Widewing
you know, as well as the rest of us.....they'll find a reason that colder weather is a sign of impending warming.
-
I can see what you guys are getting at, this IS about the people!
Well, I can't speak on their behalf, as it seems they are making things up. But here's my question: Why?
Why ruin your credibility with made up stories like that? Why get the world in a tizzy over nothing (supposedly).
Here's my position, put as simply as I can on emissions:
1. There is no reason to keep using oil, coal, and other fossil fuels, as this will warm the planet
2. Burning just about anything (especially coal) releases carcinogens
3. If we continue doing this, we will probably see either
a.) A drastic rise in sea levels
b.) A good-sized rise in cancer (lung types, mainly)
4. We will eventually run out of these fuels, and should try to avoid oil price upheaval by using renewable energy, and cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Ok, this is my point, go ahead and shoot at it now.
:cheers:
-Penguin
-
Anyone else going to incredibly slap Penguin besides me?
I honestly think you should shut it on these types of threads, just because of that last post where you said something quite stupid in a sense that, yes, ingenious idea. Yet you yourself haven't done anything of such... Take those four reasons of yours and put them into action, by that i mean, try it yourself.
I'd like to see how far you get, the only way to stop is by progress. That is a whole other subject relating to this one, which requires time.
-
I can see what you guys are getting at, this IS about the people!
Well, I can't speak on their behalf, as it seems they are making things up. But here's my question: Why?
Why ruin your credibility with made up stories like that? Why get the world in a tizzy over nothing (supposedly).
Here's my position, put as simply as I can on emissions:
1. There is no reason to keep using oil, coal, and other fossil fuels, as this will warm the planet
2. Burning just about anything (especially coal) releases carcinogens
3. If we continue doing this, we will probably see either
a.) A drastic rise in sea levels
b.) A good-sized rise in cancer (lung types, mainly)
4. We will eventually run out of these fuels, and should try to avoid oil price upheaval by using renewable energy, and cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Ok, this is my point, go ahead and shoot at it now.
:cheers:
-Penguin
so.....are you willing to give up virtually EVERYTHING you have that needed "fossil" fuels to make, or deliver. before you answer, there is NOTHING that you can buy that isn't on a truck at some point.
another clue....they're not fossil fuels, and we;re not gonna run out.
another clue....if i recall, they were sayin this same stuff 25 years ago. yet nothing bad has happened yet.
another clue....co2 is not pollution.
so.......if you feel so strongly against this stuff, you should give away your house, and everything in it, give away all of your motorized stuff, and go live in the woods.
i know this sounds mean, but all of you people that say this crap, turn right around, and continue using it.
do you realize while the powers that be expect us to drive little 2 and 3 cylinder poop boxes for cars, they're driving around in limos, suv's, and other big crap? they fly in private jets.
you really need to get a clue dude.
-
you know, as well as the rest of us.....they'll find a reason that colder weather is a sign of impending warming.
Actually, that's just a side effect of a sun that's been asleep for 2 years. Give it a couple more, to get back to historical norms. Then come and talk.
The last three weeks have shown the most activity on the sun in 3 years. It's coming out of a longer than usual minimum. If you don't trust me, you can easily find the information on many sites, that are more knowledgeable that I.
(http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/1024/latest.html)
-
Actually, that's just a side effect of a sun that's been asleep for 2 years. Give it a couple more, to get back to historical norms. Then come and talk.
The last three weeks have shown the most activity on the sun in 3 years. It's coming out of a longer than usual minimum. If you don't trust me, you can easily find the information on many sites, that are more knowledgeable that I.
(http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/1024/latest.html)
so what you're saying then, is that the sun is responsible for global climate change...or global warming....or global cooling....what ever it's being called this week.
regardless, if it's the sun, then it's still not man made, and still the earth's natural cycle.
-
another clue....they're not fossil fuels, and we;re not gonna run out.
You are completely incorrect on that statement. That is a total falsehood. If you have ever learned anything of the earth's history, you would know that dinosaurs and their assorted bretheren walked this earth for millions upon millions of years.
In prehistoric times, there were swamps that eventually were covered with rock. Intense heat and pressure compressed and rearranged the molecules of these compunds and changed them into oil and coal. Tell me how these are not "fossil" fuels.
So far you have given no evidence to support your points. If you are to tell me that all of those organic compounds just went away, then you are a complete liar. All you have done to prove your point is to contradict me. Here is my proof, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_Oil
Formation
According to generally accepted theory, petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[14] The theory was initially based on the isolation of molecules from petroleum that closely resemble known biomolecules (Figure).
Structure of vanadium porphyrin compound extracted from petroleum by Alfred Treibs, father of organic geochemistry. Treibs noted the close structural similarity of this molecule and chlorophyll a.
More specifically, crude oil and natural gas are products of heating of ancient organic materials (i.e. kerogen) over geological time. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis, in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[15] Today's oil formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions (the remains of prehistoric terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tended to form coal). Over geological time the organic matter mixed with mud, and was buried under heavy layers of sediment resulting in high levels of heat and pressure (diagenesis). This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis.
Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[16]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil which is formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at much shallower depths than where it was formed. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.
And here is my proof that you are wrong: Again same place.
Extensive research into the chemical structure of kerogen has identified algae as the primary source of oil. The abiogenic origin hypothesis fails to explain the presence of these markers in kerogen and oil, as well as failing to explain how inorganic origin could be achieved at temperatures and pressures sufficient to convert kerogen to graphite. It has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists, as the hypothesis lacks any mechanism for determining where the process may occur.
If you don't trust Wikipedia, here are some other sites: http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112442/historyform.html
Oil is a fossil fuel. Millions of years ago, tiny sea creatures and plants died and fell to the bottom of the ocean floor. Layer on top of layer of this organic material collected and decomposed. Year after year, sand and rocks covered the layers until pressure built up. The high temperature of the rotting material, along with the pressure from the layers of rock and sand that covered it, caused a chemical reaction. Eventually, petroleum was created. Then the ancient seas dried up and oil remained trapped under tons of earth.
This is from http://www.earthsky.org/faqpost/energy/how-do-coal-and-oil-form
Both coal and oil are fossil fuels. That means they’re formed from organic matter – stuff that was alive on Earth millions of years ago – that was covered by heavy layers of rock. Over time, the increased pressures and heat resulting from the overlying rock transformed the decomposed matter to coal or oil.
Both coal and oil are carbon-based fuels – they’re made up mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Coal usually forms from buried tissues of higher plants. Most of Earth’s coal originated as trees, ferns, and other tropical forest plants that lived in a warmer time in our history. That’s why the world’s coal beds are found on land.
Oil mostly originated as very simple organisms – such as bacteria, algae and plankton. This organic matter – and often the sandstone or limestone beds that hold the oil – was deposited in marine or lake basins, and in the ocean. Both oil and coal are non-renewable – once we use up all we have, it’s gone.
Checkmate. :cool:
-Penguin
-
Here is my proof, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_Oil
"According to generally accepted theory"
You can't prove anything with a theory.
Try again.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Actually, that's just a side effect of a sun that's been asleep for 2 years. Give it a couple more, to get back to historical norms. Then come and talk.
The last three weeks have shown the most activity on the sun in 3 years. It's coming out of a longer than usual minimum. If you don't trust me, you can easily find the information on many sites, that are more knowledgeable that I.
(http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/1024/latest.html)
So.. ... Let me get this conversation straight.
So you say man is responsible for the globe warming, but... ... it's stopped warming !?!
"Oh, that's cause the sun's at a solar minimum, just wait till it ramps up again and we'll see warming."
But I though man was responsible for warming??
"We are, it's just stopped cause the sunspot cycle is at it's low."
So the sun is responsible for warming?!?
"No, we are, just wait till the sun heats up again and you'll see."
So man is responsible, but it's stopped because of the sun, even though we emit more CO2 then ever?
"Exactly"
Ummm... OK :headscratch:
-
You are completely incorrect on that statement. That is a total falsehood. If you have ever learned anything of the earth's history, you would know that dinosaurs and their assorted bretheren walked this earth for millions upon millions of years.
In prehistoric times, there were swamps that eventually were covered with rock. Intense heat and pressure compressed and rearranged the molecules of these compunds and changed them into oil and coal. Tell me how these are not "fossil" fuels.
So far you have given no evidence to support your points. If you are to tell me that all of those organic compounds just went away, then you are a complete liar. All you have done to prove your point is to contradict me. Here is my proof, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_Oil
Formation
According to generally accepted theory, petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[14] The theory was initially based on the isolation of molecules from petroleum that closely resemble known biomolecules (Figure).
Structure of vanadium porphyrin compound extracted from petroleum by Alfred Treibs, father of organic geochemistry. Treibs noted the close structural similarity of this molecule and chlorophyll a.
More specifically, crude oil and natural gas are products of heating of ancient organic materials (i.e. kerogen) over geological time. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis, in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[15] Today's oil formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions (the remains of prehistoric terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tended to form coal). Over geological time the organic matter mixed with mud, and was buried under heavy layers of sediment resulting in high levels of heat and pressure (diagenesis). This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis.
Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[16]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil which is formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at much shallower depths than where it was formed. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.
And here is my proof that you are wrong: Again same place.
Extensive research into the chemical structure of kerogen has identified algae as the primary source of oil. The abiogenic origin hypothesis fails to explain the presence of these markers in kerogen and oil, as well as failing to explain how inorganic origin could be achieved at temperatures and pressures sufficient to convert kerogen to graphite. It has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists, as the hypothesis lacks any mechanism for determining where the process may occur.
If you don't trust Wikipedia, here are some other sites: http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112442/historyform.html
Oil is a fossil fuel. Millions of years ago, tiny sea creatures and plants died and fell to the bottom of the ocean floor. Layer on top of layer of this organic material collected and decomposed. Year after year, sand and rocks covered the layers until pressure built up. The high temperature of the rotting material, along with the pressure from the layers of rock and sand that covered it, caused a chemical reaction. Eventually, petroleum was created. Then the ancient seas dried up and oil remained trapped under tons of earth.
This is from http://www.earthsky.org/faqpost/energy/how-do-coal-and-oil-form
Both coal and oil are fossil fuels. That means they’re formed from organic matter – stuff that was alive on Earth millions of years ago – that was covered by heavy layers of rock. Over time, the increased pressures and heat resulting from the overlying rock transformed the decomposed matter to coal or oil.
Both coal and oil are carbon-based fuels – they’re made up mostly of carbon and hydrogen. Coal usually forms from buried tissues of higher plants. Most of Earth’s coal originated as trees, ferns, and other tropical forest plants that lived in a warmer time in our history. That’s why the world’s coal beds are found on land.
Oil mostly originated as very simple organisms – such as bacteria, algae and plankton. This organic matter – and often the sandstone or limestone beds that hold the oil – was deposited in marine or lake basins, and in the ocean. Both oil and coal are non-renewable – once we use up all we have, it’s gone.
Checkmate. :cool:
-Penguin
wikipedia? :rofl
i posted these links a couple of pages ago. i know some people that verified this. they actually mentioned it to me, before i found these pages. i told em they were full of crap.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
http://www.bipolarnation.com/2009/03/18/is-oil-a-renewable-resource/
the one below has a couple of links in it.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread206133/pg1
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bainerman/bainerman083105.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oil-Peak-and-the-Renewable-Abiotic-Petroleum-85267.shtml
http://www.americandaily.com/article/22843
read these links with an open mind. forget all the bs you've been taught.
also remember, we were told in 1973 that we were gonna run out of oil back then. i was young, but i remember it. i remember the arab oil embargo too.
mother earth creates oil.
-
So.. ... Let me get this conversation straight.
So you say man is responsible for the globe warming, but... ... it's stopped warming !?!
"Oh, that's cause the sun's at a solar minimum, just wait till it ramps up again and we'll see warming."
But I though man was responsible for warming??
"We are, it's just stopped cause the sunspot cycle is at it's low."
So the sun is responsible for warming?!?
"No, we are, just wait till the sun heats up again and you'll see."
So man is responsible, but it's stopped because of the sun, even though we emit more CO2 then ever?
"Exactly"
Ummm... OK :headscratch:
well...no.....the earth is cooling right now. he's saying THAT'S a result of the suns inactivity. i normally respect his posts pretty highly.....but i thinnk he;s fallen for all the bs on this one.
-
I think you guys need to expand your thinking a tad.
When you mention fossil fuel use, you're being far to restrictive if you just think that means cars, trucks, planes, electricity, and home heat.
Restricting your use of fossil fuels won't stop with limiting what you drive, or how far.
I work in a small plant that creates food packaging. Guess what it's made out of? Petroleum products. Our small little plant creates enough packaging to stretch a 5' wide "belt" around the globe 13-14 times every year. Almost everything we create ends up in a land fill after you're done eating. Sad, ain't it?
Ever had a soda pop from a plastic bottle? Potato chips from a bag? Cereal from a bag, or a bag inside of a box? What type of container do you get your laundry soap in? What's your computer made of? Your carpet? Your shoes? Not only does your vehicle burn fossil fuels, it's made from them. Can Moray SCUBA dive without using fossil fuels? Can his equipment be made without using them? That's not to point fingers at Moray. I'm just using it as an example of how dependent we are on fossil fuels. We have to burn them, just to study the effects of burning them.
Running out of fossil fuels doesn't mean no more driving. It means radically more than that. It's difficult to even fathom.
Just from a food angle, how would your life change without the ability to purchase and easily store food without it spoiling? Would you have time for much of anything in life besides securing food for a few days at a time?
I'm not saying we're running out of them. I'm just broadening the discussion...
From a standpoint of one who studied archaeology in college, and who's brother is an archaeologist, I have no doubt that running out of fossil fuels (or the ability to use the ones available) would be the end of civilization as we know it, temporarily at least. The best we could hope for would be a "seamless" transition to a new fuel source. And like I mentioned, fuel is just one facet of the problem.
If the fuel shortage coincided with an agriculture-limiting climate change it'd be really bad (whether it was man-made or not). Without agriculture, there's no civilization.
-
I think you guys need to expand your thinking a tad.
When you mention fossil fuel use, you're being far to restrictive if you just think that means cars, trucks, planes, electricity, and home heat.
Restricting your use of fossil fuels won't stop with limiting what you drive, or how far.
I work in a small plant that creates food packaging. Guess what it's made out of? Petroleum products. Our small little plant creates enough packaging to stretch a 5' wide "belt around the globe 13-14 times every year. Almost everything we create ends up in a land fill after you're done eating. Sad, ain't it?
Ever had a soda pop from a plastic bottle? Potato chips from a bag? Cereal from a bag, or a bag inside of a box? What type of container do you get your laundry soap in? What's your computer made of? Your carpet? Your shoes? Not only does your vehicle burn fossil fuels, it's made from them. Can Moray SCUBA dive without using fossil fuels? Can his equipment be made without using them? That's not to point fingers at Moray. I'm just using it as an example of how dependent we are on fossil fuels. We have to burn them, just to study the effects of burning them.
Running out of fossil fuels doesn't mean no more driving. It means radically more than that. It's difficult to even fathom.
Just from a food angle, how would your life change without the ability to purchase and easily store food without it spoiling? Would you have time for much of anything in life besides securing food for a few days at a time?
I'm not saying we're running out of them either. I'm just broadening the discussion...
I agree, I don't think it has anything to so with global warming though. I once laughed at a protester in San Francisco who was blocking a SUV in the street, holding his bicycle in the air, screaming at the SUV driver. "I don't need your stinking oil, I don't use oil, stop drilling, I ride bikes" etc.
I just chuckled, what does he think the machines that manufactured that bike run on, or the machines that mined the aluminum for it, or the truck that shipped it to the store, what are the plastic fenders made out of, what does he oil the chain with, what's in the asphalt he rides it on, how does the food he eats get to the store, etc. EVERYBODY uses oil, even if you haven't driven an inch in your life.
For what it's worth I don't think we will run out of oil -I really mean all fossil fuels and petroleum-, it will just become more and more difficult to reach the oil that is left. Eventually the market will reach a tipping point when the increasing cost of extracting the remaining oil, will surpass the cost of alternatives. Even then, some industries will still use oil, I can't see the Airlines for example, ever flying non fossil fuel airplanes.
Right now the technology exists to replace much of our dependence on oil, and petroleum base products, but oil is still much, much cheaper. Not until the scarcity of oil, and the increasing difficulty in getting to it, drive the price way, way up, will we see a significant shift away from it's usage.
In short, I think IF we let the free market work, it will work out new solutions.
-
Now I get it (who said that I was slow to catch on?). The world is doomed due to far too many mutts. So, keep the Hummer, just shoot the damn dog. While we're at it, we should drown the cats too. "Cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease."
I think there's a brain disease they've overlooked.
I would agree since I dont believe poo in toilet water would be a valid vector.
-
Penguin I believe oil is created in an enzymatic process but... by your theory please explain how dinosaur guts got so far under the earths crust please?
:bolt:
-
Last night it was minus 5 degrees centigrade here in my back garden. (Edit: It was minus 7 deg, this morning.) This morning the world is white. It's been frozen for days now. No snow just frost. The last time I saw it this frozen was when I visited Iceland. Everything is frozen white, the grass, the houses, the cars, the powerlines then cobwebs.
So what? You say those of you living in places the get to minus 20.. Well frankly that never happens here on the west coast of Ireland with the Atlantic and the Gulf Stream lapping at our door. I have never seen it before to this extent and I've been around a while. Snow is so rare around here that it generates great excitement. This kind of frost is so rare that many older people I've met have NEVER experienced it before. :old:
So much for global warming. :banana:
Yes I know it's only weather but if I wasn't skeptical before. This would raise doubts in my mind.
What's it like you you, Angus?
-
"Anyone else going to incredibly slap Penguin besides me?"
It's no good slapping Penguin, FYB, we in Duxford Wing do that all the time and he just comes up for more, bless 'im.
:cool:
-
Penguin I believe oil is created in an enzymatic process but... by your theory please explain how dinosaur guts got so far under the earths crust please?
:bolt:
and to further your question.....why did they all apparently go to certain places to die?
and why when i dug up my dead cat, is there nothign but bones?
-
Penguin I believe oil is created in an enzymatic process but... by your theory please explain how dinosaur guts got so far under the earths crust please?
:bolt:
You know how the rocks at the bottom of stream beds are so smooth? That's because of erosion. Water works mouch more quickly than air, but the smooth tops of the Appalchian Mountain Range prove my point. The dust from all of those millions of years of erosion caused the ground level to rise.
That's the same reason why we have to dig up fossils and other such things. No, they weren't dinosaur guts, they were the remains of plankton, swamps and marshes (they last much, much, much longer). That's how we get the big pockets of subterranean oil today.
Glad to tell someone about geology :cheers:
-Penguin
-
You know how the rocks at the bottom of stream beds are so smooth? That's because of erosion. Water works mouch more quickly than air, but the smooth tops of the Appalchian Mountain Range prove my point. The dust from all of those millions of years of erosion caused the ground level to rise.
That's the same reason why we have to dig up fossils and other such things. No, they weren't dinosaur guts, they were the remains of plankton, swamps and marshes (they last much, much, much longer). That's how we get the big pockets of subterranean oil today.
Glad to tell someone about geology :cheers:
-Penguin
doesn't explain how "dry" wells have new oil in em.
-
Residual oil seeps around, and for quite a while before you have removed every molecule from the well. It's like a glass with molasses in it, you can't suck out every drop with a straw, and occaisonaly it will pool into a big enough drop for you to imbibe.
(Yes, I know that molasses is thicker, just needed to simulate some of the effects)
-Penguin
-
Residual oil seeps around, and for quite a while before you have removed every molecule from the well. It's like a glass with molasses in it, you can't suck out every drop with a straw, and occaisonaly it will pool into a big enough drop for you to imbibe.
(Yes, I know that molasses is thicker, just needed to simulate some of the effects)
-Penguin
IF YOU read the links, you'd have seen that they checked for that possibility. the oil they found in these wells is not just running down. it is also significant;y newer than the oil previously found in them.
-
You can't prove anything with a theory.
Try again.
My regards,
Widewing
Well then, I guess I can jump off of the world, since the Theory of Gravity doesn't work
And I suppose that my computer shouldn't work at all, since the Theory of Electricity is false
And the speed of light is variable, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong
I think that you have made a very large, sweeping statement about just about the entire universe, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Rethink your post.
it is also significant;y newer than the oil previously found in them.
Right, ok, I see your point, but how much oil, and how much newer? If we are seeing gallons seeping through semiannually, that still doesn't prove your point.
Also, you never said whether or not the oil was the same as the previous stock taken out from the ground. Your theory may be true, but they are not mutually exclusive.
-Penguin
-
Well then, I guess I can jump off of the world, since the Theory of Gravity doesn't work
And I suppose that my computer shouldn't work at all, since the Theory of Electricity is false
And the speed of light is variable, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong
I think that you have made a very large, sweeping statement about just about the entire universe, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Rethink your post.
Right, ok, I see your point, but how much oil, and how much newer? If we are seeing gallons seeping through semiannually, that still doesn't prove your point.
Also, you never said whether or not the oil was the same as the previous stock taken out from the ground. Your theory may be true, but they are not mutually exclusive.
-Penguin
it's not my theory. go up, and read the links i posted.
-
That was to widewing. Didn't it seem clear in the quote, I was going after what he said! :O
Happy Trails!
-Penguin
-
Well then, I guess I can jump off of the world, since the Theory of Gravity doesn't work
And I suppose that my computer shouldn't work at all, since the Theory of Electricity is false
And the speed of light is variable, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong
I think that you have made a very large, sweeping statement about just about the entire universe, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Rethink your post.
-Penguin
Maybe you're just being obtuse.... The fact remains that you cannot "prove" anything using theory as evidence. If you submitted a paper to me using theory as "proof", I'd mark it as an F. Theory means that a phenomena, function, relationship, mechanism or operation is not completely understood. How does one prove a case with something not completely understood? You can't.
One definition of "theory" is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Thus, I repeat; try again.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ummmm to solve global warming we can either A: Switch to de-salination COMPLETELY. Or B: give the fijians life jackets.
-
Maybe you're just being obtuse.... The fact remains that you cannot "prove" anything using theory as evidence. If you submitted a paper to me using theory as "proof", I'd mark it as an F. Theory means that a phenomena, function, relationship, mechanism or operation is not completely understood. How does one prove a case with something not completely understood? You can't.
One definition of "theory" is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Thus, I repeat; try again.
My regards,
Widewing
Hmm, all you have done is try to refute me, do you even have a point of your own?
Here, I can do it right now:
I am on the planet Earth
I have a flashlight in my hand. I am applying enough force to it so that it remains stationary. According to the theory of gravity, if this force should cease to be applied the flashlight will drop.
Ok, here I go;
Will the flashlight either:
a.) drop to the ground and bounce
b.) float in midair
c.) turn into a flying unicorn
The flashlight dropped and bounced. This disproves your claim that nothing can be proven using a theory as evidence.
Like I said, rethink your post.
-Penguin
-
"Anyone else going to incredibly slap Penguin besides me?"
It's no good slapping Penguin, FYB, we in Duxford Wing do that all the time and he just comes up for more, bless 'im.
:cool:
But i just found my iron glove... No fair! :furious
-
Hmm, all you have done is try to refute me, do you even have a point of your own?
Here, I can do it right now:
I am on the planet Earth
I have a flashlight in my hand. I am applying enough force to it so that it remains stationary. According to the theory of gravity, if this force should cease to be applied the flashlight will drop.
Ok, here I go;
Will the flashlight either:
a.) drop to the ground and bounce
b.) float in midair
c.) turn into a flying unicorn
The flashlight dropped and bounced. This disproves your claim that nothing can be proven using a theory as evidence.
Like I said, rethink your post.
-Penguin
do you realize you're using "fossil" fuels to type your responses....and that they were used for virtually everything you own?
-
Yes, and it irks me. I don't understand where you are going with that. Of course I can't live in the woods! I'm not even grown up!
:cheers:
-Penguin
-
Yes, and it irks me. I don't understand where you are going with that. Of course I can't live in the woods! I'm not even grown up!
:cheers:
-Penguin
We've noticed. Thanks for pointing it out though, for those who can't really understand your posts.
-
What do you mean by that? Is my grammar or spelling off? Or are my ideas strange?
(just heard about legoman, I hope that I'm not breaking any rules)
And about rule number 6, why aren't the wednsday babe bringers banned? :headscratch:
-Penguin
-
You can't prove anything with a theory.
Try again.
if people submit papers to you for marking then you already know that "proof" has a range of meanings depending on the context (eg. formal logic vs the courtroom.) its commonly used in place of "evidence", as above.
relax penguin, someone here is being "obtuse", but it isnt you :)
-
You know how the rocks at the bottom of stream beds are so smooth? That's because of erosion. Water works mouch more quickly than air, but the smooth tops of the Appalchian Mountain Range prove my point. The dust from all of those millions of years of erosion caused the ground level to rise.
That's the same reason why we have to dig up fossils and other such things. No, they weren't dinosaur guts, they were the remains of plankton, swamps and marshes (they last much, much, much longer). That's how we get the big pockets of subterranean oil today.
Glad to tell someone about geology :cheers:
-Penguin
Your geology is as flawed as your thoughts on MMGW.
-
We've noticed. Thanks for pointing it out though, for those who can't really understand your posts.
His posts have been clear and concise. Whether you can understand them, well, I can't comment. Perhaps you might think of taking some classes at the local community college dealing with critical thinking in some format. This isn't a cut on you, merely a suggestion.
The youngster's posts have been even tempered and solidly grounded in logic, not some manner of pseudo scientific dogma others have fostered. It's a shame it is wasted on the perennially clueless in this format. He has weathered repeated personal attacks on his posts, and rebutted only with factual content.
Your issue is obviously with the scientific community, not with an admitted juvenile who is clearly more in tune with his faculties than those which you possess. If you wish to debate with someone in that context, PM me anytime. I've taught more to less.
-
Yes, and it irks me. I don't understand where you are going with that. Of course I can't live in the woods! I'm not even grown up!
:cheers:
-Penguin
whelp. you said earlier, that we should all stop using all "fossil" fuels.
in my mind, that makes you like a guy that brags about being a vegitarian. he doesn't eat meat, because he thinks animals shouldn't be killed for food.
yet he's wearing leather shoes, driving a car with leather interior, and more than likely bought his wife a fur coat.
-
What do you mean by that? Is my grammar or spelling off? Or are my ideas strange?
(just heard about legoman, I hope that I'm not breaking any rules)
And about rule number 6, why aren't the wednsday babe bringers banned? :headscratch:
-Penguin
no, your ideas aren't strange. but you are very closed minded. you seem to refuse to believe there are other possibilities.
like i said.........i remember in 73 when they stirred up this same poop, saying we were having a shortage, we're running outta oil, the sky is falling, etc.
-
His posts have been clear and concise. Whether you can understand them, well, I can't comment. Perhaps you might think of taking some classes at the local community college dealing with critical thinking in some format. This isn't a cut on you, merely a suggestion.
The youngster's posts have been even tempered and solidly grounded in logic, not some manner of pseudo scientific dogma others have fostered. It's a shame it is wasted on the perennially clueless in this format. He has weathered repeated personal attacks on his posts, and rebutted only with factual content.
Your issue is obviously with the scientific community, not with an admitted juvenile who is clearly more in tune with his faculties than those which you possess. If you wish to debate with someone in that context, PM me anytime. I've taught more to less.
well....ya......'specially when they've been proven to be lying.....by their own pen so to speak.
even you contradicted yourself in this very thread.
read back before ya ask. :aok
-
if people submit papers to you for marking then you already know that "proof" has a range of meanings depending on the context (eg. formal logic vs the courtroom.) its commonly used in place of "evidence", as above.
relax penguin, someone here is being "obtuse", but it isnt you :)
Scientific proof, the context of this discussion, is based upon scientific method.
We are not talking about civil suits where a preponderance of evidence may be adequate or even reasonable doubt.
The reason the scientific study of so called fossil fuels is considered theory is that there is no way to characterize upon observation. Thus, any hypothesis is based upon assumption. One cannot support the hypothesis with experiment due to not having a natural control. Therefore, both ends of the linear method are open and cannot be accredited as more than simple theory. Even if there exists strong pragmatic evidence for the theory, it cannot be considered as fact. Moreover, the science of how fossil fuel deposits came to exist is ever evolving and no theory has or will remain unchanged or unchallenged.
You cannot prove out a concept with theory. Write a paper and submit it for peer review while doing so, and it would be headed straight for the shredder.
Penguin offered a theory as proof of scientific fact. I wanted him to reconsider his statement and try presenting his argument again, characterizing in the proper context.
My regards,
Widewing
(edited for typo)
-
We've noticed. Thanks for pointing it out though, for those who can't really understand your posts.
I understand his posts... Penguin writes clearly. He uses good sentence structure and his grammar is adequate. Considering that he's a school kid, he expresses himself very well, indeed.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So then, what is the proper format? I know not of a better way in which to present my ideas, so do enlighten me.
You have a point about my previous statement, but that clause is incomplete. It should have said:
We should stop using fossil fuels as fuel, as soon as we can afford to do so.
I apologize for my post error. Yet you never have seemed to have your own point:
Are you saying that we will never run out of oil due to it essentially magically pouring out of the ground?
And that the biomass from plankton and swamps never contributed to the formation of oil wells?
What I see in your argument is a false dichotomy:
Since we have evidence pointing to cause A, it cannot be cause B.
Although that may seem like logic, look closely and you will notice that there is no evidence pointing to how A and B are mutually exclusive. And the way you are describing oil formation is only going to give us a few hundred more years. In the end, we will run out of oil if we keep on burning it.
And as you said, my computer is made from oil products, and I do not dispute it. What I am pointing out, is that we are wasting a precious resource that we could use for so many other things. What we are doing is essentially taking gold and burning it.
This is my point. This is what I am trying to say. Using fossil fuels as material is fine, but why burn something that you can:
a.) recycle
and
b.) puts out a ton of toxic gas
The strategy you are pointing out seems to be a lose-lose, in which we have no oil in the end (there can't be an unlimited supply) and we have choked ourselves with toxic gas. What you are envisioning simply isn't sustainable.
-Penguin
P.S. I can't make this any better than it is. If the debate is on the format of my posts, simply say so.
-
So then, what is the proper format? I know not of a better way in which to present my ideas, so do enlighten me.
You have a point about my previous statement, but that clause is incomplete. It should have said:
We should stop using fossil fuels as fuel, as soon as we can afford to do so.
I apologize for my post error. Yet you never have seemed to have your own point:
Are you saying that we will never run out of oil due to it essentially magically pouring out of the ground?
And that the biomass from plankton and swamps never contributed to the formation of oil wells?
What I see in your argument is a false dichotomy:
Since we have evidence pointing to cause A, it cannot be cause B.
Although that may seem like logic, look closely and you will notice that there is no evidence pointing to how A and B are mutually exclusive. And the way you are describing oil formation is only going to give us a few hundred more years. In the end, we will run out of oil if we keep on burning it.
And as you said, my computer is made from oil products, and I do not dispute it. What I am pointing out, is that we are wasting a precious resource that we could use for so many other things. What we are doing is essentially taking gold and burning it.
This is my point. This is what I am trying to say. Using fossil fuels as material is fine, but why burn something that you can:
a.) recycle
and
b.) puts out a ton of toxic gas
The strategy you are pointing out seems to be a lose-lose, in which we have no oil in the end (there can't be an unlimited supply) and we have choked ourselves with toxic gas. What you are envisioning simply isn't sustainable.
-Penguin
P.S. I can't make this any better than it is. If the debate is on the format of my posts, simply say so.
i've not seen any problems with your posts. you get your thoughts across very well.
to my eye, you just seem fairly well brainwashed(not meant as an insult)
like someone else said.....it's produced by the process of the earth doing what she does. abiatic" i think it was called?
try to think of your body. it makes blood and bone, right? i might be using a bad analogy, but sometimes i have trouble getting my thoughts out of my head.(still at 47)
if you read in one of those links, when they found oil in the dried up wells, they tested it. it was significantly younger than the oil they had previously gotten from that well. and it was filling from the bottom.
the worst that may happen, is that we could use it faster than it can be regenerated.
but, not only our oil....but natural gas and coal come from the same process. coal burns much dirtier than anything.
in the long run, some form of hydrogen would(in my opinion) be the best alternative to burning oil.
electricity will still burn oil, unless we have other ways of generating electricity...
-
Abiogenic I believe although I think the process has been duplicated through an enzymatic process closely resembling jungle rot I dont believe anyone has ever made the 'fossil fuel' argument work chemically.
-
Abiotic.
It's a few pages back. Five seconds on Google confirmed it. Kind of like an open-book test.
It's an interesting theory; I wonder if it'll prove correct.
-
You also had the ability to look up abiogenic and screwed the pooch. :D
-
Well isn't that a theory too?
i've not seen any problems with your posts. you get your thoughts across very well.
to my eye, you just seem fairly well brainwashed(not meant as an insult)
like someone else said.....it's produced by the process of the earth doing what she does. abiatic" i think it was called?
try to think of your body. it makes blood and bone, right? i might be using a bad analogy, but sometimes i have trouble getting my thoughts out of my head.(still at 47)
if you read in one of those links, when they found oil in the dried up wells, they tested it. it was significantly younger than the oil they had previously gotten from that well. and it was filling from the bottom.
the worst that may happen, is that we could use it faster than it can be regenerated.
but, not only our oil....but natural gas and coal come from the same process. coal burns much dirtier than anything.
in the long run, some form of hydrogen would(in my opinion) be the best alternative to burning oil.
electricity will still burn oil, unless we have other ways of generating electricity...
So this debate is about the formation of oil? Well we can't really disprove each other's theories, as both could have easily happened. The question still remains, how much of the stuff in the mantle to make oil still remains. I know that eventually you will run out. This is due the law of conservation of matter. It states that in all chemical reactions (If this is nuclear or quantum, I'm the wrong guy), no matter can be created or destroyed.
What you are describing is the creation of matter. Now unless you have a whole lot of energy under the surface, I doubt that you will see fundamental particles forming together to make oil. (I remain open minded, there are actually space clouds of drinkable alcohol!)
Now I think I see what you are trying to say:
1. Continue burning oil for fuel
2. It will do absolutely nothing to the climate
For some reason, I find that pumping billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere and expecting nothing to happen seems very hard to believe. Now along with the CO2, you're getting CFC's which break apart ozone particles. You can't deny that a huge hole opens over the south pole every once in a while (annually).
(Hope this isn't a strawman :O)
That is what really worries me.
-Penguin
-
A simple exercise,
Take the total weight of the earths air,
(53,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg or 11,684,400,000,000,000,000 Lb or 5,842,200,000,000,000 tons)
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_of_earths_atmosphere (http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_of_earths_atmosphere)
Take the percentage of CO2,
(.03 to .04% or 17,526,600,000 to 23,368,800,000 tons)
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php (http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php)
Man made contribution to the CO2 is about 3.225%
at the high end, that is 760,654,440 tons
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php (http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php)
Which makes mans total contribution to the atmosphere about .0000001302% (1,302 x 10 to the -7)
An amount that is almost not detectable with current instruments
To be fair the human contributions to Greenhouse CO2 is bigger about .28%....
Cutting emissions in half would reduce the CO2 by less than two tenths of a percent.
Regards,
Kevin
-
Well isn't that a theory too?
So this debate is about the formation of oil? Well we can't really disprove each other's theories, as both could have easily happened. The question still remains, how much of the stuff in the mantle to make oil still remains. I know that eventually you will run out. This is due the law of conservation of matter. It states that in all chemical reactions (If this is nuclear or quantum, I'm the wrong guy), no matter can be created or destroyed.
What you are describing is the creation of matter. Now unless you have a whole lot of energy under the surface, I doubt that you will see fundamental particles forming together to make oil. (I remain open minded, there are actually space clouds of drinkable alcohol!)
Now I think I see what you are trying to say:
1. Continue burning oil for fuel
2. It will do absolutely nothing to the climate
For some reason, I find that pumping billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere and expecting nothing to happen seems very hard to believe. Now along with the CO2, you're getting CFC's which break apart ozone particles. You can't deny that a huge hole opens over the south pole every once in a while (annually).
(Hope this isn't a strawman :O)
That is what really worries me.
-Penguin
the theory that the earth is producing oil is provable(is that really a word?) simply by the fact that there is "new" oil in wells that were sucked dry.
co2 is not a pollutant. you exhale co2 with every breath you take. plants, trees, plankton, and i'm sure more that i don't know about exhale o2 with each breath.(i know they don't actually "breathe" as we do, but you get the point, yes?)
co2 is an integral part of the atmosphere.
i know what you thought as soon as you read those last statements......you thought "but the EPA says it is a pollutant.", and "that's what Copenhagen was all about."
copenhagen first. they were not even remotely attempting to lower pollution. they were talking about trading carbon credits. about the "rich" countries paying into a pool to help the "poor" countries develop. for the most part nothing more than a worldwide redistribution of wealth.
in the process of that summit, there were dozens of people flew in on private jets. there were over a hundred limos. for the most part they more than likely created more pollution of every type in that place, in one single week, than there has been there in the last full year.
now the EPA. i can only speak of them concerning automotive, as i've never really studied their powers/rules/restrictions outside of automotive.
they were kind of a good idea. cars were horribly inefficient. one could pass out standing behind the tailpipe of a big block in the 50's or 60's.
the problem was/is that they were given too much power. their governing body is not voted on. they're appointed. they generally seem to be engineers, that live in the world of theory.
they implement rules, and regulations on us for our cars. the good thing, is that is why our cars now make 3x the power on 1/2 of the engine.
the bad thing about that, is that in reality(with a few exceptions) our engines are still horribly inefficient. this is bandaged with emissions control devices, and computer control systems.
some have finally started working on the engine itself, with things such as variable valve timing. ford pioneered an ignition system years ago that could control the complete ignition timing of each cylinder individually. it could control the spark voltage, timing, and duration. \
the catalytic converter was one of the epa's babys. it uses chemical reactions, and temp. to convert hc(hydrocarbons) co(carbon monoxide) and nox(oxides of nitrogen) into.......you guessed it......co2(carbon dioxide)
now, of those listed above.....hc....well....they're oil(or in this case, unburned fuel) which insinuates incomplete combustion.
co......insinuates that too much fuel is in the process, and it cannot all be burned. co is at least 10 times more deadly than co2.
nox.......these form when the combustion temp raises above 2500f. these are also about 10 times more deadly than co, making them at least 20 times more deadly than co2.
co2...inert. harmless, unless there's no o2.
as per the epa's standards, a well functioning catalytic converter puts out anywhere from 13% to 15% co2. this is a sign that it is heated up properly, and that the o2 sensors are working properly.
now, suddenly, 30 years later, that same agency, comes out and says co2 is a pollutant? it is not.
we can effect our local environments...i fully believe in that, and i do recycle, etc. but for anyone to think that mankind, as insignificant as we are can effect the climate.....that is a very dangerous, and pompous attitude.
one final thought........has anyone ever done a study on the outer atmosphere? i would think/imagine, that some "leaks" out. some temp....like a glass full of ice sweating.....it leaks it's temp into the surrounding area. i would imagine part of our atmosphere must do the same.
merry christmas.
-
My taste of global warming over the past 2 weeks; :lol
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/Winter%20pics%202009-2010/?albumview=slideshow (http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/Winter%20pics%202009-2010/?albumview=slideshow)
-
My taste of global warming over the past 2 weeks; :lol
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/Winter%20pics%202009-2010/?albumview=slideshow (http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/Winter%20pics%202009-2010/?albumview=slideshow)
HAARP :noid
-
A simple exercise,
Take the total weight of the earths air,
(53,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg or 11,684,400,000,000,000,000 Lb or 5,842,200,000,000,000 tons)
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_of_earths_atmosphere (http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_of_earths_atmosphere)
Take the percentage of CO2,
(.03 to .04% or 17,526,600,000 to 23,368,800,000 tons)
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php (http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php)
Man made contribution to the CO2 is about 3.225%
at the high end, that is 760,654,440 tons
http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php (http://www.tutorvista.com/content/chemistry/chemistry-i/air-mixture/air-mixtureindex.php)
Which makes mans total contribution to the atmosphere about .0000001302% (1,302 x 10 to the -7)
An amount that is almost not detectable with current instruments
To be fair the human contributions to Greenhouse CO2 is bigger about .28%....
Cutting emissions in half would reduce the CO2 by less than two tenths of a percent.
Regards,
Kevin
Are you sure on the decimal there? AFAIK the co2 in the atmosphere has about doubled since the industrial revolution. That does not account for most of it though, since it gets bound in the sea.
Anyway, always good to roll around some numbers and ponder on them!
-
Right, but only under certain conditions. You say we have such a small amount of co2 in the atmosphere, but how do you know exactly how much is too much? Ten percent is lethal to humans, and I can't imagine how two or three percent wouldn't put a strain on our bodies.
A few percent more oxygen was in the atmosphere 65 million years ago. This allowed dinosaurs to walk the earth, if we saw a similar increase in co2, don't you think we would see ill effects? Our biological reactions with surprisingly small amounts of chemicals. To throw off that balance would most certainly be harmful.
Just some thoughts,
-Penguin
-
Right, but only under certain conditions. You say we have such a small amount of co2 in the atmosphere, but how do you know exactly how much is too much? Ten percent is lethal to humans, and I can't imagine how two or three percent wouldn't put a strain on our bodies.
A few percent more oxygen was in the atmosphere 65 million years ago. This allowed dinosaurs to walk the earth, if we saw a similar increase in co2, don't you think we would see ill effects? Our biological reactions with surprisingly small amounts of chemicals. To throw off that balance would most certainly be harmful.
Just some thoughts,
-Penguin
if you want to worry about a lethal gas, perhaps you should look at co, or nox.
-
if you want to worry about a lethal gas, perhaps you should look at co, or nox.
No, CAP he is correct. CO2 becomes toxic to humans at around [10%]. If this weren't the case, they wouldn't scrub the carbon dioxide out of the air on nuclear submarines.
-
No, CAP he is correct. CO2 becomes toxic to humans at around [10%]. If this weren't the case, they wouldn't scrub the carbon dioxide out of the air on nuclear submarines.
you missed my point.
co is more deadly than co2. i don't know by how much. i do know that nox is 10 times more deadly than co.
co is more insidious than others, and its affect is cumulative. i'd worry about them first.
there aren't any natural sources that scrub them for us.
-
you missed my point.
there aren't any natural sources that scrub them for us.
Nothing.....
Besides a naturally rich oxygen atmosphere ~21%, you mean.
Both have short half lives in a stable O2 rich environment, and quickly bond. If they didn't bond with free O2, we'd have died a long long time ago, prior to the invention of the catalytic converter, that spits out CO at 7,000 ppm per second. CO can only form amongst a shortage of Oxygen and rapidly oxidizes to form CO2 when Oxygen is present. Chemistry, my friend. Read about it.
Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable
CO is deadly to humans in high concentration as it bonds to hemoglobin, but does not release, and causes anoxemia. This is why you don't die if you have the car on and the garage door open. There is adequate space and oxygen to oxidize or minimize the concentration of CO.
NOx oxidizes to make NO2, which is key to nitric acid, that causes acid rain. Acid rain is a serious issue, and I would agree it needs to be addressed.
-
Nothing.....
Besides a naturally rich oxygen atmosphere ~21%, you mean.
Both have short half lives in a stable O2 rich environment, and quickly bond. If they didn't bond with free O2, we'd have died a long long time ago, after the invention of the catalytic converter, that spits out CO at 7,000 ppm per second. CO can only form amongst a shortage of Oxygen and rapidly oxidizes to form CO2 when Oxygen is present. Chemistry, my friend. Read about it. CO is only deadly to humans in high concentration as it bonds to hemoglobin, but does not release, and causes anoxemia.
NOx bonds to free O2 to make NO2, which is key to nitric acid, that causes acid rain. Acid rain is a serious issue, and I would agree it needs to be addressed.
catalytic converters spit out next to 0...that's zero co. the convert it into co2. hence the name "catalytic converter". they also convert hc,,,,,,,well, actually they burn the hc off.
my point about co was that when inhaled...as you realize.......interferes with the bloods ability to absorb o2. to the best of my knowledge, this is cumulative too.
so we have co2, that displaces o2......when there's enough of it......and we have co that inhibits our ability to breathe for all intents and purposes. and there doesn't need to be much of it.
the three way catalytic converter stores o2, then releases it to convert co to co2. it cycles constantly, using a duty cycle, thus lowering the truly deadly emissions.
i was partially wrong about nox though. most cars use an egr system to reduce this gas. very few use the catalytic converter for that. the egr system gives more precise control over it.
here's a stats page on carbon monoxide poisoning.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/carbon_monoxide_poisoning/stats-country.htm
here's another one. haven't found any about co2 killing anyone yet....well....unless we can count plastic bags over the head.....
this one below is interesting though.
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/monoxide.htm
Physiology
When Carbon Monoxide is inhaled, the CO combines with the hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin or COHb. The CO displaces the oxygen on hemoglobin. The COHb bond is over 200 times stronger than oxygen's bond with hemoglobin. The strong COHb bond also makes it difficult for the body to eliminate CO from the blood. Carbon Monoxide can poison slowly over a period of several hours, even in low concentrations.. Sensitive organs such as the brain, heart, and lungs suffer the most from a lack of oxygen. Unfortunately, the symptoms of CO poisoning are easily mistaken for other common illnesses and CO poisonings are often misdiagnosed.
Symptoms such as headaches, dizziness and fatigue are common to a number of illnesses such as the flu or the common cold. These symptoms can occur with a COHb blood saturation levels of 10-30%. At 30-50% COHb symptoms are nausea, severe headaches, dizziness, and increased pulse and respiration. COHb levels over 50% cause progressive symptoms proceeding to loss of consciousness, collapse, convulsions, coma, and finally death.
How much is dangerous? High concentrations of carbon monoxide kill in less than five minutes. At low concentrations it will require a longer period of time to affect the body. Exceeding the EPA concentration of 9 ppm for more than 8 hours will have adverse health affects. The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety limit for healthy workers is 50 ppm.
Carbon monoxide detectors, which are designed to protect against high concentration of carbon monoxide are required to sound an alarm when concentrations are greater than 100 ppm. Continued exposure to carbon monoxide can cause permanent brain, nerve, or heart damage. Some people require years to recover while others might never fully recover. The time of exposure, the concentration of CO, the activity level of the person breathing the CO, and the person's age, sex, and general health all affect the danger level. Exposure to Co at a concentration of 400 ppm will cause headaches in 1 to 2 hours; in 3 to 5 hours the same concentration can lead to unconsciousness and death. Physical exertion, with an accompanying increase in respiration rate, shortens the time to critical levels by 2 or 3 fold. Respiratory capacity decreases and the risk of heart attack increases at levels well below 50 ppm.
CO poisoning should be suspected when
co2 does nothing like this.
while i do agree that we need to conserve somewhat, i do not agree that the sky is falling, nor are we producing enough co2 to harm ourselves.
BTW,,,,,,look back up a few posts. i think i asked you a question up there, that is as of yet unanwswered. something to do with the suns cycle causing us to be cooler now? but to look out when it "starts" up again?
-
BTW,,,,,,look back up a few posts. i think i asked you a question up there, that is as of yet unanwswered. something to do with the suns cycle causing us to be cooler now? but to look out when it "starts" up again?
I didn't see a question.... but I knew someone would say that that contradicts my stated point. The sun is at a solar minimum. [CO2] is at the highest level recorded. Both are important.
-
I didn't see a question.... but I knew someone would say that that contradicts my stated point. The sun is at a solar minimum. [CO2] is at the highest level recorded. Both are important.
correct....and they both cycle.
but......would you not agree, that if we cool(as we are now) when the sun "calms down", and then warm up(as they say we were) when the sun is "hyper" or more active, then would it not be a safer and more logical assumption that these climate changes are nothing more than a result of the suns activity?
here's one i just found on NOx.......it's pretty interesting. i'm sure you already know everythign in it though.
i have to go eat. when i get done, i'll explain exactly how a catalytic converter works.
i'm not trying to be a wise ass......i get the impression you have a couple of mis-conceptions about them, from your previous post.
-
correct....and they both cycle.
but......would you not agree, that if we cool(as we are now) when the sun "calms down", and then warm up(as they say we were) when the sun is "hyper" or more active, then would it not be a safer and more logical assumption that these climate changes are nothing more than a result of the suns activity?
No I would not. The sun has been through about 20 cycles since the Industrial Revolution. Although the first half of that data on climate is debatable, there is an obvious trend that extends between cycles upward with regard to temperature. Solar output is not to blame for that, as it hasn't changed in average intensity.
(http://www.nyserda.org/programs/environment/emep/images/climate/pop_ups/temperature.jpg)
-
Well, it appears we've naught to worry about...this guy has figured the whole thing out
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286
Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
Hmmm...we squashed the CFC's because we thought they were killing the ozone layer, and we accidentally fixed global warming? ;)
-
the part I like most about the article is "peer reviewed" which means no alarmist can dispute it............ since they say "peer review" means absolute fact (I would have to guess these arent the same peers who conspired to deceive the world with this MMGW nonsense to begin with)
-
Right, but only under certain conditions. You say we have such a small amount of co2 in the atmosphere, but how do you know exactly how much is too much? Ten percent is lethal to humans, and I can't imagine how two or three percent wouldn't put a strain on our bodies.
A few percent more oxygen was in the atmosphere 65 million years ago. This allowed dinosaurs to walk the earth, if we saw a similar increase in co2, don't you think we would see ill effects? Our biological reactions with surprisingly small amounts of chemicals. To throw off that balance would most certainly be harmful.
Just some thoughts,
-Penguin
We aren't talking about a few percentages increase in CO2. We are talking about a change of a few hundreths of a percent. That's right -- all the alarm is about hundreths of a percent.
"We've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!!" say the alarmists. But doubling miniscule is still miniscule.
Someone wake me when we reach an entire one-tenth of one percent CO2 concentration.
-
No I would not. The sun has been through about 20 cycles since the Industrial Revolution. Although the first half of that data on climate is debatable, there is an obvious trend that extends between cycles upward with regard to temperature. Solar output is not to blame for that, as it hasn't changed in average intensity.
(http://www.nyserda.org/programs/environment/emep/images/climate/pop_ups/temperature.jpg)
what's the source for this chart? and where's the legend?
-
what's the source for this chart? and where's the legend?
Right on the chart... ;)
-
Right on the chart... ;)
DOH!
-
Everybody just needs to, "Exhale and die".
LOL
spammer
-
Grin,
Apparently I am now among exalted company. That is, I write "Fiction" for money. :noid "Science Fiction".
Regards,
Kevin
-
... run the sky is falling :rofl
-
We aren't talking about a few percentages increase in CO2. We are talking about a change of a few hundreths of a percent. That's right -- all the alarm is about hundreths of a percent.
"We've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!!" say the alarmists. But doubling miniscule is still miniscule.
Someone wake me when we reach an entire one-tenth of one percent CO2 concentration.
We've already passed that point. We have gone there and three times over. If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO2, we can see some very strange things going on.
(http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/lawdome.gif)
As you can see, the curve is exponential. And the end of that curve is past even y=x2. So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.
Now just so I can figure this out, what exactly are bickering, err, debating about? If it's Carbon Monoxide levels, those are still going up, up, up. If it's Carbon Dioxide, that's going up exponentially. If it's CFC's, we are doing quite well at keeping them at low levels.
Even if oil can form abiologically, we will still require too much in other forms to just burn it. It's like burning sweaters (polyester), or vaccine syringes. Why destroy what we can use for useful things? We can't just burn it, this stuff is black gold- we can use it for a better purpose than just setting it on fire.
If there is a chance that we are destroying the only planet we have, why take it? I mean if we had Mars and terraforming to fall back on, to heck with it! If we only have one, we should take care of it. What I'm saying is that burning oil can't just possibly wreck our environment, it can leave us without a survival asset.
-Penguin
-
We've already passed that point. We have gone there and three times over. If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO2, we can see some very strange things going on.
(http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/lawdome.gif)
As you can see, the curve is exponential. And the end of that curve is past even y=x2. So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.
Now just so I can figure this out, what exactly are bickering, err, debating about? If it's Carbon Monoxide levels, those are still going up, up, up. If it's Carbon Dioxide, that's going up exponentially. If it's CFC's, we are doing quite well at keeping them at low levels.
Even if oil can form abiologically, we will still require too much in other forms to just burn it. It's like burning sweaters (polyester), or vaccine syringes. Why destroy what we can use for useful things? We can't just burn it, this stuff is black gold- we can use it for a better purpose than just setting it on fire.
If there is a chance that we are destroying the only planet we have, why take it? I mean if we had Mars and terraforming to fall back on, to heck with it! If we only have one, we should take care of it. What I'm saying is that burning oil can't just possibly wreck our environment, it can leave us without a survival asset.
-Penguin
because we're not destroying our planet.
now, if someone were to push the red button...then we might hurt her.....just a little. we'd all be gone though.
-
You misread my post.
I said that if there is a chance that we may be roasting our environment (pun
intended), why should be continue burning the stuff that we think is doing it (petroleum products). We need petroleum for so many other important things. Such as:
- Food packaging
- Medicine delivery (catheters, IV tubes)
- Vaseline (Medical lubrication for procedures)
- Syringes for vaccines (If we don't have that, say hello to 50% plus infant mortality rates)
- PVC pipes for plumbing in hospitals
- Farming equipment
If we don't have those things, we're screwed. Why burn the stuff that makes them up, and if it puts out noxius gasses, burning becomes especially dangerous!
-Penguin
-
You misread my post.
I said that if there is a chance that we may be roasting our environment (pun
intended), why should be continue burning the stuff that we think is doing it (petroleum products). We need petroleum for so many other important things. Such as:
- Food packaging
- Medicine delivery (catheters, IV tubes)
- Vaseline (Medical lubrication for procedures)
- Syringes for vaccines (If we don't have that, say hello to 50% plus infant mortality rates)
- PVC pipes for plumbing in hospitals
- Farming equipment
If we don't have those things, we're screwed. Why burn the stuff that makes them up, and if it puts out noxius gasses, burning becomes especially dangerous!
-Penguin
we can(i believe) make most everything you've mentioned from synthetic oil products.
having the infrastructure requires us to burn fuel. nothing moves without it.
i personally would like to see hydrogen fuel cells move forward, for what it's worth. [/list][/list]
-
Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from?
having the infrastructure requires us to burn fuel. nothing moves without it.
That statement is a non-sequitur. Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel. If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel. The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).
-Penguin
-
Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from?
That statement is a non-sequitur. Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel. If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel. The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).
-Penguin
the electricity for these trains comes from somewhere. windmills don't provide enough. there's still fuel burnt to produce electricity.
once the train gets to a depot, then the product still needs to go from there to the end user. this requires trucks. trucks burn fuel.
how is hydrogen a falsehood?
-
So where does the energy to move the train come from?
Fuel gets burned some where, if nothing else, H2 on the sun. Electrification would just about double the infrastructure, and triple the maintenance. And the power still has to come from somewhere.
The best guess from the industry, is that wind and solar will never amount to more than about 12% of the power produced, and that the energy needed to produce the systems and preform the maintenance will always cost more than the systems produce. (I run a power plant for a living) That is unless we get some unobtainium from Pandora.
My suggestion is thorium package nukes, like Finland is having made here in NM.
The infrastructure rebuild is still a problem, not even considering the distribution and collection of the cargo loads. Are you willing to pay twenty dollars a gallon for milk, and fifteen or more per pound of hamburger? The cost will come from some where, and taxing the company just means that they will charge more for the transportation to the end user.
Regards,
Kevin
Then the question becomes, where do we get the synthetic oil from?
That statement is a non-sequitur. Having an infrastructure does not require the combustion of fuel. If we can build bullet trains, freight can be moved without burning a single drop of fuel. The third point in your argument is simply a falsehood, as there are many other forms of transportation used (subway system, trams).
-Penguin
-
I said the third point (Where you said "nothing moves without it") . Hydrogen was the fourth one. For that, I am sorry to have confused you.
Electric trucks can get it to the stores.
Windmills aren't the only source. Where I come from we have only one gas turbine in for power, the rest is hydroelectric. Add in nuclear power too, that stuff is much cleaner.
You still didn't answer my question though, what are we debating about, exactly?
-Penguin
-
I said the third point (Where you said "nothing moves without it") . Hydrogen was the fourth one. For that, I am sorry to have confused you.
Electric trucks can get it to the stores.
Windmills aren't the only source. Where I come from we have only one gas turbine in for power, the rest is hydroelectric. Add in nuclear power too, that stuff is much cleaner.
You still didn't answer my question though, what are we debating about, exactly?
-Penguin
nono..it's ok. i just missed it........worked all day goin nuts tryin to find parts for cars that broke the day before christmas.
anyway,
electric trucks would be ok. but you'll see what gunnes posted.
electric anything is more expensive to build, and more expensive to maintain. and then you still need to burn fuel somewhere along the line to build that more expensive electric stuff, which is still going to require fuel to be burned to recharge it.
as for nuclear? well......try and get that one past a public that's terrified of it.
-
We've already passed that point. We have gone there and three times over. If the graph continues to show an exponentialy increasing amount of CO2, we can see some very strange things going on.
(http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/lawdome.gif)
As you can see, the curve is exponential. And the end of that curve is past even y=x2. So as we keep pumping it in, we can see some pretty weird things happening.
No, we haven't. The graph you posted is in parts per million. 340 parts per million on that graph is 0.034%. Not even a tenth of a percent. Not even half a tenth.
You will also note that it uses a baseline at 270 rather than 0 so that the rise seems much more dramatic.
And, it doesn't even go that far back geologically speaking. Using a quick google search, here is one going farther back.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
And if you read the text accompanying it, here is one salient point that the global warming alarmists don't want people to know about.
For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
4400 is 12 times higher than the current CO2 concentration.
Now, this guy seems to have his own agenda so, like everything else about the subject of climate, it should be taken with a healthy dose of salt. Truth is, mankinds experience of actually studying the interactions of all these factors is absolutely miniscule compared to the long history of this planet. Despite their claims, they can't and don't know with any certainty what a small rise in the concentration of CO2 will do.
By the way, do some reading on the snowball earth theory. While not proven, the reason I bring it up is that their conclusion was that the atmosphere would have to have a concentration of 13% (that's 130,000 parts per million compared to our 380 today) to hold enough heat to "melt" the snowball. If it takes that much to keep temps above freezing, then again, please wake me when our current concentration gets to a tenth of a percent.
-
Hydrogen is definately not a falsehood, on the contrary. We can use natural sources of energy (water, wind, solar) and improve our technology to use energy more efficiently with less waste. The energy crisis we have is completely artificially created by those seeking to profit from it. It's a huge scare factor in the equation which together with GW and other propaganda numbers are specifically used to control the populace.
-
Hydrogen is definately not a falsehood, on the contrary. We can use natural sources of energy (water, wind, solar) and improve our technology to use energy more efficiently with less waste. The energy crisis we have is completely artificially created by those seeking to profit from it. It's a huge scare factor in the equation which together with GW and other propaganda numbers are specifically used to control the populace.
exactly. pretty much the same as in 1973.
-
Hydrogen requires energy to be extracted in the first place. If I recall right, a powerplant extracting hydrogen which in return is used to power...say a car...may still be slightly more efficient than using petrol directly. So, no big solution.
One good thing though, hydrogen being used in that way gives a better angle on cleaning fossil fuel exhaust (power plants do have their merits above millions of small engines), so basically urban area air could be a lot cleaner.
Same goes with electricity.
-
This was in the 1980s. I'm posting this, not saying it's true because I've not seen it myself nor can I verify the theories behind it. But it is based on a enhanced form of electrolysis which allegedly give 3 times as much energy than what is put into the reaction. Water has many unique properties, why could this not be true as well when water behave contradictory in so many other ways?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg
-
You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is.
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology. We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet.
Oops, my bad on the graph guys. But which graph did I mess up on?
Hydrogen requires energy to be extracted in the first place. If I recall right, a powerplant extracting hydrogen which in return is used to power...say a car...may still be slightly more efficient than using petrol directly. So, no big solution.
From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.
-Penguin
-
You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is.
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology. We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet.
Oops, my bad on the graph guys. But which graph did I mess up on?
From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.
-Penguin
do you realize they said all the same things back in the 70's?
-
From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.
-Penguin
Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.
Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).
Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.
My regards,
Widewing
-
From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.
More PE? If that were the case, Project Suntan would've gone ahead, instead of the petrol fuel based SR-71.
-
Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.
Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).
Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.
My regards,
Widewing
the infrastruture for hydrogen is part of what i was meaning when i said that it wasn't there.......i only meant that i'd like to see that go forward, as it seems pretty viable if it's slowly phased in.
didn't norway have some sort of hydrogen generators set up, that worked off of solar energy?
-
I have nothing against natural gas, since we're better off burning it than letting the stuff leech into the atmosphere. Bear in mind, oil was still plentiful in the days of the SR-71's production.
Now I think that you are getting the point, oil is better off being used for other purposes, and hydrogen is a great clean burning (oxymoron?) fuel.
Fusion would be an even better alternative, but that's hard to make happen here on earth.
-Penguin
-
I have nothing against natural gas, since we're better off burning it than letting the stuff leech into the atmosphere. Bear in mind, oil was still plentiful in the days of the SR-71's production.
Now I think that you are getting the point, oil is better off being used for other purposes, and hydrogen is a great clean burning (oxymoron?) fuel.
Fusion would be an even better alternative, but that's hard to make happen here on earth.
-Penguin
oil is still plentiful
they tried to tell us 30 years ago that we were almost out.
they're saying the same stuff now, 'cept they've got more people that don't question authority now.
-
Didn't say we still didn't have a lot left.
I wonder if we do have a lot of those people... interesting demographics question. But that is for another time, as we do have more demand than we do supply, oil will become impractical as a fuel (diamonds burn, but they don't run your car!).
(P.S. the response speed on this thread is astounding!)
-Penguin
-
Didn't say we still didn't have a lot left.
I wonder if we do have a lot of those people... interesting demographics question. But that is for another time, as we do have more demand than we do supply, oil will become impractical as a fuel (diamonds burn, but they don't run your car!).
(P.S. the response speed on this thread is astounding!)
-Penguin
i'm in the office doing some invoices...then back out into the shop to do a clutch on a subaru.
-
You guys speak of how little time we have spent on this earth, and then complain how weak our technology is.
99% of our history had stone tools as cutting edge technology. We can't just say that we can't do it because our tools aren't good enough yet.
Oops, my bad on the graph guys. But which graph did I mess up on?
From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water.
-Penguin
-
Note that Hydrogen must be generated. That requires energy.
Then there's the issue with hydrogen fuel cells. This technology is at least 20 (30 is probably closer) years from being mature enough to be used on a general scale. I know this as my company is one of the prime developers of the hydrogen gas regulators and solenoid valves required. Of course, we also face the vast infrastructure problem as well as the safety issues of dealing with high pressure hydrogen (between 10,000 and 15,000 PSI).
Hydrogen is a long-term alternative, and the cost of getting it into general world-wide use will be in the trillions of dollars. Short term, the better solution is natural gas. Most gasoline powered vehicles can be adapted to burn natural gas for a relative pittance. Moreover, much of the required infrastructure is already in place. This fuel burns cleaner and there are estimates of at least enough to last 300 to 400 years. The down side is that natural gas is primarily methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. Thus, the AGW mafia will resist it at every turn, despite evidence that natural emission of methane would dwarf human emissions by a factor of 1000/1. As of 2007, there were over 64 million consumers of natural gas in the United States alone for heating and cooking.
My regards,
Widewing
Now you are talking shop! Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, vastly more powerful than CO2. And there is actually an enormous lot to be harvested. All the dung....all the waste etc. Not to mention the sources bound in the arctic areas. Burn it and it's pretty clean and the GW effect is more or less gone.
In my country, the estimated production/extraction capacity is enough to support the logistics for methane for a lot of the car-fleet. And I am not into the twin busines yet.
And Penguin:
"From where do you recall such a fact? Why do we use Hydrogen to power our rockets? Because it carries much more energy than petroleum does. Petroleum will eventually become well nigh impossible to extract, and we hydrogen will never run out, since burnt hydrogen is pure water."
I ask you where you find pure "H" in nature. Because you don't. Most of it is harvested from water, H2O (more like 2H2O2 actually), which requires energy (electricity), and a lot of energy of the world's powergrid is already coming from fossile fuels.
The C is not running out either, just changing form when it binds to i.e. Oxygen. CO2. Energy is released when C ties to O2 basically.
I am no chemistry geek, but the ignorance around sometimes makes me wonder.
-
Right, but you still need to get that carbon out, which like you said, requires a force. That force has to come from somewhere, and eventually fossil fuels will be used in either the generation or the movement of the agent. This makes it pointless to convert carbon and hydrogen into hydrocarbons. ;)
It's not the bonding that gives us energy, it's the tearing of the long hydrocarbon bonds that gives energy. Trust me, if it came from both sources, our cars would need very little to go. The burning of the molecules releases plasma (free atoms), and these atoms go straight to the lowest energy state. When electrons change energy states, they release one photon for every level, or quantum of energy they reduce by. That is why you get heat and light from a fire, sound is just vibration of air.
Where did I say that we would be getting pure hydrogen? I don't know why you are bringing that up, but you have a point. We need a better way to get hydrogen into our system than burning fuel to power electrolysis. Solar, wind, geothermal and many other sources are a great place to start with that.
It's not the bonding that gives us energy, it's the tearing of the long hydrocarbon bonds that gives energy. Trust me, if it came from both sources, our cars would need very little to go. The burning of the molecules releases plasma (free atoms), and these atoms go straight to the lowest energy state. When electrons change energy states, they release one photon for every level, or quantum of energy they reduce by. That is why you get heat and light from a fire, sound is just vibration of air.
If I am ignorant, enlighten me. :cheers:
-Penguin
-
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds."
According to "Science Daily": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
-
That article's point is based on the research of a single person. You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity. Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.
Happy trails.
-Penguin
-
That article's point is based on the research of a single person. You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity. Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.
Happy trails.
-Penguin
dude.....
remember, the verification of all of the scientists claims that say we're doing this stuff, are ALL in question now.
as to your last statement? they did.
-
That article's point is based on the research of a single person. You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity. Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.
Happy trails.
-Penguin
The peer review process doesn't do that? I posted this earlier....no comment
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286
A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.
Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
-
That article's point is based on the research of a single person. You should present a scientist who can verify his claims, or an institution who can vouch for his integrity. Anyone could do what he did, present non-original research to prove your point.
Happy trails.
-Penguin
Listen Junior, you couldn't do what he did, could you? I guess "anyone" must be a rather exclusive group, huh?
I merely provided a link to a report on a study done by an accredited scientist that disagrees with the prevailing hysteria. You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line. The study merited enough respect to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds."
According to "Science Daily": http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
Interesting paper...I wonder if you actually read it, Wolfgang Knorr's actual paper? It uses much of the same data that Khatiwala et al and Le Quéré used, but they came to a conflicting result, saying the uptake is slowing. The difference between his work and theirs? Knorr used annual data, whereas Khatiwala used monthly data in order to account for seasonal variability. Carbon uptake varies by seasons you see..... Knorr can't account for that, a fact he actually alludes to within his own submission. The work in both papers is very good, otherwise. I'll highlight the major ideas for you.
Knorr himself cautions at his own paper's use for the very purpose you are representing it.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily", says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed"
I figure you just took the data analysis on "Science Daily" and arranged it to suit what point you were trying to make. Dr. Knorr would abhor this use.... after all, he is on the IPCC Scientific Working Group. You remember the IPCC right? The people that you say are behind this whole conspiracy right, lol?
Knorr, W, Law, R, Lenton, T, Lindsay, K, Maier-Reimer, E, Manning, AC, Matear, RJ, McGuire, AD, Melillo, JM, Meyer, R, Mund, M, Orr, JC, Piper, S, Platner, K, Rayner, PJ, Sitch, S, Slater, R, Taguchi, S, Tans, PP, Tian, HQ, Weirig, MF, Whorf, T & Yool, A. 'The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2', in J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs et al (Eds.), Climate Change 2000: The Science of Climate Change. Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (pp. 183-237), Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Again, a little background work. You might even try actually reading Wolfgang Knorr's "monstrous" 3 page online journal submission that you are quoting, rather than the short synopsis on "Science Daily". After that, a quick search of Dr. Knorr's publications will assert his work on the subject, which are quite extensive and thorough. He is a pretty staunch supporter of AGW....
I mean, this is all work, not to be simply spoon fed to you. You're a smart enough guy. Read the actual work, before you use it out of context for the discussion. The use of his work in the way you did illustrates you didn't even actually look at the abstract of the man's work. Or maybe you just didn't understand it?
In your pursuit of this knowledge, you might want to consider the difference between "airborne fraction of CO2" (which is what Knorr's paper is detailing) and "CO2 fraction in the air", which is what causes AGW. :aok If you need a little help, just ask. Knorr is actually just detailing that his analysis of the data shows that the sink has increased with increase in volume of emissions, not that there hasn't been an increase in CO2 in the air. Read a little.
Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has Remained relatively constant. When CO2 emissions were low, the amount of CO2 absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO2 Sharply Increased emissions in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature correspondingly Increased. The airborne fraction Remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.
There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when filtering Knorr does include this in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.
Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is likely due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability due to becoming saturated. Several recent studies have found drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008).
The "Airborne Fraction" refers to the amount of CO2 released into the air, after absorption. This has remained unchanged, for reasons unknown. It does not refer to the "fraction of CO2 contained in the atmosphere". This has increased constantly.
In other words, in 1850 when say 100 tonnes of CO2 was released, 43% of that was taken up, leaving the remaining 57% (57 tonnes) to go into the atmosphere. In 2000, when say 100 billion tonnes of CO2 was released, that same 43% was absorbed by the carbon cycle, leaving 57 billion tonnes to soak into the atmosphere. The percentage absorbed didn't change, the percentage in the atmosphere DID, obviously. This is what Knorr's paper was detailing, which you would have known had you taken the time to read it.
All it takes is a little critical thinking, some thought, and less spoon fed response, Widewing. If you read a little, you'd find Knorr agrees with AGW, his analysis of the CO2 sink simply finds the 150 year trend.
And, although Penguin didn't do this either and his response is too quick in discounting Dr. Knorr's work (which is very good, BTW) without obvious cause, his point is generally valid. "Junior" is owning you.
-
Sorry, I didn't know where that article came from, and it seemed slightly dodgy due to no numbers actually being presented in it. Shouldn't be too hasty!
Thanks Moray, well now, let's get back to the main point! (Jeez, that last post kinda left me out of ideas)
Where was I... Ah, better purposes for oil! Let's say that we have an unlimited amount (we assume that abiogenic is true), but fixed production. We also assume that we can convert anything that is not prevented to by the laws of physics into oil with 0% waste:
No matter how you slice it, there will always be more people. When you burn oil, it's gone forever. You can recycle plastic, but burnt fuel- not so much. If you recycle the plastic, the new oil will keep making materials for new plastic, satisfiying the need for food packing and syringes.
If you burn it, you won't have enough for syringes, contraception, lubrication (for cars :angel:), and food packing as the population grows. Now you will have trouble with operations, vaccinations, emergency medical care, and keeping food from spoiling.
Now try to lead your botulism ridden, starving, deformed, and grieving population through time without something going, horribly, horribly wrong. Remember, this was all done assuming that the abiogenic theory is true.
-Penguin
-
Sorry, I didn't know where that article came from, and it seemed slightly dodgy due to no numbers actually being presented in it. Shouldn't be too hasty!
-Penguin
Science Daily is a great place to find good work, and always has links to the papers they present, so that you might look at it for your own determination at his method. (My Master's thesis is on there from a few years ago, in the biology section. ;) ) You shouldn't discount any work submitted in a discussion without first checking its' merits, and do some background research on the author. In this case, Widewing has blatantly misunderstood the actual work that Dr. Knorr really did, or can't read it.... one or the other. Dr. Knorr's journal submission has nothing to do with CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere, he is talking about the absorption in the carbon cycle, prior to free [CO2] in the atmosphere.
Most denialists that are jumping on this particular article don't take the time to actually read it past what they understand the title to be. It's actually quite comical, when you look at Dr. Knorr's various contributions to the IPCC report.
A good scientist remains a skeptic to a certain point, and Wide's source was a viable one. He simply attributed the wrong meaning to it (probably due to not actually reading it, or simply not taking the time to understand it), and attempted to wrestle it to fit his own pre-existing view structure. As a young scientist, take care not to do the same.
-
Right, I should familiarize myself with a bunch of these websites so that I don't do that again. Care to give me a list? :salute
-Penguin
-
Right, I should familiarize myself with a bunch of these websites so that I don't do that again. Care to give me a list? :salute
-Penguin
Familiarize yourself with doing science, first and foremost. Critical thinking and paper dissection is key to science in this era. Many of the newer generation hasn't grasped this yet....and can't comprehend methodology, and skip to the results portion of papers. READ METHODOLOGY FIRST when examining any peer reviewed work.... and determine what the PI (principle investigator) has done to shore up his position versus any weaknesses in his methodology.
The only online sources you should even consider provide links to the actual papers....and even then you must be VERY careful. For the general public, Science Daily is good, New Scientist is ok, if not reveling in some gratuitous research into sex for headlines.
Your high school or university will most likely have access to databases that are much better for peer reviewed research papers. I know for a fact that even the local state college uses some of the same biology databases that the research institute I am employed at does.
-
Lol, we all bask in Moray's genius...ohh...shiny thing..gotta go now
-
Lol, we all bask in Moray's genius...ohh...shiny thing..gotta go now
What? That I can actually read Dr. Knorr's work and understand it? That I presented it factually, without bias, unlike Widewing?
That's genius?
The bar is getting lower and lower I guess, when determined by you.
In actuality, I believe I reversed the fractions presented. 57% should be the absorption factor, with 43% [CO2] released back into the atmosphere. That is what Knorr is detailing has not changed, not total [CO2]. The fraction absorbed would have to always be over 50% or the mere presence of respiring animals would have caused recurrent runaway effects.
-
What I was alluding to is your annoying habit of talking down to people, ala college prof
-
What? That I can actually read Dr. Knorr's work and understand it? That I presented it factually, without bias, unlike Widewing?
That's genius?
The bar is getting lower and lower I guess, when determined by you.
i think the point is that most are looking at these things somewhat openly. you at one point seemed as if you were. penguin(no offense intended) is young, and spewing what he's being taught. he's not thinking for himself. again, i apologize for sounding offensive penguin, it's not intended that way.....but reading your last few posts reeks of the "indoctrinated" student.
one really needs to remember, that these "doom and gloom" predictions have been going on at least since the 70's, and quite probably even the 60's.
none of them has been proven beyond a doubt to have any basis, and if you just look around yourself, you can see that.
all that is coming out of all of this is money.
-
What I was alluding to is your annoying habit of talking down to people, ala college prof
If it appears that way, so be it.
Widewing determined that talking down to the previous poster was a correct course of action, by calling him "Junior".
I responded to him, as he is blatantly misguided in what he's presenting as fact, scientifically. He never read the paper, yet wants to use it as support for his argument, when in fact it had nothing to do with what he was saying.
-
i think the point is that most are looking at these things somewhat openly. you at one point seemed as if you were.
I am completely open to things. I am also part of this "League of Scientists" that somehow can control all this data and want a new world order.... but can't agree on whether Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger or a predator. :lol :lol :lol.
If you understood how much money one scientist would get if he stood up and had good data supporting your denialist agenda......He or She could have anything they wanted. Money, Labs, fame. The cover of Time magazine... THE DATA JUST ISN'T THERE! There isn't one person I work with that wouldn't want to be the first to prove the whole thing WRONG. My work would be guaranteed for life, as would a full professorship and a cushy salary and new laboratory.
When there is consensus in a given field, you can pretty much write it off.
As far as indoctrinated....look at yourself. Most of what Penguin has posted is soundly based in science. He has the brash demeanor of the young, and is probably an overachiever, but his thought process is sound. When did teaching facts become indoctrination, btw ? Curious attitude and outlook you have there.
-
Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants ;))
-
Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants ;))
Government has nothing to do with science.... scientists are, by and large, the least political grouping there is. There just isn't time for the pettiness that is the politics of the general populace of any country. Data, methodology and results are pretty much all we care about. Sorry.
We'll get grants no matter what the current political climate is. Unfortunately, you don't understand that process yet either, as I've repeatedly explained it to you in previous threads.
-
Was going to mention...have seen more than once many scientists reach different conclusions over same data...which ones are correct? (the ones with the government grants ;))
Your remarks are at best...cheap.
And govt grants are less by the $ and vastly more (politically) unstable than the $ which a participant which really has interest will offer. Not to mention the job being much simpler. Cherry-picking agenda is much simpler than research with the "A good scientist remains a skeptic to a certain point" line in mind.
-
Thanks Moray, but I'm not in highschool yet. I that I can get the papers though :aok.
I do not know this methodology, could you please tell me, if you already have not? I don't want to sound like an idiot by not doing it right.
Is this debate still about AGM? Or are we arguing about the way that we are arguing?
-Penguin
-
Or are we arguing about the way that we are arguing?
-Penguin
LMAO.... welcome to science. That might be the most astute thing posted on this board. That's scientific endeavors in a nutshell.... arguing about the way we're arguing.
No worries Penguin. You've got the tools. I thought you were at least in AP High School science....you've got a better grasp of the basics than some of the college freshman and sophomores I've recently had as interns. Just keep studying.
You've also got plenty of time to find out how methods affect results, but that's down the road quite a bit. Don't get ahead of yourself.
-
Interesting paper...I wonder if you actually read it, Wolfgang Knorr's actual paper?
Blah, blah, blah...
And, although Penguin didn't do this either and his response is too quick in discounting Dr. Knorr's work (which is very good, BTW) without obvious cause, his point is generally valid. "Junior" is owning you.
My goodness, you sure are a self-aggrandizing windbag, aren't you?
I said nothing other than to post a link hoping that it might cause continued conversation. I made no comment whatsoever. Zero, nada, zippo, nothing. Yet you seem to think that I did. If you perceived anything more than that, you did so within your own mind.
You assume things that are not in evidence, an apparent requirement to be a climate scientist. You patronize with statements like, "You're a smart enough guy". Trust me, you have no idea. Anytime you want to compare professional accomplishments, let me know.
I'm a Professional Engineer. Unlike scientists, we Engineers actually make things, tangible things. In my case, I conceptualize, design, oversee manufacturing and testing of a variety of sophisticated products, most of which is for current and future military weapon systems.
Two years ago, I had a Navy Physics Doctorate analyze a design proposal of mine. He presented a 26 page analysis of why my design would not work. The Navy requires an unique electro-mechanical device that differentiates between a 0.45g absolute and a 0.50g absolute, and then initiate transmitting a data bit within .063 seconds after the onset of the acceleration. What I thumbed through was a long winded dissertation, which claimed that both static and dynamic friction relative to the coefficient of friction between materials would prevent function to the requirement. Our corporate Director of Engineering read this report and questioned whether I could actually do what I claimed. Yes, he was mistakenly impressed with academic credentials. I simply sent him our test lab data. You see, I had already built 3 prototypes and not only did the system function to the specification requirements, it did so within .023 seconds at .477g absolute (do you know what g absolute means? It means g measurement relative to zero g, or free fall in a perfect vacuum).
The test data and two of the prototypes were delivered to the Navy for testing and analysis. They confirmed out data and ordered a large number of systems. The Physicist was never heard from again.
What the Physicist didn't realize was that there are many factors outside his limited understanding of this mechanical system. Friction was completely neutralized using an application of my "vector dynamics" technology (for which, I own the patent) developed in the 90's. For all practical purpose, there exists no friction within the device when activated. How is that possible? You can read the patent here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html)
My problem with climate science is that uses only what is really limited knowledge to make remarkable determinations. What is not known likely dwarfs the known by orders of magnitude. Adding to this is the obvious bias towards reinforcing their argument as their status and income depend on it. Thus, drawing conclusions they do are not only premature, but from an Engineering standpoint, completely foolhardy. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Climate science hasn't proven anything and they face the problem of an obviously cooling planet while they scramble to come up with some reason that still supports their flawed theory. They commonly utilize a variation of stochastic process (probability), which is at the mercy of the input data used.
Back to your comments..
Penguin's response was to make a series of ridiculous comments; ridiculous in that he is utterly dismissive without a clue as to study or the person who generated it. Then, you enter in with a smug arrogance so typical of the climate mafia and their apologist minions. I referred to Penguin as "Junior" because his response was as if he was talking to some kid in his <edit> middle school earth science class.
My experience after many years of being an engineering program manager and 30+ years of hands-on engineering is that the best education is of little practical value without actual experience. In short, I'd trade three engineering grads for one Engineer with five years experience. We currently have several interns, one of which is one semester short of his MSME. He is assigned very basic work, because even a Masters degree is of little value when compared to real world experience. We have to teach him what he didn't learn in college before I can turn him loose on anything beyond ECNs and simple tooling changes. God forbid should he display the misplaced attitude of you or Penguin....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Blah, blah, blah...
My goodness, you sure are a self-aggrandizing windbag, aren't you?
I said nothing other than to post a link hoping that it might cause continued conversation. I made no comment whatsoever. Zero, nada, zippo, nothing. Yet you seem to think that I did. If you perceived anything more than that, you did so within your own mind.
You assume things that are not in evidence, an apparent requirement to be a climate scientist. You patronize with statements like, "You're a smart enough guy". Trust me, you have no idea. Anytime you want to compare professional accomplishments, let me know.
I'm a Professional Engineer. Unlike scientists, we Engineers actually make things, tangible things. In my case, I conceptualize, design, oversee manufacturing and testing of a variety of sophisticated products, most of which is for current and future military weapon systems.
Two years ago, I had a Navy Physics Doctorate analyze a design proposal of mine. He presented a 26 page analysis of why my design would not work. The Navy requires an unique electro-mechanical device that differentiates between a 0.45g absolute and a 0.50g absolute, and then initiate transmitting a data bit within .063 seconds after the onset of the acceleration. What I thumbed through was a long winded dissertation, which claimed that both static and dynamic friction relative to the coefficient of friction between materials would prevent function to the requirement. Our corporate Director of Engineering read this report and questioned whether I could actually do what I claimed. Yes, he was mistakenly impressed with academic credentials. I simply sent him our test lab data. You see, I had already built 3 prototypes and not only did the system function to the specification requirements, it did so within .023 seconds at .477g absolute (do you know what g absolute means? It means g measurement relative to zero g, or free fall in a perfect vacuum).
The test data and two of the prototypes were delivered to the Navy for testing and analysis. They confirmed out data and ordered a large number of systems. The Physicist was never heard from again.
What the Physicist didn't realize was that there are many factors outside his limited understanding of this mechanical system. Friction was completely neutralized using an application of my "vector dynamics" technology (for which, I own the patent) developed in the 90's. For all practical purpose, there exists no friction within the device when activated. How is that possible? You can read the patent here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5134255.html)
My problem with climate science is that uses only what is really limited to make remarkable determinations. What is not known likely dwarfs the known by orders of magnitude. Adding to this is the obvious bias towards reinforcing their argument as their status and income depend on it. Thus, drawing conclusions they do are not only premature, but from an Engineering standpoint, completely foolhardy. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Climate science hasn't proven anything and they face the problem of an obviously cooling planet while they scramble to come up with some reason that still supports their flawed theory. They commonly utilize a variation of stochastic process (probability), which is at the mercy of the input data used.
Back to your comments..
Penguin's response was to make a series of ridiculous comments; ridiculous in that he is utterly dismissive without a clue as to study or the person who generated it. Then, you enter in with a smug arrogance so typical of the climate mafia and their apologist minions. I referred to Penguin as "Junior" because his response was as if he was talking to some kid in his high school earth science class.
My experience after many years of being an engineering program manager and 30+ years of hands-on engineering is that the best education is of little practical value without actual experience. In short, I'd trade three engineering grads for one Engineer with five years experience. We currently have several interns, one of which is one semester short of his MSME. He is assigned very basic work, because even a Masters degree is of little value when compared to real world experience. We have to teach him what he didn't learn in college before I can turn him loose on anything beyond ECNs and simple tooling changes. God forbid should he display the misplaced attitude of you or Penguin....
My regards,
Widewing
Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it. In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this. YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside. Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension? I would imagine your education would have been able to discern the difference between "airborne fraction of CO2" and "CO2 fraction in the air". You see, the placement of "fraction" changes the meaning. As in "airborne fraction of CO2" (What Knorr was talking about) as opposed to "CO2 fraction in the air" (What AGW is about)
I could care less if AGW is completely true or not. Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it.
Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject. You misused and misrepresented his journal submission to seem like he was not. Put your entire life in a post, I care not. You were wrong. End of story, your entire life history notwithstanding, nor your obvious distaste for scientists in general. Pretending it's not what you meant is BS...the quote below is directly from YOU. It was exactly what you meant.... be a man and admit it. Engineers are always so good at "passing the buck" though, aren't they?
Quote from Widewing
I merely provided a link to a report on a study done by an accredited scientist that disagrees with the prevailing hysteria. You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line. The study merited enough respect to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union.
Attempting to cloud these facts with your life story in a post is ludicrous, and doesn't change what you were attempting to post. I have no doubt you're a fine engineer. You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said. You got called out, and are wrong.... live with it.
-
I am completely open to things. I am also part of this "League of Scientists" that somehow can control all this data and want a new world order.... but can't agree on whether Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger or a predator. :lol :lol :lol.
If you understood how much money one scientist would get if he stood up and had good data supporting your denialist agenda......He or She could have anything they wanted. Money, Labs, fame. The cover of Time magazine... THE DATA JUST ISN'T THERE! There isn't one person I work with that wouldn't want to be the first to prove the whole thing WRONG. My work would be guaranteed for life, as would a full professorship and a cushy salary and new laboratory.
When there is consensus in a given field, you can pretty much write it off.
As far as indoctrinated....look at yourself. Most of what Penguin has posted is soundly based in science. He has the brash demeanor of the young, and is probably an overachiever, but his thought process is sound. When did teaching facts become indoctrination, btw ? Curious attitude and outlook you have there.
you seem to misinterpret me.......
just because you're a member of that particular "league" of scientists, does not mean you are one that is "doctoring" the information, as others have.
i also never faulted penguins thought process. i actually admire it, if he's as young as it seems he is. it's very rare to see a young person think so clearly.
what i meant when i said "indoctrinated" was that he is taking only what is taught to him, by schools, which more than likely have their own agenda, and using that to reason/justify his conclusions. there is absolutely nothing wrong with how he does this.
now for what i use? i look out the window. i go outside. i know you do too. i talk to others in other parts of the world that do the same. it seems that things are the same now, as they were 30 years ago.
now.......i know that might sound pretty simplistic to you......but it seems to me that it makes sense.
i also do not believe that any scientist that stood up to prove global warming to be wrong would gain anything at all from the govt....but rather that person would be squelched.
-
what i meant when i said "indoctrinated" was that he is taking only what is taught to him, by schools, which more than likely have their own agenda, and using that to reason/justify his conclusions.
Keep in mind that to others 'you' (and by you I don't mean literally you) may seem to be 'indoctrinated' with Faux News style talking points and the like, and in the same manner (just with opposite viewpoints)... that goes all sorts of ways.
-
Keep in mind that to others 'you' (and by you I don't mean literally you) may seem to be 'indoctrinated' with Faux News style talking points and the like, and in the same manner (just with opposite viewpoints)... that goes all sorts of ways.
very good point........ :aok
-
Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it. In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this. YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside. Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension?
Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject. You misused his journal submission to seem like he was not. Put your entire life in a post, I care not. You were wrong.
My reading comprehension? You state above that I said, "stood up the AGW mafia". Then you post the supposed quote and it doesn't say that at all. Here it is again, as you apparently failed to understand:
"You certainly lack the credentials to dispute his findings, other that to parrot the AGW mafia's company line."
Now, explain again how you perceived what I wrote in reply to Penguin.
No, I didn't read the paper. I tried the link to it provided in the article, but guess what? You have to be a member, or fork over a credit card number and purchase it. Not a chance.....
I did, however, read the article. Here's what it said:
"Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."
Thus, according to the article, Knorr's analysis is in opposition to some studies that conclude that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is declining. Was not this type of data often input into computer models previously used to predict climate change? Doesn't Knorr's analysis force a change to the previous conclusions?
Suppose the planet continues general cooling trend for the next 20 or more years. Will the AGW guys concede that they were wrong, or will they call it an anomaly and spin it to validate their theory? Like most of the Titanic's crew and passengers; they didn't believe it was possible for the ship to sink. At least up until their feet got wet.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here's the hole in your proposition:
Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath. Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO2.
That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).
So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there.
Here's the function f(x)= .47x
Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost. So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere. With that last post, you just proved out points. If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO2 is decreasing.
If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving. You just posted a self-defeating argument. Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going.
This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet. Your argument just proved our point.
Happy Trails!
-Penguin
-
Here's the hole in your proposition:
Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath. Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO2.
That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).
So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there.
Here's the function f(x)= .47x
Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost. So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere. With that last post, you just proved out points. If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO2 is decreasing.
If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving. You just posted a self-defeating argument. Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going.
This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet. Your argument just proved our point.
Happy Trails!
-Penguin
first off.......co2 doesn't just "go" into the ocean.
it is absorbed by plankton, which then converts it to o2. much the same as trees and green plants. they need it to live.
secondly, the sun warms the planet.
:aok
-
first off.......co2 doesn't just "go" into the ocean.
it is absorbed by plankton, which then converts it to o2. much the same as trees and green plants. they need it to live.
secondly, the sun warms the planet.
:aok
Ok come on, I haven't even taken biology yet.
I don't see where you are going with that. Of course it does? :huh That's why it matters what the atmosphere is composed of, since the sun warms the planet more if we have more CO2, and other assorted greenhouse gasses.
-Penguin
-
Ok come on, I haven't even taken biology yet.
I don't see where you are going with that. Of course it does? :huh That's why it matters what the atmosphere is composed of, since the sun warms the planet more if we have more CO2, and other assorted greenhouse gasses.
-Penguin
that's part of why i told ya that plankton converts. i know you'll go looking, and researching now, and learn more. :aok
and no, the only thing that affects how much the sun warms our planet, is how far away we are.
this gets a little weird though. the earth wobbles on it's axis......much like a spinning top as it slows down. this is part of what causes these cycles that i(and others) keep talking about.
this and other things is mostly what affects us.
here's a question. co2 is heavy. it doesn't rise up into the atmosphere. this being the case, how can it affect the temp.?
pardon if some of my replies seem short and are mis-typed today. i'm at work, and replying between jobs. :aok
-
Ya ya...Cap1.
Aircraft are also heavier than air.
Anyway, molar mass 44.010 g/mol
Nitrogen is BTW most of our "air".
Why am I explaining this? Oh, forgot, some folks here never saw the mix of fluids, of course co2 should stay at ground level.
There are 3 dimensions physically and forces working in all 3, as well as temperature playing a role. It will not save some from having a 2 dimensional head :neener:
-
Here's the hole in your proposition:
Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath. Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO2.
That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).
So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there.
Here's the function f(x)= .47x
Now that means that not all of it will just go to the oceans or permafrost. So just put in any number for the emission and you'll get the output value, and that stuff will stay in the atmosphere. With that last post, you just proved out points. If you had said that opposite, then there would still be an argument; you said that the capacity of the earth to trap CO2 is decreasing.
If that is true, we can't keep burning oil and other fuels to keep our grids powered and our cars moving. You just posted a self-defeating argument. Where is your evidence to show that in fact it doesn't matter if we burn oil and coal to keep going.
This means that even an unlimited amount of oil wouldn't matter, as burning it would just warm the planet. Your argument just proved our point.
Happy Trails!
-Penguin
Knorr's analysis is in opposition to some studies that conclude that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is declining.
Where are you going to get an unlimited amount of oil? That would really make oil prices drop.
-
Here's the hole in your proposition:
Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath.
The atmosphere comprises something like 38 thousandths of 1 percent of CO2 or around 380 ppm. Even if this were doubled in absolute terms let alone what we emit, we wouldn't be "gasping for breath". Physiologically, we wouldn't even notice.
-
Sir, you quoted an article that you said was from a scientist who "stood up against the AGW mafia" as you succinctly put it. In fact, his paper had absolutely nothing to do with what you said, and had you read it, you would have realized this. YOU are absolutely 100% wrong in your position, your wondrous engineering experience aside. Congrats on your patent... Maybe you might work on your reading comprehension? I would imagine your education would have been able to discern the difference between "airborne fraction of CO2" and "CO2 fraction in the air". You see, the placement of "fraction" changes the meaning. As in "airborne fraction of CO2" (What Knorr was talking about) as opposed to "CO2 fraction in the air" (What AGW is about)
I could care less if AGW is completely true or not. Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it.
Knorr is an ardent supporter of AGW, and is an active member of IPCC Scientific Working Group 1, publishing many articles on the subject. You misused and misrepresented his journal submission to seem like he was not. Put your entire life in a post, I care not. You were wrong. End of story, your entire life history notwithstanding, nor your obvious distaste for scientists in general. Pretending it's not what you meant is BS...the quote below is directly from YOU. It was exactly what you meant.... be a man and admit it. Engineers are always so good at "passing the buck" though, aren't they?
Quote from Widewing
Attempting to cloud these facts with your life story in a post is ludicrous, and doesn't change what you were attempting to post. I have no doubt you're a fine engineer. You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said. You got called out, and are wrong.... live with it.
You thought that you could sneak in an edit and it would be missed by me, but seen by those catching up on the thread... What were you afraid of?
I stand by what I stated. You, on the other hand, flip-flop around like a gaffed tuna.
I don't dislike scientists. I dislike dishonest scientists. You know, liars and fabricators of data. I deal with scientists almost every day.
You wrote: "I could care less if AGW is completely true or not. Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it."
The first part is obviously bullhockey, based upon your vehement defending of AGW dogma. Bulldinkey #1
The second part is utter fabrication. I stated exactly what the article stated. Is Science Daily misrepresenting Knorr's work? Bulldinkey #2
Your next quote is this one, "You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said."
So, you are now saying that Science Daily is a "denialist site"? Oh, and there's that elitist attitude again, calling people "denialists" if they might disagree with some of the worst science since the dark ages. This only reinforces what I defined as lie #1. So, we have bulldinkey #12.
The article I quoted was from Science Daily, which means either they are now a denialist rag, or you're as obtuse as granite. We know that the Science Daily is absolutely not a denialist rag, so what is left is.... Who knows, you may eventually make a usable counter top.
You are so completely full of yourself, that you cannot endure being incorrect. Really, you present everyone who disagrees as being stupid, or perhaps just ignorant, but certainly needing to be talked down to. The reality is that you come across as just an arrogant young man with much to learn about world and the people in it. If that's how you want people to perceive you, than by all means carry on.
My regards,
Widewing
-
yikes!!
i missed the edit?
anyway.......careful with the personal attacks......that's what got the thread of serenty's locked.
there's good conversation goin on here.....
-
Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!
Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit. Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).
That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW. The second part still works. Moray provided the difference between what those two terms. I have also proven what he is saying mathematically
Of course we can't have more than 50% of what we emit stay in the atmosphere, otherwise we would be all on the ground, gasping for breath. Now let's say that we emit, oh, a trillion metric tons of CO2.
That's 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons or 1,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (quadrilllion).
So 1,000,000,000,000*.47= 470,000,000,000 metric tons<--that stuff stays up there.
Here's the function f(x)= .47x
Now you can see that the remainder stays in the atmosphere. So even when the coefficient of x decreases, if the value of x increases, you can still get a greater result than the original function.
Here are some examples:
47% of 100<30% of 150 = {[f(x)=.47x where x=100]<[f(x)=.3x where x=150]}
10% of 1,000< 9% 1,200 = {[f(x)= .1x where x=1,000]<[f(x)=.9x where x= 1,200
5% 37< 4% 47 = {[f(x)= .5x where x= 37]<[f(x)=.4x where x=47
Note that the first part of each example is an inequality, this was added to ease comprehension.
This in turn means that even as the earth can absorb more CO2 (seen as decreasing coeffcient), we can still see an increase in the amount as a greater absolute amount is pumped in (seen as greater given value for x).
This means that even if the abiogenic theory is true ("unlimited oil", seen in previous posts as an assumption), we will still have to stop as more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere.
-Penguin
-
Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!
Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit. Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).
That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW. The second part still works. Moray provided the difference between what those two terms. I have also proven what he is saying mathematically
Now you can see that the remainder stays in the atmosphere. So even when the coefficient of x decreases, if the value of x increases, you can still get a greater result than the original function.
Here are some examples:
47% of 100<30% of 150 = {[f(x)=.47x where x=100]<[f(x)=.3x where x=150]}
10% of 1,000< 9% 1,200 = {[f(x)= .1x where x=1,000]<[f(x)=.9x where x= 1,200
5% 37< 4% 47 = {[f(x)= .5x where x= 37]<[f(x)=.4x where x=47
Note that the first part of each example is an inequality, this was added to ease comprehension.
This in turn means that even as the earth can absorb more CO2 (seen as decreasing coeffcient), we can still see an increase in the amount as a greater absolute amount is pumped in (seen as greater given value for x).
This means that even if the abiogenic theory is true ("unlimited oil", seen in previous posts as an assumption), we will still have to stop as more CO2 gets pumped into the atmosphere.
-Penguin
in the real world, there are always variables sir.......mathematics don't allow for them.
-
Pssst. I've made it a little bit simpler to show the principle of it all, and yes mathematics can have multiple answers, check out quadratic formula (see that weird plus sign over a minus sign?), it has two answers. And algebra, that's all variables!
-Penguin
-
Man, I feel like I'm dancing around the feet of giants... but here goes!
Apart from the personal attacks (no place here, I thought that we are mature), Widewing's post has some merit. Apparently Moray added in a major edit without noting it (minor ones are grammar, spelling and flow of words).
That statement seems to be false, since he has ardently defended AGW. The second part still works. Moray provided the difference between what those two terms. I have also proven what he is saying mathematically
-Penguin
I didn't begin the personal slurs... I merely responded to them.
If highlighting his behavior is a personal attack, (it isn't, you live and die by ones own words), then using terms such as "denialist" must be especially egregious.
I'm not going allow someone to shovel their manure into my yard. If that leads to the thread being locked, so be it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Who did?
-Penguin
-
I didn't begin the personal slurs... I merely responded to them.
If highlighting his behavior is a personal attack, (it isn't, you live and die by ones own words), then using terms such as "denialist" must be especially egregious.
I'm not going allow someone to shovel their manure into my yard. If that leads to the thread being locked, so be it.
My regards,
Widewing
funny quick story...in rl, my neighbor used to let their dog come in my yard all the time to do it's business.
my brother an i used to take turns with the shovel, tossing it back over the fence to their yard.
made for some fun arguments between our grandparents, and the neighbors. :rofl :noid
-
I wish that this thread should not turn into a duel between Wide and Moray, who are both persons from this forums that I personally have quite some respect for.
Getting back on topic, I think it's completely bad when a scientist sells himself to an agenda, be it for his own belief or the money. In my mind (and I bet on Moray there as well) that is the point when the "scientist" stops being a scientist.
And getting back to carbon. Sometimes the layman view is not that bad. I'll give it a go.
- We know that carbon has it cycle and in the perfect world it would (as it has been) be relatively stable. Plants, soil, atmosphere, plants. Some will be bound for a long time, some not.
- Right now, we are juicing out carbon from fossils and into the atmosphere, while the return binding is being lessened.
- So in short, C (read CO2 basically) should be increasing in our atmosphere.
- Readings indicate that, that is just the case.
I am curious if that that that forum would give that that a pass :D
-
Who did?
-Penguin
So Penguin, are you still posing as an adolescent pre-teen?
"Ok come on, I haven't even taken biology yet."
"Thanks Moray, but I'm not in highschool yet. I that I can get the papers though"
"I don't understand where you are going with that. Of course I can't live in the woods! I'm not even grown up!"
"Just because our voice is higher doesn't make us annoying. This is just the way we are, and we can't help it. The least you guys can do is not to make threads simply to insult us; so relax, don't you have something better to do?"
Then there is this post (scroll to bottom)... Not something I have ever seen from a pre-pubescent youngster:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280487.msg3535995.html#msg3535995 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280487.msg3535995.html#msg3535995)
You are whining about some coarse discussion, yet you are being deliberately fraudulent all the while... Nice touch.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I am smart, smart like you've never seen from a teenager. Just turned 13, I am pubescent, my voice is still high, but *ahem* other things are growing (I think that you can guess what :devil) That slider is from a game I once played, Hearts of Iron, it's a military strategy game where you try to win World War II. The sliders represent how much of your industrial capactity you will devote to one task or another, and when one goes up, the others go down. I've been called a nerd many times, and kids ask me for defenitions of words.
The voice I use when I post comes from my dad, he wrote plays and acted when he was in college. He was also a narrator for plays. He taught me (effectively through osmosis), how speak/write with a good, solid voice. That's why I sound older than I am.
You notice that I complain when my knowledge or capacity are believed to be larger, or in one case, squeakers were being attacked; then I whine a bit. You then go on to say that since I made the statements in your quote, that I couldn't be 13 and have made the post about military pregnancy.
Sorry, I guess that you'll have to take my word for it on this one.
Happy Trails, oh, and Happy New Year!
No hard feelings?
:angel:
-Penguin
-
I am smart, smart like you've never seen from a teenager.
You notice that I complain when my knowledge or capacity are believed to be larger, or in one case, squeakers were being attacked; then I whine a bit. You then go on to say that since I made the statements in your quote, that I couldn't be 13 and have made the post about military pregnancy.
:rolleyes:
There are plenty of 'kids' here 12-17, being able to form a competent opinion doesn't make you special. And most of them don't use their age as a crutch when they're cornered.
That's why I sound older than I am.
Actually I was instantly able to pick out that you were either young or in some other way impaired when it comes to expressing yourself through text.
-
Its all about the money... If I were a Scientist and my job depended on research grants from the governments, (AKA:Taxpayers) I would be for doing everything it took to futher the agenda. Nobody likes the krap in the air or water so it would be an easy sell. With the advancements in electromagnetics and frictionless bearings, we could easily create an electrical generator for every house and business thus eliminating the need for coal and nuclear power plants. When I lived in Boise ID in the mid 80's, I read a article in the local newspaper reporting a engineer at the INEL created a flashlight battery with a shelf life of 25,000 years. The reason we haven't reacted to these innovations is because of the money, Imagine the lose of jobs and revenue related to the matenance of the power grid both to the citizens and governments.
"Carbon Credits" software for "Cap and Trade" are already in place and have been heavily financed by Al Gore and the other cronies trying to forward and captilize off this Krap, Wallstreet will broker the trades.
Its always about the MONEY. We're just the useless idoits that has to pay for this stuff.
Sorry for being a bummer guys,
spammer
-
You are whining about some coarse discussion, yet you are being deliberately fraudulent all the while... Nice touch.
I owe you a beer.
-
I suppose the debate is over know.
So motherland, where was I cornered? I can see where that sounds strange, let me fix a few things to see if it works better.
Original:
You notice that I complain when my knowledge or capacity are believed to be larger,
Fixed Version:
You notice that I complain when my knowledge or capacity to do things are believed to be larger than they are.
Original:
That's why I sound older than I am.
Fixed Version:
Widewing, that's why I sounded older than I am to you
That first part of my post, oochie, yeah I can't say much about that :O
This part of my post is directed to Widewing
Widewing, you are sadly mistaken, ask anyone from Duxford. I'm a kid. I don't see why you would think that I would put on a false guise during a debate just because of a few points. I'm not going to post pictures of myself, since all that would do is give predators a chance at me. So to refute your point, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am the age that I say I am, but you can't prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not a talking dog with incredible persuasion skills.
-Penguin
-
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230
My regards,
Widewing
-
You thought that you could sneak in an edit and it would be missed by me, but seen by those catching up on the thread... What were you afraid of?
I stand by what I stated. You, on the other hand, flip-flop around like a gaffed tuna.
I don't dislike scientists. I dislike dishonest scientists. You know, liars and fabricators of data. I deal with scientists almost every day.
You wrote: "I could care less if AGW is completely true or not. Misrepresenting someone's work is lower than dirt, and worse than stealing it."
The first part is obviously bullhockey, based upon your vehement defending of AGW dogma. Bulldinkey #1
The second part is utter fabrication. I stated exactly what the article stated. Is Science Daily misrepresenting Knorr's work? Bulldinkey #2
Your next quote is this one, "You just couldn't read Knorr's paper without some denialist site telling you what it said."
So, you are now saying that Science Daily is a "denialist site"? Oh, and there's that elitist attitude again, calling people "denialists" if they might disagree with some of the worst science since the dark ages. This only reinforces what I defined as lie #1. So, we have bulldinkey #12.
The article I quoted was from Science Daily, which means either they are now a denialist rag, or you're as obtuse as granite. We know that the Science Daily is absolutely not a denialist rag, so what is left is.... Who knows, you may eventually make a usable counter top.
You are so completely full of yourself, that you cannot endure being incorrect. Really, you present everyone who disagrees as being stupid, or perhaps just ignorant, but certainly needing to be talked down to. The reality is that you come across as just an arrogant young man with much to learn about world and the people in it. If that's how you want people to perceive you, than by all means carry on.
My regards,
Widewing
Wide, again, if you actually read the article you are quoting you will understand. Knorr's work finds the 150 year trend, and uses annual data that is unable to account for seasonal variations in the northern and southern hemispheres. His work also doesn't account for volcanism as well. In fact, his work wasn't even meant to be applied to the discourse you are using it. He repeatedly cautions against the very way you are framing his work. All things you would know if you actually read the submission.
The surprising fact about his work was that the CO2 cycle showed resilience and the ability to consistently absorb the 55-57%, no matter what the output was, up until recent times. He even states that the end of his data shows an increase in the atmospheric fraction, but that it isn't statistically significant when dealing in the terms of standard deviations. He also repeatedly says that his annual data wouldn't massage out any significant change (+ or - in [CO2] in the latter data, because of the overwhelming bottom heavy significance of his data set (1850-1950).
Of course, you don't know this, because you take an overview piece from "Science Daily" and form your opinion without looking at the methodology and shortcomings within the actual study.
You are wrong. Please look into papers by Khatiwala et al and Le Quéré , that have the statistical capacity to measure recent changes in CO2 fractional changes.
-
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230
My regards,
Widewing
LMFAO!!!!! Brilliant WW!! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Methane is a more important facet, than CO2. But keep it on the down low.
-
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 230
My regards,
Widewing
What are you even getting at? :huh
-Penguin
-
What are you even getting at? :huh
-Penguin
Checkmate. Well played Widewing! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Checkmate. Well played Widewing! :rofl :rofl :rofl
How is that Checkmate? We defeated his arguement on AGW. That's just mudslinging.
-Penguin
-
How is that Checkmate? We defeated his arguement on AGW. That's just mudslinging.
-Penguin
You defeated nothing. All you've done is repeatedly profess your faith in the religion of "climate change".
-
1. I'm just going to ignore the second part of that post, we went step-by-step, logically defeating all of his posts.
2. You still haven't disproven my argument, all you have done is sling mud.
3. The question remains, how is what Widewing said checkmate?
-Penguin
-
1. I'm just going to ignore the second part of that post, we went step-by-step, logically defeating all of his posts.
2. You still haven't disproven my argument, all you have done is sling mud.
3. The question remains, how is what Widewing said checkmate?
-Penguin
You cannot win arguments with statements that include "it is believed that" or "it is generally agreed that". AND... You CANNOT win arguments using data that is KNOWN to have been falsified to generate a desired outcome.
Checkmate. You lose.
-
Sweeping statements, are you sure that every single argument follows those rules? Remember, you can never be 100% sure of anything that is not fundamental to the universe, and we aren't even there on those. Here are a few things that I can prove to you using those statements:
It is generally agreed upon by that mirrors are not gateways into paralell universes, so that if I put my hand on one, I'm not going to feel the cold vacuum of space on my flesh. Although we know that the statement is true, I can guarantee you that at least one wingnut will think that.
We believe that we can apply the scientific principle to anything but the supernatural, which means that I can test the theory of gravity as long as I'm not holding Zeus in my hand.
Where did we use such falsified data? Go back, read all of my posts, read all of Moray's posts, and then come back to say that.
-Penguin
-
How is that Checkmate? We defeated his arguement on AGW. That's just mudslinging.
-Penguin
Really, you guys couldn't defeat call waiting.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Well then bring in your argument, we're ready to go! :aok
-Penguin
-
How is that Checkmate? We defeated his arguement on AGW. That's just mudslinging.
-Penguin
no, you didn't.
-
When dealing with matters that have the ability to destroy much of the world's economy deserve much more than speculation to determine their outcomes.
-
My proven "argument"? Lobbyists love Global Warming.
-
since penguin likes doing research.........try this sir.
follow the money. it'll open your eyes. :aok
-
Great, a new topic for debate!
So here's what I think CAP's getting at (not to put words in your mouth):
1. Certain firms make money from making "green" products
2. They make "donations" to the government who is now giving them help
3. This means that global warming/climate change isn't real
Is that right?
Here's my rebuttle:
1. Yes, that is true, but bigger firms make more money from selling oil, and nobody likes harsh chemicals in their products. This means that we can't tell if environmentally friendly products are being pushed by the government because of a sincere concern for the environment or just another money scheme.
2. I don't know how much, but judging by how long the green advocates have been around, the oil firms' got 'em licked
3. That's just non-sequitur. Both of the previous points could be true or false, and it wouldn't make a difference to this conclusion.
Just a warning to you guys, we should be pretty careful about this debate because of rule 14: Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.
___=applies here
-Penguin
-
Well then bring in your argument, we're ready to go! :aok
-Penguin
No, you are not ready to go...
AGW is unproven. Moreover, there is now ample evidence to doubt the work of some of AGW's biggest promoters. Where's the data? Show me that man made Co2 emission has increased global temperatures. Don't bother with Google. No one has proven it yet, and it's likely no one will.
The undoctored evidence indicates that warming stopped more than 10 years ago, essentially leveling off for a few years. Now, we have seen a steady decline in global temperature, especially above the 30th parallel. The past 6 months have been especially chilly. Cold and snow not seen in generations is prevalent all across the northern hemisphere. Yet, the AGW guys insist that the Co2 levels are rising. Go back to the first post of this thread. A stunning series of emails from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit clearly show the scientist's befuddlement with declining world temperatures. Here's some excerpts that do not lose their context as quoted.
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Many people in this world are growing weary of the constant bombardment by doomsayers. Bad science supporting a political agenda that aims to centralize global power over all commerce and industry. Their problem is that their house of cards is starting to quake. When it falls, most of these AGW scientists will have trouble finding work as a greeter in their local Walmart. I equate it with eco-climate terrorism. The goal being to so frighten people and governments that they will surrender a large portion of their national sovereignty to "save the world". Fear is their only product. Third world nations stand with their hands out, wanting huge payoffs from the industrialized nations. As if this money would go to any useful purpose other than into the coffers of tin-pot dictators and corrupt government officials.
I'd like to see the members of the IPCC investigated for fraud. I'd like to see any scientist who doctored data fired and stripped of any affiliation, and then prosecuted for fraud. GTMO is far from full. Save an especially warm cell for Rajendra Pachauri.
My regards,
Widewing
<edited for grammar error>
-
Great, a new topic for debate!
So here's what I think CAP's getting at (not to put words in your mouth):
1. Certain firms make money from making "green" products
2. They make "donations" to the government who is now giving them help
3. This means that global warming/climate change isn't real
Is that right?
Here's my rebuttle:
1. Yes, that is true, but bigger firms make more money from selling oil, and nobody likes harsh chemicals in their products. This means that we can't tell if environmentally friendly products are being pushed by the government because of a sincere concern for the environment or just another money scheme.
2. I don't know how much, but judging by how long the green advocates have been around, the oil firms' got 'em licked
3. That's just non-sequitur. Both of the previous points could be true or false, and it wouldn't make a difference to this conclusion.
Just a warning to you guys, we should be pretty careful about this debate because of rule 14: Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.
___=applies here
-Penguin
Only one mentioning "politics", is yourself.
-
No, you are not ready to go...
AGW is unproven. Moreover, there is now ample evidence to doubt the work of some of AGW's biggest promoters. Where's the data? Show me that man made Co2 emission has increased global temperatures. Don't bother with Google. No one has proven it yet, and it's likely no one will.
You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel.
Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming. My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort. I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence. The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.
You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation. That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect. I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post. You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned. Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter. There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.
Next, we have the premise itself. In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false. That is an ad populum fallacy. The next part of your point is a strawman. You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it? Bullpucky?
Next, the science, bad or good, came first, the politics came second. If you are to say that the government has recruited every scientist that is on this issue, you are wrong. That isn't even close to true, since more of their (the scientist's) grants come from private institutions. Perhaps a score or so, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who are getting their money from private donors.
You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming. Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence. The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.
Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so? That's not much compared to the time it has been warming. Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.
As for the scientists in britain, I can't say much for or against them. They are doing their thing of which I don't know much about, no comment.
-Penguin
-
Only one mentioning "politics", is yourself.
Yes, that is true, but that is what I took from CAP's post. I was digesting what he said and trying to put it back out in a more formal fashion. I was worried about this descending into some sort of political debate, which I believe it has. I was mentioning that about what CAP said.
(Don't know if two posts in a row that have content in them are okay)
-Penguin
-
Im taking widewing pwn for 500 please
-
Great, a new topic for debate!
So here's what I think CAP's getting at (not to put words in your mouth):
1. Certain firms make money from making "green" products
2. They make "donations" to the government who is now giving them help
3. This means that global warming/climate change isn't real
Is that right?
Here's my rebuttle:
1. Yes, that is true, but bigger firms make more money from selling oil, and nobody likes harsh chemicals in their products. This means that we can't tell if environmentally friendly products are being pushed by the government because of a sincere concern for the environment or just another money scheme.
2. I don't know how much, but judging by how long the green advocates have been around, the oil firms' got 'em licked
3. That's just non-sequitur. Both of the previous points could be true or false, and it wouldn't make a difference to this conclusion.
Just a warning to you guys, we should be pretty careful about this debate because of rule 14: Posting topics or threads which are based on politics, race, or religion is expressly forbidden.
___=applies here
-Penguin
carbon credits.
they're already being traded in chigago. they do nothing to eliminate co2.
follow the money. it's not just firms.
-
carbon credits.
they're already being traded in chigago. they do nothing to eliminate co2.
follow the money. it's not just firms.
I already gave the answer on the last page. :rofl I think I know who's shades account Penguin is.
-
You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel.
Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming. My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort. I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence. The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.
You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation. That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect. I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post. You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned. Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter. There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.
Next, we have the premise itself. In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false. That is an ad populum fallacy. The next part of your point is a strawman. You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it? Bullpucky?
Next, the science, bad or good, came first, the politics came second. If you are to say that the government has recruited every scientist that is on this issue, you are wrong. That isn't even close to true, since more of their (the scientist's) grants come from private institutions. Perhaps a score or so, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who are getting their money from private donors.
You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming. Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence. The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.
Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so? That's not much compared to the time it has been warming. Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.
As for the scientists in britain, I can't say much for or against them. They are doing their thing of which I don't know much about, no comment.
-Penguin
the only thing they botched, was letting their "adjustments" be found out.
they don't prove this is true, they lose grants.
these "adjustments" put all in their "Camp" in question.
to simplify..........
your neighbor john hangs out with a group of kids that've been known to start trouble. they yell obsenities at passers by. they've broken into peoples homes.
your neighbor bob, hangs out with a pretty straight forward group of kids. they play football, soccer, have snowball fights in the winter, go fishing together, etc.
which one would you trust?
-
Yes, that is true, but that is what I took from CAP's post. I was digesting what he said and trying to put it back out in a more formal fashion. I was worried about this descending into some sort of political debate, which I believe it has. I was mentioning that about what CAP said.
(Don't know if two posts in a row that have content in them are okay)
-Penguin
i wasn't taking it to politics. re-read, and then follow the money.
-
I already gave the answer on the last page. :rofl I think I know who's shades account Penguin is.
is it diehard?
-
You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel.
As an American, I think that you will discover that we prefer the Louisville Slugger.
Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming. My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort. I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence. The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.
Don't even go into that silly argument. For all anyone knows, that hole has been forming for a hundred thousand years. Did CFCs increase its size? Probably, but those chemicals are now universally banned.
I'll repeat this again as you seem to have difficulty wrapping your arms around it. No one has proven, or even come close to proving that humankind's Co2 emission is responsible for previous global warming. I say previous, because the planet is now cooling. Sure sounds like a natural cycle to me, doesn't it?
Now, if you know someone who can prove AGW, please direct them to the University of East Anglia, where a few chaps would gladly give what remains of their testicles to have that information.
You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation. That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect. I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post. You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned. Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter. There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.
I see, you've seen the bank accounts of these various scientists... You have seen their investment portfolios too, I suppose. :rolleyes:
Climategate clearly shows dishonesty on several levels. When asked for the raw data they used, guess what? They destroyed it because it occupied to much volume and space. You submit a paper at college. When asked by your professor for the raw data, you tell him that you threw it out because it was cluttering up your flat... Care to guess what your grade will be?
Next, we have the premise itself. In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false. That is an ad populum fallacy. The next part of your point is a strawman. You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it? Bullpucky?
It's bulldinkey. You should learn that term as it aptly describes your reasoning.
People ARE tired of scaremongering. Trust me, there will be a backlash.
As to a "secret underground", there's nothing secret about it. The UN has been attempting to usurp national sovereignty for many years. It used the AGW theory to once again attempt to fleece the industrialized world. The AGW scientists were flattered, and more than willing to fraternize. Are you blind?
<snipped rambling>
You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming. Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence. The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.
Utter nonsense. There's a vast amount of science that shows climate change is continuous and cyclic. It has been and will forever remain that way. First, no one has to disprove AGW because it has not been established as fact.
Is any of this sinking in? You claimed, "I am smart, smart like you've never seen from a teenager." So far, I don't see it.
Oh, by the way, a squeaky voice means nothing, ask Mike Tyson.
Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so? That's not much compared to the time it has been warming. Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.
The use of the term "anomaly" is always the last refuge of failure. I see it in engineering constantly. When they can't figure out the cause for a failure, the term anomaly gets tossed out. It's a code word for, "I have no idea why it occurred". That means that the cause is outside the limits of their understanding, or they really don't want to know as it would not be to their advantage to make such a discovery.
What happens when 10 years stretches to 20 years, or 30 years? Still an anomaly?
Now, we could use your logic and easily argue that warming was an anomaly as it lasted barely an eye blink relative to man's existence, let alone for any substantial period of time. Besides, the planet always warms in between ice ages....
(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gif)
Temperature cycles over the past 750,000 years
(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image158.gif)
To what do we attribute the Medieval Warm Period?
The fact is that there are no less than three different temperature cycles at work at all times. A 20,000 year cycle, a 400 year cycle and a 40 year cycle. What can lead to severe warming or cooling is that these cycles don't seem to be synchronized.
I would readily agree that during the 1980s and much of the 90s, there was a warming trend. I witnessed it. However, that trend is over and the cycle has shifted the opposite way.
Is man made greenhouse gas contributing to temperature change? It's not impossible. I think any influence would be too small to measure as normal variation is even greater than the potential influence.
The most disturbing factor for me is that a number of people believe that the world's economy should be severely crippled and national sovereignty surrendered based upon an unproven theoretical.
My regards
Widewing
-
Penguin, you might as well have called yourself "Porsche". :rock
-
just checking in to see if we have died yet.
Guess not :rolleyes:
global warming huh :lol :rolleyes:
-
You are asking us to debate with both hands and feet tied behind our backs while you beat us with a cudgel.
Yes we are, we are ready to prove to you that mankind has warmed the planet, and at the very least enabled its further warming. My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort. I have also noticed that all you seem to do is attack the methods of scientists, using quotes from just one person as evidence. The truth is that there are multiple groups that prove global warming every day.
You could be absolutely right that those scientists botched their operation. That does in no way mean that the entire premise of their work (done by other groups scientists as well) is incorrect. I think that I am getting to the nub of your original post. You are saying that these scientists have violated codes of ethics and should be imprisoned. Well, they haven't made money off of it, unless you count nessecities like food, water and shelter. There has been no academic dishonesty, since all of their research was either original or cited.
Next, we have the premise itself. In another part of your post you say that people are tired of hearing about this, and that somehow means that it is false. That is an ad populum fallacy. The next part of your point is a strawman. You are saying that there is some secret underground network that is somehow trying to take over the world, for that you have no evidence, and that is merely to fill up your post with; what do you call it? Bullpucky?
Next, the science, bad or good, came first, the politics came second. If you are to say that the government has recruited every scientist that is on this issue, you are wrong. That isn't even close to true, since more of their (the scientist's) grants come from private institutions. Perhaps a score or so, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who are getting their money from private donors.
You don't have much science supporting your issue, I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove global warming. Perhaps that's the agenda, or the more probable answer, a lack of evidence. The government has a better reason to pushoil rather than these clean energy firms, since they get more money from the former than the latter.
Also your claim that the earth has stopped warming for, what, 10 years or so? That's not much compared to the time it has been warming. Out of 200 years of observation, 10 have an unfavorable outcome that is still in the anomaly range.
As for the scientists in britain, I can't say much for or against them. They are doing their thing of which I don't know much about, no comment.
-Penguin
I made an earlier post which referenced that very thing http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286
The ozone hole shows up every year during months of darkness, then shrinks back when sunlight finally arrives. (YEARS went by before it was disseminated to the us mouth-breathers that ozone poofs in absence of sunlight, CFC's aside) To the extent that CFC's are responsible, they have been measurably decreasing since 2000 or so, due to the ban--which aroused the curiosity of this scientist:
A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming — perhaps for the next 50 years.............Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo, is a believer in the value of drawing conclusions from observable data and not from selective data fed into computer models that are based on false assumptions and include "fudge factors."
In a peer-reviewed paper published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Lu puts the start of the cooling trend at 2002 and writes that "the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
From 1850 to 1950, Lu notes, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the Industrial Revolution; the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
Other reputable scientists have also predicted decades of cooling ahead to, er, varying degrees and for varying reasons. Earth's climate is affected by many things and is more complicated than the CRU computer models.
(On the one hand, he's saying CO2 didnt cause global warming, but on the other hand, he implies the warming trend which ended a decade ago was attributed to CFC's, which ARE man-made....eh)
The most important ocean cycle is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). Professor Easterbrook notes that in the 1980s and 1990s it was in a warming cycle, as was the earth. The global cooling from 1940 to 1975, which had some warning of an ice age, coincided with a Pacific cooling cycle.
"The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of three decades of global cooling," said Easterbrook.
Such solar and ocean cycles explain why the Earth can cool and polar ice thicken even as carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.
We will leave it to better minds to decide for what reason and for how long the earth is cooling. We have some global warming to shovel.
As for politics, MMGW is nothing BUT, and has always been, IMO. Ask someone who they voted for, and you'll know whether they believe in it or not.
-
Methane is a more important facet, than CO2. But keep it on the down low.
Without a doubt. 1000%. But CH4 is no longer on the down low. It's bubbling out of hydrate form all over the world. Alaska, Siberia, North Sea...
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/30/methane.jpg)
(http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Atmosphere/images/methane_atmosph_concentr_1984_2004_big.gif)
I sincerely hope that slight downturn at the end continues.....truly.
2 whole pages of battling a kid, and Widewing has yet to reply to my rebuttal. I guess he'd rather attack a kid. <shrug> Regards.
-
I was wondering when the methane locked into the worlds oceans would come up.
Pulls up chair, anyone taking bets? I've got $1,000 on Widewing please.
-
2 whole pages of battling a kid, and Widewing has yet to reply to my rebuttal. I guess he'd rather attack a kid. <shrug> Regards.
See, there you go again, inventing things that do not exist. What's your standard for "attack", disassembling a written argument? You consider it an attack when the argument falls apart?
By the way, there was nothing to rebut, except the ongoing mantra of "you are wrong", blah blah ad nauseum. Anyone can read the exchange and see what was said and what was meant. Well, almost anyone.... I'll let the debate speak for itself.
Do you really believe that Penguin is a kid? Now I understand why you are a fervent believer in AGW. A 9.75 on the 10 point gullibility scale.
<edit for typo>
My regards,
Widewing
-
My evidence, the giant, gaping hole in the ozone layer that opens up every year over Antarctica, that will allow further warming with less effort.
http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm[/url]]Global warming and the ozone hole. The ozone hole is a completely different phenomenon to global warming, however there are links between them. The ozone hole is caused by ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere, which have been produced by industry, for example CFCs. One link is that CFCs are also 'greenhouse gasses'. Enhanced global warming is a probable consequence of increasing amounts of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. Although the surface of the earth warms, higher up the atmosphere cools, thus increasing the area where stratospheric clouds can form. This makes a larger area susceptible to ozone depletion and provides another link between the two issues.
According to the above link, MMGW is a driver of ozone depletion, not the other way around.
-
I was wondering when the methane locked into the worlds oceans would come up.
Pulls up chair, anyone taking bets? I've got $1,000 on Widewing please.
i thought i had seen something on one of the discovery channels, that they were trying to "Farm" or harness that?
supposedly, there's so much along the east coast, it could power a LOT of the country.
-
i thought i had seen something on one of the discovery channels, that they were trying to "Farm" or harness that?
supposedly, there's so much along the east coast, it could power a LOT of the country.
Yep. It's the same thing as the "Manganese Nodules" on the floors of some of the Oceans (For the Nickel, Copper and Cobalt farmed from them). "Is the cost of retrieving them worth it going to turn a profit?"
-
Yep. It's the same thing as the "Manganese Nodules" on the floors of some of the Oceans (For the Nickel, Copper and Cobalt farmed from them). "Is the cost of retrieving them worth it going to turn a profit?"
Isn't that what the Glomar Explorer was supposed to be picking up?
-
Isn't that what the Glomar Explorer was supposed to be picking up?
No, some damn Russian submarine kept getting in there way....
Strip
-
Isn't that what the Glomar Explorer was supposed to be picking up?
Yes, but as Strip mentioned, it was a "cover" to try and recover K-129. They recovered about 1/3rd of the Sub too. IIRC, they encountered a malfunction on the recovery winch, inadvertently caused the sub to split and 2/3rds went back to the bottom.
-
Not to hijack but there is a bit of controversy there...
The submarines bell was recovered and presented to a Russian representative, the bell was located in a portion claimed lost by the CIA.
Strip
-
Yes, but as Strip mentioned, it was a "cover" to try and recover K-129. They recovered about 1/3rd of the Sub too. IIRC, they encountered a malfunction on the recovery winch, inadvertently caused the sub to split and 2/3rds went back to the bottom.
That's what they want you to believe.
The CIA was clever enough to realise that if they told the truth right away nobody would believe them. After a while when the freedom of information act was asking for the paperwork, they concocted the Russian submarine cover to throw the hounds off track.
The real reason was the Manganese Nodules.
-
Methane is the scary one. The only good thing is that the combustion of it leads to a less harmless gas for GW than methane itself. And the stock that can be reached has a lot of energy tied to it....
-
Hey Moray, I was waiting for you to come along!
To begin my argument, I will attack Widewing's ad hominem of calling me a liar. I was born on July fourteenth, 1996. Furthermore, he has not proven to me that he isn't a talking dog. I could just as easily attack him for that with the same question.
Next, whatever goes in the sea that isn't supposed to be there will eventually come out, and that means that we will eventually have to deall with just about every ounce that we put out. To illustrate this problem I will use demographics:
India has a population around one billion.
There is one car for every twenty people there (95% have no car)
99% of those want a car if they could get one.
Now we'll have a problem about 6 times the one of the US (accounting for SUV's). Now Widewing, are you willing to defend the position that either:
a.) Those Indians don't want a car or
b.) That once a substantial amount of them get cars the air pollution won't do anything
If that is true, you have a lot of explaining to do, since all I did was look at India. China has twice as many people, and is the world's fastest growing car market. That would mean slapping on a problem 12 times the size of the US.
-Penguin
-
Hey Moray, I was waiting for you to come along!
To begin my argument, I will attack Widewing's ad hominem of calling me a liar. I was born on July fourteenth, 1996. Furthermore, he has not proven to me that he isn't a talking dog. I could just as easily attack him for that with the same question.
Next, whatever goes in the sea that isn't supposed to be there will eventually come out, and that means that we will eventually have to deall with just about every ounce that we put out. To illustrate this problem I will use demographics:
India has a population around one billion.
There is one car for every twenty people there (95% have no car)
99% of those want a car if they could get one.
Now we'll have a problem about 6 times the one of the US (accounting for SUV's). Now Widewing, are you willing to defend the position that either:
a.) Those Indians don't want a car or
b.) That once a substantial amount of them get cars the air pollution won't do anything
If that is true, you have a lot of explaining to do, since all I did was look at India. China has twice as many people, and is the world's fastest growing car market. That would mean slapping on a problem 12 times the size of the US.
-Penguin
DieHard, cars are the least of Mankind's "worries".
-
Fine, coal and oil powerplants.
One way or another, they will produce greenhouse gasses. You are right, they are the least of mankind's worries in global warming. We should debate about larger things, such as how we heat our homes, give power to the masses, or how we transport food around the world I'm a way that doesn't ruin our ecosystem.
So let's begin
-Penguin
-
Hehe, if EVERY person on the planet was an equal consumer to a U.S. citizen (Is the USA the highest?) in regards to not only cars, but everything, - you'd be looking at a very strange scenario....
-
That's where we're headed :aok
-Penguin
-
That is where "we" are never going to get.
-
That's where we're headed :aok
-Penguin
doubtful.
mother earth always has, and always will take care of herself.
we are nothing more than a zit on her arse.
-
Speaking of the bogus "carbon footprints" we've all been hearing about....for those that believe this poppycock (I love that term)....which city has the largest carbon footprint in the world? Anyone want to take a crack at that question?
-
To begin my argument, I will attack Widewing's ad hominem of calling me a liar. I was born on July fourteenth, 1996. Furthermore, he has not proven to me that he isn't a talking dog. I could just as easily attack him for that with the same question.
LOLOL Several of the folks in this thread know me personally, as well as many others who have not posted.
By the way, Woof Woof....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Now we'll have a problem about 6 times the one of the US (accounting for SUV's). Now Widewing, are you willing to defend the position that either:
a.) Those Indians don't want a car or
b.) That once a substantial amount of them get cars the air pollution won't do anything
If that is true, you have a lot of explaining to do, since all I did was look at India. China has twice as many people, and is the world's fastest growing car market. That would mean slapping on a problem 12 times the size of the US.
-Penguin
Aw gee Penguin, Indians need to go places too you know. That really cheap Tata will fill the bill for many. Besides, it's safer. India is probably the only nation on earth where a bus accident yields as many dead as a 747 slamming into Everest. Get more of them in cars and off of the roofs of buses and trains, things will be less deadly.
Then we have the Chinese, who bought a record number of GM cars in 2009. GM sold many more in China than in the USA.
Sooner or later, electric cars will be the norm. But, we'll need more than wind and solar to generate the power requirements.. Think nuke.
As for me and the wife, we drive a pair of SUVs (Jeep Wrangler and Suzuki Grand Vitara) and a mildly hot-rodded Suzuki sedan.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/IMG_1479A.jpg)
Also note the 2+ feet of global warming effect where I live.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Also note the 2+ feet of global warming effect where I live.....
My regards,
Widewing
Cmon Wide, you're a smart guy. More precipitation of any sort is an obvious effect of more evaporation globally. No one said it wasn't still going to be cold in winter time in New York. The fact you have snow at this time of year does nothing to support your argument, and weakens it considerably when the global aspects of warming are accounted. It is no more a proof than a heat wave, though. Weather does not equal climate.
Of course I realize this wasn't your intention (at least hope not), but the parroting of "snow" as a proof that AGW isn't occurring is incredibly effective at the level of the general public. If it is your opinion that "snow in winter" is a sign that it (AGW) isn't happening, then your vision is simplistic and limited in scope.
-
Cmon Wide, you're a smart guy. More precipitation of any sort is an obvious effect of more evaporation globally. No one said it wasn't still going to be cold in winter time in New York. The fact you have snow at this time of year does nothing to support your argument, and weakens it considerably when the global aspects of warming are accounted. It is no more a proof than a heat wave, though. Weather does not equal climate.
Of course I realize this wasn't your intention (at least hope not), but the parroting of "snow" as a proof that AGW isn't occurring is incredibly effective at the level of the general public. If it is your opinion that "snow in winter" is a sign that it (AGW) isn't happening, then your vision is simplistic and limited in scope.
what then does weather equal?
it would seem to me, that the "local" weather around here(which is the same this year, as it has been pretty much every year that i can remember in this area) is a small part of the climate.
then the weather in widewings area is another small part. same with in the midwest, and in the uk, and pretty much everywhere.
if these local weather systems are following a pattern, which is the normal pattern they;ve been following, they would all be normal.
thus, all of these little "local weather systems" combine to equal the climate.
and guess what? we're not hurting it. not one single bit.
we're polluting things, but that's entirely another discussion.
-
Cmon Wide, you're a smart guy. More precipitation of any sort is an obvious effect of more evaporation globally. No one said it wasn't still going to be cold in winter time in New York. The fact you have snow at this time of year does nothing to support your argument, and weakens it considerably when the global aspects of warming are accounted. It is no more a proof than a heat wave, though. Weather does not equal climate.
Of course I realize this wasn't your intention (at least hope not), but the parroting of "snow" as a proof that AGW isn't occurring is incredibly effective at the level of the general public. If it is your opinion that "snow in winter" is a sign that it (AGW) isn't happening, then your vision is simplistic and limited in scope.
I'm sure you realize that remark was tongue-in-cheek. :rolleyes:
We live right on the coast. We get Nor'easters quite frequently. We've had several already this year. The difference over the past 4 or 5 years has been that the temperatures have been much colder. Thus, we get gobs of snow rather than heavy rain. We just experienced the single greatest pre-Christmas snowfall ever recorded for this area. 25" to 27". All through December, up to and including now (and the foreseeable future), temperatures have been averaging about 6 degrees below normal. This is not a local phenomena either. The entire northern hemisphere is experiencing what is being called the coldest winter in 30 years. Last year was colder than the year before. This past summer saw only one day where summer temps reached 90 degrees here, and only for a few hours. We ran the A/C very little last summer. However, our fuel oil use was up by 15% in 2008, and even higher in 2009. I dread the oil bills for 2010 as it has been significantly colder this winter. Long term forecasts show no change in this. Stocks of home heating oil and natural gas are rapidly being depleted. Britain is facing a shortage of natural gas. All because it's much colder and demand is up considerably. Thus, we watch the price of both commodities climbing rapidly.
I'll say it again. We are into the beginning of a significant cooling period, probably lasting 20 years or more. It'll be might tough to sell refrigerators to the Eskimos....
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm sure you realize that remark was tongue-in-cheek. :rolleyes:
We live right on the coast. We get Nor'easters quite frequently. We've had several already this year. The difference over the past 4 or 5 years has been that the temperatures have been much colder. Thus, we get gobs of snow rather than heavy rain. We just experienced the single greatest pre-Christmas snowfall ever recorded for this area. 25" to 27". All through December, up to and including now (and the foreseeable future), temperatures have been averaging about 6 degrees below normal. This is not a local phenomena either. The entire northern hemisphere is experiencing what is being called the coldest winter in 30 years. Last year was colder than the year before. This past summer saw only one day where summer temps reached 90 degrees here, and only for a few hours. We ran the A/C very little last summer. However, our fuel oil use was up by 15% in 2008, and even higher in 2009. I dread the oil bills for 2010 as it has been significantly colder this winter. Long term forecasts show no change in this. Stocks of home heating oil and natural gas are rapidly being depleted. Britain is facing a shortage of natural gas. All because it's much colder and demand is up considerably. Thus, we watch the price of both commodities climbing rapidly.
I'll say it again. We are into the beginning of a significant cooling period, probably lasting 20 years or more. It'll be might tough to sell refrigerators to the Eskimos....
My regards,
Widewing
this winter is making me thankful i bought a waste oil heater for the shop. it pretty much burns anything flammable that comes out of a car, plus it'll burn deisel, jet a, kerosene, or heating oil.
-
this winter is making me thankful i bought a waste oil heater for the shop. it pretty much burns anything flammable that comes out of a car, plus it'll burn deisel, jet a, kerosene, or heating oil.
Polar bear murderer.
-
Polar bear murderer.
hey!!
the guys out front at the gas pumps are eating well. 2 just fell in the parking lot,....they're cookin em already. :noid :bolt:
-
Has there been a study using rural weather data specifically?
Strip
-
I'm sure you realize that remark was tongue-in-cheek. :rolleyes:
My regards,
Widewing
Like I posted in response, I fervently hope so.
But again, even using it as a joke, the general public equates "snow" as a proof against climate change, even though the actual theory has snowfall increasing globally.
-
Like I posted in response, I fervently hope so.
But again, even using it as a joke, the general public equates "snow" as a proof against climate change, even though the actual theory has snowfall increasing globally.
but if the snowfall onlyt increases to what it was a few years ago, how does that equate to global warming/>?
in this area, we get hammered every few years......and only light snow in between......which is pretty much the norm as far back as i can remember.
-
I can't help but laugh at the little global warming pundants.
No matter the weather, temperature or who wins the superbowl..... the world is warming because of humans.
According to them Global warming is not the same as weather, climate, or anything else. So in reality what they are saying is it will not affect anything..... so what exactly is it???? It is in the minds of the fear mongers who want to steal your hard earned money to line their crooked pockets.
They can say what they want.. to me they are a threat to me and my families well being.
-
Speaking of the bogus "carbon footprints" we've all been hearing about....for those that believe this poppycock (I love that term)....which city has the largest carbon footprint in the world? Anyone want to take a crack at that question?
All these 'climate experts' here, and no one knows the answer to this question?
-
All these 'climate experts' here, and no one knows the answer to this question?
i dunno the answer.....but would liek to.
-
Luxembourg
-
Dubai, UAE
http://www.sustainablefootprint.org/en/cms/gebruikerscherm.asp?itemId=381
-
The article refers to their "ecological footprint", not specifically carbon. China ranks first in carbon footprint.
They also say in terms of ecological footprint, the the United Arab Emirates ranks first, the USA second, Finland third, Canada fourth and Kuwait ranks fifth.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wasn't there an online test available to check yours personally?
Anyway, while China has the biggest footprint, it is largely due to the cheap products shipped to Europe and the USA. They should count there.
Anyway, trying to make a money-system about this whole lot is IMHO total ballocks
-
Anyway, trying to make a money-system about this whole lot is IMHO total ballocks
BINGO!!!!!
that's what we've been saying all along...and that's what they're tryin to do.
-
I know weather does not equal climate. But I wonder how many people who took global warming on board without skepticism will now be wondering about the truth of it. Particularly here in Ireland, Britain and the Northern Europe where we've been hit with what has been called the worst weather for 50 years. I for one have never seen it this bad. Actually that's lie. I saw it in Iceland a couple of years ago and I remember that locals saying it was a bit early. It's been freezing here since before Christmas, -8 deg C and -10 deg C at night. Daytime temperatures of -5 is routine. There's no end in sight either. I realise that those of you living in snowier climes might find this rather unimpressive but I live on the west coast of Ireland five minutes drive from the sea which is washed by the warm Gulf Stream. To say it's unusual is to put it mildly. Minus 1 or 2 would the worst we expect normally.
But of course none of this will knock a wheel off the AGW juggernaut. But they're beginning to look a bit wobbly all the same. What with recent undermining of the credibility of data. Something I might add the skeptics have been proved correct on. As the actual climate continues to refuse to conform to the climate models. One can only wonder how long this will last.
I'm content to sit it out and watch the antics. There's nothing I can do anyway.
-
I know weather does not equal climate. But I wonder how many people who took global warming on board without skepticism will now be wondering about the truth of it. Particularly here in Ireland, Britain and the Northern Europe where we've been hit with what has been called the worst weather for 50 years. I for one have never seen it this bad. Actually that's lie. I saw it in Iceland a couple of years ago and I remember that locals saying it was a bit early. It's been freezing here since before Christmas, -8 deg C and -10 deg C at night. Daytime temperatures of -5 is routine. There's no end in sight either. I realise that those of you living in snowier climes might find this rather unimpressive but I live on the west coast of Ireland five minutes drive from the sea which is washed by the warm Gulf Stream. To say it's unusual is to put it mildly. Minus 1 or 2 would the worst we expect normally.
But of course none of this will knock a wheel off the AGW juggernaut. But they're beginning to look a bit wobbly all the same. What with recent undermining of the credibility of data. Something I might add the skeptics have been proved correct on. As the actual climate continues to refuse to conform to the climate models. One can only wonder how long this will last.
I'm content to sit it out and watch the antics. There's nothing I can do anyway.
remember.......when it gets warmer, it's global warming.
when it gets colder, it's global warming.
when it snows more, it's global warming.
when it snows less, it's global warming.
when it rains more, it's global warming.
when it rains less, it's global warming,.
only one thing left to say......and i'm prolly gonna get in twouble for this.......
it's the sun stupid!
:uhoh :aok :noid :bolt:
-
Regardless, do you want all of that stuff in city air? I mean really, it starts to smell after a while. Boston smells like deisel fumes all times of the day. You guys keep making these claims, but I want to see where you got your evidence. Don't tell me that the oil companies have a spotless record, either.
Nonetheless, I will try to convey to you what global warming is. Right now, we won't see the effects, but over the next fifty years or so, they will become readily apparent. Even if it isn't happening now, our rampant destruction of forests (sucks up CO2 like a sponge), will definetly change how our planet copes.
To refute the claim of abiogenic oil, I will cite Texas. If the claim is true, then why aren't we making the same amount of oil we always have had there, if not more? That's because the theory is flawed at a fundamental level. If you have unlimited oil, why should production ever drop, or in some cases cease?
It doesn't work, you need a more longer term method of movement and power! Who needs gears when you control exactly how much power the engine generates (electricity).
-Penguin
-
Regardless, do you want all of that stuff in city air? I mean really, it starts to smell after a while. Boston smells like deisel fumes all times of the day. You guys keep making these claims, but I want to see where you got your evidence. Don't tell me that the oil companies have a spotless record, either.
Nonetheless, I will try to convey to you what global warming is. Right now, we won't see the effects, but over the next fifty years or so, they will become readily apparent. Even if it isn't happening now, our rampant destruction of forests (sucks up CO2 like a sponge), will definetly change how our planet copes.
To refute the claim of abiogenic oil, I will cite Texas. If the claim is true, then why aren't we making the same amount of oil we always have had there, if not more? That's because the theory is flawed at a fundamental level. If you have unlimited oil, why should production ever drop, or in some cases cease?
It doesn't work, you need a more longer term method of movement and power! Who needs gears when you control exactly how much power the engine generates (electricity).
-Penguin
and in the next 50 years, the sun will be more active. imagine that. :headscratch:
-
:rofl
-
Regardless, do you want all of that stuff in city air? I mean really, it starts to smell after a while.
-Penguin
Indeed, it's not the only thing......
My regards,
Widewing
-
'Rampant destruction of the forests', Problem is that there has been more planting of forests than there has been destruction in recent years. Now I know that losing virgin rainforest is not good. But in terms of actual reforesetation, from the point of view of C02. There are more forests planted than destroyed. It is a bad thing that rainforest is lost from an environmental point of view. But from a ecological point of view it's marginal. People need to underdstand the difference.
-
'Rampant destruction of the forests', Problem is that there has been more planting of forests than there has been destruction in recent years. Now I know that losing virgin rainforest is not good. But in terms of actual reforesetation, from the point of view of C02. There are more forests planted than destroyed. It is a bad thing that rainforest is lost from an environmental point of view. But from a ecological point of view it's marginal. People need to underdstand the difference.
it's still gonna take time for them to grow, and mature to the levels of the trees cut down. how old were those forrests?
also, don't forget, plankton exchanges much more co2 for o2 than the forrests do.
the main thing people need to understand, is that short of someone pushing the red button, we really aren't much of anything that's gonna do serious damage to the earth. even then, we'll only hurt ourselves, and the earth will continue.
i say again. follow the money. that is what it all comes down to. always has, and always will
-
Your're right the Earth will continue. It will shrug us off as the some kind of virus that bugged it for a while and carry on.
-
Your're right the Earth will continue. It will shrug us off as the some kind of virus that bugged it for a while and carry on.
yes sir.....that which you just typed is more than likely truer than any statement made so far in this thread.
-
only one thing left to say......and i'm prolly gonna get in twouble for this.......
it's the sun stupid!
:uhoh :aok :noid :bolt:
Now where have I heard that before . . . :noid
:rofl :aok
-
Now where have I heard that before . . . :noid
:rofl :aok
i couldn't help myself....and you know what i mean. :noid :rofl
-
Wasn't there a correlation (back in the nineties when there really was a rise in temps) between the temp rise on Earth and on Mars?
-
Wasn't there an online test available to check yours personally?
Anyway, while China has the biggest footprint, it is largely due to the cheap products shipped to Europe and the USA. They should count there.
Anyway, trying to make a money-system about this whole lot is IMHO total ballocks
Wow! Didn't know China was a city!
Read my question again, DA.
-
Yes, it won't destroy the world forever, it'll just make our time very miserable.
What you're saying, is Widewing, that if we took all of the cars and fuel-powered heaters out of the city, it wouldn't do anything against pollution? If that is true, you're crazy.
You also said nothing about your little abiogenic oil idea, does this mean that you accept that we will run out of oil? In that case, global warming or not, we will need to use what we have wisely. Plastic lasts about 800 years, and can be recycled; making it a better move than just burning the oil.
If the sun will be more active, it just makes it worse. You still haven't proven, cap, that we can't warm the planet. Simply because the sun does, does not mean that we cannot. Your whole point is a fallacy.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Yes, it won't destroy the world forever, it'll just make our time very miserable.
What you're saying, is Widewing, that if we took all of the cars and fuel-powered heaters out of the city, it wouldn't do anything against pollution? If that is true, you're crazy.
You also said nothing about your little abiogenic oil idea, does this mean that you accept that we will run out of oil? In that case, global warming or not, we will need to use what we have wisely. Plastic lasts about 800 years, and can be recycled; making it a better move than just burning the oil.
If the sun will be more active, it just makes it worse. You still haven't proven, cap, that we can't warm the planet. Simply because the sun does, does not mean that we cannot. Your whole point is a fallacy.
-Penguin
-Penguin
last first....and you haven't proven that we are.
pollution and smog.......do some research,....i think you'll find that cities like los angeles had smog long before there were cars, or skyscrapers there. it's got more to do with wind currents than anything.
wait?? my point is fallacy>? so you're saying that the sun doesn't warm the planet????
:rofl :rofl
now, for plastic lasting 800 years.....go bury a plastic water bottle in your back yard. go check on it in a year, and let us know its condition. take before and after pics. if you truly believe plastic lasts 800 years, you may be in for a shock.
-
What you're saying, is Widewing, that if we took all of the cars and fuel-powered heaters out of the city, it wouldn't do anything against pollution? If that is true, you're crazy.
Where did I say that or anything even close? :rolleyes:
This has devolved into the special olympics equivalent of debating...
You repeatly insist that no one can disprove global warming. This is the same logic as someone saying that you cannot disprove reincarnation, or that one cannot disprove that Napoleon was gay, or blah, blah, blah.
If you want to debate, stop inventing things that no one said. If you want to debate, stick to verifiable facts. If you want to debate, at least come clean and admit that you're not a 13 year-old geek, but a fully grown fraud.
My regards,
Widewing
-
This has devolved into the special olympics equivalent of debating...
If only we could find some "huggers"...
-
Scientist steel cage match!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?news.123
If I had a NICKEL for every time I heard the phrase "2500 scientists"...regarding MMGW....
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
-
Yes, it won't destroy the world forever, it'll just make our time very miserable.
What you're saying, is Widewing, that if we took all of the cars and fuel-powered heaters out of the city, it wouldn't do anything against pollution? If that is true, you're crazy.
You also said nothing about your little abiogenic oil idea, does this mean that you accept that we will run out of oil? In that case, global warming or not, we will need to use what we have wisely. Plastic lasts about 800 years, and can be recycled; making it a better move than just burning the oil.
If the sun will be more active, it just makes it worse. You still haven't proven, cap, that we can't warm the planet. Simply because the sun does, does not mean that we cannot. Your whole point is a fallacy.
-Penguin
-Penguin
So far there has been no proof of global warming. Humans can't be responsible for something not happening.
-
For the record, personally I believe in Climate Change. It's been going on for millions of years. To think that humans can contribute enough to make a difference in the climate change is pure unadulterated arrogance.
-
Where did I say that or anything even close? :rolleyes:
This has devolved into the special olympics equivalent of debating...
You repeatly insist that no one can disprove global warming. This is the same logic as someone saying that you cannot disprove reincarnation, or that one cannot disprove that Napoleon was gay, or blah, blah, blah.
If you want to debate, stop inventing things that no one said. If you want to debate, stick to verifiable facts. If you want to debate, at least come clean and admit that you're not a 13 year-old geek, but a fully grown fraud.
My regards,
Widewing
:rofl :rofl :rofl So true.
-
I saw a program on the history channel recently about Hannibal's Army crossing the Alps 2,238 years ago. This was long before there was any industrialization, and the earth's human population was only a tiny fraction of what it is now.
Yet, today, the passes through the Alps that Hannibal would of had to have used are all completely impassible, filled with huge ice glaciers. The only way that Hannibal's army could of made it through the Alps back then right in the middle of winter was because the earth was simply far warmer then than it is now. And the glaciers that now block these passes did not exist then.
See these articles about this:
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/climate-change-is-it-the-ongoing-evolution-of-earth-598357.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Change-Part-3---Its-Happened-Before---Many-Times-in-Fact&id=1533419
Known facts like this, though, tend to simply be ignored by the Global Warming Doomsday Sayers. Even right this week, the USA is suffering through one of its coldest winters in recent memory, with extremely cold temperatures and abnormally high levels of snow.
Global Warming just doesn't add up to me.
I think that much of the public is being had.
.
-
I've noticed Al Gore now calls it the "Global Climate Crisis". What happened to Global Warming Al?
Maybe because it's freezing in Florida now.
This is why arguing with some global warming fanatics is so pointless;
Warmer = Global Warming
Cooler = Global Warming
More Precipitation = Global Warming
Less Precipitation = Global Warming
Floods = Global Warming
Drought = Global Warming
More Hurricanes = Global Warming
Less Hurricanes = Global Warming
More Tornadoes = Global Warming
Less Tornadoes = Global Warming
Arctic Ice Melting = Global Warming
Antarctic Ice Growing = Global Warming
Species thriving = Global Warming
Species facing extinction = Global Warming
I am a conservationist tree-hugger myself. Humans DO have an impact on their environment, and we should do what we can to minimize it, and be good stewards of the land. I am a certified Leave No Trace teacher, and backpacking guide. I've seen numerous times the damage that just a few careless campers can have on a primitive landscape. There are are serious environmental and ecological issues that we face, negative impacts we have had we should help fix.
But all that has been lost to (or taken over by) by the utter ridiculousness of "climate change" fear-mongering.
Who is pushing for cap & trade and other ridiculous ideas that will do nothing to help the environment? General Electric is for one, ask yourself, "Does GE really care about saving the planet?" or maybe it's about the Billions of dollars GE could make of carbon credits, and so-called "Green" energy.
Al Gore is, but... you'd think if Al Gore really believed all the gloom and doom he preaches, he would at LEAST give up cheeseburgers, or his private jet, or his palatial home. Al has done nothing to reduce his much, much larger than average carbon footprint. So what's his real motivation for all his "Climate Crisis" fear-mongering?
Environmentalist need to forget all this "climate crisis" BS and go pack to real issues. Whatever happened to "save the whales" and "save the Northern Spotted Owl" or for pete's sake.
PS. it's -3 Fahrenheit midday here now, and I have to go work outside now. I could sure go for some global warming right now. :pray
-
For the record, personally I believe in Climate Change. It's been going on for millions of years. To think that humans can contribute enough to make a difference in the climate change is pure unadulterated arrogance.
But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.
-Penguin
-
He didn't say anything about invincible,
more like ineffectual,
was his apparent intent.
Regards,
Kevin
But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.
-Penguin
-
But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.
-Penguin
WE aren't invincible...but the earth is
-
See there is your problem in a nutshell Penquin. You put words in peoples mouths. I think you must think everything is either black or white. When in reality there are a million shades of gray.
So if someone proves one side isn't true, you assume the other side must be.
Nope, not the case.
True answer is rarely found on either extreme end, but somewhere in the middle.
Accept that you are terrible at debating, and learn how to do it right.
Stop believing everything that someone else tells you. Learn to check facts for yourself.
Take everything that you see, hear, and read, and run it through an independent filter in the back of your head.
When you see, hear something that rings false, degrade how much you "believe" of what they are saying.
Ask yourself what is the person putting forth this idea getting out of this?
Fame? Fortune? how does that swing the balance? (follow the money)
Eventually you will realize that 90% of what you see and hear as the so called truth is either misstated, misrepresented, has fudged or juggled statistics, or is just plain out and out propaganda.
Those in control believe we are sheep, and treat us accordingly.
""But to assume the opposite, that we are invincible, is equally dangerous.
-Penguin""
Yes but no one is assuming the opposite. We are just trying to stop those who are trying to use climate change as a vehicle for taxing us so they can give it to 3rd world country's. (and keep a % for themselves of course)
This is where you make your biggest mistake Penquin. If one extreme is disproved, you assume the opposite must then be true, or that we think it is true. Not true. Not even close.
-
An Associated Press (a major AGW media mouthpiece) article appeared Wednesday (Jan 6), where the writer clearly was trying to prove that the coldest winter in generations was merely a fluke, an anomaly or just another indication of global warming. Here's a portion, in its proper context:
""It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them."
Fewer records? This year has produced more new cold records than have been seen in 40 years. Natural variability? I guess this was borrowed from the skeptical scientists who have been stating that AGW is a fraud and the warming is a function of normal and natural climate variability.
Deke Arndt of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that 2009 will rank among the 10 warmest years for Earth since 1880.
This is a massive lie. According to the Russians, AGW scientists have not included the temperature readings from Russia in several years as this would demonstrate a considerable shift down average temperature. Cut the sample, eliminate the coolest readings and shift the average up. Massive fraud. This goes hand-in-hand with the Climategate scandal.
Scientists say man-made climate change does have the potential to cause more frequent and more severe weather extremes, such as heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and even cold spells. But experts interviewed by The Associated Press did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change."
What happened to the severe hurricane seasons predicted? Below normal hurricane activity has been the case every year since Katrina. What happened to massive storms caused by warming seas? This, despite the doom and gloom predictions of so-called experts. Moreover, it shows the absolute bottom feeding level these people will descend to in order to cover their tulips like nervous fan dancers on a windy stage. They will blame anything and everything on man-made global warming.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
According to Munich Ren in 2009 there was also alot less deaths to natural disasters than on average. In the past 10 years there's been on average 70 000 deaths per year, but last year there was only 10 000. Even so, that doesn't stop the same company from concluding that storms and natural disasters will be becoming worse in the future. Although it is an insurance company, so upkeeping fear regardless of the facts is only good for their business.
-
Forget the cause. Look what it has done:
LA, the air isn't supposed to be brown (wind or not, it comes from somehwere)
Bejinng, pre-Olympics it was worse
New Delhi, two stroke motors putting out more fumes than that Jeep you have, Widewing
Coal mine workers and surrounding population of coal fired power plants getting cancer at an above averag rate (each and every one)
-Penguin
-
Forget the cause. Look what it has done:
LA, the air isn't supposed to be brown (wind or not, it comes from somehwere)
Bejinng, pre-Olympics it was worse
New Delhi, two stroke motors putting out more fumes than that Jeep you have, Widewing
Coal mine workers and surrounding population of coal fired power plants getting cancer at an above averag rate (each and every one)
-Penguin
Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change? Because, I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse. But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?
I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.
-
Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change? Because, I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse. But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?
I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.
diehard likes to change his footing when he's being beaten in a discussion here.
-
Watch the head of the UK Met office get roasted on BBC television.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8BCnX8LIIY&feature=player_embedded)
He even has the nerve to claim that they predicted the temperature levelling/fall off the last ten years.
They can't predict weeks in advance, how the hell can we have any confidence they can predict 20, 30, 40+ years into the future.
Could the models be failing on one simple thing?
They use the IPCC figure of 100 years for the length of time CO2 stays in the atmosphere (down from 500 years). Whereas every single study (peer reviewed) shows an average of 10-15 years.
Of course they have to use to 100 year figure to make the doomsday scenarios work.
[edit] The hacked/leaked (your choice) emails are being investigated by the UK's National Domestic Extremism Team!!!
-
I'm still not sure whether or not we are debating about AGW's truth or falsehood, or about the methods used in its study.
I can't say much about those scientists, if it's that, I concede. On the otherhand, I will continue to debate on AGW, if this is what the thread is is about.
One of you told me to be more skeptical, so why are you guys taking everything these guys put out about their papers as true? For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up. This might not have even been a study, merely a scam. You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?
Still confused,
-Penguin
-
For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up. This might not have even been a study, merely a scam. You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?
I'm not sure which group you attribute that to, but the PRO-man-made global warming crowd certainly has the motive, and have shown it many times
-
Is this discussion about local air pollution, or about global climate change? Because, I'll tell you, you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who wants to deliberately make their local air quality worse. But... That's not what this thread is about, is it?
I have little doubt that this is an adolescent; he has the attention span of a gnat.
I tried making that point about 12 pages ago, this discussion is just going in circles now. :rolleyes:
That's the method used by a lot of "climate crisis" folks. If you don't believe in global warming you are automatically and evil monster who wants to fill the oceans with toxic sludge, spew poison into the air, pave all the wilderness, and kill all the cute fuzzy animal babies!!
Besides, I feel gipped, Penguin hasn't tore into my latest rant yet. :cry
-
LOLOL Several of the folks in this thread know me personally, as well as many others who have not posted.
By the way, Woof Woof....
My regards,
Widewing
To end the age madness:
Yes, and around twenty others know me: ZENZEN, Simba, TeeArr, bortas1, BudGray, qbert, Phantom, just to name a few...
I am a member of Duxford Squadron, Eagle Wing. I am its squeaker, and frequently told to move the microphone a few feet back. My wingman is ZENZEN, and I wouldn't be where I am in the game without his and BudGray's help. Simba isn't on that much, but usually can tell us anything we need to know about how our planes behaved in WWII. We've recently had a few players get angry at each other (won't name names out of respect), and leave, as well as one leaving to join the Arabian Knights.
If you want to question their ability to tell a man's voice from a child's, go ahead, you'll be soundly rebuffed.
To saggs:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. This is about the gases that are released into the atmosphere, and who or what releases them (I think! To clarify this, I have some questions about this debate, and here they are:).
(Not to sound obtuse, I'm just trying to get my facts straight)
For the intents and purposes of this forum, is this "group" the scientists that have been caught making fraudulent claims?
How much did they make?
How much of the pro-man made global warming scientist population do they represent?
How many of the group has been caught breaking the code of ethics?
If we're arguing about the guys who did it, book 'em! I'm outta here! On the other hand, if we are arguing about AGW being either man-made, earth made, or neither; and if the former is true, how to prevent it, if the middle is true, how to mitigate its effects, and if if the latter is true, what else to complain about :D.
To the zit on her butt issue:
Duh, we are, but we don't have to make our time awful by polluting! Sure the earth and its life will survive after we are gone, but why exactly wouldn't we be there :noid? Also, if we won't be there, who cares?
-Penguin
-
I'm still not sure whether or not we are debating about AGW's truth or falsehood, or about the methods used in its study.
I can't say much about those scientists, if it's that, I concede. On the otherhand, I will continue to debate on AGW, if this is what the thread is is about.
One of you told me to be more skeptical, so why are you guys taking everything these guys put out about their papers as true? For all anyone knows, they could have just made everything up. This might not have even been a study, merely a scam. You wouldn't think that a scam artist would be telling you the truth, would you?
Still confused,
-Penguin
however old you are, look out your window.
-
To end the age madness:
Yes, and around twenty others know me: ZENZEN, Simba, TeeArr, bortas1, BudGray, qbert, Phantom, just to name a few...
I am a member of Duxford Squadron, Eagle Wing. I am its squeaker, and frequently told to move the microphone a few feet back. My wingman is ZENZEN, and I wouldn't be where I am in the game without his and BudGray's help. Simba isn't on that much, but usually can tell us anything we need to know about how our planes behaved in WWII. We've recently had a few players get angry at each other (won't name names out of respect), and leave, as well as one leaving to join the Arabian Knights.
If you want to question their ability to tell a man's voice from a child's, go ahead, you'll be soundly rebuffed.
To saggs:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. This is about the gases that are released into the atmosphere, and who or what releases them (I think! To clarify this, I have some questions about this debate, and here they are:). i think it was not originally.
(Not to sound obtuse, I'm just trying to get my facts straight)
For the intents and purposes of this forum, is this "group" the scientists that have been caught making fraudulent claims?
How much did they make?don't know yet, but at the very minimum, they got to keep their jobs, which would be gone without this.
How much of the pro-man made global warming scientist population do they represent?more than likely the majority
How many of the group has been caught breaking the code of ethics?see above
If we're arguing about the guys who did it, book 'em! I'm outta here! On the other hand, if we are arguing about AGW being either man-made, earth made, or neither; and if the former is true, how to prevent it, if the middle is true, how to mitigate its effects, and if if the latter is true, what else to complain about :D.it is a natural cycle of the planet, thus it cannot and will not be prevented by man. [/color]
To the zit on her butt issue:
Duh, we are, but we don't have to make our time awful by polluting! Sure the earth and its life will survive after we are gone, but why exactly wouldn't we be there :noid? Also, if we won't be there, who cares?
-Penguin
-
To end the age madness:
Yes, and around twenty others know me: ZENZEN, Simba, TeeArr, bortas1, BudGray, qbert, Phantom, just to name a few...
I am a member of Duxford Squadron, Eagle Wing. I am its squeaker, and frequently told to move the microphone a few feet back. My wingman is ZENZEN, and I wouldn't be where I am in the game without his and BudGray's help. Simba isn't on that much, but usually can tell us anything we need to know about how our planes behaved in WWII. We've recently had a few players get angry at each other (won't name names out of respect), and leave, as well as one leaving to join the Arabian Knights.
If you want to question their ability to tell a man's voice from a child's, go ahead, you'll be soundly rebuffed.
That doesn't preclude two people using the BBS account. It doesn't preclude much of anything if none of these people have not ever seen you, does it?
We have had more than a few incidents where several people, adults and kids, have used both a game account and a BBS account.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Dood. All you have to do is read his post about assalt weapons popping out of airliner armrests to know he's thirteen...
-
does it really matter if hes 13 or 80?
he presents you with the same tired and weak argument that most alarmists do:
we dont have to prove we are right, we just have to make sure you cant prove we are wrong!
and that sums up the entirety of anything the wobbleheads have to say
-
Dood. All you have to do is read his post about assalt weapons popping out of airliner armrests to know he's thirteen...
I guess you failed to read what I wrote... There may be two entirely different people posting on that account. Read through the stuff posted since the appearance of Penguin. Sometimes it's lucid and cohesive, other times childish.
Second, inasmuch as I may be old enough to be your grand father, please don't call me "dood". Thanks. "Widewing", will do.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Britain's Daily Mail published an article relative to many of the AGW scientists now admitting that the planet is at the beginning of a major cooling cycle. Naturally, there are still some holdouts, such as University of East Anglia's Dr. David Viner. This guy, heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal, will never back off. Despite his former reputation being in shreds, he continues to display remarkable arrogance.
Another holdout is Britain's Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, who is apparently desperate to retain some relevancy. He forgets that rope is still manufactured in Britain. Meanwhile, here in America, you can count on the AGW advocates ignoring the evolving science as it is not in their political interest to declare man-made global warming a failed theory. Al Gore should pawn that Nobel medal while it still retains some value.
Here's the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I guess you failed to read what I wrote... There may be two entirely different people posting on that account. Read through the stuff posted since the appearance of Penguin. Sometimes it's lucid and cohesive, other times childish.
Second, inasmuch as I may be old enough to be your grand father, please don't call me "dood". Thanks. "Widewing", will do.
My regards,
Widewing
Welcome to the intardnets dood.
-
Welcome to the intardnets dood.
You are more predictable than the sunrise. Some of us were placing bets as to your reply, few would have bet against the obvious.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You are more predictable than the sunrise. Some of us were placing bets as to your reply, few would have bet against the obvious.
My regards,
Widewing
Glad to be of service.... old crotchety dood.
-
Glad to be of service.... old crotchety dood.
LOLOLOL
Old and crotchety? Probably. A dude (dood), no. I'm the true antithesis of Jeff Spicoli. :cool:
My regards,
Widewing
-
Old and crotchety? Probably. A dude (dood), no. I'm the true antithesis of Jeff Spicoli.
Oh my Widewing. Far too many polysyllabic words. The poor gentleman will lack the perspicacity to decipher your erudition (The dood's head will 'splode.)
-
Here's the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
nice! :aok
Regards
SF
-
Widewing have a smoke on this....you'll enjoy it.
http://www.disclose.tv/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech%2Farticle-1242011%2FDAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html%3FITO%3D1708%26amp%3Breferrer%3Dyahoo
-
Scientific study of the environment goes back a long way but the greatest proportion of environmental data has been gathered only in the last few decades. As I hold the degree of B.Sc.(Hons.) Environmental Science, I know that there's no such thing as absolute certainties in science, just probabilities based on the statistical analysis of data. Any scientist who states that he/she 'believes' something to be 'true' is expressing a personal opinion which ain't science. Science is a methodology, not a religion to be 'believed'. To fully understand any issue needs more than just belief that something's 'right' or 'wrong' because it's nearly always not that simple. Too many people take sides against those who disagree with their opinion instead of co-operating - and then it's 'goodbye sense, hello war'.
Being an optimist, I'm looking forward to seeing more co-operation than war as the human knowledge base increases. We'll all then benefit, as will the planet on which we all live.
Cheers!
:cool:
-
Widewing have a smoke on this....you'll enjoy it.
Sounds like, someone is looking for an exit strategy... :noid
...and then in 5 years, while there is still an mini ice age, they will say "well, 2009 we did the best we could predict, relating to our computer model...but climate is to complicate to predict....blablabla"
-
Ah, I see where you are going with this guys:
This is just going to be about the scientists! I'm out of here then, but all good points on global warming. There's only one thing to do then, figure out what we're going to do with all of the air pollution in cities, and get all of the CFC's banned worldwide.
As to the personal jibe on me, I cannot say anyone has seen me personally. If you can't accept that you have been arguing with a child so be it. One cannot wrestle a pig and not get dirty, if you wish to hijack this thread, Skuzzy will take care of you.
And I thought that we were all at least somewhat mature here, you've shown me how childish an adult can be.
-Penguin
-
It's also about money
My favorite overseas blog site, EU Referendum, is at it again. This time they are untangling the webs hiding the payments to key members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climatee Change (IPCC) team.
Today;'s involves New Zealand's Reisnger who authored the fabled "synthesis" of the climate reports in the IPCC's hands and it shows some folks went to a lot of trouble to hide payments to him:
A British government department, DEFRA, has paid taxpayers' money to a British University which in turn paid it to the British subsidiary of an Indian research organisation, which in turn seems to have paid it to a New Zealand university scientist so that he could work for an international organisation based in Geneva - the IPCC.
Welcome to the bizarre world of climate change politics, where nothing is what it seems and governments indulge in behaviour which, in other circumstances, would look very much like money laundering. But, bizarre though it might appear, this is only half the story. The reality is even more convoluted - the word "bizarre" doesn't even begin to describe it.
The tale emerges from our trail of the millions salted away by climate change "hero" Rajendra Pachauri, and the role of TERI Europe, his outpost of Empire in London.
The site has a great deal more on the financial interests of the head of the IPCC,Rajendra Pachauri.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/when_it_comes_to_the_ipcc_foll.html
And why are trying to interject pollution into a global warming thread, other than to change the direction of a losing argument?
-
Ah, I see where you are going with this guys:
This is just going to be about the scientists! I'm out of here then, but all good points on global warming. There's only one thing to do then, figure out what we're going to do with all of the air pollution in cities, and get all of the CFC's banned worldwide.
As to the personal jibe on me, I cannot say anyone has seen me personally. If you can't accept that you have been arguing with a child so be it. One cannot wrestle a pig and not get dirty, if you wish to hijack this thread, Skuzzy will take care of you.
And I thought that we were all at least somewhat mature here, you've shown me how childish an adult can be.
-Penguin
it's not about the scientists. it's about the fallacy of global warming, AND the scientists that felt the need to lie to maintain their jobs.
-
I'm sure that most of us already agree that it's good to reduce pollution, but the global warming by man and CO2 hoopla is still BS. If you want to talk about polluting, then talk about polluting on a new thread, but keep it separate from this global warming BS.
-
it's not about the scientists. it's about the fallacy of global warming, AND the scientists that felt the need to lie to maintain their jobs.
Not to hikack, the proposal of AGW might not be true, but are you sure about it being a fallacy?
Here's an example:
Circle talk-> Bob is angry
Why?
He looked mad
Strawman -> Let's loosen the beer laws!
No, giving a population unlimited access to intoxicants will ruin their work ethic; keeping them interested only in self gratification.
Irrelevant Conclusion -> "Mommy said that looking at the Wednsday babe burns your eyes out, well since Mommy said it it must by true"
Just wondering... (I'm more worried about the pollution from oil and coal, some of that stuff is really nasty. Some byproducts of the combustion are carcinogenic)
One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere. Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog. Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today. There weren't as many people and houses back then!
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Not to hikack, the proposal of AGW might not be true, but are you sure about it being a fallacy?
Here's an example:
Circle talk-> Bob is angry
Why?
He looked mad
Strawman -> Let's loosen the beer laws!
No, giving a population unlimited access to intoxicants will ruin their work ethic; keeping them interested only in self gratification.
Irrelevant Conclusion -> "Mommy said that looking at the Wednsday babe burns your eyes out, well since Mommy said it it must by true"
Just wondering... (I'm more worried about the pollution from oil and coal, some of that stuff is really nasty. Some byproducts of the combustion are carcinogenic)
One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere. Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog. Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today. There weren't as many people and houses back then!
-Penguin
-Penguin
you were saying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog
Los Angeles, or photochemical, smog first became apparent in the late 1940s in warm sunny cities that did not have significant coal-burning industries. It is a daytime phenomenon characterized by a white haze and contains oxidants, such as ozone, that cause eyes to water, breathing to become labored, and plants to be damaged. It results from the action of sunlight on the combination of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NO x ), known as precursor gases. These are emitted from combustion sources to produce a range of oxidized products and oxidants. These compounds have been shown to produce respiratory and cardiac problems in individuals sensitive to pollution, and the damage inflicted on crops can cause significant decreases in yield. In most cities, the automobile is the primary contributor of smog's precursor gases. As the name would suggest, the most notable example of this type of smog occurs in Los Angeles, California, but it has also been experienced in a large number of cities where the weather is dry, sunlight is plentiful, and there are many automobiles or petroleum industries (e.g., Houston, Athens, and Mexico City.)
Read more: Smog - water, environmental, history, types, impact, EPA, industrial, world, human, sources, health http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Smog.html#ixzz0cXH5WEGf
from here
http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Smog.html
now....you might have me on one thing. i mis-stated myself in the post you quoted. i meant to say manmade global warming is a farce.
also, read the above in bold, then search back through my posts....you'll see that i said pretty much what that article confirms.
we had global warming for awhile. we had global cooling before that. we have global cooling now. we'll have global warming again.
it is cyclic. our climate is powered by the sun, the earths rotation, and the earths orbit.
our climate is not controlled by us.
seriously? how DARE any of us think that we are powerful enough to overcome mother earth?
now......your original arguments weren't about pollution. they were about man made global warming. once it became obvious that that was disproven, you changed your footing, and moved over to pollution. with the emissions controls we have on pretty much everything that burns oil product, the pollution factor is pretty close to nill also.
YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!! A POLAR BEAR JUST LANDED ON THE GAS PUMPER OUTSIDE!!! :x :eek:
-
One other thing, whoever said that LA had smog before they had cars, well wind patterns or not, it came from somewhere. Also, houses with fuel-powered heaters generate smog. Also, it can't be true that the air was as brown and nasty as it is today. There weren't as many people and houses back then!
-Penguin
-Penguin
Actually large cities where much more polluted before the advent of automobiles. The Horse was the main form of transportation, and city streets piled up with manure and urine, which released methane and ammonia into the air. Much of that manure was also washed by rainstorms into storm drains, eventually ending up contaminating drinking water. Prior to autos, trash and sewer services were also very poor, or non-existent, a lot of refuse including human waste ended up rotting in the streets. Prior to the industrial revolution the sewer system of Paris was basically the Seine River.
Pollution in the USA is actually much improved from the 1970s as well. Beginning about the time that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962 the US government slowly began to succumb to pressure, and enact environmental legislation, and regulation. And it has worked, our air, coastlines and rivers are cleaner today then they were 30 yrs ago, and in general continue to improve. In addition to the effectiveness of legislation like the Clean Air, and Clean Water acts, lots of action has been taken on a state and local level as well, and people are more conscious of their decisions, and how the impact the ecosystem then ever before. More land is protected today via the 1964 Wilderness Act then ever before, and people are much better educated on how to be good stewards of that, and all land.
Pollution reduction in the North America is a great environmental success story, don't be such a pessimist, look at the facts, it is getting better, be happy.
*****But again I say, all that has NOTHING to do with the so-called "CLIMATE CRISIS". It is a sad tactic some employ to say; if you are skeptical of global warming, you must HATE the earth******
EDIT, CAP makes a great point too. Air pollution in many areas, (especially where I live) has as much to do with the geography and weather patterns of an area not allowing the pollutants to dissipate, then human actions.
For example where I live we get horrific air pollution in the winter. It is not because people here pollute more then elsewhere, but because we have a wintertime weather phenomenon known as temperature inversions. Basically I live in a long narrow valley, and sometimes in the winter we get an inversion, where the a layer of warm air traps a layer cold air in the bottom of the valley. Not only does this make it very cold, but it also makes it so that virtually no emissions, or particulate matter can rise and dissipate. You won't see the sun for a week at a time, unless you drive up to the ski resorts, where it will be warm and sunny, and you can look down at the blanket of smog over the valley. It sucks sometimes, but that's just the way it is here.
-
seriously? how DARE any of us think that we are powerful enough to overcome mother earth?
Eventually yes, it will return to normal; just without us around to be doing anything.
Me debating about one thing doesn't mean that I can't care about another thing more. The point is a hasty generalization. Explain your fallacy.
We can, in theory. Here's how:
1. Find lake with fish
2. Add fertillizer
3. Wait for algae to suck out oxygen
4. Watch fish suffocate and die
This is already happening at the Mississippi Delta, because of fertillizer run-off.
Another way:
1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years
A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo. This is just scaled up for more effects.
We could also just nuke all of the life off, that could do it too. But again, without us, who cares.
Anyway; where did those gases come from? I mean that sincerely, the article said nothing about that. The smog I'm talking about is brown, not white like what it described. You're smart enough to know that the air shouldn't be brown!
Again, regardless of our predictions (we could all be wrong, destroying ourselves before knowing!) only time will tell if we, as a species will survive.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Eventually yes, it will return to normal; just without us around to be doing anything.
Me debating about one thing doesn't mean that I can't care about another thing more. The point is a hasty generalization. Explain your fallacy.
We can, in theory. Here's how:
1. Find lake with fish
2. Add fertillizer
3. Wait for algae to suck out oxygen
4. Watch fish suffocate and die
This is already happening at the Mississippi Delta, because of fertillizer run-off.
Another way:
1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years
A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo. This is just scaled up for more effects.
We could also just nuke all of the life off, that could do it too. But again, without us, who cares.
Anyway; where did those gases come from? I mean that sincerely, the article said nothing about that. The smog I'm talking about is brown, not white like what it described. You're smart enough to know that the air shouldn't be brown!
Again, regardless of our predictions (we could all be wrong, destroying ourselves before knowing!) only time will tell if we, as a species will survive.
-Penguin
-Penguin
how can we return to that which we've never left?
-
Lol ya ever see the Beverly Hillbillies episode where Phil Silvers tried to con Jed into financing a project to bore a hole thru the hills east of LA to blow the smog through? :rofl :rofl
-
Another way:
1. Grab a whole lot of anthrax and other chemical agents (preferrably dioxins)
2. Load planes with it
3. Lancstuka the rainforests
4. Enjoy barren wasteland for the next 100 or so years
A more extreme version of the event that devastated Love Canal, Buffalo. This is just scaled up for more effects.
Since when do dioxins or anthrax produce barren wastelands?
-
Sun is at an all time high in activity for cycle 24. Reached 95.4 today. It has finally woken up from the long slumber it was in.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png)
(http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png)
(The pink is the number to look at, the direct observations of solar flux. (Leif) The other graphs are also important, showing differing aspects of a sun "waking back up")
Like I've said before, things are going to get interesting in the next few years.
The past decade was the warmest decade in the Arctic for the past 2,000 years, according to a study called "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling" published today in the journal Science. Furthermore, four of the five warmest decades in the past 2,000 years occurred between 1950 - 2000, despite the fact that summertime solar radiation in the Arctic has been steadily declining for the past 2,000 years. Previous efforts to reconstruct past climate in the Arctic extended back only 400 years, so the new study--which used lake sediments, glacier ice cores, and tree rings to look at past climate back to the time of Christ, decade by decade-- is a major new milestone in our understanding of the Arctic climate. The researchers found that Arctic temperatures steadily declined between 1 A.D. and 1900 A.D., as would be expected due to a 26,000-year cycle in Earth's orbit that brought less summer sunshine to the North Pole. Earth is now about 620,000 miles (1 million km) farther from the Sun in the Arctic summer than it was 2000 years ago. However, temperatures in the Arctic began to rise around the year 1900, and are now 1.4°C (2.5°F) warmer than they should be, based on the amount of sunlight that is currently falling in the Arctic in summer
Yup it's cold in the U.S. and Britain this winter.... But it's actually warmer in the arctic, which is still showing up in the red, along with most of the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.barentsobserver.com/arctic-temperatures-far-above-average.4668927.html (http://www.barentsobserver.com/arctic-temperatures-far-above-average.4668927.html)
Air temperatures in the Arctic were in November and December between 5 and 9 degrees above the average, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute confirms.
Probably due to the heat stored in the ocean.
It was actually the hottest night in a century in Australia the other night. But, then again, that's just weather.
-
Sun is at an all time high in activity for cycle 24. Reached 95.4 today. It has finally woken up from the long slumber it was in.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png)
Like I've said before, things are going to get interesting in the next few years.
that could explain the somewhat warmer temps we're feeling, eh/?
-
that could explain the somewhat warmer temps we're feeling, eh/?
No, but it does explain air masses moving around like they are currently. The sun was well over a year beyond "normal" in its' minimum between solar cycles. Once it gets back into historical norms, things might start getting a little too real again.
But, that's just what the science says. This board can go on with the conspiracy theory BBS contrivances..... they make for extremely good entertainment. :airplane:
-
No, but it does explain air masses moving around like they are currently. The sun was well over a year beyond "normal" in its' minimum between solar cycles. Once it gets back into historical norms, things might start getting a little too real again.
But, that's just what the science says. This board can go on with the conspiracy theory BBS contrivances..... they make for extremely good entertainment. :airplane:
the sun doesn't move air masses. the earths rotation does that.
-
the sun doesn't move air masses. the earths rotation does that.
When air masses warm they rise and expand, cool they sink and contract.
-
When air masses warm they rise and expand, cool they sink and contract.
ok, i'll rephrase......the sun doesn't cause the horizontal movement of air masses, which is what will eventually be what causes the climate in one area or another to change.
-
ok, i'll rephrase......the sun doesn't cause the horizontal movement of air masses, which is what will eventually be what causes the climate in one area or another to change.
That statement is completely illogical.
Energy causes change. Energy in, or energy out.
Weather is affected by the earth's rotation. Climate is affected by the total energy within the system.
-
Check plus Moray!
You're right, we do have most of our stuff done by the sun, and if it was at a minimum, things will get a whole lot hotter!
(http://kittyreporter.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/santa-at-the-beach-ornaments-from-weaselmcfee-creative-commons-flickr.jpg)
:rofl
To CAP1;
Anyway, the smog I was talking about was brown, and we don't dump turds out into the street anymore. You've proved nothing except it makes the air nasty if you put poop out in the sun!
-Penguin
-
Check plus Moray!
You're right, we do have most of our stuff done by the sun, and if it was at a minimum, things will get a whole lot hotter!
(http://kittyreporter.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/santa-at-the-beach-ornaments-from-weaselmcfee-creative-commons-flickr.jpg)
:rofl
To CAP1;
Anyway, the smog I was talking about was brown, and we don't dump turds out into the street anymore. You've proved nothing except it makes the air nasty if you put poop out in the sun!
-Penguin
i never said anything about dumping turds.
-
That statement is completely illogical.
Energy causes change. Energy in, or energy out.
Weather is affected by the earth's rotation. Climate is affected by the total energy within the system.
and the energy in the system comes from the sun.
so now, we're back to the sun.........yet again.
-
Whoops! That should have been at saggs! Sorry!!
CAP, yes it is powered by the sun. But that isn't the only factor. The tilt, the rotation, the distance, all play into it. The moon also affects how warm we get (holds tilt in place).
One last thing, somebody said that the number of people on AGW those scientists represented, please show me the raw data (note the irony).
-Penguin
-
Whoops! That should have been at saggs!!!!
-Penguin
yep.
point is there was smog before there were cars.
airflow does indeed play an important roll in things such as that. good airflow, decent breeze, smog will be cleared out. no breeze, no airflow, smog hangs.
-
Well except for the part where you make more. The smog doesn't just dissapear either, it goes up, up, into the stratosphere, messing with our climate!
-Penguin
-
Whoops! That should have been at saggs! Sorry!!
CAP, yes it is powered by the sun. But that isn't the only factor. The tilt, the rotation, the distance, all play into it. The moon also affects how warm we get (holds tilt in place).
One last thing, somebody said that the number of people on AGW those scientists represented, please show me the raw data (note the irony).
-Penguin
yes, as i've stated previouslyin this very thread. all of those are still not man made though. Well except for the part where you make more. The smog doesn't just dissapear either, it goes up, up, into the stratosphere, messing with our climate!
-Penguin
if it rises into the atmosphere, what exactly holds it in? it would seem to me, that it could/would radiate out.
that which stays down at the surface will be diluted as it's spread out, and eventually "scrubbed"
now don't take this as me saying it's fine to keep polluting........but then you're trying to get back to that again.
-
and the energy in the system comes from the sun.
so now, we're back to the sun.........yet again.
CAP, it would be insanely stupid for me to say that the only source of energy into the earth system has no effect on temperature and climate. Of course it does. Every drop of the energy budget for life and weather on this planet basically originates 93 million miles away.
But, solar effect is on the down trend, due to our position in orbital mechanics. We're actually about 3/4 of a million miles further from the sun as we were 2000 years ago. Solar radiance and luminance has maintained itself for the past 2000 years.( the amount of energy given off by the sun) Therefore, we should not be warming in any regions.
-
Well except for the part where you make more. The smog doesn't just dissapear either, it goes up, up, into the stratosphere, messing with our climate!
-Penguin
Penguin this statement is very obtuse, misleading, and most importantly, wrong. Be very careful where you go when making broadly based statement without any data to back it up.
In order to go up into the stratosphere, a particle must be lighter than the air surrounding it. This is why "smog" is contained in lower tropospheric regions. It is heavier than the air molecules above it.
This pollution battle you are waging isn't going to get you anywhere within the context of this debate, and is easily defeated.
-
yep.
point is there was smog before there were cars.
airflow does indeed play an important roll in things such as that. good airflow, decent breeze, smog will be cleared out. no breeze, no airflow, smog hangs.
That is a very tricky statement CAP. The smog may be cleared out.... but it is simply dissipating out of a concentration gradient, not disappearing into thin air. It is still there, just spread out or moved somewhere else until it breaks down.
-
(http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/21802801/381202470.jpg)
-
CAP, it would be insanely stupid for me to say that the only source of energy into the earth system has no effect on temperature and climate. Of course it does. Every drop of the energy budget for life and weather on this planet basically originates 93 million miles away.
But, solar effect is on the down trend, due to our position in orbital mechanics. We're actually about 3/4 of a million miles further from the sun as we were 2000 years ago. Solar radiance and luminance has maintained itself for the past 2000 years.( the amount of energy given off by the sun) Therefore, we should not be warming in any regions.
you say 3/4 of a million miles like it is significant. it is nothing in the grand scheme. 3/4 of a million.......750,000, right? compared to 93 million?
i seriously doubt(although i could be wrong) that 750k is enough to significantly effect us.
as for any perceived warming.........radiant heat, that the earth has been storing...or rather retaining for however long.....
on top of that, there is still no conclusive proof that the planet is warming.
-
you say 3/4 of a million miles like it is significant. it is nothing in the grand scheme.
Neither is 2000 years ;)
-
you say 3/4 of a million miles like it is significant. it is nothing in the grand scheme.
Neither is 2000 years ;)
on top of that, there is still no conclusive proof that the planet is warming.
Yet you've said several times in this thread that the planet is warming, just that it was a natural cycle not man made? Even just today...
...
also, read the above in bold, then search back through my posts....you'll see that i said pretty much what that article confirms.
we had global warming for awhile. we had global cooling before that. we have global cooling now. we'll have global warming again.
it is cyclic. our climate is powered by the sun, the earths rotation, and the earths orbit.
our climate is not controlled by us.
seriously? how DARE any of us think that we are powerful enough to overcome mother earth?
...
... yeah it's probably pretty inappropriate for me to come into the thread and cherry pick random posts and then leave :)
-
Neither is 2000 years ;)
good point....i let that one slip right by me.
-
Neither is 2000 years ;)
Yet you've said several times in this thread that the planet is warming, just that it was a natural cycle not man made? Even just today...
... yeah it's probably pretty inappropriate for me to come into the thread and cherry pick random posts and then leave :)
no, it's not inappropriate dude.......it adds to the discussion, and fun.
actually, what i should have said, was that there is no conclusive proof that the planet is doing anything out of the ordinary.
the way i typed that earlier, could be easily misinterpreted, as there will be times that the planet warms, and times it cools.......but as mentioned earlier, that is affected by a number of things. it just so happens that mankind is not one of those things.
-
no, it's not inappropriate dude.......it adds to the discussion, and fun.
I'm not really adding to the discussion, I'm just making occasional random interjections & leaving (as I'd rather not get into this but I just can't help myself sometimes :) ). I hate when people do that :lol
actually, what i should have said, was that there is no conclusive proof that the planet is doing anything out of the ordinary.
the way i typed that earlier, could be easily misinterpreted, as there will be times that the planet warms, and times it cools.......but as mentioned earlier, that is affected by a number of things. it just so happens that mankind is not one of those things.
I see what you mean :aok
-
I'm not really adding to the discussion, I'm just making occasional random interjections & leaving (as I'd rather not get into this but I just can't help myself sometimes :) ). I hate when people do that :lol
I see what you mean :aok
yes, but ya see? you did add something. you corrected something i mis-stated, and thus i clarified it.
and yea.....i know whatcha mean about gettin dragged in. :rofl :noid
-
you say 3/4 of a million miles like it is significant. it is nothing in the grand scheme. 3/4 of a million.......750,000, right? compared to 93 million?
It is incredibly significant. From winter to summer in the northern hemisphere, when comparing sunlight in January to July, there is only a 6% difference.
A six percent difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface is the difference between winter and summer. So now you're saying around a 1% difference in distance isn't going to change the amount of solar radiation reaching us? A .1% increase or decrease in sunlight reaching the planet corresponds to a .24 Celsius change in the mean global temp.
700,000 miles becomes significant, because that amount of distance reduces the size of the earth's face when collecting incoming radiation, from a set point in space. There should have been a steady cooling as can be ascertained from the previous 2,000 years history, and orbital mechanics. We can tell the sun hasn't changed in intensity for at least those 2,000 years, as well.
Instead we've seen warming, even you don't deny it. Not many people understand just how fragile a ribbon this planet of life exists on, and somehow can't fathom how man can change the whole game. Astronomy has measured that the "habitable zone" for life (and life doesn't mean "us" btw) in this solar system compromises a mere .2% of the available area of the solar system. 99.8% uninhabitable. Basically, a ribbon 100,000,000 miles wide, from about 80,000,000 miles to 170,000,000 miles from the sun.
-
It is incredibly significant. From winter to summer in the northern hemisphere, when comparing sunlight in January to July, there is only a 6% difference.
A six percent difference in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface is the difference between winter and summer. So now you're saying around a 1% difference in distance isn't going to change the amount of solar radiation reaching us? A .1% increase or decrease in sunlight reaching the planet corresponds to a .24 Celsius change in the mean global temp.
700,000 miles becomes significant, because that amount of distance reduces the size of the earth's face when collecting incoming radiation, from a set point in space. There should have been a steady cooling as can be ascertained from the previous 2,000 years history, and orbital mechanics. We can tell the sun hasn't changed in intensity for at least those 2,000 years, as well.
Instead we've seen warming, even you don't deny it. Not many people understand just how fragile a ribbon this planet of life exists on, and somehow can't fathom how man can change the whole game.
6% difference? LOL a generalization like that is about the same as lying like the CRUdid about surface temperatures.
Sheesh man, I though scientists were supposed to seek the truth....
-
6% difference? LOL a generalization like that is about the same as lying like the CRUdid about surface temperatures.
Sheesh man, I though scientists were supposed to seek the truth....
Considering that 6% is easily measured.... that's a pretty sad rebuttal.
(http://www.powerfromthesun.net/chapter2/Image15.jpg)
-
Fancy graph trying to explain a bunch of BS of 6% difference in daylight between summer and winter.
Daylight began where I live on July 1 of 09 at 5:38AM and set at 8:30PM
Daylight began where I live today, January 14 of 10 at 7:18AM and set at 5:01PM
That is a difference of over 5 hours of daylight. Almost 15 hours of daylight versus shy of 10 hours of daylight is a far cry bigger than 6%. Where I went to school that's pretty close to a 33% difference.
You're a crappy scientist bucko.
-
Shouldn't that be measured in photons, and not hours between sunrise and sunset? 6% seems like a possible value that I wouldn't discard out of hand. We're talking about an entire hemisphere, not our own backyards.
-
first Id like to know the source for the suns distance being 3/4M miles further than it was 2000 years ago.......... I must admit thats not in my knowledge nor can I find any source..... not saying its incorrect..... I just couldnt verify it..... but assuming youre correct:
theres not a 6% difference in "sunlight" reaching the earth from Jan-July........... theres a 6% difference in solar radiation...... 2 distinclty different things
the earth is approx 3 million miles further from the sun at the winter solstice (shortest daylight periods) than it is the summer solstice (longest daylight periods) ......... which is why theres a difference in radiation at all............ but this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with winter or summer as you suggested......
in fact the earth is actually warmer when its at its furthest point in its orbit from the sun.... which has everything to do with the seasons.....
your conclusions might be true if the earths axis were perpindicular to the sun....... and the earth was in a perfect circular orbit with the sun at the center ......but since it sits at an angle and theres a 3M mile difference in its orbit........ then not so much
when the earth is at its furthest point from the sun the northern hemisphere is tilted toward it......... which is why we have summer then....... when its at its closest the northern hemisphere is tilted away which is why we have winter.......... seasons have nothing to do with distance
-
theres not a 6% difference in "sunlight" reaching the earth from Jan-July........... theres a 6% difference in solar radiation...... 2 distinclty different things
Sunlight is solar radiation in the same way that heat is molecular motion.
-
i've noticed, that in some instances, people try to get exact, saying using averages doesn't work.....such as in using the past recorded temps.
then those same people average things out, such as the amount of solar energy, sunlight, distances, etc.
the point, and fact is that the weather systems are pretty much in a pattern. they always have been, and always will be. they are affected by the sun, earths rotation, orbit, etc. they are still not affected by man kind.
at least not now. if this crap keeps up, some govt. will listen to one of these loons, and we'll have em launching rockets with mirrors, and prisms, trying to deflect light from the earth. or putting blankets on the antartic ice to prevent its melting. or sending automated ships to cruise the seas, spewing mist above them to again block sunlight.
THEN we might have a problem caused by man kind.
-
Cap1:
"the point, and fact is that the weather systems are pretty much in a pattern. they always have been, and always will be. they are affected by the sun, earths rotation, orbit, etc. they are still not affected by man kind."
So you belive that issues like what the atmosphere consists of, what the surface consists of and what amount of organic (speak forest) manipulation is about, none of this could possibly affect climate?
Mankind, you see, is a new factor.
-
Seasons are not created due to the difference in earth's distance to the sun on its eliptical path. They are mainly caused by the earth's tilt w/respect to its axis of rotation (the equator).
-
23 degs if I recall right. Mantle tilting. Then you have a lot more factors for the big swings.
-
Seasons are not created due to the difference in earth's distance to the sun on its eliptical path. They are mainly caused by the earth's tilt w/respect to its axis of rotation (the equator).
Yeah, it's summer in Australia and elsewhere down there. Such a backwarded place! Even the water flows differently.
-
Oh, the humanity :D
Anyway, am I hijacking this thread with this one (from me)?
"So you belive that issues like what the atmosphere consists of, what the surface consists of and what amount of organic (speak forest) manipulation is about, none of this could possibly affect climate?"
I wonder......
-
Oh, the humanity :D
Anyway, am I hijacking this thread with this one (from me)?
"So you belive that issues like what the atmosphere consists of, what the surface consists of and what amount of organic (speak forest) manipulation is about, none of this could possibly affect climate?"
I wonder......
the only thing we have proven to be really bad, was cfc's, and they've been pretty much banned. co, and nox, both of which are far worse than co2, are very limited, and not nearly enough in quantity to affect anything.
deforestation.....that's another matter. but everyone says there's more being planted now, than cut down. it'll just take awhile for these to mature enough to take the place of what was removed.
plankton give more o2 than plants though.....
-
Everyone? Not Wiki,or the UN, or...or...
"A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although the earth's total forest area continues to decrease at about 13 million hectares per year, the global rate of deforestation has recently been slowing.[91][92] Still others claim that rainforests are being destroyed at an ever-quickening pace.[93] The London-based Rainforest Foundation notes that "the UN figure is based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests."[94] Other critics of the FAO data point out that they do not distinguish between forest types,[95] and that they are based largely on reporting from forestry departments of individual countries,[96] which do not take into account unofficial activities like illegal logging.[97]"
Anyway, forests in the hotter zone absorb a lot of heat. It's not just the photosynthesis.
-
Moray, you were right, I should have checked my physics first! :O
Next, not only did CAP not provide a false statement, it was also a logical fallacy called ad populum. That's the argument of:
10 people say that A is true
5 people say that B is true
Therefore A is true
Although this works with politics (by choosing the option that most people want), it doesn't work in a debate. This is because the number of people that believe A is true doesn't affect whether A is true. The same goes for B, and all other points.
For example; if everyone on earth were to be red-green colorblind, they all think that red is brown. This doesn't mean that red doesn't exist.
CAP the point, and fact is that the weather systems are pretty much in a pattern. they always have been, and always will be.
That's just not true at all... You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years? On a smaller scale, Africa used to be almost all jungle and forest. A few mountains popped up, changing the winds, and you get the Sahara desert.
Quotes from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
Geography
People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[5] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles [6] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow.
Climate history
An oasis in the Ahaggar Mountains. Oases are crucial to support life in very arid deserts.
An intense Saharan dust storm sent a massive dust plume northwestward over the Atlantic Ocean on March 2, 2003The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[12] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[13] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[14]
Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. But in southern Sahara, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon is due to heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July.[15]
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
The Sahara has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.[18] Half of the Sahara receives less than 2 centimetres (0.79 in) of rain per year, and the rest receives up to 10 cm (3.9 in) per year.[19] The rainfall happens very rarely, but when it does it is usually torrential when it occurs after long dry periods, which can last for years.
The southern boundary of the Sahara, as measured by rainfall, was observed to both advance and retreat between 1980 and 1990. As a result of drought in the Sahel, the southern boundary moved south 130 kilometres (81 mi) overall during that period.[20]. Deforestation has also caused the Sahara to advance south in recent years[citation needed], as trees and bushes continue to be used as fuel source.
Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening due to increased rainfall. Satellites show extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20 year long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin.[21]
The statement you made was so broad and encompassing that it shows you did very little research on the subject. Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth
This means that man can affect the climate, and it isn't that hard to do. Take cloud seeding for example, it is widely practiced to increase rainfall as much as 10%.
CAP1 you have made an untrue, illogical, and foolish statement.
-Penguin
-
Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth
Kind of proving his point for him, aren't you?
-
:lol :lol :lol From KUSI in San Diego
January 14, 2010
PRIMARY UNITED STATES CLIMATE CENTERS NOW CAUGHT IN DATA MANIPULATION
NEW REVELATIONS HEADLINED ON TV CLIMATE SPECIAL
It has been revealed that a "sleight of hand" was used in the computer program that rated 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” Skeptical climate researchers have discovered extensive manipulation of the data within the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. These centers are being accused of creating a strong bias toward warmer temperatures through a system that dramatically trimmed the number and cherry-picked the locations of weather observation stations they use to produce the data set on which temperature record reports are based. The two investigators say the system has been distorted in other ways as well. They have documented their findings in great detail in a scientific report that has been posted online. These findings are presented as a part of my television special report ”Global Warming: The Other Side” telecast Thursday night, January 14th at 9 PM here on KUSI TV.
The data manipulation studies are explored in detail during the fourth segment of the one hour video now available here on our website. Just click on the Global Warming special banner to go to the page.
NOAA and NASA start with the unadjusted NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network). NASA eliminates some stations and adds some in the polar regions. For NASA, the computer program that manipulates the data is known as GIStemp, Both then add their own adjustments to calculate a global average temperature and a ranking for each month and year. The two inter-related U.S Government agencies have so intertwined their programs and data sets that both are being challenged by the investigating team that has produced this "smoking gun of U.S. Climate-gate.” “We suspect each center will try to hide behind, ‘It’s them; Not us’ and point fingers at each other," says the Computer Programmer from San Jose behind these new revelations. He and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist from New Hampshire made their revelations public on January 14th on a prime time television special report at 9:00PM PST; on KUSI-TV, an independent television station in San Diego Perhaps that is why Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in testimony to congress in March 2009 noted “The present federal agency paradigm with respect to NASA and NOAA is obsolete and nearly dysfunctional in spite of best efforts by both agencies.”
The U.S. Government’s National Weather Service uses the NCDC data in its record temperature news releases put out with much media fanfare on a regular basis as they declare a given month or year has set a record for warmth, supporting the global warming agenda.
Also, the NCDC/NASA GISS data are regularly used by climate researchers doing studies at various research centers and within university meteorology centers that are doing studies to support the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This data is also shared with other global centers such as the recently hacked or leaked East Anglia University Hadley Climate Center in England.
Programmer E. Michael Smith and CCM Joseph D’Aleo, the two men who did the research, also revealed there are no actual temperatures left in the computer database when it proclaimed "2005 WAS THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD.” In the transition to a computer averaging system, the National Data Climate Center deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it evolved to a system of global grid boxes. The number that goes into each grid box is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more weather observation stations nearest that grid box..
D'Aleo puts it this way, "Over 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water and vast areas of land masses remain unpopulated as well. So it is reasonable to come up with some sort of grid method to simulate full global coverage. The problem arises because not all of the grid boxes have continuous temperature measurements from within them. So NCDC averages surrounding or nearby points and places that number in the box. In some cases those observations are from several hundreds of miles away. That produces a serious question, ‘Does the resulting number represent the average temperature for that region within meaningful limits?’” D'Aleo says it does not. "A vital issue,” he says is, "temperatures are not linear over space, but instead vary enormously because of differences in terrain, elevation, vegetation, water versus land and urbanization."
This problem is only the tip of the iceberg with the data being produced at NDCC. For one thing, it is clear that comparing data from previous years when the final figure was produced by averaging a large number of temperatures and those produced from a much smaller temperature set with large data gaps is comparing apples and oranges. “When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons,” Smith and D’Aleo say. But that is exactly what has been done in touting the late 1990s and the early 2000s as the warmest ten years in history. "It is clearly a travesty and agenda- driven by global warming advocates,” D'Aleo asserts.
For E. Michael Smith this project was quite a test of his computer programming skills. "Opening, unraveling and understanding what is happening in a complex FORTRAN computer code, with 20 years of age and change in it, is a difficult and grueling task," he says, "and the deeper I dug the more amazing the details revealed. When doing a benchmark test of the program, I found patterns in the input data from NCDC that looked like dramatic and selective deletions of thermometers from cold locations." Smith says after awhile, it became clear this was not a random strange pattern he was finding, but a well designed and orchestrated manipulation process. "The more I looked, the more I found patterns of deletion that could not be accidental. Thermometers moved from cold mountains to warm beaches; from Siberian Arctic to more southerly locations and from pristine rural locations to jet airport tarmacs. The last remaining Arctic thermometer in Canada is in a place called 'The Garden Spot of the Arctic,’ always moving away from the cold and toward the heat. I could not believe it was so blatant and it clearly looked like it was in support of an agenda,” Smith says.
Here are the numbers behind the startling findings of the new research paper. The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures has been reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 in the most recent years. Still, more stations are dropped out in related programs and in the final NASA/GIStemp data file, it drops to about 1,000. That leaves much of the world unaccounted for,” says Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP.us and SPPI.org, who has released a research study of the global temperature pattern today. "Think of it this way,” he continues, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"
E. Michael Smith pointed out that the November 2009 "anomaly map" from GISS shows a very hot Bolivia, which is covered by high mountains. "One small problem: there have been no temperatures recorded in the NCDC data set for Bolivia since 1990. NASA/GISS have to fill in or make up the numbers from up to 1200km away. This is on the beach in Peru or in the Amazon jungle," he said.
He and D'Aleo say it is startling where the temperatures are that have been dropped from the calculation. "A very high percentage of those dropped are from the more northern locations. Very few are left north of sixty degrees longitude.” “Clearly there is also a bias to leave in locations with warmer temperatures, i.e. from the arid areas and within the urban warmth of cities,” he adds. In the greatest reduced list of locations, there are very few colder mountain locations retained.
E. Michael Smith and Joe D'Aleo are both interviewed as part of a report on this study on the television special, "Global Warming: The Other Side" seen at 9 PM on January 14th on KUSI-TV, channel 9/51, San Diego, California. That program will be available on-demand at KUSI.com at the conclusion of the broadcast. The detailed report by D’Aleo is available at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
For more information, contact:
E. Michael Smith at pub4all@aol.com
Smith's climate blog: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Joseph D’Aleo at Jsdaleo6331@aol.com, or 603-689-5646
D’Aleo website: http://www.icecap.us
John Coleman
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
-
Moray, you were right, I should have checked my physics first! :O
Next, not only did CAP not provide a false statement, it was also a logical fallacy called ad populum. That's the argument of:
10 people say that A is true
5 people say that B is true
Therefore A is true
Although this works with politics (by choosing the option that most people want), it doesn't work in a debate. This is because the number of people that believe A is true doesn't affect whether A is true. The same goes for B, and all other points.
For example; if everyone on earth were to be red-green colorblind, they all think that red is brown. This doesn't mean that red doesn't exist.
CAP
That's just not true at all... You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years? On a smaller scale, Africa used to be almost all jungle and forest. A few mountains popped up, changing the winds, and you get the Sahara desert.
Quotes from Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
Geography
People lived on the edge of the desert thousands of years ago[5] since the last ice age. The Sahara was then a much wetter place than it is today. Over 30,000 petroglyphs of river animals such as crocodiles [6] survive, with half found in the Tassili n'Ajjer in southeast Algeria. Fossils of dinosaurs, including Afrovenator, Jobaria and Ouranosaurus, have also been found here. The modern Sahara, though, is not lush in vegetation, except in the Nile Valley, at a few oases, and in the northern highlands, where Mediterranean plants such as the olive tree are found to grow.
Climate history
An oasis in the Ahaggar Mountains. Oases are crucial to support life in very arid deserts.
An intense Saharan dust storm sent a massive dust plume northwestward over the Atlantic Ocean on March 2, 2003The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[12] During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[13] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[14]
Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. But in southern Sahara, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon is due to heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July.[15]
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
The Sahara has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.[18] Half of the Sahara receives less than 2 centimetres (0.79 in) of rain per year, and the rest receives up to 10 cm (3.9 in) per year.[19] The rainfall happens very rarely, but when it does it is usually torrential when it occurs after long dry periods, which can last for years.
The southern boundary of the Sahara, as measured by rainfall, was observed to both advance and retreat between 1980 and 1990. As a result of drought in the Sahel, the southern boundary moved south 130 kilometres (81 mi) overall during that period.[20]. Deforestation has also caused the Sahara to advance south in recent years[citation needed], as trees and bushes continue to be used as fuel source.
Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening due to increased rainfall. Satellites show extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20 year long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin.[21]
The statement you made was so broad and encompassing that it shows you did very little research on the subject. Our climate is not permanant, it will not last forever and it will change until the end of the earth
This means that man can affect the climate, and it isn't that hard to do. Take cloud seeding for example, it is widely practiced to increase rainfall as much as 10%.
CAP1 you have made an untrue, illogical, and foolish statement.
-Penguin
no, as a matter of fact, i haven't.
-
You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years
How do we know this?
Please seperate emprical evidence from forensic science.
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
How do we know this?
How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
It is really a hypothesis, isnt it.
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.
This is my problem with most of the arguments pro or con.
They might seem valid. but they are UNSOUNS logic. Because the premise is wrong. Or with most of this debate. YOU cant prove the premise.
-
Yeah, it's summer in Australia and elsewhere down there. Such a backwarded place! Even the water flows differently.
Do you mean turns the opposite direction like when you flush a toilet or drain the tub?
IT DOES NOT TURN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ONLY YOUR PERSPECTIVE CHANGES.
This is the biggest myth that exists in the world. And a perfect example why even empirical evidence is not right. IT just looks like it turns the other way.
Example: hold a pencil in front of your eyes looking at one end and spin it clockwise. Now look at the other end it is spinning counter clockwise.
at the same time no less. The swirl in the drain only turns one way based on the rotation of the earth.
Only your perspective is changing.
-
Do you mean turns the opposite direction like when you flush a toilet or drain the tub?
This is the biggest myth that exists in the world. And a perfect example why even empirical evidence is not right. IT just looks like it turns the other way.
I thought that the biggest myth that exists in the world was the subject of this thread??
-
You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years
How do we know this?
Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants. Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
How do we know this?
How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.
It's not difficult to find evidence of water in places that no longer have any.
You have some misconceptions here, and I think they're due to a philosophical confusion about the nature of Empiricism, rather than a misunderstanding of what counts as physical evidence.
-
You do realize that the sun is going to blow up in a few billion years
How do we know this?
Please seperate emprical evidence from forensic science.
By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[16] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[17] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[12] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the Sahara pump theory.
How do we know this?
How can it be a theory if it can't be scientificaly tested.
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
It is really a hypothesis, isnt it.
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.
This is my problem with most of the arguments pro or con.
They might seem valid. but they are UNSOUNS logic. Because the premise is wrong. Or with most of this debate. YOU cant prove the premise.
A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;
1.Problem
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Conclusion/Theory
You completely ignore the first part of the defenition of theory, it is from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
•S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
You can see that a theory is most certainly not a hypothesis. If it was, why don't we call e=mc2, part of the hypothesis of relativity? Or do you ignore this fact on principle?
His point is contradictory, he says that he said that earth's climate changes, and then it does not. He then says that man can have 0.00000000% effect on the climate. To say yes or no is a trick question.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Going to a dictionary for an explanation of "hypothesis" and "theory" is just about the most unacademic thing you can do. Any college professor would be within their right to give both of you a big, fat "F" for doing so.
-
Not to make me sound immature, but why? His point was on semantics, and I only responded in kind.
Moray told me to look to you for a point of reference in the debate, so why is quoting a dictionary wrong? Are there some other unwritten rules? I suppose that I must have been living under a rock :).
-Penguin
-
A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;
1.Problem
2.Hypothesis
3.Experiment
4.Conclusion/Theory
You completely ignore the first part of the defenition of theory, it is from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
•S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
You can see that a theory is most certainly not a hypothesis. If it was, why don't we call e=mc2, part of the hypothesis of relativity? Or do you ignore this fact on principle?
His point is contradictory, he says that he said that earth's climate changes, and then it does not. He then says that man can have 0.00000000% effect on the climate. To say yes or no is a trick question.
-Penguin
-Penguin
the weather is the climate, and the climate is the weather. it really IS that simple. :aok
-
Penguin,
Moray is promoting exactly what Singer said is the issue with science. Procession with a show of hands.
The data does not show anything to prove or even support man made global warming theories. All it is, is a show of hands amongst alarmists, politicians, and businessmen hoping to make a statement, get reelected, or make a buck. The CRU's cooking of data and many governments turning a blind eye to that fact should be raising warnings to anyone with common sense.
-
Not to make me sound immature, but why? His point was on semantics, and I only responded in kind.
Moray told me to look to you for a point of reference in the debate, so why is quoting a dictionary wrong? Are there some other unwritten rules? I suppose that I must have been living under a rock :).
-Penguin
Looking in the dictionary to settle a debate in semantics is comparable to citing an encyclopedia when your English teacher asks you to research a paper topic. It's not that the encyclopedias or dictionaries are bad, but their articles or entries tend to lack the requisite substance and depth for a true intellectual dispute. Maybe look up some philosophers of science, e.g. Karl Popper, and see what they have to say.
-
Looking in the dictionary to settle a debate in semantics is comparable to citing an encyclopedia when your English teacher asks you to research a paper topic. It's not that the encyclopedias or dictionaries are bad, but their articles or entries tend to lack the requisite substance and depth for a true intellectual dispute. Maybe look up some philosophers of science, e.g. Karl Popper, and see what they have to say.
the problem is, that they are running out of reasonable arguments. they both continue to go back to "massaged" data, and charts. one of them continues to try to change the topic.
i do not mean the above to sound derogatory. i've been enjoying this, as i'm sure most in here have been. i generally find moray's posts well laid out, and very informative....in pretty much any topic he posts in.
penguin has been laying his posts out very nicely too.
the entire problem, is that common sense would dictate a look out the window. then, presuming you've lived in the area you're presently in.......remember back 20 or 30 years.
i live in south jersey. i've lived here for my whole life....well.....9 years in northeast philly....but that's still close enough. the weather patterns have cycled here.
sometimes the cold weather starts early in the fall/winter, sometimes late. a couple of years ago, i was able to be out on my shadow, riding comfortably in nov.
since that time, i haven't been able to do that. this past summer was a little cooler than normal for this area.....the year before was a little warmer than normal.
what i'm trying to say, is that the weather systems that hit us here, come across the us. these weather systems are a small part of the climate.
when you take and put all of the weather systems together, you get the climate. thus, they are one and the same.
kind of like trying to say that the spindle isn't part of your car. or the index finger on your left hand isn't part of your body.
-
I don't think anything I said in the above quote was for or against AGW. The point was just supposed to be that you can't employ meta-arguments about scientific theory making simply by pulling out a dictionary.
In the end, one of two results are likely: The evidence for AGW will keep piling up until the skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today, and the AGW proponents will act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!" Or, AGW turns out to be a huge sham, thousands of careers go down the toilet, and some names even become infamous in the history books (and the skeptics act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!"). Only time will tell.
-
or the index finger on your left hand isn't part of your body.
Well, it isn't if you've lost your left index finger. Just sayin :P
-
skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today,
I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly. I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.
No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.
-
I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly. I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.
No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.
while this sounds like a reasonable expectation of what will happen..... early signs indicate the opposite
instead of backpeddling and trying to minimize the damage theyve brought........ these chicken littles are once again changing their stance......... now its climate change instead of global warming.......... and they fully expected a long period of cold.........despite the fact that their models indicate rising temperatures until our flesh melts off our bones
youre definitely right about the politicians though..... they will quickly change their views to reflect whatever keeps them in office.......
my prediction is that someday in the future when the people have fully grasped reality and the whole scam has become taboo......... then they will need a scapegoat to absolve of his sins
that scapegoat will be Al Gore who will then be the laughing stock of the world and live the rest of his days secluded in shame........ theyll dig up so much dirt...... theyll amazingly find some new obscure evidence of some violation of some crime ........ its just the way things are done........ they will no longer need him so they will bury him.......
and if you need proof I can quickly provide you with some modeling which verifies my theory (just need to borrow some of those alarmists to fudge me some data)
-
Anaxo, how can we know those stars behave this way, like expanding and popping or whatever, we have only been watching them for a very short time, and can draw no conclusion for the next million years when we have more data... :bolt:
Hehe, that's what you hear about GCL or GW. Couldn't resist.
Anyway, regarding "data being manipulated", or rather cherrypicked, that is what recently has been seen done in the alarmist camp (if I can put that so), however it was no big news when proved upon the other camp. This data is surface temp data I belive, and that is just a part of the picture, since you nead ocean temp, sl rise, glacial area shrinks, weather pattern, different plant growing, migration changes and altitude residence changes of species. All those point their fingers into the same direction. Warming pattern. And the change is big enough for both creating problems. Cities in the tropical being built over mosquite level are there no longer, ocean fish adapted for a certain temperature moves north/south to stay in the same level, Agriculture takes changes so herbs that need warmth can be grown further into cooler zones, and glaciers indeed are shrinking.
I can grow wheat today, which was not possible only 20 years ago, say alone 100, and was not even done in the medieval warming period. Say it's manipulation of data and I'll laugh very hard, for for me it is a complete and absolute fact. I have several mountains that collect snow right in sight. What they are today is....nothing. Goes fast in 30 years of recollection.
Was fishing on the ocean every now and then, got hooked on the tales my grand-dad told me from his days in the N-Atlantic in the 1920's and 1930's, - which in fact were in our zone some warm years. The migration pattern since then indicates that the ocean is warming. While our south coast fish now runs northbound to the country we are however getting new species from the warm south seas into our area. Yummy perhaps...or not. Win some, loose some....but if anyone tells me it's data manipulation I'll have to hold my stomach.
How do you expect a January day in S-Iceland to be anyway....
-
I think you'll find the skeptics are pretty much in the majority and probably growing as the wheels of the AGW juggernaut get more and more wobbly. I don't think there'll be a sudden ending of the AGW scare. It will simply fade away as the evidence against it becomes more obvious. A few years of cooling and bad winters, which is forecast due to a natural variation will reduce enthusiasm for it. The public will become more and more skeptical and the politicians will want to stay onside for their political careers. Eventually, if you live long enough there'll be books and TV programs dissecting what went wrong. The self justifying conclusion will be that although they got it wrong in terms of the timescale and consequences but they were right all along about man's contribution to climate change. It's was just a lot smaller than they forecast.
No one will apologise or take responsibility for the damage being done today or the people who have died and will die thanks over zealous scare tactics on this issue.
Ok, you took the quote so far out of context that it isn't even funny. He was describing one of the possible outcomes.
(Not to sound condescending, just telling you how it is) Angus, we know that stars go BOOM! because we've seen other, older stars do it. It's like a population of people, if you were only observing for a day, aging would be negligble. Yet, you can see that some will die, and some are old (some are both). Therefore you can make the connection that old people die. The same goes for stars. We can tell that they are old from our models of fusion and spectrometric equipment, and that they die, well, when they go BA-BOOM!
Again, you see the earth warm for 200 or so years, and cool for 10 out of 200. That's a 5% error rate. You have made a prediction that we will cool, yet the earth has seen warming for 190 years. Only time will tell.
Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real? Or did you guys just decide beforehand?
-Penguin
-
I don't think anything I said in the above quote was for or against AGW. The point was just supposed to be that you can't employ meta-arguments about scientific theory making simply by pulling out a dictionary.
In the end, one of two results are likely: The evidence for AGW will keep piling up until the skeptics are even more marginalized than they are today, and the AGW proponents will act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!" Or, AGW turns out to be a huge sham, thousands of careers go down the toilet, and some names even become infamous in the history books (and the skeptics act like triumphant dicks with "I told you so!"). Only time will tell.
i had only quoted your post, partly because it made me think of why penguin was running to the dictionary(running out of steam) and partly because i was reading your post when the thoughts i posted popped into my head.
you also just hit the nail on the head above. the highlighted part is why this issue will never be allowed to die.
and finally, you are right, unfortunately, that whomever turns out to be correct willl act no better than an 8 year old saying "told ya so told ya so!!"
-
Well, it isn't if you've lost your left index finger. Just sayin :P
i'm seriously hoping you're not gonna say you lost yours. :uhoh
quick almost funny story.......down at atco raceway a few years ago. we were fueling the camaro, and hooking up the charger to the car. well, on the previous run, someone had poured the last of the fuel into the tank and didn't say anything.
my friend yells "who the hell emptied the jug and didn't say anything?!" i go "it wasn't me, it was the one armed man!"
alex went white, and his eye had that "i can't believe you just said that" look to them, as he was looking right past me.
i turned around, and sure enough......there was a guy standing right behind me with his right arm amputated. i cannot even begin to say how bad i felt. the only thing that helped, was that the guy laughed his bellybutton off as i stumbled all over myself trying to apologize.
-
Ok, you took the quote so far out of context that it isn't even funny. He was describing one of the possible outcomes.
(Not to sound condescending, just telling you how it is) Angus, we know that stars go BOOM! because we've seen other, older stars do it. It's like a population of people, if you were only observing for a day, aging would be negligble. Yet, you can see that some will die, and some are old (some are both). Therefore you can make the connection that old people die. The same goes for stars. We can tell that they are old from our models of fusion and spectrometric equipment, and that they die, well, when they go BA-BOOM!
Again, you see the earth warm for 200 or so years, and cool for 10 out of 200. That's a 5% error rate. You have made a prediction that we will cool, yet the earth has seen warming for 190 years. Only time will tell.
Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real? Or did you guys just decide beforehand?
-Penguin
so, you do realize that you are simply reinforcing mine, and others arguments, right?
-
Not really, the first part of my post was about the lifetime of a star.
Number two, you misread it, I said that we have seen 200 years of warming, and 10 of cooling, which is the anomaly of which? If the past is any indication of the future, we will see more warming.
Number three, my quoting a dictionary was in response to an attack on semantics.
Number four, the last part of my post was a question.
How does that reinforce your point, exactly?
-Penguin
-
Not really, the first part of my post was about the lifetime of a star.
Number two, you misread it, I said that we have seen 200 years of warming, and 10 of cooling, which is the anomaly of which? If the past is any indication of the future, we will see more warming.
Number three, my quoting a dictionary was in response to an attack on semantics.
Number four, the last part of my post was a question.
How does that reinforce your point, exactly?
-Penguin
so......warming causes ice to form now?
-
Where is it forming exactly?
-
Penguin,
Moray is promoting exactly what Singer said is the issue with science. Procession with a show of hands.
The data does not show anything to prove or even support man made global warming theories. All it is, is a show of hands amongst alarmists, politicians, and businessmen hoping to make a statement, get reelected, or make a buck. The CRU's cooking of data and many governments turning a blind eye to that fact should be raising warnings to anyone with common sense.
WRONG.
ON ALL COUNTS.
-
so, you do realize that you are simply reinforcing mine, and others arguments, right?
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)
"I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
James Boswell (1740 - 1795)
Both of which are extremely fitting.
-
Here here!
-Penguin
-
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)
So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming?
-
ah you missed the point completely.......
•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
It says "WELL SUBSTANTIATED" and you proved my point we are in violent agreement. On the definition. MY point was if you cant test the hypotheses how can it be a theory?
this is what you posted
A theory is most certainly not a hypothesis, do your research on the scientific method;
That is exactly my point.
My claim is that you cant test it cause you were not there billions of years ago or 13,000 years ago. And you cant duplicate it. So it cant be a scientific therory yet. IT is still a hypothsis.
The problem is you are quoteing what you claim to be facts to support your argement. And you are trying to tell me they are scientific fact.
Just because some books says so where is the testing data? Show me #3 the experiment to prove your hypothosis.
Look at what I said. I will say it another way.
number #4 your conclusion is only valid if it follows from the problem. But that doesnt make it sound logic or a sound theory if you havent proven number #1. which is " the problem".
You want to believe it is true, but is it? Notice I didnt say it was wrong or right. I just am asking if it is true and how you know that it is true?
It is called intuitve arguement I know from what we can test that, no one could possibly test that. Angus said the same thing.
Anaxo, how can we know those stars behave this way, like expanding and popping or whatever, we have only been watching them for a very short time, and can draw no conclusion for the next million years when we have more data...
You take my post to mean you are wrong on Global warming. I never said that. I am saying you can't prove the evidence you are giving in those quotes.
Again it goes like this.
Problem = global warming
then you give = hypothosis
then you call the hypothosis true or scientific theory, trying to force the problem to be true. My point was to just prove this part of your arguement invalid. It does not at this point prove that the problem is wrong. It does beg the question if that is your best "evidence or argument"
and it is not semantics. It is the difference between truth and false, and that is a big difference.
-
Simple minds trying to comprehend and discuss complex data makes for entertaining reading......moving on.
Moray,
You may be a smart scientist/biologist but you reek of the party line mentality. You bypass a lot of very valid points in an attempt to prove your point. The reality is on most of this your trying to prove a point someone else is making. Therefor you are subject to their misguidance and inaccuracies if any are present unless you verify 100% of the data.
Whats your comment on the selectivity of many of the popular studies used to farther global warming? Is any thought given to the fact that we are coming out of an iceage only a few thousand years ago? That in itself should prove there have been massive changes in the Earths global climate. 10,000 years ago New York state, actually the Great Lakes area was under thousands of feet of glacial ice. The Great Lakes were formed from this ice, some of the Sahara was thought to have green forest not a few ten thousand years ago! Climate change is as common as the sun setting.....
Is there any data that takes data from mainly rural areas with out selectively cherry picking data? Every study I have seen mainly takes data from urban/warm climate settings.
Can you deny that a few very renown studies have been show to have biased data? Can you also say with 100% certainty that more studies are not the same?
Strip
-
So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming?
Would it matter to defeat them, and then be proven wrong yourself?
To frame a debate such as this with winners and losers is idiotic. No matter who is right, we all know that this species is affecting the planet. We need to become much better stewards to the ball of dust we sprung up on, no matter what.
If you need a single example of sapiens having an effect upon the planet, look no farther than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
(http://www.localphilosophy.com/images/garbage_patch.jpg)
-
Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants. Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)
Srry my mistake i got a little sloppy. How do you know " a few billion years". and I know what the forensic evidence is. Im just saying you cant test it to make it a quotable fact. We can on faith only guess that our sun will do what we have seen, How many other stars blow up? We darn sure don't know what caused it because you can't test it yet. There is a difference in seeing a spectrograph and being to test that data to make it scientific theory.
It's not difficult to find evidence of water in places that no longer have any.
You have some misconceptions here, and I think they're due to a philosophical confusion about the nature of Empiricism, rather than a misunderstanding of what counts as physical evidence.
Maybe i am missing something. Please let me know.
You can gather forensic evidence about what did happen but non of us were there. So therefore if non of us where there we didnt empirically see it taste it touch it hear it or smell it.
If we could test the forensic evidence today with empirical tests. We could then state a scientific theory. I never said there wasnt water there.
I saying you dont know why, because you cant test it. Therefore if you dont know why you cant use it as part of your arguement for today.
Show me #3 in the flow chart so I can believe it. If you cant show number #3 then it isnt a "fact" yet. but only a guess at how it happened. I agree we can see now that there was water now there isnt. We just dont know the how or why yet.
-
So we will never defeat the people that keep screaming about Global Warming?
No. Neither the ones (like me) who in their evil and egoistic minds, simply purr with pleasure, since my environment turns from unpleasantly cold to comfortable, and it is happening within my lifespan, not hundreds of years. Neither with the oil companies, who seek new gounds to drill where (cough) the Ice before made drilling impossible :devil
Anyway, I still call upon anyone here to claim that the surface of the planet, it's vegetation, and the components of the atmosphere have no impact on temperature :D
I think I shall have no name.
-
Simple minds trying to comprehend and discuss complex data makes for entertaining reading......moving on.
Moray,
You may be a smart scientist/biologist but you reek of the party line mentality. You bypass a lot of very valid points in an attempt to prove your point. The reality is on most of this your trying to prove a point someone else is making. Therefor you are subject to their misguidance and inaccuracies if any are present unless you verify 100% of the data.
Whats your comment on the selectivity of many of the popular studies used to farther global warming? Is any thought given to the fact that we are coming out of an iceage only a few thousand years ago? That in itself should prove there have been massive changes in the Earths global climate. 10,000 years ago New York state, actually the Great Lakes area was under thousands of feet of glacial ice. The Great Lakes were formed from this ice, some of the Sahara was thought to have green forest not a few ten thousand years ago! Climate change is as common as the sun setting.....
Is there any data that takes data from mainly rural areas with out selectively cherry picking data? Every study I have seen mainly takes data from urban/warm climate settings.
Can you deny that a few very renown studies have been show to have biased data? Can you also say with 100% certainty that more studies are not the same?
Strip
Strip,
I honestly don't expect a single mind to change here. There are few on this bbs actually approaching this with any critical thinking whatsoever. I simply continue to put up real studies with real data. It has become a bit of entertainment, for me.
I also know that many of the attacks upon the data presented in some of these contrarian circles are superfluous at best. Most of these attacks originated from those who stand to gain the most from marginalizing the study, and they do so in ways that the general public might feel are legitimate, who have no understanding of the statistics that goes into it. Many of them, like many on this board, have no understanding exactly what "they" say is wrong with the data, only that the conclusion reached is the one that they already support, IE the refutation of Global Climate Change. On the other hand, I don't have access to their data, and cannot fully refute what has been said as being untrue.
Strip, using previous climate shifts as a springboard against human induced climate shift is dangerous to your argument. The danger there is that the previous shifts ARE UNDERSTOOD AND DOCUMENTED. We have a forcing mechanism for each. Be it orbital mechanics, or strikes from planetoids...etc. They've been trying to document a true forcing agent for 30 years now, other than CO2 .
So, while the US and the UK had a cold first half of the winter..... the Arctic has had another exceedingly warm one, and the Southern Hemisphere is baking through another brutal summer. But, considering those two countries control the world at this moment, the real science will be shelved because it was cold until January, at least by the general public.
Add to all this, a sun that was in an extended minimal state for the past 2 years..... and is waking up rather quickly, surpassing cycle 24 flux records daily.....
To answer your last question, I can say with 1000% certainty that scientists don't agree on anything until the weight of the data becomes overwhelming. If there was a serious study to refute the current thinking, every single one of the people I know would jump on it without pause.... it would make them the one "who stood up and proved it wrong". You can't force these kinds of people with money or power, we just don't care about either. Science is what we love..... a scientific truth is beauty incarnate. Most of us are barely middle class in your societies, and make a lot less than you think, after spending a lot more than you dreamed on education. Most of us just don't care about accumulating wealth or power. Accumulating a solid body of work is important.
-
Im surprised that this thread has not been locked due to politics
-
Our best evidence for this conclusion is other stars that have used up all of their H2 and expanded into red giants. Unless you're going to claim that our Sun is as special star, we can expect it to behave in a similar way. (edit: obviously, someone exaggerated when they said that our sun is going to blow up, but that's not the point)
Srry my mistake i got a little sloppy. How do you know " a few billion years". and I know what the forensic evidence is. Im just saying you cant test it to make it a quotable fact. We can on faith only guess that our sun will do what we have seen, How many other stars blow up? We darn sure don't know what caused it because you can't test it yet. There is a difference in seeing a spectrograph and being to test that data to make it scientific theory.
Sonicblu, you are an inductive skeptic. Your objection is philosophical, not empirical.
Take a philosophy course that includes David Hume and report back here after you've learned the real deal.
-
Where is it forming exactly?
well, from 1945 on it was(still is?) forming in greenland. at least the portion where the lost squadron landed.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html
i'm sure, that as it formed in that area, that it was receding in another area(s).
-
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)
"I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
James Boswell (1740 - 1795)
Both of which are extremely fitting.
so......now, you're resorting to name calling?
i'd say this one is cooked. :aok
-
Would it matter to defeat them, and then be proven wrong yourself?
To frame a debate such as this with winners and losers is idiotic. No matter who is right, we all know that this species is affecting the planet. We need to become much better stewards to the ball of dust we sprung up on, no matter what.
If you need a single example of sapiens having an effect upon the planet, look no farther than the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
(http://www.localphilosophy.com/images/garbage_patch.jpg)
you are correct sir.... on the bolded line......but again, now you're trying to change the subject.......going back to pollution again.
mayhaps we should start a global pollution thread for you and penguin?
-
so......now, you're resorting to name calling?
i'd say this one is cooked. :aok
Nope. Those are quotes, not names. It is impossible to use them in the manner you are implying.
-
you are correct sir.... on the bolded line......but again, now you're trying to change the subject.......going back to pollution again.
mayhaps we should start a global pollution thread for you and penguin?
Nope. I was refuting the all encompassing dogma that denialists continually spout... "man can't do anything to the planet, and has no effect upon it".
Obviously you misunderstood this. Perhaps I should be more clear for you in the future.
-
Nope. I was refuting the all encompassing dogma that denialists continually spout... "man can't do anything to the planet, and has no effect upon it".
Obviously you misunderstood this.
no.....no one ever said we can't do anything to affect the planet.......we all keep sayingh that man cannot affect the climate. big difference.
Nope. Those are quotes, not names. It is impossible to use them in the manner you are implying.
nice try.....you used quotes to do it...same thing. :aok
-
no.....no one ever said we can't do anything to affect the planet.......we all keep sayingh that man cannot affect the climate. big difference.
nice try.....you used quotes to do it...same thing. :aok
You must realize it is completely illogical to state man can have an effect upon this planet as a whole.....yet state we cannot affect its' climate within the same breath.
I'm incredulous you could state such a thing and believe it true.
As a sidenote, I'm amused you are taking those quotes so personally. I directed neither of them at either side of this debate specifically. Interesting you take them as insulting.
-
You must realize it is completely illogical to state man can have an effect upon this planet as a whole.....yet state we cannot affect its' climate.
I'm incredulous you could state such a thing and believe it true.
As a sidenote, I'm amused you are taking those quotes so personally. I directed neither of them at either of this debate specifically. Interesting you take them as insulting.
Jeez moray, I would just give up...theres no convincing them so why try?
If the planet is going to hell then at least you know that you will the only one left alive :lol
-
You must realize it is completely illogical to state man can have an effect upon this planet as a whole.....yet state we cannot affect its' climate.
I'm incredulous you could state such a thing and believe it true.
As a sidenote, I'm amused you are taking those quotes so personally. I directed neither of them at either side of this debate specifically. Interesting you take them as insulting.
i'm not taking anything in this thread personally. i simply interpreted those quotes to be referring to those that do not believe in global warming as ignorant.
our local environments...yes.....we can pollute them, and should clean up. pollution though, does not change the weather patterns.
-
i'm not taking anything in this thread personally. i simply interpreted those quotes to be referring to those that do not believe in global warming as ignorant.
our local environments...yes.....we can pollute them, and should clean up. pollution though, does not change the weather patterns.
You still miss the illogical stance your argument sits upon.
-
You still miss the illogical stance your argument sits upon.
It isn't illogical at all. We could simultaneously take bulldozers to every city on earth, pluck every daisy from every field, kill all the California Condors, and hunt all the whales to extinction. . . .
And it wouldn't make one iota difference to the Earth's climate.
-
It isn't illogical at all. We could simultaneously take bulldozers to every city on earth, pluck every daisy from every field, kill all the California Condors, and hunt all the whales to extinction. . . .
And it wouldn't make one iota difference to the Earth's climate.
Of course it would. That's the point.
-
well, from 1945 on it was(still is?) forming in greenland. at least the portion where the lost squadron landed.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html
i'm sure, that as it formed in that area, that it was receding in another area(s).
LOL, it's receeding. Read up. Or just go there. I did, but I live close. Actually a B17 crashed near to where I live and is now already through the glacier. I saw it on the closest farm, right outside the shed. B17G I think. That Glacier is now "digesting" such items quite well.
Next time try to tell me that the Icelandic glaciers are growing....
A helping link...
-
It isn't illogical at all. We could simultaneously take bulldozers to every city on earth, pluck every daisy from every field, kill all the California Condors, and hunt all the whales to extinction. . . .
And it wouldn't make one iota difference to the Earth's climate.
We could however nook it into a winter oblivian....
-
Of course it would. That's the point.
Describe how it would.
-
WRONG.
ON ALL COUNTS.
How so? The CRU has been proven to have cooked their data. Al Gore has been proved to have attempted to mislead and misrepresenting data regarding global warming, it's not like he stands to benefit from legislation passed... Many politicians on the left are also neck deep in business deals that will only get better if the farce is continued.
You pushing the GW agenda forward while ignoring the vast amounts of improperly conducted science and outright lies perpetrated about the impact of GW is no more than another hand raised in support.
-
You still miss the illogical stance your argument sits upon.
perhaps i'm missing your point, but i fail to see anything illogical about it. would you care to enlighten me?
-
LOL, it's receeding. Read up. Or just go there. I did, but I live close. Actually a B17 crashed near to where I live and is now already through the glacier. I saw it on the closest farm, right outside the shed. B17G I think. That Glacier is now "digesting" such items quite well.
Next time try to tell me that the Icelandic glaciers are growing....
A helping link...
so, once again, that makes my point. they're melting near you. they;re forming elsewhere.
-
Overall they're melting.
In my country all of them are. A correction of 3 of them not being thought to be melting, but all are now.
Same goes with the Greenland one, you just stumble on how quickly things go down in certain areas. Go to wiki and read up on the Greenland glacier. Look at the thickness. The lost squadron was really not far down...
-
How many more of these stories are going to pop up? Yet, we're supposed to belive the scientific community has no agenda, other than pure science
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
So...they read a $@#$@# story in a rag, and then attached the name of the U.N. to it, that it then would not be questioned. (And if someone DID, they would henceforth be attacked and ridiculed)
-
Are you telling me that the pro climate change people have nothing to gain? They might have more to gain perhaps than those against climate change! Its ignorant to think people would pursue ideas that they did not agree with or benefit them in some way. In the research world nearly everything is driven by the pursuit of more funding and further studies. Of course its the oil backed researchers fighting global warming, without them there would be no one funding the opposing view. Do you really think that the global warming crowd does not have green investors backing them?
Strip
-
so, once again, that makes my point. they're melting near you. they;re forming elsewhere.
Glaciers are an horrible example for either side, in the singular sense. Glacial growth is more directly dependent upon precipitation than it is on ambient temperature.
But, when applied in the plurality of the world, they seem to be having an awfully bad time this past few decades.
Currently,there's only a handful on the planet currently showing ANY growth CAP, mostly due to having a feed source higher in the mountains that doesn't see temperatures over freezing anyway.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p1I4fTfMjU4/R1BJRRLB4eI/AAAAAAAAADA/9WMTWwnlDkU/s1600-R/glacier_after.jpg)
(http://globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/9/93/Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png/640px-Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png)
(the blue tint implies growth, for those graphically challenged)
-
Does it matter that the Great Lakes area was covered in nearly a mile of glacial ice only a few thousand years ago? Global warming must have been caused by those half ape, half human bonfires.
:huh
Evidence of climate change?
:rofl
Using the glaciers as an indicator for global warming is borderline stupid! Most of them have been receding for millennia, seriously are you that dense?
Strip
-
Does it matter that the Great Lakes area was covered in nearly a mile of glacial ice only a few thousand years ago? Global warming must have been caused by those half ape, half human bonfires.
:huh
Evidence of climate change?
:rofl
Using the glaciers as an indicator for global warming is borderline stupid! Most of them have been receding for millennia, seriously are you that dense?
Strip
i don't believe he's dense...in fact, i believe the exact opposite. i do actually believe that he's very intelligent.
i also believe that he's convinced that this is all true.
really none of us knows for sure. the only thing that we do know for sure, is that if all of mankind suddenly was moved underground, along with everything they ever built, and nothing at all from mankind was now able to reach the surface.....the planet will continue on the very same course that it is now.
the closest we can come to REALLY harming the planet, will be for us to push the red button. even then, all that that will accomplish, is to make it unlivable for the survivors....but the earth will continue.
-
Have you ever seen one?
We have a fast receeding in the last 100 years or so, actually much faster than in the couple of hundreds of years from the "little" ice age.
It's not the perfect measurement, nor is it the only. Just a part of the puzzle.
I forgot to mention sea ice, which sort off tells the tale faster. The Northern cap may be a better measurement, since the chunks falling off Antarctica will immediately be picked up by the dense HW denialists as a proof of growing sea-ice :D
-
Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real? Or did you guys just decide beforehand?
Well Penguin, I could aske the same question. At the risk of being accused of sophistry. Did you guys decide beforehand? Clearly we're in the middle of warming period have being for some time. At what point did someone, somewhere decide that we humans had an input?
Really that is the crux of the matter, not that we there is climate change but whether or not we caused it. It's become increasingly clear that the conclusion was reached before the science was in. Now the orthodox view is that climate change is caused by humans and that only we can prevent further climate change. No dissension is allowed from that viewpoint. That was clear from the CRU emails. We as humans are still only in the early stages of working out how the climate mechanism. Yet we insist that we have induced global climate change long before we had any real data to prove it..
So yes, Angus the glaciers are melting. Of course they are, it is literally true. But that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not greenhouse gases produced by us humans are causing it.
Penguin, you were being condescending, I was simply addressing the notion that skeptics are marginalised. Clearly we're not. I took the quote out of context merely to make the point. But ignore that by all means.
But that does bring me to another issue which is rife throughout this thread and frankly any debate on the issue. In fact it's a characteristic of many of those in the warmist camp. Being patrionising and condescending is always the fall back option. In fact as often as not it's resorted to in the first case. Scientists in particular are prone to it. Politicians too, Britain's PM Gordon Brown, referred to skeptics as anti-science and flat-earthers. Considering that includes most of his electorate. That might have been a mistake.
Let me quote Moray:I honestly don't expect a single mind to change here. There are few on this bbs actually approaching this with any critical thinking whatsoever. I simply continue to put up real studies with real data. It has become a bit of entertainment, for me.
Reeks of condescention and I'm afraid all too typical. I have debated this on other boards and when you come across scientists of any specialisation, particularly the younger ones. They always resort to saying: 'You wouldn't understand' with the implied undertone that we can't understand. We refuse to understand. We have an agenda. So it's 'entertainment' for them. Moray finds us amusing, he toys with us.
I don't find it amusing being patronised on such a serious subject. Already I'm paying higher taxes and finding my life restricted and my way of life under attack by people who in my opinion are misguided not only in their methods but in their belief that we have not only changed the world's climate but that we can somehow stop it happening. Surely the absolute defintion of hubris. We humans have a lot to learn, scientist too. Perhaps lesson in humility should be part of the training.:ugh:
-
"Really that is the crux of the matter, not that we there is climate change"
You have people here denying that there is climate change, or more likely that it is headed for warming.
Anyway, I still have no one claiming that the combination of the atmosphere, the amount of forest and generally the vegetation of the surface of the earth do NOT have a part with climate heading either up or down in temperature.
We may find one.
But if it is agreed upon that it DOES affect climate and temperature, then there is room for the next question, - how big is our impact, and in what direction would that be....
-
how big is our impact, and in what direction would that be....
What we have is a totally exaggerated, alarmist and apocalyptic vision of the future as hammered into us daily from all sources. That's the conclusion already held up before us. That was the point of the farcical Copenhagen summit. It was heavily promoted as our last chance, the last hope. Well it was joke, not unexpectedly.
No one can deny climate change, no one should. There is ongoing climate change. It seems to me that once this was noticed people concluded that we caused it and have spent the last few years trying to prove it and failing to do so. Not only that they have continued to extrapolate forward and forecasting all kinds of futures based on computer models that cannot even forecast the current situation using known data. Unless it's manipulated as we found with the CRU leak.
I really don't understand how there can be so much certainty about an essentially chaotic system as the Earth's climate. In fact from what I see, chaos theory has been ignored completely. You cannot program that into a computer model.
I can readily accept that we humans could, might or even be having an effect on the climate. But to the extent we've being told so far? I think not.
-
Page 70! :rock
-
cpxxx, IMHO there is an over-focus on CO2 and the tendency to mix GW into some titanic moneytary system. In the meantime the facts are shadowed by this, as well as other very big ecological and climatical issues.
I have no more faith in mankind than it will burn carbon as long as possible while trying to make a rip-off while doing so. In the meantime many very bad things happen.
-
Indeed you're right. There is an overfocus on Co2. But remember to refer to it as Carbon not Co2. It sounds dirtier. The whole thing has overshadowed very real ecological and enviromental issues. Real issues.
-
Indeed you're right. There is an overfocus on Co2. But remember to refer to it as Carbon not Co2. It sounds dirtier. The whole thing has overshadowed very real ecological and enviromental issues. Real issues.
yes, because as you, and others have mentioned earlier, there is a lot of money tied to proving this theory.
if it is disproven, people will lose jobs, there may be companies(that build/design pollution control systems) and even trading will be hurt.
regardless of the outcome, the oil companies will continue to make their money. they've got their claws pretty well spread out.
-
Indeed you're right. There is an overfocus on Co2. But remember to refer to it as Carbon not Co2. It sounds dirtier. The whole thing has overshadowed very real ecological and enviromental issues. Real issues.
:aok
I can call it carbon. Basic issue is increased carbon being released from ancient storage and added to the biosphere. Fair enough ;)
And Cap1....There is no way our erthling rollercoaster can carry on as it is for long. This "theory" of CO2->GW should still be studied intensively rather than heeding Exxon's advice and poking the head into the sand :D
-
Does it matter that the Great Lakes area was covered in nearly a mile of glacial ice only a few thousand years ago? Global warming must have been caused by those half ape, half human bonfires.
:huh
Evidence of climate change?
Strip
Again, Strip,you continue to use arguments that can be shot down. We know exactly why the Ice Ages happened and exactly why they stopped. Orbital Mechanics....Milankovitch cycles.
(http://web.viu.ca/earle/geol312/milankovitch.gif)
Using this as an argument against the current thread is logical suicide.... it is already understood. Nobody is denying previous shifts in climate. What they are saying is that there is a current artificial one, since there isn't an explanation in natural variability, and there is a firm understanding in previous CO2 forcing events which occurred naturally. Saying "Well there were glaciers 10,000 years ago....blah blah blah" means absolutely nothing to the discussion. Apples to Oranges.
-
perhaps i'm missing your point, but i fail to see anything illogical about it. would you care to enlighten me?
You state that you think that mankind can affect the planet on a "small scale".....but not on a planet-wide one.
But, that is illogical.
By changing any system on a small scale you invariably change the system as a whole. It is impossible not too.
-
No its not understood, at least not in how it effects the climate and its cycles.
Your argument is based on the idea that the earth is a linear system, cooling and warming proportional to orbit changes. In a complex system like the earth the reality could very well be that there is a delay between cause and effect. Even to the extent that the delay is unequal and changes that occur do so at a variable rate. Until you can tell me that we fully understand that relationship your swimming upstream.
The laws of statistics also dictate that even in simple systems drastic swings can occur even though inputs are relatively stable.
Strip
-
You state that you think that mankind can affect the planet on a "small scale".....but not on a planet-wide one.
But, that is illogical.
By changing any system on a small scale you invariably change the system as a whole. It is impossible not too.
NO....
i stated that we can affect the planet by polluting it. that is a seperate argument. we cannot affect the climate is what i stated.
-
Maybe I am being oversimplistic (Moray, without busting your balls go ahead and explain it) but I look at it like this:
July 15 1942, the lost squadron of P-38's goes down in Greenland
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/upside_down.jpg)
1992 under 268 feet of Snow and Ice pack which had accumulated over the past 50 years recovery begins
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/downunder.jpg)
To where we are today
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/take-off3.jpg)
I don't see the accumulation of 268 foot of ice and snow accumulation in less than 50 years to support "Global Warming"
-
NO....
i stated that we can affect the planet by polluting it. that is a seperate argument. we cannot affect the climate is what i stated.
Can we affect the climate on a small scale? At all?
-
Can we affect the climate on a small scale? At all?
no.
if i'm wrong, please explain?
-
Maybe I am being oversimplistic (Moray, without busting your balls go ahead and explain it) but I look at it like this:
July 15 1942, the lost squadron of P-38's goes down in Greenland
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/upside_down.jpg)
1992 under 268 feet of Snow and Ice pack which had accumulated over the past 50 years recovery begins
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/downunder.jpg)
To where we are today
(http://p38assn.org/images/p38s/gg/take-off3.jpg)
I don't see the accumulation of 268 foot of ice and snow accumulation in less than 50 years to support "Global Warming"
It snows in Greenland. I'm shocked.
The theory is ruined. :lol
(http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2168/2220387/alpine_glacier_diag_tasa.gif)
Snow falls in the interior, forms a glacier pack, and moves. Greenland averaged ~3.0 meters of snow for the period 1940 until 1990(After which it actually increases to around 9.5 meters per year... An effect predicted by climate change, btw). Glacier Girl crash landed on 15 July '42, on an interior shelf in southeast Greenland. It was recovered almost exactly 50 years later. A simple bit of calculations will give you 50 years x 3.0 meters=150 meters accumulate.
450 feet feet of snow, then packed into glacier ice, yields around 300 feet of ice. They pulled it out of 268 feet of ice. Seems about right.
Again, glaciers are bad predictors of climate, until very late in any shift. Their formation depends more upon snowfall than ambient air temps. Recently, it has been shown that Greenland's glaciers are growing at the accumulation field, and melting faster at the ablation zone. The net yield of the glacier may actually shift up due to the increased snowfall, but the amount lost will move up with the increased melt at the ablation zone.
Remember a warmer atmosphere supports more snowfall, as well, because warmer air holds more water (CLIMATE). Local conditions dictate how that water falls...(WEATHER)(Which may be why Greenland has shown an increase in snow for the past two decades.)
-
no.
if i'm wrong, please explain?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/228574 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/228574)
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0603amazondry.html (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0603amazondry.html)
http://www.epa.gov/hiri/ (http://www.epa.gov/hiri/)
All examples of local climate affected by people. Again, if you can affect local climate, affecting global climate is an absolute certainty.
-
It snows in Greenland. I'm shocked.
The theory is ruined. :lol
(http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2168/2220387/alpine_glacier_diag_tasa.gif)
Snow falls in the interior, forms a glacier pack, and moves. Greenland averaged ~3.0 meters of snow for the period 1940 until 1990(After which it actually increases to around 9.5 meters per year... An effect predicted by climate change, btw). Glacier Girl crash landed on 15 July '42, on an interior shelf in southeast Greenland. It was recovered almost exactly 50 years later. A simple bit of calculations will give you 50 years x 3.0 meters=150 meters accumulate.
450 feet feet of snow, then packed into glacier ice, yields around 300 feet of ice. They pulled it out of 268 feet of ice. Seems about right.
Again, glaciers are bad predictors of climate, until very late in any shift. Their formation depends more upon snowfall than ambient air temps. Recently, it has been shown that Greenland's glaciers are growing at the accumulation field, and melting faster at the ablation zone. The net yield of the glacier may actually shift up due to the increased snowfall, but the amount lost will move up with the increased melt at the ablation zone.
THE point is, that it didn't melt. its melting would support global warming. its not melting supports non global warming.
thanks for the links in your other post....i will read them tonight, when i can pay proper attention to them. :aok
-
THE point is, that it didn't melt. its melting would support global warming. its not melting supports non global warming.
thanks for the links in your other post....i will read them tonight, when i can pay proper attention to them. :aok
No, the point is that glaciers don't melt uniformly, no more than an ice cube does. It melts at the edges, and is insulated at the top by solid ice and barely above freezing pools of water, negating surface loss. We are still talking about an area that stays below freezing a majority of the year. (THE INTERIOR OF GREENLAND) Add to that most of it is above 2,000 meters....
In order for something to "melt" something has to remove the cold water away and allow the warm temp to contact the ice surface, otherwise it insulates that surface. This is why an ice cube melts at its' edges...
The melt at the edge has accelerated, as documented by many studies. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/melt2005and1992.5inch.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/&h=1042&w=1500&sz=394&tbnid=C3xVmO6Qqq0b2M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreenland%2Bmelt&usg=__kF3AqMvlG_BGSaz4pjSQhAKbwwQ=&ei=WMFUS5PFHpKXtge04bywCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBQQ9QEwAw (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/melt2005and1992.5inch.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/&h=1042&w=1500&sz=394&tbnid=C3xVmO6Qqq0b2M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreenland%2Bmelt&usg=__kF3AqMvlG_BGSaz4pjSQhAKbwwQ=&ei=WMFUS5PFHpKXtge04bywCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBQQ9QEwAw)
(http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/melt2005and1992.5inch.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cires.colorado.edu/steffen/greenland/melt2005/&h=1042&w=1500&sz=394&tbnid=C3xVmO6Qqq0b2M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreenland%2Bmelt&usg=__kF3AqMvlG_BGSaz4pjSQhAKbwwQ=&ei=WMFUS5PFHpKXtge04bywCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBQQ9QEwAw)
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/vanishing/Images/map1.gif)
Glacier Girl was excavated from a point that still hasn't shown "melt", or was only recently shown to have so (2005), and was still within the accumulation field of the glacier it was encased.
-
Srry my mistake i got a little sloppy. How do you know " a few billion years". and I know what the forensic evidence is. Im just saying you cant test it to make it a quotable fact. We can on faith only guess that our sun will do what we have seen, How many other stars blow up? We darn sure don't know what caused it because you can't test it yet. There is a difference in seeing a spectrograph and being to test that data to make it scientific theory.
Sonicblu, you are an inductive skeptic. Your objection is philosophical, not empirical.
Take a philosophy course that includes David Hume and report back here after you've learned the real deal.
LOL you act like IM the one that doesnt understand what is going on. AH maybe i don't but i think i do :rofl
]
You are partially right. This is what i find interesting is how you try to twist or dont understand it. MY objection is philosophical I never said other wise. . The real question is, objection to what? Which you seem to have missed completely. MY objection was to the logical value of quoted arguements. NOT GLOBAL WARMING. I even stated that earlier you must not have read it.
You want to attack personally but you cant stick to the line of reaoning or wont. Just because i used a keyword "empirical" doesnt mean I am an empiricist. "Faith" is believe in something with out sound proof. or put another faith is the belief in things based on evidence of things not seen. Science does it all the time. We can't see gravity. We can only observe the effects of it. I believe the earth it round Ive never emperically seen it though. Because I believe the forensic data that I have seen. Tell me this, have you made the same decision about the earth being round? How do you know? Don't tell me there is a we bit of faith there. Faith is not blind though.
This includes forensic science. Forensic science attempts to recreate how things happen, but you didnt see happen. We can only look at the evidence. I dont have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with inductive reasoning either. My problem is with HOW it is being used to form poor arguements.
Im saying that I dont accept the quoted "facts" in support of GW. Can I not question these facts. I am in no danger at this point to prove GW false, am I?
Some of what is quoted as a scientific theory is just not. If I am wrong show me.
I do think we all have philosophical objections here and there. Is there something wrong with that? Just because they show me a picture of cowboys on a pack a cigarettes doesn't mean that if I smoke them I'll be a cowboy. Yet that is what they are implying.
Is there truth? If there is, can I know it? If truth does exist, it exists for both of us.
Why would you try to label me inductive skeptic. Part of the problem is we are in what is called violent agrement right now on some things. And we have the nasty habit of not giving up on A or B because it might be a trap and lead to C.
The bottom line on climate change if it is man made. How do you solve it. The deep structure to an argument if favor of man made climate change is who gets to decide how to fix it. then what those fixes might be. Are we going to trust the overlapping global corp govts who created it to solve it?
Im building a home right now that will be off the grid solar powered. I have chosen to make some changes.
However all i hear out of Denmark is genicide and control of the world populations. While world leaders get to fly jets to talk about it.
By the way attacks on my persona just make me yawn.
-
Himalaya most likely without ice by 2035? Perhaps not so likely:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Once again we can thank IPPC for misleading the world with false information and of course without any real scientific research to support the false claims. Looks like they're making up alot of research purely out of their #2.
-
Goes different in Europe though. But while the glaciers there are not big ones, the "hint" is there.
As for Greenland, Moray is dead on there. Has anyone here been there? I have.
-
We know that the hydrosphere makes up part of the climate.
If it does, than we can easily have man-made climate change. All you do is pour fertillzer in. In fact, it is happening today. The effect is increased algal blooms, killing fish by sucking out the oxygen in the water. Your theory of man not being able to change the climate is garbage. And, hint hint, the only way to change the climate is by adding things in or removing them. Right now the latter is nearly impossible.
So this means that we can only change our climate via pollution ( adding things in ). Since I just proved that we can change our climate that way, your argument is bunk.
-
No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)
-
See Rule #4
-
Oh and Moray, I am waiting on your answer to my previous question.
I mean it's not like you are ignoring it as it doesn't suit your agenda, right?
-
We know that the hydrosphere makes up part of the climate.
If it does, than we can easily have man-made climate change. All you do is pour fertillzer in. In fact, it is happening today. The effect is increased algal blooms, killing fish by sucking out the oxygen in the water. Your theory of man not being able to change the climate is garbage. And, hint hint, the only way to change the climate is by adding things in or removing them. Right now the latter is nearly impossible.
So this means that we can only change our climate via pollution ( adding things in ). Since I just proved that we can change our climate that way, your argument is bunk.
you gotta come up with better than that. :aok
-
Hey wanna-be scientist... this might actually help your supposed global warming "theories" (surpressing laughter)
Take a fairly heavy nut. Place it on an ice block. Leave it.
Come back in a day.
What has it done.
Add to that 60 years of sunlight, and you have the reason why the P-38's and 1'17's sank as deep as they did. The crushing was due to movement.
I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.
Penetration depth of sunlight into hard packed snow and ice is about 10 feet....and only if the ice is exceptionally clear. Can you see the ground through 8" of snow? Greenland gets 3 meters a year. 9 ft, for the hard at math. In water, in clear tropical seas, 95% of the light spectrum is absorbed by 30 feet, leaving only the blue wavelength. You're trying to tell me that sunlight pierced hundreds of feet of solid ice and snow, to continually heat an aircraft's surface, and more importantly, it's base, to make it sink 300 feet? Wow, that's rich even for you sir.
Radiant heating of the aluminum bodies stopped within 2 weeks of them being on the ice. Those planes were covered, and thermally equal to the ice within a week or less. In case you're wondering, this is also why Glacier Girl was recovered in such good shape. The paint wasn't bubbled from thermal expansion and contraction of the plane's airframe, as a last negation of your idea.
The only thing you were right about was the moving.... about a mile in 50 years.
-
you gotta come up with better than that. :aok
I would agree with you on our friend the Penguin. Which is why I quoted.
-
Oh and Moray, I am waiting on your answer to my previous question.
I mean it's not like you are ignoring it as it doesn't suit your agenda, right?
I have no agenda. I'm a biologist.
I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.
What was your question, though?
-
What Moray explained is how glaciers work ;)
They're not melting from the top. What is happening is that they are retreating from the bottom. This is easily measured, and ancient movements as well as maxes and minimums are well detectable by the scratches they leave on rocky surface (it even gives the direction) as well as the debris (gravel and such rubble) they push ahead.
Moray, you should see my country. For the geology side it is a paradise!!!!
-
I would agree with you on our friend the Penguin. Which is why I quoted.
Hmm, where'd I go wrong? Come on, no, I'm not wishing that I'm on the other side. Playing this one is far too insteresting and fun!
Moray, your logic rings true.
-Penguin
-
No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
Jascha Heifetz (1901 - 1987)
Ain't that the truth.
Even at the office..... Trying to prove a point, only to be seconded by a well known numbskull. Yeah, that helped.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have no agenda. I'm a biologist.
I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.
What was your question, though?
we do need to be careful. there's generally some good conversation going on here.....but there have been a few personal attacks too, and i've noticed in some other threads, that skuzzy seems to be getting a little pissed at the overall childishness that we all manage to show at times.
it would be a a shame to have this thread locked due to something as simple and childish as name calling.........
-
I'm sorry, but you are very wrong.
Penetration depth of sunlight into hard packed snow and ice is about 10 feet....and only if the ice is exceptionally clear. Can you see the ground through 8" of snow? Greenland gets 3 meters a year. 9 ft, for the hard at math. In water, in clear tropical seas, 95% of the light spectrum is absorbed by 30 feet, leaving only the blue wavelength. You're trying to tell me that sunlight pierced hundreds of feet of solid ice and snow, to continually heat an aircraft's surface, and more importantly, it's base, to make it sink 300 feet? Wow, that's rich even for you sir.
Radiant heating of the aluminum bodies stopped within 2 weeks of them being on the ice. Those planes were covered, and thermally equal to the ice within a week or less. In case you're wondering, this is also why Glacier Girl was recovered in such good shape. The paint wasn't bubbled from thermal expansion and contraction of the plane's airframe, as a last negation of your idea.
The only thing you were right about was the moving.... about a mile in 50 years.
Actually, you are wrong. I know it is hard for you, but, you missed the entire premise of what I was saying with regards to the nut and weight. Those birds sank as far as they did because of their weight. They weren't built up on by 250 feet of snow.
-
I have no agenda. I'm a biologist.
I would say your persistent attacks upon me betray the fact that you have an agenda.
What was your question, though?
I don't attack you, I state the obvious kiddo. You are backing junk science with a show of hands. I stated the CRU's nonsense completely ruins the current thinking of GW as a whole. Their data was what the goracle was using, the UN, and the US. They lied and fabricated data as well as conspiring to cover it up.
Man made global warming is a farce. The earth warms and cools in cycles.
-
This thread has gone in more circles than a NASCAR race car on a Sunday afternoon. :D
-
This thread has gone in more circles than a NASCAR race car on a Sunday afternoon. :D
Spun by those that refuse to answer questions posed to them. So be it.
-
Actually, you are wrong. I know it is hard for you, but, you missed the entire premise of what I was saying with regards to the nut and weight. Those birds sank as far as they did because of their weight. They weren't built up on by 250 feet of snow.
Sir, if that were true, the engine blocks would have folded the entire structure on itself, because they are the heaviest points on any airframe. In fighters, the engines were usually 60% or more of the weight of the plane.
The wing tips would have folded over top, because they are the lightest, along with the tail. On a P-38, the fuselage would have bent at the connections to both engine blocks, because the cockpit is far lighter than either engine. At the very least, some rivets would have popped at the wingspar...
Nothing of the sort happened.
Snow piled up and became ice, entombing those planes, and moving them almost 2 miles.....exactly what happens in a glacier, due to it's fluidity.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_p6kkwQdT49Q/SwsUPsu0rnI/AAAAAAAAAFA/bvcibWKnkyk/s400/glacier_girl.jpg)
By your estimation, then, the two B17's should be further under the ice, due to it's higher weight. Nope. It's in exactly the same place it was relative to Glacier Girl, and covered by exactly the same amount of ice. Objects don't "free fall" through solids.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/FEATURE-glaciergirl-backstory.html?c=y&page=4 (http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/FEATURE-glaciergirl-backstory.html?c=y&page=4)
Within days, the radar teams had pinpointed the exact location of all eight airplanes. And it immediately became obvious why they hadn’t been located earlier. The shifting ice had carried the airplanes about two miles from their original location. And a high-pressure steam probe revealed that they lay beneath 264 feet of solid ice.
You are completely wrong.
-
Spun by those that refuse to answer questions posed to them. So be it.
AGAIN, what is your question?
and AGAIN, I'm a biologist.... my work is completely separate from any of this. Please cease your personal attacks on me, NOW.
-
Wednesday and early Thursday had the most solar activity in the whole of 24 Cycle.
4 M class flares, with the largest an M 3.4. A ton of C class flares... Solar wind pushed up into the 500 km/s-1 range.
We can say with certainty the mysteriously extended 24 month slumber of minimum is over. The sun is awake again. It generally takes a year or two to move back up into historical norms for each 11 year cycle..... I suppose we'll find out more of what's really going on then.
Someone who knows much more than me about all this said this to me... "2013 is going to be interesting here on earth." She feels this extended minima in between cycles has masked a lot of things that are going on. I hope she isn't right, honestly.
-
Wednesday and early Thursday had the most solar activity in the whole of 24 Cycle.
4 M class flares, with the largest an M 3.4. A ton of C class flares... Solar wind pushed up into the 500 km/s-1 range.
We can say with certainty the mysteriously extended 24 month slumber of minimum is over. The sun is awake again. It generally takes a year or two to move back up into historical norms for each 11 year cycle..... I suppose we'll find out more of what's really going on then.
Someone who knows much more than me about all this said this to me... "2013 is going to be interesting here on earth." She feels this extended minima in between cycles has masked a lot of things that are going on. I hope she isn't right, honestly.
and coincindentially, at least in my area, it's much warmer than the last few weeks. couple days, it was in the 50's. monday is supposed to be in the 60's, then cold again i think.
so once again, it comes down to the sun. :aok
-
and coincindentially, at least in my area, it's much warmer than the last few weeks. couple days, it was in the 50's. monday is supposed to be in the 60's, then cold again i think.
so once again, it comes down to the sun. :aok
CAP, the sun supplies every watt of power to the planet. It does come down to the sun, but it is magnified by the atmosphere around the planet.
But, again, you are confusing weather with climate.
The solar flux has just barely moved past the lowest part of minima. Today it's at 80.6.
As you can see, the average is much higher. As you can see the sun spends a majority of its' time way above a flux of 100, averaging roughly around 160, and going up into the high 200's.
(http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/FLUX/image/pentflux.gif)
Tied into Solar Irradiance. (how much energy the earth receives)
(http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/d0d214608/en/fixed/470/312/Solar-cycle-data.png?format=jpg,png,gif)
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg)
If you spend some time thinking about it, you'll realize why people are a bit pessimistic about temperatures, when you're seeing 50's and 60's in January, now. We are way under average solar flux.... but the total irradiance isn't shifting. This means that the energy the sun puts out isn't changing outside of normal parameters observed. But global mean temperature HAS. If the energy average coming into the system doesn't change, but the system does trend in either direction, it's the system that is causing the trend. General lab science.
You should see temp following flux, in short. You don't. You can see the bounce in temperature when the flux is high and low (note the peaks in temp in 1980, 90, 2000, when flux was highest), but the fact remains it trends up in the long term.... This is indicative of a system retaining energy.
-
Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!
Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down? Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.
If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.
Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment. You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?
-Penguin
-
Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!
Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down? Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.
If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.
Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment. You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?
-Penguin
Does anyone else believe that I was referring to Penguin with my comment: "Even at the office..... Trying to prove a point, only to be seconded by a well known numbskull. Yeah, that helped."
Does Penguin work in my Engineering office? No.
Frankly Penguin, if you had Bill Gates' fortune, you would still be 50 cents short of a clue.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Oops!
I just put two and two together, remembering the "Junior" joke. Ah well, if you wrestle in the mud, you're gonna get dirty.
But anyway...
I'm waiting for your response to my argument.
-Penguin
-
Correct, and not only that, the nut and ice cube weren't to scale either, that would be like dropping France on Greenland!
Now here's the question, we have always retained some energy in the atmosphere (wouldn't be here otherwise due to temperature swings), but has the capacity gone up or down? Answer this correctly and we can completely prove either side.
If the capacity has gone up, you can see it's man-made.
Widewing, I didn't appreciate that "numbskull" comment. You wouldn't want Skuzzy to shut this down before you could prove your point would you?
-Penguin
if i'm thinking correctly, the earth's atmosphere will radiate heat out into space. for something to prevent this, it needs to insulate in the upper atmosphere. co2 is heavier than air, so this isn't gonna do that.
-
(http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/d0d214608/en/fixed/470/312/Solar-cycle-data.png?format=jpg,png,gif)
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig1.jpg)
This is indicative of a system retaining energy.
Your conclusion may be correct if the data used to create the graphs wasn't cooked . . . but it is.
That's what started the thread in the first place, remember? Climate scientists falsifying data? Remember?
Hello?
-
Your conclusion may be correct if the data used to create the graphs wasn't cooked . . . but it is.
That's what started the thread in the first place, remember? Climate scientists falsifying data? Remember?
Hello?
Or, dimwitted IPCC members who can't read...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_un_climate_change (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_un_climate_change)
My regards,
Widewing
-
See Rule #4
-
AGAIN, what is your question?
and AGAIN, I'm a biologist.... my work is completely separate from any of this. Please cease your personal attacks on me, NOW.
Again kiddo, I have repeatedly asked you why you are amongst a show of hands in science saying man-made global warming is real amidst a fraud of epic proportions perpetrated by those at the CRU as well as the UN, and our own Government. Why are the flawed and "proven" wrong numbers still being circulated as "proof" of man-made global warming? It's a lie.
I am a business man. I make money in a lot of different ventures. Why is it that the floor is falling out of the man made global warming technology and investment is the goreacle credits? Why? Because it was a freaking sham. Carbon credits are yet another sham. Just big rich guys with an idea to make more billions.
-
if i'm thinking correctly, the earth's atmosphere will radiate heat out into space. for something to prevent this, it needs to insulate in the upper atmosphere. co2 is heavier than air, so this isn't gonna do that.
This was brought up much, much earlier in the thread. By your reasoning, the atmosphere should consist of layers of gases, with the heaviest gasses on the surface. Clearly, this is not the case.
The masses of molecules like O2 and CO2 are so negligibly small that the ideal gas law doesn't even take them into account.
-
This was brought up much, much earlier in the thread. By your reasoning, the atmosphere should consist of layers of gases, with the heaviest gasses on the surface. Clearly, this is not the case.
The masses of molecules like O2 and CO2 are so negligibly small that the ideal gas law doesn't even take them into account.
you're right. i think it might even have been me that brought this up before.
when thedifferent gases are dissolved together, they float somewhat the same in the atmosphere.
when we put out gases in excess, which is what is claimed(now) to be the cause of the (so called) warming, they aren't dissolved.
as in the co2 that is suddenly a pollutant. they say the co2 rises up into the upper atmosphere and "insulates" the planet, preventing the heat within the atmosphere from radiationg out into space.
that's where i was headed......co2 as put out by us, will simply settle in low, plankton, and plants will breath well(they like co2), and in return, give us more 02. :aok
-
Kiddo, you really need to learn physics beyond individual component weights.
Seriously? Exactly where do you think you can refer to me in that way? Kiddo?
-
See Rule #4
-
Page 75 is just around the corner!
-
spin away moray....
How is a weight going to fall away on a well supported structure that has a large amount of counter for it to fall as well as support underneath in the form of a melting barrier?
Back to the question spinmaster.... why are you supporting the man-made global warming theory when it is backed by a show of hands following junk science?
Spinmaster? Seriously...either act like an adult or just cease posting. I've treated you with respect... either do the same or LEAVE.
Look up exactly what you're trying to prove (planes sinking through 300 feet of ice) and THEN tell me why it, pardon the pun, "holds no weight". Please at least attempt to find something scientific.
As for your question....It isn't a show of hands, BTW. It's multiple independent, reproducible studies from multiple disciplines that support the general theory.
That isn't a show of hands.... that's objective experimental result.
-
Page 75 is just around the corner!
if these guys keep going at each other personally like htis, we may not make 75
-
if these guys keep going at each other personally like htis, we may not make 75
I've been warned by "the boss" not to reply in kind to personal attacks.
Which is why I'm not.
This is all one-sided.
-
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig5.jpg)
NASA/HADCRUT Temp anomalies.
Discuss.
-
They are nice graphs. I might frame them and hang them on the wall because quite frankly without commentary they are mostly meaningless and in any case simply represent the weather last year.
This I came across elsewhere and is interesting on a number or levels in that it addresses many of the skeptic points, although described here as 'denialists' in the usual perjorative style. It's an almost tacit acceptence that there are massive holes in the science. That it's far from settled. It is self justifying of course "But this climate of suspicion we're working in is insane. It's really drowning our ability to soberly communicate gaps in our science when some people cry 'fraud' and 'misconduct' for the slightest reasons."
The 'slightest of reasons' that's a laugh. Either science stands or falls on it's own merits or it doesn't. If a scientist cannot soberly communicate the gaps in the science then maybe they should consider another career. The problem is that they are not communicating the gaps. Worse as we found they are covering them up.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html
Hopefully this is the start of a new more sober debate about the subject.
-
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig5.jpg)
NASA/HADCRUT Temp anomalies.
Discuss.
Are these the variations before or after they threw out measurements they didn't like?
-
quote:"But this climate of suspicion we're working in is insane. It's really drowning our ability to soberly communicate gaps in our science when some people cry 'fraud' and 'misconduct' for the slightest reasons."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html
Hopefully this is the start of a new more sober debate about the subject.
The climate of suspicion that is drowning their ability to communicate gaps their science, is a result of their own doing.
Other branches of science tend to be much more cautious with their results and emphasize the uncertainties. In particular, one does not go out with sensational press releases about the world's end before you are sure of it. An incredible amount of bad science or good science but with sensationalism of the results has been released into our lives, to the point that this branch of science is loosing its credibility. A great part of the uproar from scientists that oppose man-made global something theories is not that the theories are wrong, but that they are so uncertain and weak that aggressively marketing them to the public is irresponsible and will discredit science as a whole.
They have set wheels into motion that have so much momentum they are going to be hard to stop or even redirect if needed. Billions are spent on reducing CO2 emission that will have the same effect on the environment as preventing the public at the beach from peeing into the ocean. Sure it is cleaner, but is it worth the effort? Products are sold with "reduced CO2" labels and sold to concerned public. Politicians build careers over these issues. This is not something you can one day come and say "OK, we have better models/measurements now and you don't have to do this anymore - CO2 is not that bad / climate is not drastically changing / climate change is not man made", the public will nod and say "thank you" and everything will go back to what it used to be.
-
Exactly Bozon, no other branch of science generates so much skepticism. Not least because of the way it's publicised. They only have themselves to blame with their end of the world as we know it 'conclusions'. Even if I wasn't skeptical. I would be frustrated with the sensationalist way this has been rolled out to the public.
All we really know now is that Earth may or may not be warming and it may or may not be causing by human emissions. On that basis we are all supposed to change our lives. Sometimes drastically.
Science, what science. It's more like religion.
-
But...but...but scientists are members of an apolitical high priesthood dedicated only to the truth. The idea that a group of them with a vested interest would promulgate tendentious results is rediculous.
-
Spinmaster? Seriously...either act like an adult or just cease posting. I've treated you with respect... either do the same or LEAVE.
Look up exactly what you're trying to prove (planes sinking through 300 feet of ice) and THEN tell me why it, pardon the pun, "holds no weight". Please at least attempt to find something scientific.
As for your question....It isn't a show of hands, BTW. It's multiple independent, reproducible studies from multiple disciplines that support the general theory.
That isn't a show of hands.... that's objective experimental result.
You are spinning and refusing to answer the question, because you know you are wrong. Talk about whining? You're the king of it, and every one here knows it. As for those '38's sinking in ice.... take a block of ice, place a nut on it and watch. You might be amazed.
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
-
You are spinning and refusing to answer the question, because you know you are wrong. Talk about whining? You're the king of it, and every one here knows it. As for those '38's sinking in ice.... take a block of ice, place a nut on it and watch. You might be amazed.
Good examples of this phenomenon can be found in areas of very high precipitation, such as the more coastal regions of Greenland. It was in this area, 17 miles off the east coast of Greenland, that Bob Cardin and other members of his squadron had to ditch their six P-38’s and two B-17’s when they ran out of gas in 1942 - the height of WWII. Many years later, in 1981, several members of this original squad decided to see if they could recover their aircraft. They flew back to the spot in Greenland where they thought they would find their planes buried under a few feet of snow. To their surprise, there was nothing there. Not even metal detectors found anything. After many years of searching, with better detection equipment, they finally found the airplanes in 1988 three miles from their original location and under approximately 260 feet of ice! They went on to actually recovered one of them (“Glacier Girl” – a P38), which was eventually restored to her former glory.20
What is most interesting about this story, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the depth at which the planes were found (as well as the speed which the glacier moved). It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move them some 3 miles from their original location. This translates into a little over 5 ½ feet (~1.7 meters) of ice or around 17 feet (~5 meters) of compact snow per year and about 100 meters of movement per year. In a telephone interview, Bob Cardin was asked how many layers of ice were above the recovered airplane. He responded by saying, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.” When told that each layer was supposed to represent one year of time, Bob said, “That is impossible! Each of those layers is a different warm spell – warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold.” 21 Also, the planes did not sink in the ice over time as some have suggested. Their density was less than the ice or snow since they were not filled with the snow, but remained hollow. They were in fact buried by the annual snowfall over the course of almost 50 years.
Now obviously, this example does not reflect the actual climate of central Greenland or of central Antarctica. As a coastal region, it is exposed to a great deal more storms and other sub-annual events that produce the 17 feet of annual snow per year. However, even now, large snowstorms also drift over central Greenland. And, in the fairly recent warm Hipsithermal period (~4 degrees warmer than today) the precipitation over central Greenland, and even Antarctica, was most likely much greater than it is today. So, how do scientists distinguish between annual layers and sub-annual layers? Visual methods, by themselves, seem rather limited – especially as the ice layers get thinner and thinner as one progresses down the column of ice.
Density. Look into it.
Hint: Start between your ears.
(A plane will float until it fills with water. Ice cannot "fill" a plane. Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow. A bolt (edit: NUT), however is not hollow. It is solid metal. It sinks. If this principle did not exist, ships wouldn't float. They weigh a lot, you know.)
-
Density. Look into it.
Hint: Start between your ears.
(A plane will float until it fills with water. Ice cannot "fill" a plane. Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow. A bolt, however is not hollow.)
NOT that i should do this.....but he said a nut, not a bolt. :noid
-
NOT that i should do this.....but he said a nut, not a bolt. :noid
Lol. Nice! Corrected for truth.
-
Density. Look into it.
Hint: Start between your ears.
(A plane will float until it fills with water. Ice cannot "fill" a plane. Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow. A bolt (edit: NUT), however is not hollow. It is solid metal. It sinks. If this principle did not exist, ships wouldn't float. They weigh a lot, you know.)
Spin spin spin.... FYI, Glacier Girl had a significant amount of ice in her. The wings were so bad to be mostly unusable, which is why there are L model wings on her (albeit reskinned over the fuel panel).
Let's try this again.
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
-
Spin spin spin.... FYI, Glacier Girl had a significant amount of ice in her. The wings were so bad to be mostly unusable, which is why there are L model wings on her (albeit reskinned over the fuel panel).
Let's try this again.
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
Don't attempt to sidestep the fact you were wrong. Just be a man and admit it. There's no spin. It's simple physics. Planes cannot sink through solid ice, as you say they can. They are simply do not have high enough density overall. You're wrong, and I've put up repeated facts to illustrate how. They were covered by 50 years of snow. As a matter of fact, I've seen a few pages of postulates that try and figure out the amount of buoyancy a -38 would have over ice, as I attempted to research your farcical claim. (there are actually some that have evidence it was shallower than it should have been, at least by the math)
I've also read over Cardin's letters from the recovery. The plane was still sealed and wasn't rusted, interior portions of the plane were completely ice free. The cockpit was sealed, and still held the pilot's tin of chewing tobacco, along with the keys. The pilot's Flak helmet was found in the ice next to the plane, exactly where he left it. The fact remains that unless the entire structure of the plane is filled and frozen, it simply isn't dense enough to move through the medium, as it is still hollow. It's simple. Like a ship sinking.
Once you prove adult enough to admit you were wrong, or provide a speck of evidence supporting your contention, there is absolutely no need to address anything else. Prove that a plane can sink through ice. Go for it. We watch with amusement.
You don't have a leg to stand on sir.
-
all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane
perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm
if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?
not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed
maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming
-
all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane
perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm
if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?
not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed
maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming
Lol.
-
You are spinning and refusing to answer the question, because you know you are wrong. Talk about whining? You're the king of it, and every one here knows it. As for those '38's sinking in ice.... take a block of ice, place a nut on it and watch. You might be amazed.
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null. You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B. You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded. Prove your premise!
Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Don't attempt to sidestep the fact you were wrong. Just be a man and admit it. There's no spin. It's simple physics. Planes cannot sink through solid ice, as you say they can. They are simply do not have high enough density overall. You're wrong, and I've put up repeated facts to illustrate how. They were covered by 50 years of snow. As a matter of fact, I've seen a few pages of postulates that try and figure out the amount of buoyancy a -38 would have over ice, as I attempted to research your farcical claim. (there are actually some that have evidence it was shallower than it should have been, at least by the math)
I've also read over Cardin's letters from the recovery. The plane was still sealed and wasn't rusted, interior portions of the plane were completely ice free. The cockpit was sealed, and still held the pilot's tin of chewing tobacco, along with the keys. The pilot's Flak helmet was found in the ice next to the plane, exactly where he left it. The fact remains that unless the entire structure of the plane is filled and frozen, it simply isn't dense enough to move through the medium, as it is still hollow. It's simple. Like a ship sinking.
Once you prove adult enough to admit you were wrong, or provide a speck of evidence supporting your contention, there is absolutely no need to address anything else. Prove that a plane can sink through ice. Go for it. We watch with amusement.
You don't have a leg to stand on sir.
I am not wrong about a weight sinking into the ice. It is a fact.
Gonna spin away on the rest just like I expected. Not a surprise Moray. It really isn't. Talk about adults.... lol
-
Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null. You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B. You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded. Prove your premise!
Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-Penguin
How is it wrong? A weight does sink into the ice. The second point is what this thread is all about. The GG issue is never going to go get anywhere.
-
Check the first part of that argument you made a few pages back. You'll see that since that you think is A is wrong, that you think that B is right even without evidence, premise unfounded, point unfounded, argument moot.
-Penguin
-
How is it wrong? A weight does sink into the ice. The second point is what this thread is all about. The GG issue is never going to go get anywhere.
I have told you repeatedly how it is wrong.
The same principle that keeps ships afloat. Or an aircraft that crash lands in water, until that water enters its' hull. Or an aircraft that lands in oil... or ice.
Until the hollow parts of it are filled, it is less dense than the surroundings. Besides the fact ice is already a solid and resists, and cannot fill those hollow parts....
I'll make it in crayon for you.
(http://www.sharky-jones.com/Sharkyjones/Artwork/bouyancy1.jpg)
Anax, wherever you are... please explain to this gentleman.
-
What kind of a nut? Like the really fast ones on the road?
:neener:
Anyway, Moray has a point.
-Penguin
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Hide the decline :rofl :rofl :aok
Note the Christmas Tree at the end.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Hide the decline :rofl :rofl :aok
Note the Christmas Tree at the end.
Now that there is funny...I don't care who you are. :cheers: :D
Regards,
Sun
-
Check the first part of that argument you made a few pages back. You'll see that since that you think is A is wrong, that you think that B is right even without evidence, premise unfounded, point unfounded, argument moot.
-Penguin
You really need to cite what you think is a false dichotomy. I've seen too much flaming in this thread to be able to pick it out as well as you can.
-
Interesting new info on the melting Himalayan glaciers debacle. Does this mean now that the IPCC will have to give back the Nobel Peace Prize won by this report?
Sun
UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
-
The glacier fiasco is a nice example of the citation fetish of Academia, where throwing as many citations as possible into a paper is recommended for "good scholarship."
-
I have told you repeatedly how it is wrong.
The same principle that keeps ships afloat. Or an aircraft that crash lands in water, until that water enters its' hull. Or an aircraft that lands in oil... or ice.
Until the hollow parts of it are filled, it is less dense than the surroundings. Besides the fact ice is already a solid and resists, and cannot fill those hollow parts....
I'll make it in crayon for you.
(http://www.sharky-jones.com/Sharkyjones/Artwork/bouyancy1.jpg)
Anax, wherever you are... please explain to this gentleman.
You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float. The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not. Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately.
Weights will sink in ice. That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet. Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth.
Back to the original portion of the discussion. Care to keep spinning away?
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
-
You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float. The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not. Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately.
Weights will sink in ice. That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet. Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth.
Back to the original portion of the discussion. Care to keep spinning away?
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
There's not much of a point, all I see is a contradiction.
all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane
perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm
if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?
not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed
maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming
The increase in surface area is negligible. It would be like tapping an icecube with a pediatric hypodermic needle.
You really need to cite what you think is a false dichotomy. I've seen too much flaming in this thread to be able to pick it out as well as you can.
That argument seems to be a non-sequitur, the amount of flaming doesn't affect whether a piece of logic works or not. I might be wrong, so please elaborate so that I can understand.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-
Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null. You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B. You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded. Prove your premise!
Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.
-Penguin
-Penguin
-Penguin
dude.......trying to simply tell someone they're wrong, with no real context won't get ya anywhere.
-
dude.......trying to simply tell someone they're wrong, with no real context won't get ya anywhere.
Exactly.
And Penguin, obviously flaming is not argument. I was simply pointing out that flaming makes it difficult to follow an argument, if there is one there to follow.
-
You are assuming that the 38 was buoyant enough to float. The weight of the aircraft alone ensures that it is not. Look in the ditching procedures where it very clearly tells you that the aircraft will submerge, immediately.
Weights will sink in ice. That is part of why GG was at 260ish feet. Add to that snow turning to ice, and there is the depth.
The weight of this ensures it will sink.
(http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/539w.jpg)
It doesn't.
Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in. Pure simple science.
-
The weight of this ensures it will sink.
(http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/539w.jpg)
It doesn't.
Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in. Pure simple science.
it's a different design.
boats are designed to float. airplanes aren't.
for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.
aircraft are not designed this way.
in all actuality, though, i didn't really think that the lost squadron sunk.....i honestly thought it was precipitation causing a buildup of snow and then ice.
i could be wrong though.
but once again, my point is/was, that if the temp were raising so significantly, then that ice would never have been able to form.
assuming these aircraft sunk.......then if it were raising, then there would've been no ice for them to sink into, as it would've melted, or at very least, decreased to the point that they'd have still been closer to the surface.
-
for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.
Yes it does. Boats do not float on water like paperclips.
-
it's a different design.
boats are designed to float. airplanes aren't.
for all intents and purposes, that ship you pictured, is merely a shell, and it never really breaks the surface tension of the water.
aircraft are not designed this way.
in all actuality, though, i didn't really think that the lost squadron sunk.....i honestly thought it was precipitation causing a buildup of snow and then ice.
i could be wrong though.
but once again, my point is/was, that if the temp were raising so significantly, then that ice would never have been able to form.
assuming these aircraft sunk.......then if it were raising, then there would've been no ice for them to sink into, as it would've melted, or at very least, decreased to the point that they'd have still been closer to the surface.
Throws hands up in the air and walks away.
Without a mutual understanding of basic science, how can a meaningful discourse related to as complex subject as climate change go anywhere?
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39168000/jpg/_39168921_logging_river203body.jpg)
Many objects not designed to... but floating.
Secondarily, ice is a solid.
The reason a nut sinks into ice is due to heating of the nut, which melts into the ice. The nut has higher density than the liquid water, and sinks. Once the albedo is equalized and the nut no longer gets heated from the sun, it freezes in place. (Usually, about an inch)
(If a surface is perfectly absorbing, none of the sunlight is reflected, it looks black, and the albedo is 0. If a surface is perfectly reflecting, it reflects all the sunlight, it looks white and has an albedo of 1. Melting snow has an albedo of .70 meaning 70% of energy is reflected. Iron and steel are considerably lower, and absorb incoming radiation)
Put the nut and ice in the freezer. It stops sinking.
To think any meaningful solar radiation would penetrate and heat any object encased in ice, past the freezing point after more than even a few feet is absolutely ludicrous, and defies logical scientific reasoning.
Let alone, down to 268 feet.
-
So here's NASA GISS average for the past ten years, which came out on the 21st.
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/10year.gif)
Obviously, it shows the degree anomaly in Celsius versus the previous 30 years.
Data Details
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.
Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre, based in the United Kingdom, uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, where monitoring stations are sparse.
In contrast, the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas. If GISS didn't extrapolate in this manner, the software that performs the analysis would assume that areas without monitoring stations warm at the same rate as the global mean, an assumption that doesn't line up with changes that satellites have observed in Arctic sea ice, Schmidt explained. Although the two methods produce slightly different results in the annual rankings, the decade-long trends in the two records are essentially identical.
-
Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.
But how is an attack on logic "flaming"? If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike! It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point. The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).
-Penguin
-
Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.
But how is an attack on logic "flaming"? If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike! It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point. The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).
-Penguin
Penguin,
It's a discussion not an attack, even though at times it may seem as a brawl.
Besides, you countered his null with your own null. Neither one of you provided a single ounce of justification for your point. If you have a debate point, you must find evidence from good source matter, and use it. I'm sure you notice, I've barely ever posted without something to reinforce my statement.
The bottom line, is all you can hope to do is get someone to think about a subject, not change his or her mind. They will do that on their own. If someone like CAP1 is respectful (and CAP is very respectful), there is absolutely no reason to treat him in any way but respectfully. People can disagree and debate, it is the nature of the species.
The second you lose respect for your opponent, you have lost, in whatever endeavor you choose. In Bodhi's case, he's already formed an opinion of me based on what little he knows of me. He probably doesn't even realize we winged up five or six times in the past month in game.
C' est l'vie.
-
Oops, yeah, I forgot to quote, my bad.
But how is an attack on logic "flaming"? If his foundation is not solid that is where one must strike! It's the logic of maximum strength against weakest point. The attack was at CAP1, not Moray (not trying to have friendly fire).
-Penguin
you should be studying, rather than trying to attack. there should be no attacks in here as it is..........
-
The weight of this ensures it will sink.
(http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/539w.jpg)
It doesn't.
Weight has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
An object cannot sink through any medium until its' density becomes higher than the medium it rests in. Pure simple science.
It most certainly does when you describe buoyancy. The P-38, WILL NOT FLOAT in the water. It sinks, immediately. It has no positive buoyancy after teh net of the airframe is totaled. The ship you showed, is designed to float, not fly. The comparison you tried has absolutely NO comparable aspects. The P-38's in Greenland most certainly sank in the ice owing to their weight as well as had years of snow pile up and add to the ice on top. You are really being silly at this point.
Let also try this again as your spin away from the topic is ruining this thread... Again I am asking you to address this:
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
-
Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.
Scientific dishonesty in support of AGW does not earn you the conclusion that AGW is not happening, unless you simply stipulate it as you do in italics. If you're going to offer "proof" for a claim, don't restate the claim as part of your proof.
P1. the CRU was modifying their numbers to support climate change
P2. climate change was not actually happening
C. Man made global warming is not happening.
Without P2, your argument is invalid. With P2, your argument is vacuous.
-
It most certainly does when you describe buoyancy. The P-38, WILL NOT FLOAT in the water. It sinks, immediately. It has no positive buoyancy after teh net of the airframe is totaled. The ship you showed, is designed to float, not fly. The comparison you tried has absolutely NO comparable aspects. The P-38's in Greenland most certainly sank in the ice owing to their weight as well as had years of snow pile up and add to the ice on top. You are really being silly at this point.
So you claim a P38 can't float in water...
But this can?
(http://online.wsj.com/media/plane_D_20090226161924.jpg)
Until filled with water, of course. (When its density is then higher than water)
-
Back to the issue that you refuse to address... Man made global warming is not happening. Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening. Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history. It is all about money and control. Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them. Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.
You can't prove your point by restating that point as evidence, Bodhi.
Massaging data does not negate the claim. Your claim is "AGW isn't happening". This isn't supported by "CRU massaged data". Massaging data doesn't prove or disprove a thing. It simply proves that data trends were smoothed.
*EDIT* I just saw Anax's post and he did a much better job describing where your logic is flawed. Credit to him.
-
So you claim a P38 can't float in water...
But this can?
Until filled with water, of course. (When its density is then higher than water)
I'd say P38 fills up with water much faster than the Airbus, since P38 isn't pressurized. It might be too heavy as well unlike the long empty tube.
-
I'd say P38 fills up with water much faster than the Airbus, since P38 isn't pressurized. It might be too heavy as well unlike the long empty tube.
That's funny, because all the doors are open.
So, you'd say something like Bodhi, that makes no sense logically or intuitively.
And,
A320 weights. (One long empty tube)
Standard max takeoff for both versions 73,500kg (162,040lb) or optionally 75,500kg (166,445lb) or 77,000kg (169,755lb).
P38 weight (2 Long empty tubes, with a third, mostly empty tube in between)
Weight: Empty 12,800 lbs., Max Takeoff 21,600 lbs
Both will float, until they fill with water, and become more dense than the water they rest upon.
-
That's funny, because all the doors are open.
So, you'd say something like Bodhi, that makes no sense logically or intuitively.
The cargo/baggage compartment is closed and sealed. The rear cabin door was mistakenly opened and that rapidly flooded the cabin.
Commercial airliners are designed with lots of flotation built in. If the fuselage is intact, they will float long enough to evacuate the cabin. A P-38, on the other hand, will sink like a brick. Ever see that film of that F6F ditching alongside its carrier. It sank within 30 seconds. B-24 crews were instructed to bail out rather than ditch. The fuselage would rupture and the big bomber would sink in seconds. Most crew members didn't survive B-24 ditches. B-17s, however, did much better with their low wing and being less prone to the fuselage being shredded on contact with the sea.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The cargo/baggage compartment is closed and sealed. The rear cabin door was mistakenly opened and that rapidly flooded the cabin.
Commercial airliners are designed with lots of flotation built in. If the fuselage is intact, they will float long enough to evacuate the cabin. A P-38, on the other hand, will sink like a brick. Ever see that film of that F6F ditching alongside its carrier. It sank within 30 seconds. B-24 crews were instructed to bail out rather than ditch. The fuselage would rupture and the big bomber would sink in seconds. Most crew members didn't survive B-24 ditches. B-17s, however, did much better with their low wing and being less prone to the fuselage being shredded on contact with the sea.
My regards,
Widewing
Wide, I'm incredulous that an engineer wouldn't shoot down this incredible stupidity.
Flotation and Buoyancy are basic scientific principles, all hinged upon density.
That F6 floated until it filled with water. That is the point. It didn't sink like a brick. A brick has more density than water. The F6 did not, until filled with water. It can't be anymore basic than that. 5th grade science students get this correct.
(http://www.lulworthcovebedandbreakfast.com/images/dorset/bovington-tank-museum/100.jpg)
Which is why this worked at all.
http://www.nwrain.com/~newtsuit/recoveries/p-38/p38ditch.htm (http://www.nwrain.com/~newtsuit/recoveries/p-38/p38ditch.htm)
I especially like the picture at the bottom of this link. It shows a picture of a ditched P38, albeit from recollection of those involved in Alaska.
-
Yes it does. Boats do not float on water like paperclips.
:-)
paperclips don't float(at least i don't think they do)
boats, due to their shape, and the fact that they're pretty much hollow, displace or move water as they settle into it. i believe that's how they're rated? in tons of displacement?
although they've sunk partly into the water, i believe they've not really broken the surface tension. i could be wrong though/
-
So you claim a P38 can't float in water...
But this can?
(http://online.wsj.com/media/plane_D_20090226161924.jpg)
Until filled with water, of course. (When its density is then higher than water)
i believe that due to the fact that the airbus is mostly hollow, to carry passengers and cargo/luggage, that it is much more bouyant than a p-38, which contains one tiny hollow area for the pilot.
-
:-)
paperclips don't float(at least i don't think they do)
boats, due to their shape, and the fact that they're pretty much hollow, displace or move water as they settle into it. i believe that's how they're rated? in tons of displacement?
although they've sunk partly into the water, i believe they've not really broken the surface tension. i could be wrong though/
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Water_surface_tension_2.jpg)
Paperclips distribute their weight to the extent that they don't break the surface tension of H2O molecules. And you are wrong, I'm sorry. Surface tension is only the first layer of molecules. A boat's hull most certainly goes through it.
If you push paperclip through this layer, it sinks. It has a higher density.
A boat, has less density than water, and is pushed back up.
-
i believe that due to the fact that the airbus is mostly hollow, to carry passengers and cargo/luggage, that it is much more bouyant than a p-38, which contains one tiny hollow area for the pilot.
And two long hollow tubes for the tail.
And two more for the wings.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/P-38-1.jpg)
-
You can't prove your point by restating that point as evidence, Bodhi.
Massaging data does not negate the claim. Your claim is "AGW isn't happening". This isn't supported by "CRU massaged data". Massaging data doesn't prove or disprove a thing. It simply proves that data trends were smoothed.
*EDIT* I just saw Anax's post and he did a much better job describing where your logic is flawed. Credit to him.
massaging the information doesn't negate the claim..this is very very true.
what id DOES do, however, is cast serious doubt on the validity of anything at all put forth by those that did it. when it comes right down to it, massaging it, is lieing.
there may be some in those groups that didn't lie, massage any info, or do anything wrong.....but they are also guilty now, by association.
-
Wide, I'm incredulous that an engineer wouldn't shoot down this incredible stupidity.
Flotation and Buoyancy are basic scientific principles, all hinged upon density.
That F6 floated until it filled with water. That is the point. It didn't sink like a brick. A brick has more density than water. The F6 did not, until filled with water. It can't be anymore basic than that. 5th grade science students get this correct.
(http://www.lulworthcovebedandbreakfast.com/images/dorset/bovington-tank-museum/100.jpg)
Which is why this worked at all.
Understand that the P-38 would fill with water in less than 90 seconds. Why? Completely unsealed airframe. Ditto for most WWII vintage aircraft. Buoyancy in an aircraft is a function of the ability to seal out water.
My point was and is that comparing a P-38 to an A320 is apples and oranges. There is no comparison, especially from an engineering standpoint.
Now, there's no question that the P-38s in Greenland did not sink into the ice. They were buried under decades of snow, which was compressed into near solid ice by there sheer weight of it. If you live in a climate where snow accumulates to considerable depth, you will find that the deeper you dig down, the more dense the snow becomes. You literally need a pick axe to break up the compressed snow at the bottom of 12 feet of winter accumulation. Up at the family cabin in NW Maine, clearing the driveway prior to the spring thaw meant not clearing the last foot or two of snow depth. You would have hack out that snow with axes as it was so compressed as to be nearly solid. A heavy plow was useless.
My regards,
Widewing
-
And two long hollow tubes for the tail.
And two more for the wings.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/P-38-1.jpg)
Two things. Unsealed. These "tubes" will fill rapidly. Second thing, insufficient internal volume to counter the mass. As the airframe settles, water pressure increases, thereby increasing the rate of flooding. The deeper it sinks, the quicker it floods. You know how rapidly water pressure rises with depth. Several feet will greatly increase the flooding rate. That's why these old aircraft seem to accelerate into sinking. They don't sink at a constant rate.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Understand that the P-38 would fill with water in less than 90 seconds. Why? Completely unsealed airframe. Ditto for most WWII vintage aircraft. Buoyancy in an aircraft is a function of the ability to seal out water.
My point was and is that comparing a P-38 to an A320 is apples and oranges. There is no comparison, especially from an engineering standpoint.
Now, there's no question that the P-38s in Greenland did not sink into the ice. They were buried under decades of snow, which was compressed into near solid ice by there sheer weight of it. If you live in a climate where snow accumulates to considerable depth, you will find that the deeper you dig down, the more dense the snow becomes. You literally need a pick axe to break up the compressed snow at the bottom of 12 feet of winter accumulation. Up at the family cabin in NW Maine, clearing the driveway prior to the spring thaw meant not clearing the last foot or two of snow depth. You would have hack out that snow with axes as it was so compressed as to be nearly solid. A heavy plow was useless.
My regards,
Widewing
You are looking at it from the engineering standpoint of long term flotation, I see. I understand your view now. I thought you were questioning the principle. I was not implying that a P38 was a boat, by any means. Just that it wasn't a brick, which makes the transition from air to underwater without an in-between period of sinking.
I hope Bodhi reads your post, though.
-
And two long hollow tubes for the tail.
And two more for the wings.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/P-38-1.jpg)
but sir, those tailbooms aren't as hollow as one would think.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/cutaway-new-color.jpg)
note, that there is pretty much inside of these booms, at least 1/2 way back.
-
:-)
paperclips don't float(at least i don't think they do)
This is surface tension at work:
(http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/natural-science/_more2006/_more01/meniscus-on-water-surface-tension-supporting-steel-paperclip-in-drinking-glass-tumbler-beaker-8-AJHD.jpg)
-
This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water.
-
This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water.
Agreed. It is exhausting trying to discuss basic science principles to form a baseline.
-
but sir, those tailbooms aren't as hollow as one would think.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/cutaway-new-color.jpg)
note, that there is pretty much inside of these booms, at least 1/2 way back.
The only thing that matters is the volume of air within. As you can see, the interior is mostly hollow. Add to that the specific gravity of the fuel within the sealed tanks, and the P38 will most certainly float in water for a time.
-
Based on everything I know about physical science and H2O, there's a threshold for density in predicting whether an object would push through solid ice over many years, but that threshold is not the density of ice. Since we're dealing with a solid, the question is whether the object has the density to break the ice's crystalline structure, not whether it is more or less dense than ice. The phenomena of some dense objects descending into ice is due to the fact that we're observing the surface, where some of the H2O is subliming away. Below the surface where no phase change occurs (and provided that the temperature is <0 C), an object, like a rock, does not have sufficient force break the astronomical number of hydrogen bonds that compose the crystalline ice.
-
Massaging data does not negate the claim. Your claim is "AGW isn't happening". This isn't supported by "CRU massaged data". Massaging data doesn't prove or disprove a thing. It simply proves that data trends were smoothed.
Scientist: It is 80 degrees outside. It should only be 79. The Earth is warming.
Normal Guy: Wow, that's bad.
Whistleblower: Scientist changed his data so that it showed 80 degrees.
Normal Guy: Scientist, what temperature was it really?
Scientist: . . .
Whistleblower: We don't know what the temperature really was because Scientist won't release and/or destroyed the raw data.
Normal Guy: Scientist, is this true? Please show me the raw data.
Scientist. I don't have to. The Earth is warming.
What is the logical conclusion for Normal Guy?
1) The world must be warming anyway. The lying, scheming, data-hiding scientist surely must have a good reason for lying, scheming, and hiding data.
or
2) If the world was really warming as Scientist says, he would have no reason to lie, scheme, or hide data. Therefore his entire asertion that the world is warming must be false, or at the very least, unsupported by any evidence.
I think the conclusion is fairly obvious.
-
This discussion is losing sight of the fact that the original question was whether a P-38 would sink through ice, not water.
It won't..... It would sink into snow to depth where the density of the snow is sufficient that the distributed weight is inadequate to compress the snow any further. That depends entirely on the density of the underlying snow. Another factor is that the top layer of snow will often soften and partially melt due to sun light (even at very low air temperatures). It will refreeze as ice. Also, when you compress snow you generate heat. This causes the snow to lose its crystal structure and begin to behave more like pure ice. Commonly, the temperature of ice may actually increase with depth. Again, due to compression which generates heat.
Here's an example. I can air down the tires on my Jeep and drive on top of the compressed layer of snow under the most recent layer. If I fail to air down, the higher load per square inch may be enough to compress the sub-layers of snow and create a trough, in which one can bog down. Driving through one layer, even very deep, is usually easier than driving through many layers of increasing density. Which is why you don't air down when driving on roads covered with deep snow. The underlying surface will not compress at all.
My regards,
Widewing
-
SWTarget,
You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general. Is that warranted?
Secondly, people lie, cheat, and steal for things they could have legitimately all of the time, i.e. without good reasons for doing so. Every normal guy knows that. ;)
If the world was really warming as Scientist says, he would have no reason to lie, scheme, or hide data. Therefore his entire asertion that the world is warming must be false, or at the very least, unsupported by any evidence.
You need to split this into two parts. I would have to agree that it seems like the CRU has failed the credibility test in their presentation of evidence for AGW. But logic does not allow me to go from there to the claim that AGW is not happening.
What humans believe, and how they represent their beliefs, is no evidence for or against something like AGW.
-
It won't.....
It's nice to see people from opposite sides of a debate agree on something. :cool:
-
SWTarget,
You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general. Is that warranted?
Secondly, people lie, cheat, and steal for things they could have legitimately all of the time, i.e. without good reasons for doing so. Every normal guy knows that. ;)
You need to split this into two parts. I would have to agree that it seems like the CRU has failed the credibility test in their presentation of evidence for AGW. But logic does not allow me to go from there to the claim that AGW is not happening.
What humans believe, and how they represent their beliefs, is no evidence for or against something like AGW.
In answer to your first question -- when all the alarminst scientists are using the same sets of data, poo-poo any contrary data or evidence, and have shown a clear pattern of attempting to suppress any alternate views -- then absolutely, it is not only warranted to paint all of their research with the same broad stroke, it is nearly mandatory.
If they had always put out the raw data, so that anyone and everyone with an interest could use it, and then debate the results/conclusions of varying analysis, then one could have a rational discussion on the matter.
But that isn't what has happened. There have been a select few with a definite agenda who have controlled and manipulated the data to fit their purposes. No conclusion drawn from such contrived data can be believed, because the conclusions are going to be what the holders of the data want them to be. Whether a given scientist is himself knowingly giving false conclusions can be debated . . . the fact that his conclusion is based on falsified data is no longer in question.
And, yes -- you absolutely can throw out the claim when you can't say with any certainty that the data used to create the claim in the first place is or is not valid. I claim to be an expert at rain in France. I claim it is raining over Paris today. Are you going to take me at my word? I have provided no evidence that it is raining over Paris today, I am merely claiming it. Do you need to take me at face value? Of course not. Neither do we need to take global warming folks at face value when they block or attempt to block those who want the raw data they are using to support their claims. Put out the raw data. Open the methodology behind the computer models. If they don't or won't, there is no possible verification of the their claims. That's bad science. Period.
-
So you claim a P38 can't float in water...
But this can?
(http://online.wsj.com/media/plane_D_20090226161924.jpg)
Until filled with water, of course. (When its density is then higher than water)
Comparing a P-38 to a an A320 is ludicrous.
This is becoming a waste of time.
-
Comparing a P-38 to a an A320 is ludicrous.
This is becoming a waste of time.
Claiming a P38 can sink through ice to a depth of 268 feet isn't ludicrous???? LOL. Keep up the entertainment kiddo. :aok Widewing even shot you down.
-
Claiming a P38 can sink through ice to a depth of 268 feet isn't ludicrous???? LOL. Keep up the entertainment kiddo. :aok Widewing even shot you down.
The P-38's did sink into the ice> Did they do it to a depth of 260+ feet, no. As mentioned snow accumulation turning to ice added the majority to that layer. The P-38's did sink through the ice, as any weight will do.
-
It won't..... It would sink into snow to depth where the density of the snow is sufficient that the distributed weight is inadequate to compress the snow any further. That depends entirely on the density of the underlying snow. Another factor is that the top layer of snow will often soften and partially melt due to sun light (even at very low air temperatures). It will refreeze as ice. Also, when you compress snow you generate heat. This causes the snow to lose its crystal structure and begin to behave more like pure ice. Commonly, the temperature of ice may actually increase with depth. Again, due to compression which generates heat.
Here's an example. I can air down the tires on my Jeep and drive on top of the compressed layer of snow under the most recent layer. If I fail to air down, the higher load per square inch may be enough to compress the sub-layers of snow and create a trough, in which one can bog down. Driving through one layer, even very deep, is usually easier than driving through many layers of increasing density. Which is why you don't air down when driving on roads covered with deep snow. The underlying surface will not compress at all.
My regards,
Widewing
WW,
Almost any weight placed on ice will sink through it. It is a simple fact. Is it going to accumulate to 260+ feet in 50 years. No. Snow accumulation will turn to ice and add to that layer. I never stated that the P-38's solely sank to 260+ feet, I stated they did and were sinking through the ice.
-
Scientific dishonesty in support of AGW does not earn you the conclusion that AGW is not happening, unless you simply stipulate it as you do in italics. If you're going to offer "proof" for a claim, don't restate the claim as part of your proof.
P1. the CRU was modifying their numbers to support climate change
P2. climate change was not actually happening
C. Man made global warming is not happening.
Without P2, your argument is invalid. With P2, your argument is vacuous.
There is no doubt that there is climate change. The planet has experienced it nearly the entirety of it's existence. There is no proof that it is man made. Further, what proof that does exist of global climate change has been changed by several to overstate the amount it is happening. It is all money.
-
SWTarget,
You're generalizing from the CRU to climate scientists in general. Is that warranted?
It applies to the the IPCC and other organisations feeding the world the the AGW line though.
Want to see a good example of IPCC and the media lying while the scientists look the other way?
The island nation of Tuvalu has been whining about how global warming and sea level rises are destroying it. It's been put forward as an immediate example of AGW by the media at many of the AGW conferences (like copenhagen). They've got their hand out for money due to AGW caused by the industrial rich nations.
Only problem is the sea level isn't rising, and their problems are in fact caused by them blowing up their coral reefs for fishing and materials for road construction. The reefs acted as a natural barrier to waves prevented shoreline subsidence. So now when a hurricane hits the lack of natural barriers means it causes considerably more damage. They've also caused subsidence by draining to much fresh water from the ground than is replaced/absorbed by the soil/rock normally.
So, here we have the prime example of global warming thats often held forward by the alarmists - and guess what... it's a bunch of lies. I've no doubt many of the other island nations screaming bloody murder on global warming are similar situations.
-
WW,
Almost any weight placed on ice will sink through it. It is a simple fact.
What natural mechanism would you attribute this to?
I've parked my 4x4 on a frozen lake while we fished all day. It didn't sink. I've broken axe handles trying to hack through ice...
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://gizwizbiz.com/images/386_Miracle_Thaw.jpg)
-
:x
-
See Rule #4
-
What natural mechanism would you attribute this to?
I've parked my 4x4 on a frozen lake while we fished all day. It didn't sink. I've broken axe handles trying to hack through ice...
My regards,
Widewing
I agree that ice is a very difficult thing to break up. But, why does an ice shack that sits in one place for a month or two have to be continually jacked up to keep it from being stuck in the ice when you go to pull it? The ice melts under the pressure of weight, allowing the weight to pass through it.
-
Well seems like the IPCC 2207 report is coming to pieces....albeit slowly.
Glaciers in the Himalayas will not dissappear by 2035. This was an unreviewed claim by Dr Murari Lal re-gurgitated by the World Wildlife Fund and included in the report to impact policy makers. I.e. a political driven claim and not scientific. Yet the IPCC always claim the contents are meticulously peer reviewed.
NASA has quietly removed any reference to it from its climate website. Very interesting as NASA had originally cited the figure as 2030, not 2035.
Other false claims are quietly being removed or re-written.
The Stern Report relied upon by the UK government for severe weather events has had the GDP impact on the US reduced by a factor of 10, from 1.3%, down to 0.13%. Nothing noted or reported on the site the figure has been altered since publication.
UNIPCC also wrongly linked natural disasters to GW.
Head of the UNIPCC is now all but toast.
Admittedly a sceptic site, but lots of info http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)
-
Which is it, Spinmaster Flave? I guess you think what happens on page 72 stays on page 72..... :P
Don't get all excited about something you are reading into. You are still wrong, yet again.
You are reading into that statement "as far as they did". When those birds were first looked for, they were estimated to be roughly 100 - 150 feet down. That was based on a calculation of the amount of snow in the area turning to ice. After the 50 or so years they sat there, a significant amount of snow turned to ice, but the fact that they were deeper showed another force worked on them as well, and that was their weight helping to sink them deeper into the ice.
That said, I find it mildly interesting and very sad that you have completely derailed a thread in an attempt to prove me wrong, and not face the fact that you are nothing more than a hand raised in the faux-science that is man-made global warming. Hope your happy bucko.
-
I agree that ice is a very difficult thing to break up. But, why does an ice shack that sits in one place for a month or two have to be continually jacked up to keep it from being stuck in the ice when you go to pull it? The ice melts under the pressure of weight, allowing the weight to pass through it.
The ice melts due to the heat retention of the fishing shack. It warms up inside due to solar heating. Thus the ice gets softened and the shack become embedded in the ice surface. We're talking only a few inches over the course of the winter. Some fisherman bring kerosene heaters out to their shacks, which only exacerbates this.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://gizwizbiz.com/images/386_Miracle_Thaw.jpg)
These aluminum trays work well. However, if you put it in the freezer overnight and placed burgers on it in the morning, they would not defrost at all. A plane sitting on a glacier will quickly become covered in snow. Thus, there will be no solar heating of the metal surfaces. The aircraft will quickly assume the same temperature as the snow and ice. Therefore, no melting.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The ice melts due to the heat retention of the fishing shack. It warms up inside due to solar heating. Thus the ice gets softened and the shack become embedded in the ice surface. We're talking only a few inches over the course of the winter. Some fisherman bring kerosene heaters out to their shacks, which only exacerbates this.
My regards,
Widewing
WW,
It also melts due to pressure. We used to put my old shack on blocks to prevent the skids sticking in. It was not uncommon to have to set the blocks several time.
-
Don't get all excited about something you are reading into. You are still wrong, yet again.
You are reading into that statement "as far as they did". When those birds were first looked for, they were estimated to be roughly 100 - 150 feet down. That was based on a calculation of the amount of snow in the area turning to ice. After the 50 or so years they sat there, a significant amount of snow turned to ice, but the fact that they were deeper showed another force worked on them as well, and that was their weight helping to sink them deeper into the ice.
That said, I find it mildly interesting and very sad that you have completely derailed a thread in an attempt to prove me wrong, and not face the fact that you are nothing more than a hand raised in the faux-science that is man-made global warming. Hope your happy bucko.
I'm showing that you cannot ever admit when you are wrong. You are wrong about this. But yet, you argue about things you have no idea about, incessantly. You have zero idea about albedo and how it proves you are wrong.
Your earlier quote obviously meant exactly what you typed it to mean, and now you have to backtrack on your latest post. You said blatantly that they sank due to their weight, and you are completely wrong. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with where they were found.
Amazingly, 268/50=5.36 feet per year, which is exactly what the annual amount of snow for the area+compression would equal.
And, in actuality, when they first looked for them, they thought they were within a foot or two of the surface. Perhaps you might look into Bob Cardin's notes on the recovery some day.
-
I have dealt with Cardin several times. Obvious if you read his notes, he is all knowledgeable about everything. Perhaps if he is, then someone can explain why one boom is two + inches longer than the other. But that is a discussion for somewhere else.
You on the other hand seem to believe you have a duty to prove me wrong. I am more than willing to admit when I am, but I do not feel I am. Your style of argument is to out blather the other, and when the other finally gets frustrated and leaves, you feel you won. Further, your assumption into the meaning of a statement I made does not make your version correct. It just makes it another assumption.
Simply put Moray, I will believe as I choose, and you can do the same. I feel I have wasted enough time on this with a person like yourself that I am going to go no where else except make myself look like an idiot for arguing with one. I hope you have enjoyed ruining another discussion.
-
this almost seems to be turning into a personal argument between you guys.
if we go back to the global warming part..........moray.....you present your arguments well, and you always try to be sure to cite a source for your information.
the problem though, is that ever since it has been made public that the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right.....well.....that brings into question virtually everything you've linked to.
i think that is part of what bodhi is getting at. it would seem that you are maintaining unquestioning loyalty to those that have pretty much lied outright to us all about global warming. in doing so, you are associating yourself with them, and that's another thing i think bodhi may be trying to get at.
-
When I read this:
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders." -> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG
or this:
"UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters" -> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
or this:
"What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU. " -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
or this (related to above) -> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/highnoon-eu-glacier-project.pdf
I will say, this is not science any more. GW or how they say now "climate-change", is just a nice way to make big money. :furious
and then this for Moray. Can you explain this?
-> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html (Since 1998, according to NCDC’s own figures, temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century!)
Regards
SF
-
the problem though, is that ever since it has been made public that the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right.....well.....that brings into question virtually everything you've linked to.
How do you know it's a majority? I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science). However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public. So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority. The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.
As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data? Mendel! There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published. That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.
So, yes, many scientists have been crooked. Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants. But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives. It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...
-
How do you know it's a majority? I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science). However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public. So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority. The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.
As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data? Mendel! There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published. That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.
So, yes, many scientists have been crooked. Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants. But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives. It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...
All of the studies show similar outcomes. If one of the studies was shown to have fudged the numbers in order to achieve a similar outcome to the others, it stands to reason that ALL of the studies have similar number fudging...
-
All of the studies show similar outcomes.
One of the major motivations for why those scientists at the UK climate center fudged their numbers was to put one over on their colleagues who disagreed with the specific implications of their research, i.e. "your data doesn't support this." A very similar motivation was to cover up lack of agreement among the scientists themselves.
-
the majority of the scientists that were crying doom and gloom about global warming, massaged their numbers to prove themselves right
factually wrong.
If one of the studies was shown to have fudged the numbers in order to achieve a similar outcome to the others, it stands to reason that ALL of the studies have similar number fudging
logically wrong.
-
How do you know it's a majority? I once read a whole book about scientific fraud, its history, and the variety of shams that have occurred (most in medical science). However, there were no examples of huge chunks of the scientific community being in cahoots to scam the public. So, the burden of explanation is on you to explain how those you are referring to constitute a majority. The burden is also on you to say that a majority of scientists accepted their data and its specific interpretations.
As a little side-point, who of all people may have massaged his data? Mendel! There is speculation that part of the reason for why his theory of inheritance went uncelebrated for decades was because no one could recreate the nearly perfect proportions of phenotypes that he published. That is only the most famous example of dry-labing for what turned out to be a confirmable theory.
So, yes, many scientists have been crooked. Others overemphasize the importance of their research to win grants. But this has been going on for hundreds of years, and its only now that the public cries foul because they see something about to affect their daily lives. It's a wonder that, in general, the scientists still manage to make progress...but only if...
re-read my statement. i didn't say the majority of scientists claimed or massaged anything.
i said the majority of those claiming doom and gloom. :aok
-
It's kinda like slapping a mule upside the head. Sooner or later even the looniest of the climate warming groupies are going to notice the mile-wide money trail and the manipulations to lay track for the gravy train to come into the stations of the scientists that peddle this scam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.
What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.
Oh! Quelle surprise! The bad data comes from a scientist that works for Pachauri and the data has helped said scientist land a couple million bucks in grants for Pachauri and himself.
-
It's kinda like slapping a mule upside the head. Sooner or later even the looniest of the climate warming groupies are going to notice the mile-wide money trail and the manipulations to lay track for the gravy train to come into the stations of the scientists that peddle this scam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
Oh! Quelle surprise! The bad data comes from a scientist that works for Pachauri and the data has helped said scientist land a couple million bucks in grants for Pachauri and himself.
darn!!!
was just comin here to add that. :rofl
-
and then this for Moray. Can you explain this?
-> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html (Since 1998, according to NCDC’s own figures, temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century!)
Regards
SF
I can say this... when putting in 1998 to 2009 in that site, I get the worst trend line I have ever seen. Somehow they've dissociated the trend line from the graph, and put it a full 2 degrees F under the mean values. I'm at a loss to define what exactly they intend with that product. It doesn't follow any statistical regression. But I think an answer could be found at the top of the page.
Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.
Also, just noting that the United States isn't the "world". It isn't even a "region" of the world.
United States total area: 3,537,441 square miles.
Earth total surface area: 196,940,400 square miles
3,537,441/196,940,400=.01796
The US compromises just under 2% (1.7%) of the planet. And you are basing your entire opinion on that 1.7%, and negating the other 98.3?
Even if that data is correct...(and I would surely challenge the trend line data shown in that site....even the raw scaling of the graphs is suspect. It seems like a coading error of some sort) you would be telling me the room is cold because you took a temperature reading at the AC vent. Talk about manipulating data.
The GISS numbers don't agree, either.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif)
And from the NCDC's own charts. THEY don't agree with that either...
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/documentlibrary/clim81supp3/annualheatingDD_lowres.jpg)
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/documentlibrary/clim81supp3/annualcoolingDD_lowres.jpg)
*EDIT* What did you use for your "base period begin" line? That makes the difference. It is intitialy set at year 1895, this would give you improper graphing. Once I reset for that, I got a .23F cooling per decade trend in the US. If I remove 2009 from consideration, it goes to a .15 F per decade warming trend.
Look up "shifting baselines"
This term was coined by fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly in 1995 to describes the tendency of people to think that the natural world that they have seen in their lifetime is "normal," when in fact the ecosystems are severely degraded and continuing to degrade. Over time, a baseline — like what makes a "good season" for Pacific salmon — can gradually shift, giving us a false perspective and affecting policymaking or individual actions.
If we know the baseline for a degraded ecosystem, we can work to restore it. But if the baseline shifted before we really had a chance to chart it, then we can end up accepting a degraded state as normal — or even as an improvement. For example:4
* The number of salmon in the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia River today is twice what it was in the 1930s. That sounds great — if the 1930s is your baseline.
* But salmon in the Columbia River in the 1930s were only 10% of what they used to be in the 1800s. The 1930s numbers reflect a baseline that had already shifted.
-
Well, I'm more that just a AGW skeptic. I believe it to be the single greatest falsehood ever perpetrated on mankind.
Recall the term. "Big Lie"? It refers to a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Who coined the term? Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf", in 1925.
I'll repeat that the AGW mafia may have done irreparable damage to the conservation movement. Those who do not believe in AGW often lump ecology minded people into the same group with the AGW advocates. This undermines to goal of protecting and preserving the various endangered eco-systems and many species of wildlife world wide. It may be guilt by association, but many in the "green" movement have embraced AGW purely on faith. A very bad way of looking at questionable science.
Clearly, the damage man has done to his local environment and to the wildlife population is staggering. While I do not believe that man is responsible for warming, I am appalled at what he has done to his planet.
Consider these numbers, relating to America alone. They are staggering in scope.
It is estimated that the population of Grizzly Bears in what are now the northwestern states was no less than 100,000 in the year 1500.
Frederic Wagner estimates that at the time Columbus arrived in the New World, there were between 5 and 10 million Buffalo in what would become the United States. Add to that 10 to 15 million Pronghorn, 2 million Big Horn Sheep, 5 million Mule Deer and 2 million Elk.
Predictions of Buffalo herd growth leads to current estimates that between 22 and 30 million Buffalo roamed the American plains as of 1800. By that time, the number of wild horses (originally released by or escaping from the Spanish) had grown to somewhere between 1 and 2 million. It was these horses that fostered the development of the plains Indian horse-centered cultures. In 1882, hunters in Montana shot more than 100,000 Bison. The next year, they shot only 6. Effectively exterminating the species in that territory.
It is generally believed that 24,000 Wolves were killed in the first 10 years of the 20th century in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Today, there exists a tiny population of 1,500 Wolves, almost all of which resulted from their being reintroduced in 1996 as part of the Endangered Species Act.
Just stop and dwell on this massive destruction of wildlife for a minute. Then think about the fact that this slaughter continues in many parts of the world today.
Man may not be turning up the planet's thermostat, but he certainly has the ability to turn his planet into a barren cesspool. So, while we can point to AGW and argue that it's all lies and damned lies, never forget that we still have the power to destroy our environment and much of what lives on the earth, both on land and in the seas.
You can still be a fervent ecologist and a disbeliever in AGW.
My regards,
Widewing
-
if we had 100,000 grizzly bears in the northwestern states now, that would likely be a bad thing for people.
When it comes down to folks deciding if people should eat animals or if animals should eat people, they usually pick the former.
-
Widewing,
Fighting pollution, loss of habitat and species endangerment does not allow a leverage for a world wide rapid paradigm shift of any nature. These take time, money, and self interest by governments and the private sector. Much like Obama and the democrats having the majority in both houses in 2009, GW was a once in a century pivotal opportunity to enact rapid and substancial change upon the governments of the world towards the goal of a planet wide centralised governence under the banner of: "For it's own good."
Supporters of GW were acting in the same vein of global catasthrophic urgancy and global emergency as Obama and the democrats have conducted themselves over health care for the last year. In niether case will the world as we know it end by any stretch of the imagination, tomorrow, or even in our generation if the targeted populations reject thier messages and derail thier ambitious goals. In both cases the urgency has not passed the smell test but, instead has caused millions of adults on this planet to demand more proof than: "We are scientists and smarter than you." Or in Obama's case: "We are the government and smarter than you."
In both scenario the message is trust me with your future because I say I'm smarter than YOU. Progressive arrogence is again insulting average people and derailing both initiatives.
-
first let me say we have kept this conversation away from politics and thats why its still open......... lets keep it that way
now on to my original thoughts:
*EDIT* What did you use for your "base period begin" line? That makes the difference. It is intitialy set at year 1895, this would give you improper graphing. Once I reset for that, I got a .23F cooling per decade trend in the US. If I remove 2009 from consideration, it goes to a .15 F per decade warming trend.
Look up "shifting baselines"
so what did you use for your "base period begin" line? and what would make you assume that its the correct base period to be using? just because the "accepted" base line is 1951-1980 or whatever does not make this correct instead merely "accepted" in the circles who need it for their conclusions
so I will simply go off what you used and assume your baseline is correct (though I doubt it)...... you came to a .23F cooling trend...... then you go on to say you find a warming trend if you remove 2009 from consideration......
why exactly would you remove 2009? did it not happen? does it not meet with desired conclusions? instead of removing 2009 lets remove 2006 and see what the trend becomes...... or maybe 2006 and 1998........
its this cherry picking of data that has given us all of these FALSE charts and alarmists theories to begin with
you can show all the charts you want but none of them contain any shred of accurate data.... it has all been cherry picked..... much like removing 2009 from consideration
this is why the number of reading stations has been greatly reduced around the world..... and amazingly only the stations in cooler regions are the ones eliminated......
for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?
hogwash
-
Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.
oh, haven´t seen that. Thanks for the reply!
Regards
SF
-
why exactly would you remove 2009?
"Hide the decline"?
Sun
-
first let me say we have kept this conversation away from politics and thats why its still open......... lets keep it that way
now on to my original thoughts:
so what did you use for your "base period begin" line? and what would make you assume that its the correct base period to be using? just because the "accepted" base line is 1951-1980 or whatever does not make this correct instead merely "accepted" in the circles who need it for their conclusions
so I will simply go off what you used and assume your baseline is correct (though I doubt it)...... you came to a .23F cooling trend...... then you go on to say you find a warming trend if you remove 2009 from consideration......
why exactly would you remove 2009? did it not happen? does it not meet with desired conclusions? instead of removing 2009 lets remove 2006 and see what the trend becomes...... or maybe 2006 and 1998........
its this cherry picking of data that has given us all of these FALSE charts and alarmists theories to begin with
you can show all the charts you want but none of them contain any shred of accurate data.... it has all been cherry picked..... much like removing 2009 from consideration
this is why the number of reading stations has been greatly reduced around the world..... and amazingly only the stations in cooler regions are the ones eliminated......
for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?
hogwash
I removed 2009 to determine the singular effect of that one year. For no other reason. Like I said, your point is a falsehood, and is based on "shifting baselines". Yes, the addition of year 2009 shows a cooling trend for the entire decade, this year was cold in our 1.7% of the world. And only for this decade. When compared to the whole of the record, it still shows a trend up.
Your baseline has been shifted.
As for Sundowner's post....
One year (actually, one WINTER) doesn't negate the previous 120. I also removed winter 2006 as an outlier in the baseline graph. Winter 2006 was the warmest on record in the continental United States, and I felt that it could skew the base trend up.
I don't care for your accusation sir.
Perhaps you wish to explain to me how you would statistically analyze the data so that it isn't manipulated by extremes?
-
DP
-
for instance in Missouri..... there are now only 3 stations used when determining the temperatures for the entire state....... St Louis, Springfield, and Columbia.......... I can tell you with absolute certainty that the temperatures in northwestern MO are no where near the temperatures in St Louis......... nor are the temperatures in the bootheel...... yet the temperature in St Louis is used to determine the average for them both hundreds of miles away in rural areas....... the St Louis station btw is at Lambert Airport ...... which is above even the temperatures for locations just a few miles away 365 days a year....... so this must be the average temperature for the region?
hogwash
WRONG. There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri. Please cite where you got your information.
Station List
682 station(s) found with State matching MO.
http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov)
-
NOTthing should be removed, added, or modified.
-
what if the dataset has an entry that recorded 1000deg at one of the stations? data gathering is not a perfect science, so there are methods to reduce the effects of errors and anomalies (outliers).
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_statistics)
-
NOTthing should be removed, added, or modified.
CAP, outliers are always removed. It is basic statistical analysis.
-
WRONG. There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri. Please cite where you got your information.
http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov)
All you have to do is go back to your own post on Jan 23. A portion of what you quoted said . . .
"Data Details
To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980."
If they are only using 1000 stations to get their data, they are obviously NOT using all 682 weather stations in Missouri for their climate predictions. Instead, they are hand picking a few stations from which to extrapolate all their data.
-
massaging the information doesn't negate the claim..this is very very true.
what id DOES do, however, is cast serious doubt on the validity of anything at all put forth by those that did it. when it comes right down to it, massaging it, is lieing.
there may be some in those groups that didn't lie, massage any info, or do anything wrong.....but they are also guilty now, by association.
First part right, second part TOTALLY wrong. Your argument is a fallacy.
Here's a simpler example of where you went wrong;
A crosses the street, and gets crushed
B is friends with A, and tells C to cross the street
Therefore, C will be also crushed
B is friends, and therefore associated with A. Does this mean that B can't be right over whether the car will crush C or not? No, that assertion has no logical base. Guilt by association only works in the courtroom, we can sue the scientists, we can even jail them. This however, doesn't mean anything toward the truth or falsehood of AGW.
Not only that, but you are simply lying at this point, how can those groups be guilty if they did nothing. The priniciple of guilty until proven innocent must be applied, or otherwise no scientist could be trusted. Another thing, not to say that Moray is doing this, but;
There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.
-Penguin
-
Read a good one today, the summit at Copenhagen has beed dubed, 'hopenhagen' :bolt:
-
First part right, second part TOTALLY wrong. Your argument is a fallacy.
Here's a simpler example of where you went wrong;
A crosses the street, and gets crushed
B is friends with A, and tells C to cross the street
Therefore, C will be also crushed
B is friends, and therefore associated with A. Does this mean that B can't be right over whether the car will crush C or not? No, that assertion has no logical base. Guilt by association only works in the courtroom, we can sue the scientists, we can even jail them. This however, doesn't mean anything toward the truth or falsehood of AGW.
Not only that, but you are simply lying at this point, how can those groups be guilty if they did nothing. The priniciple of guilty until proven innocent must be applied, or otherwise no scientist could be trusted. Another thing, not to say that Moray is doing this, but;
There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.
-Penguin
no...the second part is true.
if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.
btw, i'm not arguing.
-
There have been biologists (Moray's job), who have commited crimes
That doesn't mean that Moray is a criminal.
-Penguin
I stole a candy bar when I was 5. :devil
-
I stole a candy bar when I was 5. :devil
Oooh, someone is getting a timeout :banana:
no...the second part is true.
if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.
btw, i'm not arguing.
Blue= flat out lying
Next, that isn't what you said. What you said was that they were guilty by association. Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong. You have shifted your position. If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct. I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.
-Penguin
-
Oooh, someone is getting a timeout :banana:
Blue= flat out lying
Next, that isn't what you said. What you said was that they were guilty by association. Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong. You have shifted your position. If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct. I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.
-Penguin
me? doing it again? :rofl
you need to stop with the personal attacks. i am not arguing with anyone here, but rather i am attempting to discuss the topics at hand.
i try to do this respectfully, as moray has noted, but you, sir, make it very difficult.
by guilty by association i meant that if one is in a group of liars, and knows that group is lying, then they themselves are guilty of lying.
look at it another way.
if someone murders your neighbor, and i'm standing right there, watching this happen, but do nothing.....does that not make me guilty by association? i would think so.
what i was talking about was the same principle.
or even another example.
my neighbor has 2 kids....both teens. i trust her daughter to look after my mother when she's staying up here. why? because of the people her daughter hangs out with.
i do not trust her son, and will not allow him in my house. why? because of the people he hangs out with.
so......should a scientist be a member of group "A", and 2 or 3 members of said group are lying, massaging/changing numbers, etc, and said scientist knows of this, then he also is guilty. unless he either outs them, or upon finding out, leaves the group.
it really is quite simple. if you're as young as you say you are(i'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt there), you may not understand this yet.
if you're in your teens, you should though.
-
CAP, outliers are always removed. It is basic statistical analysis.
Only when you have already decided what you want the stats to read.
-
so......should a scientist be a member of group "A", and 2 or 3 members of said group are lying, massaging/changing numbers, etc, and said scientist knows of this, then he also is guilty. unless he either outs them, or upon finding out, leaves the group.
it really is quite simple. if you're as young as you say you are(i'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt there), you may not understand this yet.
if you're in your teens, you should though.
Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.
The extrapolation you put upon this example is completely counterfeit. Basically, what you are saying is, if three people lied and were residents of Chicago, that the entire resident population of Chicago are liars.
I will be the first to say, there are great and not-so-great scientists, just as there are great and not-so-great auto mechanics ( I think that's what you do, correct me if wrong). If one of them lied to me, and charged me for work that was unneeded, does that not mean that your business is full of liars, via your extrapolation?
-
Only when you have already decided what you want the stats to read.
It is obvious you didn't take a statistical analysis course in any part of your schooling, with that simple statement.
Both the extreme highs and lows are removed, cleaning up the data and allowing trends to be uncovered.
-
Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.
The extrapolation you put upon this example is completely counterfeit. Basically, what you are saying is, if three people lied and were residents of Chicago, that the entire resident population of Chicago are liars.
I will be the first to say, there are great and not-so-great scientists, just as there are great and not-so-great auto mechanics ( I think that's what you do, correct me if wrong). If one of them lied to me, does that not mean that your business is full of liars, via your extrapolation?
2.6 million climate scientists? 2.6 million scientists that say yes to man made global warming?
-
2.6 million climate scientists? 2.6 million scientists that say yes to man made global warming?
Just scientists. Dissecting it further provides you with no distinction.
-
As Moray pointed out, you can't use the guilty by association rule (without a fair trial with a jury of the suspects peers blah blah blah), since it:
A.) Is a courtroom rule
B.) Since it is, it violates the rule of innocent until proven guilty (Biggest courtroom rule of all!)
And again, how are my arguments personal? I'm not insulting you in the least.
-Penguin
-
Just scientists. Dissecting it further provides you with no distinction.
yea, it does. it separates those that work with data, and those that work with "convenient" data.
i believe i said that those that are massaging/removing/modifying data to make things look like they need/want them to look and those that see/know this is happening are the problem.
i don't believe i said anything that could be interpreted as saying all scientists are doing this....or bad.
-
The guilty by association rule just doesn't work for science. And again, how are my arguments personal?
-Penguin
you've come out three times calling me a liar.
that kinda makes it personal.
and an fyi. people callin me a liar to my face.....well.....they do it once. only once.
i don't lie........and don't expect to be lied to....and don't like being accused of it either. :aok
just sayin.............
oo....and there is one member on these forums that has met me face to face.....good guy.......cool as all hell......i think he could/would vouch for my personality. and for my disorders too. :rofl :bolt:
-
WRONG. There are 682 NCDC stations in Missouri. Please cite where you got your information.
http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov)
thats odd because only 1221 were reported used by GISS for the entire continental US in 2006 that number was 1850 in 1968 .......... and 136 were used in 2009........... 3 of which were from MO
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/)
(http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/7620/stations.gif)
Youll notice that by the year 2000 the number of stations was slightly over 1000 for the entire continent....... yet the % of coverage doesnt decrease very much at all......... this is because they use the temperature from each station to represent a 1200Km radius........
the same thing has been done in every state...... there are IIRC 4 stations now used in CA...... all 4 of them are on the coast where it is warmest 365 days a year......... not a single inland or northern station is used in CA............ so the temperature in San Francisco is used to represent the temperatures in Susanville as well..... which happens to be nestled in the High Sierras (where NO temperature stations are used)
-
As Moray pointed out, you can't use the guilty by association rule (without a fair trial with a jury of the suspects peers blah blah blah), since it:
A.) Is a courtroom rule
B.) Since it is, it violates the rule of innocent until proven guilty (Biggest courtroom rule of all!)
And again, how are my arguments personal? I'm not insulting you in the least.
-Penguin
Reg: Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Online Online
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #1212 on: Today at 04:00:31 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: MORAY37 on Today at 03:48:17 PM
I stole a candy bar when I was 5. devil
Oooh, someone is getting a timeout dancing banana
Quote from: CAP1 on Today at 03:31:59 PM
no...the second part is true.
if you hang around with liars, then it will be assumed by most, that you are a liar yourself. or it will be assumed that you condone the particular group lying, which also means that you more than likely do.
btw, i'm not arguing.
Blue= flat out lying
Next, that isn't what you said. What you said was that they were guilty by association. Guilty (Apart from my mom's ideas, anyway) means that you actually did something wrong. You have shifted your position. If you are saying that this is your brand new and in response to query argument, you are correct. I certainly would hope that you aren't doing this again.
-Penguin
the above is the third time you've accused me of lying. and yes, it is insulting.
-
yea, it does. it separates those that work with data, and those that work with "convenient" data.
i believe i said that those that are massaging/removing/modifying data to make things look like they need/want them to look and those that see/know this is happening are the problem.
i don't believe i said anything that could be interpreted as saying all scientists are doing this....or bad.
No it doesn't. Every scientist (or almost every scientist) uses statistical regression, Bayesian inference and estimation, multifactor analysis of variance, ANOVA....etc etc etc.
Massaging data and removing outliers is part of this.
MODIFYING data is not. That isn't professional and should be punished.
You are, with your exact words, lumping everyone into one pile.
-
Oops, sorry there, cap.
Why didn't you say so?
Sorry about the sudden edit on that other post.
-Penguin
-
Sir, there are about 2.6 million scientists in the United States alone.
I don't buy that at all... 8.25% of the population are scientists? Ahhh.... No.
My regards,
Widewing
-
CAP1,
While I regularly judge people by those they associate with, that's a pretty wide swath of people & a large movement to judge by the actions of a few.
That would be like saying that, since Ted Haggard turned out to buy methamphetamine and sex from a male prostitute, all people who are openly against gay marriage are only doing so to cover up and justify their own insecurities.
Or, that all Aces High players believe that flying at 37,000' is a good way of saving fuel :)
-
I don't buy that at all... 8.25% of the population are scientists? Ahhh.... No.
My regards,
Widewing
I think you're off by a decimal place.
2,600,000/308,562,007 * 100 = 00.8%
Granted, 2.6 million sounds like a lot, but sometimes terms like 'scientist' cast a very wide net.
-
No it doesn't. Every scientist (or almost every scientist) uses statistical regression, Bayesian inference and estimation, multifactor analysis of variance, ANOVA....etc etc etc.
Massaging data and removing outliers is part of this.
MODIFYING data is not. That isn't professional and should be punished.
You are, with your exact words, lumping everyone into one pile.
maybe this is where we misunderstand each other.
to me, modifying the data, is indeed massaging it, and vice versa.
maybe i also don't quite understand, but going by what you say about removing parts of the data, would be the same as me ignoring part of the oscilliscope pattern on a mass airflow meter, or an 02 sensor, or a bmap sensor.
it doesn't make sense. there is no way to know who is removing what and for what reason.
if a conclusion is to be made(in my mind) then all of the data needs to be used. anything else doesn't compute(pun intended)
-
Cap1, what moray is describing is indeed a professional standard. 442w30 is a statistician, and he taught me a similar technique when using zscores to evaluate the AH aircraft. When looking at a distribution of points, the 'outliers' are indeed throw-aways.
Here is the thread where I showed my results: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264759.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264759.0.html) In this case, anything with a score in a category, like air-speed, over 2 or under -2 would be a statistical outlier.
-
I don't buy that at all... 8.25% of the population are scientists? Ahhh.... No.
My regards,
Widewing
Table 3-6
S&E degree holders with R&D work activities, by occupation: 2006
Employed S&E
degree holders
R&D as major
work activity
R&D at least
10% of work time
Occupation Number Percent Number Percent
R&D activity
rate (%) Number Percent
R&D activity
rate (%)
All occupations ............................. ... 13,752,000 100.0 4,155,000 100.0 30.2 7,369,000 100.0 53.6
S&E occupations ......................... 4,295,000 31.2 2,541,000 61.2 59.2 3,371,000 45.7 78.5
Computer/mathematical
scientists................... ............. 1,626,000 11.8 802,000 19.3 49.3 1,171,000 15.9 72.0
Life scientists ........................... 435,000 3.2 330,000 7.9 75.7 383,000 5.2 88.0
Physical scientists ................... 319,000 2.3 220,000 5.3 68.9 264,000 3.6 82.8
Social scientists ...................... 412,000 3.0 197,000 4.7 47.7 271,000 3.7 65.6
Engineers.................... ............. 1,502,000 10.9 993,000 23.9 66.1 1,282,000 17.4 85.4
S&E-related occupations............. 2,236,000 16.3 524,000 12.6 23.4 1,110,000 15.1 49.6
Non-S&E occupations ................. 7,221,000 52.5 1,090,000 26.2 15.1 2,888,000 39.2 40.0
Highlighted fields= 2.79 million
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics)
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics)
From 2006.... so these figures are even low, as of this date. Also, current U.S. population according to Census Bureau is 308,562,364. 2,790,000/ 308,562,634=.00904x100=0.9%
Aren't engineers supposed to be good with numbers?
Maybe try "search" feature located in your browser before you throw the attitude in your post. :aok
-
CAP1,
While I regularly judge people by those they associate with, that's a pretty wide swath of people & a large movement to judge by the actions of a few.
That would be like saying that, since Ted Haggard turned out to buy methamphetamine and sex from a male prostitute, all people who are openly against gay marriage are only doing so to cover up and justify their own insecurities.
Or, that all Aces High players believe that flying at 37,000' is a good way of saving fuel :)
we all judge people that way. it doesn't matter who ya are, ya do it.
once again though, i never said ALL scientists........i was referencing the climate scientists. and those that know about the ""massaging"" of the numbers that was done, and by whom.
the ones that did it are out and out liars. those that know about what the liars did, and did nothing, are no better.
another example.......i recently kicked out a customer. he was a used car dealer. he was bringing me about 10 cars a month.
the problem was that they were crap. he was outright bull souping customers about these cars, and telling them i was his mechanic.
this was starting to give me a bad rep in the area.......now, i could've gone along with his crap, and kept those 10 cars a month comin, and continued making that money on them.....or i could've done the right thing....and dis-associate myself from this guy.
there is no reason whatsoever that scientists cannot do the same with the "shady" ones.
again, i don't say ALL scientists. i wouldn't hold anything against a scientist at dupont just because of this.
i don't hold anythign against all engineers, even though i truly believe automotive engineers sole purpose in life is to help me injure myself on their cars.
-
we all judge people that way. it doesn't matter who ya are, ya do it.
another example.......i recently kicked out a customer. he was a used car dealer. he was bringing me about 10 cars a month.
the problem was that they were crap. he was outright bull souping customers about these cars, and telling them i was his mechanic.
this was starting to give me a bad rep in the area.......now, i could've gone along with his crap, and kept those 10 cars a month comin, and continued making that money on them.....or i could've done the right thing....and dis-associate myself from this guy.
there is no reason whatsoever that scientists cannot do the same with the "shady" ones.
My question, and not my judgment upon you CAP...
He was bringing you 10 crappy cars a month he was selling ... A
He was bringing you 10 crappy cars a month he was selling and using your name behind them.... B
Which of these things did you fire him for again, A or B?
This is exactly why you can't judge a whole community by the actions of a few. It isn't until the actions of some negatively affect others, that "people get outed". You didn't fire this sleaze until he was giving your business a bad name.
-
we all judge people that way. it doesn't matter who ya are, ya do it.
I always get a kick out of people who say that they don't :)
-
My question, and not my judgment upon you CAP...
He was bringing you 10 crappy cars a month he was selling ... A
He was bringing you 10 crappy cars a month he was selling and using your name behind them.... B
Which of these things did you fire him for again, A or B?
This is exactly why you can't judge a whole community by the actions of a few. It isn't until the actions of some negatively affect others, that "people get outed". You didn't fire this sleaze until he was giving your business a bad name.
he was bringing me the cars, to fix only what was necessary to sell them.
then he was implying that i was his mechanic...as in i was in his employ, and did all of the regular maintenance on these cars, whereas in reality, i was pretty much bandaging them, by doing only what he needed to sell em.
we in the automotive repair business already have a bad name in general....because we're judged. the fact that i'm judged doesn't bother me. but i can, and will do all in my power to change peoples perception of me at my shop.
i'm not your typical auto tech. i make sure that every one of my customers knows exactly what they're paying for, and why they need it.
as for your edit....i REALLY needed the money to be coming into the shop. it almost put me out of business to kick his bellybutton out. he talked to friends, and i lost some business besides his when i did that. at the point when i did this, i was only there for 6 months......and the bad rep was happening that fast. it's been about a year and a couple months now, and finally gettin better.
it's comin back around though....business is picking back up, and people are coming to me because they were sent by friends, or coworkers. they all say the same things. that i'm honest, and it's nearly impossible to find an honest mechanic.
sad part is i agree with them....it IS nearly impossible.
but i am....and because of this, i can sleep sound at night.
-
he was bringing me the cars, to fix only what was necessary to sell them.
then he was implying that i was his mechanic...as in i was in his employ, and did all of the regular maintenance on these cars, whereas in reality, i was pretty much bandaging them, by doing only what he needed to sell em.
we in the automotive repair business already have a bad name in general....because we're judged. the fact that i'm judged doesn't bother me. but i can, and will do all in my power to change peoples perception of me at my shop.
i'm not your typical auto tech. i make sure that every one of my customers knows exactly what they're paying for, and why they need it.
as for your edit....i REALLY needed the money to be coming into the shop. it almost put me out of business to kick his bellybutton out. he talked to friends, and i lost some business besides his when i did that. at the point when i did this, i was only there for 6 months......and the bad rep was happening that fast. it's been about a year and a couple months now, and finally gettin better.
it's comin back around though....business is picking back up, and people are coming to me because they were sent by friends, or coworkers. they all say the same things. that i'm honest, and it's nearly impossible to find an honest mechanic.
sad part is i agree with them....it IS nearly impossible.
but i am....and because of this, i can sleep sound at night.
Like I said, it wasn't a judgment. It was a realistic comparison.
Had he not blathered about you being "his" mechanic, you likely would have continued bandaging them, because you were enjoying the steady business. The function of one choice does not extrapolate to the other...that being you didn't agree with his business dealings.
The two were separate until your business was affected.
-
Like I said, it wasn't a judgment. It was a realistic comparison.
Had he not blathered about you being "his" mechanic, you likely would have continued bandaging them, because you were enjoying the steady business. The function of one choice does not extrapolate to the other...that being you didn't agree with his business dealings.
The two were separate until your business was affected.
and this is the sort of thing happening now, with global warming. those that've been being underhanded, would be the car dealer..........those that know about it and are still among the car dealers.......well......you know where i'm goin.
and it actually hurt my business more for awhile for me to kick him out. had i kept my mouth shut, and kept working on his cars, i'd have a LOT more money in the bank right now.
i understand that ya weren't judging me too.........i can judge(pun intended again) your posts well enough to realize that. you've remained respectful throughout this entire thread. :aok
EDIT::
i should also add.......the dude started off bringing me nicer stuff to work on.
such as this.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/statepolicesouthstar0611.jpg)
i traded him the 85 5th ave that i bought from him, when i bought this from him. it needed nothing....till i beat on it a little too much. :D
-
I think you're off by a decimal place.
2,600,000/308,562,007 * 100 = 00.8%
Granted, 2.6 million sounds like a lot, but sometimes terms like 'scientist' cast a very wide net.
You're right, I misplaced the decimal point. Should have been .825% Long day... Wasn't paying attention to detail.
Yes, it is a very wide net... Moray used that to exaggerate his point by using a very loose general classification to imply actual research scientists.
The National Board of Science classifies based upon receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in many different disciplines, most unrelated to actual scientific study. The vast majority do meet the classic description of a scientist. Probably something less than 10% of the 2.6 million cited.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm still not buying that man is responsible for GW. I'm open to learning more though, and find this discussion to be quite interesting.
But man, what a laugh about the planes sinking through the ice!
It reminds me of the scientific discussion I saw in a movie, on how to tell if someone is a witch. This thread was ready for some humor!
-
It reminds me of the scientific discussion I saw in a movie, on how to tell if someone is a witch. This thread was ready for some humor!
The Holy Grail, perhaps? :lol
-
You're right, I misplaced the decimal point. Should have been .825% Long day... Wasn't paying attention to detail.
Yes, it is a very wide net... Moray used that to exaggerate his point by using a very loose general classification to imply actual research scientists.
The National Board of Science classifies based upon receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in many different disciplines, most unrelated to actual scientific study. The vast majority do meet the classic description of a scientist. Probably something less than 10% of the 2.6 million cited.
My regards,
Widewing
My figures were generated using the NSF published figures, along with the caveat that at least 10% of their work time was involved in R and D. That isn't a wide web sir. It is very specific. You can easily find it under the "employment" section of the site I hyperlinked. These are working individuals, not "degree awarded waiting to find a job".
What is the "classic" description of a scientist?
And, please reference something that says "10% of that figure" without just throwing out a personal opinion. You're saying 260,000 scientists in the country? Back it up. It seems, as of late, you have become more prone to fettering out your own opinion, rather than to approach any question with any amount of research.
There are more "Life Scientists" (Biologists) alone, in this country. "Life scientists ........................... 435,000 " (Spending a minimum of 10% of paid time researching, not administrating. This amounts to full time, because unfortunately, at least 80% of researchers' time goes towards administrative duties.)
2.8 million scientists work in this country sir. This figure also does not include Federal positions, which have their own classification system.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/)
-
My figures were generated using the NSF published figures, along with the caveat that at least 10% of their work time was involved in R and D. That isn't a wide web sir. It is very specific. You can easily find it under the "employment" section of the site I hyperlinked. These are working individuals, not "degree awarded waiting to find a job".
What is the "classic" description of a scientist?
And, please reference something that says "10% of that figure" without just throwing out a personal opinion. You're saying 260,000 scientists in the country? Back it up. It seems, as of late, you have become more prone to fettering out your own opinion, rather than to approach any question with any amount of research.
There are more "Life Scientists" (Biologists) alone, in this country. "Life scientists ........................... 435,000 " (Spending a minimum of 10% of paid time researching, not administrating. This amounts to full time, because unfortunately, at least 80% of researchers' time goes towards administrative duties.)
2.8 million scientists work in this country sir. This figure also does not include Federal positions, which have their own classification system.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/)
Again, you are using a general classification that includes middle school math teachers and geeks programming Visual Basic in your 2.8 million "scientists".
Lets see... There are 1,454,515 active duty personnel in the US Military. Add another 843,000 reserve and guard. That's 2,297,515 people Let's add the 683,396 police officers in the USA to that. We now have 2,890,911 people in total. So, according to your distortion of the NSF figures, there are nearly as many scientists as there are military and police? LOLOLOL
Everyone knows several military personnel, and everyone knows a few cops. How many know that many scientists? Show of hands?
Why should I waste any time whatsoever debating you when you're using red herring arguments? BS degree with a minor in BS....
My regards,
Widewing
-
interesting little tidbit from another forum.
if this crap is true.....well......ykou know what i'm gonna say next.'
and moray.......just an FYI, which i think you already know.........you have kept perfectly civil, and polite throughout this thread....and that is part of why i htink it's still open.
thanks for that. this is one of the more interesting threads, and it would suck for it to get locked.
http://dctrawler.dailycaller.com/2010/01/26/copenhagen-didnt-accomplish-anything-but-at-least-it-was-hideously-expensive/
-
Lets see... There are 1,454,515 active duty personnel in the US Military. Add another 843,000 reserve and guard. That's 2,297,515 people Let's add the 683,396 police officers in the USA to that. We now have 2,890,911 people in total. So, according to your distortion of the NSF figures, there are nearly as many scientists as there are military and police? LOLOLOL
My regards,
Widewing
Prove otherwise. Unless their is a secret ratio of active duty military/police officers: scientists that I don't know about. There are currently 6.2 million teachers in the United States.... does that have anything at all to do with the number of scientists either??
Your argument posts no relevance to the premise you make, and has no logic behind it.
-
and moray.......just an FYI, which i think you already know.........you have kept perfectly civil, and polite throughout this thread....and that is part of why i htink it's still open.
thanks for that. this is one of the more interesting threads, and it would suck for it to get locked.
I only treat people how they treat me. You've treated me with respect, and I feel that warrants the exact same back. :salute
That being said, since rejoining this thread, I've been banned twice. I've been warned that the next one is permanent. <shrug> I've watched as multiple people were allowed to get dig after dig in on me, personally, and not get the same. I sometimes have a temper(played Juniors in ice hockey... so go figure), and really dislike being disrespected...I can type faster than I can say "stop" to myself...(I guess I might grow out of this someday)
I worked my tail off with 19 and 20 hour days with 2 jobs to get through school, paying my own way(no student loans, only scholarships), to finally get where I want to be....to watch some people who have no idea what they are talking about, crap all over my profession while it barely supports me with a Master's/PhD... it really peeves me.
I've also watched as my posts have been deleted, while I specifically wrote the same thing that someone else called me which didn't get edited (even after I reported it), much to the laughter of some friends/squaddies following this thread.
I have enjoyed our personal discussion, though CAP. I'm sure I probably overstepped something in this post too..... :frown: But, I'm going to bed now, I have to be up at 5am to spend a day in the field "wasting" more grant money, 35 feet down in 1 foot of visibility. :rolleyes:
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/OEA.NSF/Investigations/Dive+Sediment/$FILE/PH20040310_32_jar%20B.jpg)
Not a picture from my project, but that's about what I deal with, visibility wise.
-
I only treat people how they treat me. You've treated me with respect, and I feel that warrants the exact same back. :salute
That being said, since rejoining this thread, I've been banned twice. I've been warned that the next one is permanent. <shrug> I've watched as multiple people were allowed to get dig after dig in on me, personally, and not get the same. I sometimes have a temper(played Juniors in ice hockey... so go figure), and really dislike being disrespected...I can type faster than I can say "stop" to myself...(I guess I might grow out of this someday)
I worked my tail off with 19 and 20 hour days with 2 jobs to get through school, paying my own way(no student loans, only scholarships), to finally get where I want to be....to watch some people who have no idea what they are talking about, crap all over my profession while it barely supports me with a Master's/PhD... it really peeves me.
I've also watched as my posts have been deleted, while I specifically wrote the same thing that someone else called me which didn't get edited (even after I reported it), much to the laughter of some friends/squaddies following this thread.
I have enjoyed our personal discussion, though CAP. I'm sure I probably overstepped something in this post too..... :frown: But, I'm going to bed now, I have to be up at 5am to spend a day in the field "wasting" more grant money, 35 feet down in 1 foot of visibility. :rolleyes:
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/OEA.NSF/Investigations/Dive+Sediment/$FILE/PH20040310_32_jar%20B.jpg)
Not a picture from my project, but that's about what I deal with, visibility wise.
aaww mannnnn............now i'm gonna hafta go back through 84 pages? i don't recall seeing you or anyone type anything in here that should be banned. some hit borderline, but i didn't think anything crossed the line to the point it deserved that.
-
As for Sundowner's post....
One year (actually, one WINTER) doesn't negate the previous 120. I also removed winter 2006 as an outlier in the baseline graph. Winter 2006 was the warmest on record in the continental United States, and I felt that it could skew the base trend up.
I don't care for your accusation sir.
Perhaps you wish to explain to me how you would statistically analyze the data so that it isn't manipulated by extremes?
Sorry that came across as an accusation, sir.
I fired off the post in a hurry right before work without proper introspect and reflection.
The removal of extremes in statistics is a valid method.
I stand corrected.
My apologies.
Regards,
Sun
PS....good thread guys... :cheers:
-
Everyone knows several military personnel, and everyone knows a few cops. How many know that many scientists? Show of hands?
ask the same question in a forum dedicated to string theory...
(http://www.allstarsclan.nl/forums/style_emoticons/default/google.gif) "sample bias"
-
ask the same question in a forum dedicated to string theory...
(http://www.allstarsclan.nl/forums/style_emoticons/default/google.gif) "sample bias"
In fact, the only time I ever met an out of uniform cop was when one visited my high school 15 years ago. :P I know a number of military personnel, and I currently know a research psychologist because her daughter and my son are enrolled in the same toddler program.
-
This guys seems to be getting it:
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.
Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164)
A much more reasonable point of view of the issue compared to Global-Warming-Taliban like Phil Jones:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
IMHO,
Wab
-
Prove otherwise. Unless their is a secret ratio of active duty military/police officers: scientists that I don't know about. There are currently 6.2 million teachers in the United States.... does that have anything at all to do with the number of scientists either??
Your argument posts no relevance to the premise you make, and has no logic behind it.
Well Bud, lets look at a chart from the same document you quoted, Okay?
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Scientists.jpg)
I think it is self-explanatory.
But hey, lets stop quibbling over silly things. These kind of arguments serve no useful purpose. No one really cares one way or the other anyway. I think we can both find more useful things to discuss. Agree?
Let's talks Marine Biology, a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested.
Do you recognize this gentleman?
(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v332/185/111/1353079072/n1353079072_30087177_8828.jpg)
(http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1919/185/111/1353079072/n1353079072_30236747_1066.jpg)
His name is Steve Resler. Steve has held various positions related to marine biology. He holds several degrees in Marine science and environmental science. His positions have included Senior Marine Resources Technician, Environmental Analyst, Bay Constable, Harbormaster. Later, he moved up to Deputy Bureau Chief, NY Dept of State - Coastal Management Program. After 35 years, he recently retired and started his own marine field research consulting business, "InnerSpace Scientific Diving". Steve is nationally known and highly respected. He's a guy you may want to know.
Here's his resume on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-resler/17/b5/918 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-resler/17/b5/918)
Steve and I went to high school together. We've managed to stay in touch over the intervening 40 years. Great guy, great marine researcher. Should you have any interest in connecting with Steve, shoot me a PM and I'll give him a heads-up.
My regards
Widewing
-
Hey man, not cool!
We can make a different thread for this, but let's leave the one we have alone. If this is to be last sound bite, the red herring wasn't that great.
-Penguin
-
Hey man, not cool!
We can make a different thread for this, but let's leave the one we have alone. If this is to be last sound bite, the red herring wasn't that great.
-Penguin
i fail to see any problem with widewings post. he was offering advice, and help, and knowledge.
-
i fail to see any problem with widewings post. he was offering advice, and help, and knowledge.
Feeling left out, Penguin now accuses me of hijacking my own thread.... I'm sure it must be past his bedtime.
My regards,
Widewing
-
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Scientists.jpg)
I think it is self-explanatory.
Yes it is obvious:
The number of S&E employees has jumped since the 1950s and strongly correlates with the increase of global temperatures. We must reduce science emission if we want to save the polar bears!
-
I'm a green-hearted person. I support green initiatives, and I for one believe our society is on a consumption path of the worlds natural resources that will destroy our planet in the near future. I drive cars that are fuel efficient. And I recycle as much as possible (although I think recycling the way we're doing it is complete bunk). I try to have as little impact on our planet as possible.
However, the science of climatology is so incredibly complex, no one, not even climatologist really know how it works. It's why meteorologists have difficulty predicting the temperature tomorrow to 100% accuracy. They're close, and sometimes they're completely wrong 100%. It's why they call forecast just that - a best guess on the data they have. And most meteorologists only can only predict the weather with this same accurately up to 2 weeks. The sun and how it works, the planet, global air and sea currents, and trees and vegetation all play a mix climatology. And yes, it's all about Energy. It's also a very new science - newer than nuclear in fact.
How climatologists can predict a flux in temperature and blame it on pollution is an interesting proposition based on correlation methodologies which is not following proper scientific methodologies. Science is based on cause-and-effect.
I.e. - two science methods. One is physics, the other is climatology.
a. I push 30 newtons against a block weighting 25kilos. Resistance is 5 newtons. The block moves 5 meters (not exact - but to get to a point). I have a formula that can guess the results within near 100% accuracy every time every time I do this experiment.
b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.
A is science. Measurable, with formulas that work, and repeatable in all kinds of different situations with similar results with the same formula.
B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now. There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.
And people wonder why scientists like myself hate climatologists.
-
b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.
B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now. There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.
Aren't climate predictions like that also made in conjunction with chemical theories that describe gasses and other theories that describe the propagation of light?
-
Aren't climate predictions like that also made in conjunction with chemical theories that describe gasses and other theories that describe the propagation of light?
The theories with the propagation of light have various formulas you can actually use. For example on how Planck's law tries to explain electromagnetic radiation - there's an actual formula. Also depends whether or not you view light as a wave or a particle... and that's a whole lotta discussion on a different topic. :D
The challenge with climate predictions is that there are no 'roaming formula theories' to view and discuss. I.e. if average global temperature is X, CO2 is Y, gulf stream current temperature is Z, global forestation % is W, etc etc.
I'm not discounting that the Earth is warming up. I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed. If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY! What a day for science and humanity!
But they don't and it makes me question their scientific integrity as a scientist. And as long as they continue down this path, the harder it will be for society and countries to change how they interact with our planet.
As Dr. Evil once said: "Throw me a frickin' bone here! I'm the boss! Need the info!"
Without that info, everything they show in graphs and charts is IMHO scientific bunk worthy of a shoddy convenience store toilet. Which is very sad because they may be right.
-
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
This quote came from a scientist? Since when do scientists view their work as unapproachable, un-reviewable, and without criticism? No scientist would hold onto his work and data like a 3 year old does with jelly beans. If this person was a real scientist, he/she would produce their results in Science (journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science) - along with their formulas, how they collected their data, the results of the data, and the conclusions they're making on the data. And then the debate can begin!
This kind of anti-scientific bunk makes me :furious
-
Alright, I see where you're going with that. All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude. You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science. If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.
How comparable is it to the stock market? That's an interesting question. I heard an interview with an economist, an AGW skeptic, and he had this proposal:
Link taxation of greenhouse gasses to global temperature. If the climate scientists are right, temperature will increase, and we'll have to pay. If the climate scientists are wrong, and global temperature does not increase, then no greenhouse taxation. Additionally, investors could "gamble" on the future with their investments based on whether they are convinced by the climate scientists. :)
-
Alright, I see where you're going with that. All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude. You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science. If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.
How comparable is it to the stock market? That's an interesting question. I heard an interview with an economist, an AGW skeptic, and he had this proposal:
Link taxation of greenhouse gasses to global temperature. If the climate scientists are right, temperature will increase, and we'll have to pay. If the climate scientists are wrong, and global temperature does not increase, then no greenhouse taxation. Additionally, investors could "gamble" on the future with their investments based on whether they are convinced by the climate scientists. :)
I THINk they're already trading carbon credits in chigago. if that's the case, in the long run, we're already gonna pay.
-
This quote came from a scientist?
Not in my opinion. Only a "Climatologist".
Which sounds a lot like "Scientologist" if you ask me. Coincidence? You be the judge.
:noid,
Wab
-
I'm a green-hearted person. I support green initiatives, and I for one believe our society is on a consumption path of the worlds natural resources that will destroy our planet in the near future. I drive cars that are fuel efficient. And I recycle as much as possible (although I think recycling the way we're doing it is complete bunk). I try to have as little impact on our planet as possible.
However, the science of climatology is so incredibly complex, no one, not even climatologist really know how it works. It's why meteorologists have difficulty predicting the temperature tomorrow to 100% accuracy. They're close, and sometimes they're completely wrong 100%. It's why they call forecast just that - a best guess on the data they have. And most meteorologists only can only predict the weather with this same accurately up to 2 weeks. The sun and how it works, the planet, global air and sea currents, and trees and vegetation all play a mix climatology. And yes, it's all about Energy. It's also a very new science - newer than nuclear in fact.
How climatologists can predict a flux in temperature and blame it on pollution is an interesting proposition based on correlation methodologies which is not following proper scientific methodologies. Science is based on cause-and-effect.
I.e. - two science methods. One is physics, the other is climatology.
a. I push 30 newtons against a block weighting 25kilos. Resistance is 5 newtons. The block moves 5 meters (not exact - but to get to a point). I have a formula that can guess the results within near 100% accuracy every time every time I do this experiment.
b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.
A is science. Measurable, with formulas that work, and repeatable in all kinds of different situations with similar results with the same formula.
B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now. There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.
And people wonder why scientists like myself hate climatologists.
The theories with the propagation of light have various formulas you can actually use. For example on how Planck's law tries to explain electromagnetic radiation - there's an actual formula. Also depends whether or not you view light as a wave or a particle... and that's a whole lotta discussion on a different topic. :D
The challenge with climate predictions is that there are no 'roaming formula theories' to view and discuss. I.e. if average global temperature is X, CO2 is Y, gulf stream current temperature is Z, global forestation % is W, etc etc.
I'm not discounting that the Earth is warming up. I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed. If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY! What a day for science and humanity!
But they don't and it makes me question their scientific integrity as a scientist. And as long as they continue down this path, the harder it will be for society and countries to change how they interact with our planet.
As Dr. Evil once said: "Throw me a frickin' bone here! I'm the boss! Need the info!"
Without that info, everything they show in graphs and charts is IMHO scientific bunk worthy of a shoddy convenience store toilet. Which is very sad because they may be right.
This quote came from a scientist? Since when do scientists view their work as unapproachable, un-reviewable, and without criticism? No scientist would hold onto his work and data like a 3 year old does with jelly beans. If this person was a real scientist, he/she would produce their results in Science (journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science) - along with their formulas, how they collected their data, the results of the data, and the conclusions they're making on the data. And then the debate can begin!
This kind of anti-scientific bunk makes me :furious
Well said MisterFork, I share very similar sentiments....
:salute
Strip
-
Not in my opinion. Only a "Climatologist".
Which sounds a lot like "Scientologist" if you ask me. Coincidence? You be the judge.
:noid,
Wab
:rofl
Werd on that.
-
Alright, I see where you're going with that. All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude. You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science. If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.
indeed.
I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed. If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY! What a day for science and humanity!
you need to be specific here, just because you dont understand it doesnt necessarily make it invalid. your A/B example earlier suggests you havent grasped the magnitude of the problem. this is not a simple system like A which a smart schoolkid could predict using Newtonian mechanics, it is a vastly complex dynamic system. the models will necesarily be magnitudes more complex too.
part of an earlier reply sums up most contributions to this thread quite nicely "... a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested."
-
Feeling left out, Penguin now accuses me of hijacking my own thread.... I'm sure it must be past his bedtime.
My regards,
Widewing
By definition you did. (And yes, it was past my bedtime :devil)
But it's irrelevant whether the thread was started by you or not. Your post was a red herring, helpful elsewhere, but irrelevant here nonetheless. At the time of writing, it is not past my bedtime, so consider me able to think things through.
-Penguin
-
By definition you did. (And yes, it was past my bedtime :devil)
But it's irrelevant whether the thread was started by you or not. Your post was a red herring, helpful elsewhere, but irrelevant here nonetheless. At the time of writing, it is not past my bedtime, so consider me able to think things through.
-Penguin
Penguin, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is entitled to a bowel movement too. Where it begins to get fuzzy is when observers cannot readily tell the difference.
My regards,
Widewing
-
All we've ever received are probabilities for different events, and probabilities for their magnitude. You're absolutely right that it's far less satisfying than most other domains of science. If these possible events didn't have very important consequences for humanity, no one would be so anxious about reporting their speculative predictions.
This is perfectly valid and fine, science is always about probabilities and intervals, never about exact values. BUT science goes to great lengths to define the accuracy of its result. You can say that exact science is science that can tell exactly by how much it is wrong... Now these confidence intervals of the results is something that never gets quoted and explained to the public when it comes to the climate issue. The only true scientific talk I attended about climate simulations gave +2 degree prediction in the next 50 (or was it 100?) years with a "one sigma" error of 2. I think their error estimate is very optimistic, after I heard how they calculate it, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is 50% chance that the effect will be LESS than 2 degrees. More over, it means about 15% chance (1/6) that not only we will not experience warming, but experience cooling instead.
This is very fine and the correct way to present scientific results, but this is not the way the public hear about it. Politics, media and dishonest publicity hungry scientists turn it into a True/False statement: The models (that they have to run many times and take a mean of the results because the solution does not converge) predict 2 degree warming!!!
The even bigger mystery in such complex calculations is the error due to what is not in the model. Errors due to simplification of equations, partial data, calculation "short cuts" etc. can be estimated and included in the final uncertainty. What you don't know is if there are processes that are important and were not even considered, or done in a wrong way. This latter source for unknown error is the real core of a good scientific discussion. The public discussion got stuck way before that.
The media feed on such crap like flies on shee(i)t. Dis-informing the public is an art form now. I remember about two years ago a big headline about research revealing that proximity to certain factories DOUBLES(!) the chances to develop some kind of tumor. Sounds scary indeed. But when you check the absolute numbers (not quoted in the media report of course), it increased it from 1/80,000 to 1/40,000. Better not leave the house then, it is not safe anymore.
-
very true, there is a big problem with the way science is presented to the public who for the mostpart cant understand it. science reporters and editors generally arent doing their jobs properly, and some scientists dont help much by neglecting to make abstracts easily available that the public can digest.
Ben Goldacre discussed this with Lord Drayson recently, webcast here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/webcast.html)
Goldacre is a bit of a nerd icon, does great work, see http://www.badscience.net (http://www.badscience.net)
Drayson is our science minister, has only one eye and races Aston Martins in the ALMS :D
-
It's all based on the number of pirates.
Last few hundereds of years there were more pirates so temperatures stayed low.
As pirates were killed or they 'retired' piracy decreased therefore temperature increased.
Piracy has been on the increase recently, hence the levelling off or slight decrease in temps the last 10 years.
Once goverments sort out those pesky pirates I am sure temps will start to increase again.
:)
Sure a 'hockey' stick graph could be produced to prove it .... LOL.
-
The newest news of GW is that the sun is finally kicking in after a very long inactivity cycle, - 2 years or so overdue. So, in the next 5-7 years, especially at the 7th or so, the GW theory either will rest as a theory, or settle as a rather bad thing. For most, but not all....
-
so in other words the next 7 years should each follow the last as being the warmest years on record?
2011 7th warmest on record
2012 6th warmest on record
2013 5th warmest on record
2014 4th warmest on record
2015 3rd warmest on record
2016 2nd warmest on record
2017 warmest on record
otherwise?
-
The newest news of GW is that the sun is finally kicking in after a very long inactivity cycle, - 2 years or so overdue. So, in the next 5-7 years, especially at the 7th or so, the GW theory either will rest as a theory, or settle as a rather bad thing. For most, but not all....
you are once again bringing it back to the sun....not man. :aok
sun inactive=cooler
sun active=warmer. :aok
-
you are once again bringing it back to the sun....not man. :aok
sun inactive=cooler
sun active=warmer. :aok
Not really cap. What he's saying is that temperatures were mostly stable while the sun was in a cool phase. Now you put two and two together.
-
Should we see temps double the normal then? We have man made GW and now the Sun so the numbers should really be double?
-
Should we see temps double the normal then? We have man made GW and now the Sun so the numbers should really be double?
No. AGW predicts that temperatures will increase at slightly a greater rate than they would during a natural warming cycle. We're talking fractions of a degree C.
edit for spelling
-
Do we have a guess at the fraction ? Are we talking 1/100 or 1/2 of a degree?
-
WE cooled, we warmed, we cooled, we remained steady, we cooled, we warmed, we cooled, now we're gonna warm again.
cycles.
-
Do we have a guess at the fraction ? Are we talking 1/100 or 1/2 of a degree?
I wouldn't know. But I would guess that the increase in the rate of temperature increase per year compared to a standard warming cycle would be somewhere between those two fractions you give above, depending on your latitude.
-
I wouldn't know. But I would guess that the increase in the rate of temperature increase per year compared to a standard warming cycle would be somewhere between those two fractions you give above, depending on your latitude.
Considering that the amount of numbers is infinite, that's a wide chasm! :eek:
So somewhere between .5 and .01, wow, that's big even if you stop at adding .0001!
:lol All in good fun, keep the thread strong guys!
-Penguin
-
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/heavy-snow-freezing-rain-hits-southeastern-us/19338420?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fheavy-snow-freezing-rain-hits-southeastern-us%2F19338420
this kind of stuff is pretty much normal every few years.....and as i suspected(bought a new snow blower in november), we're getting it.
so..........why exactly is it again, that we all should be worried?
-
The difference between snow and rain is only a degree. And when it is not snowing and the sky is clear, it would be colder. So snow is not a very good measure on temperature. Neither are some smaller pockets of the world.
Anyway, I'll tell you where it is warm now, and of all places in the close vicinity of a massive glacier (Greenland) which basically "holds" the temp low, like your room was filled with Icecubes.
In Narsassuaq there is 13+ and the forecast is warm as long as can be seen.
Same goes with Nuuk, and in Kangerlussuaq which normally has -20 at this time of year it is now +5
Ponder on that....
-
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/heavy-snow-freezing-rain-hits-southeastern-us/19338420?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fheavy-snow-freezing-rain-hits-southeastern-us%2F19338420
this kind of stuff is pretty much normal every few years.....and as i suspected(bought a new snow blower in november), we're getting it.
so..........why exactly is it again, that we all should be worried?
The fact you're basing your entire opinion solely off the weather in your neighborhood.... That's why I'm worried, to be honest. The general public does not think much further than that, unfortunately, and also doesn't realize that weather isn't climate. I'm not trying to insult you CAP, it is just that your view is very myopic in this example. You consistently post about the weather in your area....again, not climate.
In a cruel twist of fate, the UK and the US both had deep cold snaps this winter. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is much warmer. The Arctic is warmer still than it was. Alaska had a very unseasonably warm winter. The entire southern hemisphere has baked through summer.
But, considering global policy originates in the UK and US, there will be a serious push by the general uneducated masses to reject AGW, all due to a cold winter. In short, most of the voter's decision is based on weather they experienced and not upon the climate of the biomes. Whether or not AGW proves true or proves false, basing one's decision on this winter is completely illogical. And, from what I've seen from the general public where I live, that is exactly what has happened.
But, again, I stand by my own opinion. Unless someone discovers a feedback inhibitor in the climate system, or a negative feedback loop, we're already along for the ride. Even if we stopped our ways in a drastic manner, we're locked in for massive issues. Our population needs to be culled anyway, in my estimation. That's the cold, impartial scientist in me, though. I fully don't expect our species to change until it is almost too late in any case...we use our large brains to explain off the warning signs, instead of analyze them. In any case, I will live out my life in temperatures only marginally higher than optimum, and will not see the collapse of the ecosystems from top-down and bottom-up pressures, along with wildly erratic climatology. My great grand children will live and die in that sorrowful time.
The belief that there isn't a problem if every year isn't warmer than the last is dead wrong. This is where the term "Global Warming" went wrong.. it gives a certain expectation by definition, and the term is subsequently negated by a cold year amongst warm ones.
-
The media feed on such crap like flies on shee(i)t. Dis-informing the public is an art form now. I remember about two years ago a big headline about research revealing that proximity to certain factories DOUBLES(!) the chances to develop some kind of tumor. Sounds scary indeed. But when you check the absolute numbers (not quoted in the media report of course), it increased it from 1/80,000 to 1/40,000. Better not leave the house then, it is not safe anymore.
I don't understand that if you understand sigma plots, that you wouldn't think that a statistical two-fold increase is significant. What the media does may be inflammatory and excessive(which is why I don't watch American media), but isn't the underlying data secure and significant, at least in this case.?
Your position is curious and flawed, and surprisingly affected by "simple numbers in the thousands". Whether 1/40,000 is an acceptable risk or not doesn't change the statistical significance of a doubling of tumor incidence proximal to certain chemicals. One is based on opinion..."1/40,000 is acceptable to me, even if the norm is 1/80,000" and one is based on statistical fact "there is a doubling of incidence of X tumor development proximal to Y factory".
For someone who says they are involved in science in some way (at least I think you have, in past threads, though I could be wrong), your data analysis is troubling and biased.
If you are a scientist....please send me some of your papers. It would be a thrill to read them.
-
Well Bud, lets look at a chart from the same document you quoted, Okay?
(http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Scientists.jpg)
I think it is self-explanatory.
But hey, lets stop quibbling over silly things. These kind of arguments serve no useful purpose. No one really cares one way or the other anyway. I think we can both find more useful things to discuss. Agree?
Let's talks Marine Biology, a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested.
Do you recognize this gentleman?
(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v332/185/111/1353079072/n1353079072_30087177_8828.jpg)
(http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1919/185/111/1353079072/n1353079072_30236747_1066.jpg)
His name is Steve Resler. Steve has held various positions related to marine biology. He holds several degrees in Marine science and environmental science. His positions have included Senior Marine Resources Technician, Environmental Analyst, Bay Constable, Harbormaster. Later, he moved up to Deputy Bureau Chief, NY Dept of State - Coastal Management Program. After 35 years, he recently retired and started his own marine field research consulting business, "InnerSpace Scientific Diving". Steve is nationally known and highly respected. He's a guy you may want to know.
Here's his resume on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-resler/17/b5/918 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-resler/17/b5/918)
Steve and I went to high school together. We've managed to stay in touch over the intervening 40 years. Great guy, great marine researcher. Should you have any interest in connecting with Steve, shoot me a PM and I'll give him a heads-up.
My regards
Widewing
Yes, Wide, I've heard of him. Unless I am off, I think he had a lot to do with NOAA's sci-diver program, from inception. I could be wrong though, without doing a bit of digging.
I appreciate the heads up. I will keep it in mind. I would have replied sooner, but had multiple days in the field and pulled two all nighters in the lab this week...., so I've been MIA from the bbs and game, understandably.
:salute
-
The fact you're basing your entire opinion solely off the weather in your neighborhood.... That's why I'm worried, to be honest. The general public does not think much further than that, unfortunately, and also doesn't realize that weather isn't climate. I'm not trying to insult you CAP, it is just that your view is very myopic in this example. You consistently post about the weather in your area....again, not climate.
In a cruel twist of fate, the UK and the US both had deep cold snaps this winter. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is much warmer. The Arctic is warmer still than it was. Alaska had a very unseasonably warm winter. The entire southern hemisphere has baked through summer.
But, considering global policy originates in the UK and US, there will be a serious push by the general uneducated masses to reject AGW, all due to a cold winter. In short, most of the voter's decision is based on weather they experienced and not upon the climate of the biomes. Whether or not AGW proves true or proves false, basing one's decision on this winter is completely illogical. And, from what I've seen from the general public where I live, that is exactly what has happened.
But, again, I stand by my own opinion. Unless someone discovers a feedback inhibitor in the climate system, or a negative feedback loop, we're already along for the ride. Even if we stopped our ways in a drastic manner, we're locked in for massive issues. Our population needs to be culled anyway, in my estimation. That's the cold, impartial scientist in me, though. I fully don't expect our species to change until it is almost too late in any case...we use our large brains to explain off the warning signs, instead of analyze them. In any case, I will live out my life in temperatures only marginally higher than optimum, and will not see the collapse of the ecosystems from top-down and bottom-up pressures, along with wildly erratic climatology. My great grand children will live and die in that sorrowful time.
The belief that there isn't a problem if every year isn't warmer than the last is dead wrong. This is where the term "Global Warming" went wrong.. it gives a certain expectation by definition, and the term is subsequently negated by a cold year amongst warm ones.
my point was/is, though, that this is not abnormal. not just in my area of the us.....but even the patterns the weather comes from.
i also do believe the weather is indeed the climate. the thousands(or however many there are) of smaller weather systems come together to form the climate.
i don't know about the uk, as i haven't lived there, or followed its weather too closley......but i've been told there used to be snow there a lot too.
i do agree that other areas are warmer, while the currently cold areas are cold...but that is yet another point. as some areas cool off, others warm up. eventually those areas will cool off, while the currently cool areas warm up.
it's all cyclic.
-
it's all cyclic.
The problem with this ideology is that it is easy to explain any and all effects, without implied reason.
Yes there are cycles, and what has been repeatedly bashing you over the head, is that the observed trends aren't within those understood "cycles". So, either there is a new "cycle" that hasn't been uncovered over the last million years of understood climate shifts.....or....the system changed.
Being half-right on principle doesn't make you correct overall.
-
my point was/is, though, that this is not abnormal. not just in my area of the us.....but even the patterns the weather comes from.
i also do believe the weather is indeed the climate.
Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years
Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity.
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/ (http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/)
NOT THE SAME.
-
The problem with this ideology is that it is easy to explain any and all effects, without implied reason.
Yes there are cycles, and what has been repeatedly bashing you over the head, is that the observed trends aren't within those understood "cycles". So, either there is a new "cycle" that hasn't been uncovered over the last million years of understood climate shifts.....or....the system changed.
Being half-right on principle doesn't make you correct overall.
Well, it seems that the people who "understand" these cycles and the simulation software they use to predict them failed to predict the flattening of the warming trend over the last decade. Nor can they now conclusively explain it as noted in the leaked emails from the CRU conspirators.
Could we agree that these cycles are not completely understood yet, much less their fundamental cause? Could we agree that there certainly is not overwhelming concensus of the entire scientific community that Man is the primary cause of any recent warming ? Could we agree that the issue is not completely settled and it would be false to say "the debate is over"?
Regards,
Wab
-
Well, it seems that the people who "understand" these cycles and the simulation software they use to predict them failed to predict the flattening of the warming trend over the last decade. Nor can they now conclusively explain it as noted in the leaked emails from the CRU conspirators.
Could we agree that these cycles are not completely understood yet, much less their fundamental cause? Could we agree that there certainly is not overwhelming concensus of the entire scientific community that Man is the primary cause of any recent warming ? Could we agree that the issue is not completely settled and it would be false to say "the debate is over"?
Regards,
Wab
(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)
Ok, here we go!
1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists
2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line! Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.
3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk. The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument. Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.
4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.
-Penguin
-
(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)
Ok, here we go!
1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists
2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line! Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.
3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk. The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument. Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.
4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.
-Penguin
And rather than pretending that this is some sort of high school debate scored on points, why don't you actually try sounding like a normal human being trying to have a conversation for a change?
Just a suggestion.
-
(Had to edit out big gap to make post more compact)
Ok, here we go!
1.) The first argument is a fallacy of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; where you are stating that since all climatologists, cannot explain the foul play of a few score, therefore they are not good climatologists
2.) The first argument also does not account for the fact that almost nothing (excluding measurements and sometimes light in a perfect vacuum) in this universe is following a straight line! Not only that, but just because you had a bad winter, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.
3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound; since the premise is unfounded, which means that the argument is bunk. The next scentence, shows that you have little knowledge of science; if all of the scientists agreed, we wouldn't be having an argument. Science is also about starting with lots an' lots an' lots an' lots of ideas, and selecting the one that evidence, research and logic support the best.
4.) The final scentence doesn't even agree with the second one, go figure.
-Penguin
you realize that this is not an argument, right?
if you're going to continue to call peoples statements false, then you need to provide information showing such.
notice how moray ALWAYS makes sure to include information of some sort when he counters a statement by me, or anyone else. he does his research, then comes back here.
you, with this style you're using, would lose a debate in less than 5 minutes.
and just so ya know.....when i was in high school, i was VERY good at debating. :aok
-
nvm this kid isnt even worth responding too seriously
-
In order to get this thread past Batman's arch nemesis (and possibly my own, at this point)...I give you this...
Our data show that 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the 130 years of near‐global
instrumental measurements – and the Southern Hemisphere had its warmest year in that entire period.
Before discussing these data, and their reconciliation with regional cold anomalies, we must consider
the time frame of comparison.
If we look back a century, we find cold anomalies that dwarf current ones. Figure 1 shows
photos of people walking on Niagara Falls in 1911. Such an extreme cold snap is unimaginable today.
About a decade earlier, in February 1899, temperature fell to ‐2°F in Tallahassee, Florida, ‐9°F in Atlanta,
Georgia ‐30°F in Erasmus, Tennessee, ‐47°F in Camp Clark, Nebraska, and ‐61°F in Fort Logan, Montana.
The Mississippi River froze all the way to New Orleans, discharging ice into the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf)
If you read anything from this paper, read the overview. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts, they're all there, and I would highly recommend it.
Niagara Falls, winter 1911.
(http://www.photosfan.com/images/niagara-falls-frozen-over-bottom-and-top1.jpg)
Global cooling in the past decade? That question can be addressed with a much higher
degree of confidence than the ranking of individual years. The reason is that error due to
incomplete spatial coverage of data becomes smaller for data averaged over several years. The
2‐sigma error in the 5‐year running‐mean temperature anomaly shown in Figure 3, is about a
factor of two smaller than the annual mean uncertainty, thus only 0.02‐0.03°C. Given that the
change of 5‐year‐mean global temperature anomaly is almost 0.2°C over the past decade, we
can conclude that the world has become warmer over the past decade, not cooler.
-
again that might mean something if it werent for the fact that they cherry pick temperature stations worldwide to reflect a desired result......... its very easy to simply take ALL the data from ALL the stations and find that the numbers they are reporting as averages are nowhere near accurate
its a simple standard really.......... use all the data and get a correct answer.......... or use a handpicked 10% of the data and get an answer you can prove your point with
-
indeed.
you need to be specific here, just because you dont understand it doesnt necessarily make it invalid. your A/B example earlier suggests you havent grasped the magnitude of the problem. this is not a simple system like A which a smart schoolkid could predict using Newtonian mechanics, it is a vastly complex dynamic system. the models will necesarily be magnitudes more complex too.
part of an earlier reply sums up most contributions to this thread quite nicely "... a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested."
You're calling me ignorant? Now YOU sound like one of these arrogant so-called scientists. :)
I consider myself a lot smarter than the average bear. I've been studying and following the science of climatology for almost 7 years. I am very aware of the mind-boggling-complexities of climatology which also makes me critical of any science behind it. What I am saying about climate change is that it's bunk because the damage we're doing to the worlds natural resources including deforestation and pollution and poisoning of water will harm this world sooner before climate change can.
And we've let the G-20 nations monetize climate change. @#()@#)(! Why does this have to be about money? How about ensuring our children's children have safe drinking water? Clean air to breath? Natural resources to grow food, build homes, and heat the dwellings when it's -20 degrees in the winter?
-
In order to get this thread past Batman's arch nemesis (and possibly my own, at this point)...I give you this...
Troglodytes like me are kinda slow, so without the academiaspeak (in plain English, in your own words), are you asserting that the trend of average anual global tempertures have not flattened since around 1998?
Regards,
Wab
-
Sooo, the plot thickens....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.
-
Big surprise there, when will the masses wake up?!
Strip
-
3.) The second argument's first scentence is unsound
Penguin,
Sentences cannot be unsound. Sentences are true or false. Arguments are what can be sound or unsound. This is just one of many times that you've blundered in trying to sound like an English professor.
-
Troglodytes like me are kinda slow, so without the academiaspeak (in plain English, in your own words), are you asserting that the trend of average anual global tempertures have not flattened since around 1998?
Regards,
Wab
(http://www.hiltonpond.org/images/WrenWinter04.jpg)
Don't knock yourself. :aok (Troglodytes troglodytes)
I simply posted the work of a climate scientist. I cannot personally spend the time to compile the data and analyze it. I do think he's one of the ones that have paid the most for his work though, and has stuck to his work when he could have just shut up and gone away. I personally think he SHOULD have gone away....his career would have been better for it.
I was asserting that there is evidence that the temperature has definitely not gone down. If you wish to say that the temperatures have leveled as of this year, I would agree. But if temps level off at a solar minimum, and still the year is tied for the second warmest in recorded history... what have we won?
See SHIFTING BASELINES.
I also thought this was intriguing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm)
Apparently, some enterprising researcher figured out why the warming trend predicted was under the trend observed.
ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2010) — A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different -- it's a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn't expect," says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.
Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.
-
Sorry moray, but the hits are just rolling in... it's been we 'adjusted' the numbers and now the raw data is gone, we act like a religious cult towards deniers, we used some quotes about glaciers that were wrong, the islands sinking in the pacific aren't...
and now it's oops the co2 feedback model is very wrong, and look there's more bits we don't understand.
It doesn't give one a lot of confidence in the climate scientists does it?
-
...
What I am saying about climate change is that it's bunk because the damage we're doing to the worlds natural resources including deforestation and pollution and poisoning of water will harm this world sooner before climate change can.
And we've let the G-20 nations monetize climate change. @#()@#)(! Why does this have to be about money? How about ensuring our children's children have safe drinking water? Clean air to breath? Natural resources to grow food, build homes, and heat the dwellings when it's -20 degrees in the winter?
THIS is the issue many scientists have with the whole climate debate. While very interesting academically, the public exposure it gets and politization and capitalization of it de-track huge amount of resources from many, much more burning environmental problem.
The problem has several layers:
1. Is there a climate "change" and it is enough to worry about?
2. What is the cause? man or nature?
3. What can we do about it?
What happened was that hysteria mongers pushed #1 and labeled it with a big YES.
Then #2, without good evidence simply defaults to blame man. Why? because for the tree huggers, nature is perfect and if something is wrong it has to be man (who is somehow not part of nature). For the Christians, they were born guilty anyway so such accusation are easily accepted.
Then #3 is acted upon without any clear view of what needs to be done, but we "must do something". Of course doing pointless things is very good for politics and quick entrepreneurs - how about sacrificing a goat instead? much quicker and cheaper. Who said the ancients were not smart?
-
Sorry moray, but the hits are just rolling in... it's been we 'adjusted' the numbers and now the raw data is gone, we act like a religious cult towards deniers, we used some quotes about glaciers that were wrong, the islands sinking in the pacific aren't...
and now it's oops the co2 feedback model is very wrong, and look there's more bits we don't understand.
It doesn't give one a lot of confidence in the climate scientists does it?
Rising global temperatures that fit neatly with increasingly rapid industrialization make me suspect that, despite the botched UN climate report, they really might be onto something.
As for the argument about AGW distracting from issues that really matter. There is some merit to that, but at the same time it strikes me as a sleight of hand. In the United States, where the law and regulations have been enforced, there's been in improvement over the decades, not decline. The irony is that public support for enforcement of regulations has reacted inversely to the successes, and politicians take notice. So the next time we see a thread about the disintegration of enforcement of environmental protections here in the United States, some of which protect our drinking water, and you all are outraged, let me know.
-------------
Edit, as for the rest of the world, if you want to do something easy today, download a seafood watch card and follow its guidelines at restaurants and grocery stores.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx)
-
Oh look - more awesome research methodologies. A climbing magazine and someone masters dissertation - definitely foundations to form sound theories and data on global warming, and glacial retreating.
:rock :rock :rock
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2507116 :rofl
-
(http://www.hiltonpond.org/images/WrenWinter04.jpg)
Don't knock yourself. :aok (Troglodytes troglodytes)
I simply posted the work of a climate scientist. I cannot personally spend the time to compile the data and analyze it. I do think he's one of the ones that have paid the most for his work though, and has stuck to his work when he could have just shut up and gone away. I personally think he SHOULD have gone away....his career would have been better for it.
I was asserting that there is evidence that the temperature has definitely not gone down. If you wish to say that the temperatures have leveled as of this year, I would agree. But if temps level off at a solar minimum, and still the year is tied for the second warmest in recorded history... what have we won?
See SHIFTING BASELINES.
I also thought this was intriguing...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm)
Apparently, some enterprising researcher figured out why the warming trend predicted was under the trend observed.
so.......now, they're saying less water vapor in the upper atmosphere, is causing less insulation.
yet, it has been previously stated that cooler air can hold less moisture. so, it could be assumed(i know that it's dangerous to assume) that the air is then cooling, thus loosing some ability to hold moisture.
they said they don't understand why there has been a loss of water vapor.....cooling would explain that loss, since cooler air holds less.
annnnnd....the sun has been less active. now it's becoming more active, it will warm us some, and cause more evaporation....and between the two, i'd bet it's a safe assumption, that there will be a corrosponding increase in the amount of water vapor. :aok
-
VVEEELLLLYYY intelesting......vvveellly iiieennntelesting indeeeed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/
the last one is a hoot.
-
VVEEELLLLYYY intelesting......vvveellly iiieennntelesting indeeeed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/28/save-rainforest-climate-change-scandal-chopped-facts/
the last one is a hoot.
You know what is hilarious? These attacks on things that are anecdotal at best, when talking about climate science. This would be akin to a defense Lawyer arguing that the defendant's fly was down, and his shoes untied, so therefore he couldn't possibly have robbed the mini mart....
The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.
Again, there's nothing here. The quoting of anecdotal references is poor in a scientific sense, but does absolutely nothing to destabilize the actual science behind climate. After all, the only thing they're attacking is the fact that there's not scientific study behind the "glacier gate scandal"...... something which any climate scientist will laugh at anyway. Glaciers are more dependent upon precipitation levels than on temperature anyway. The rainforest thing is just plain stupid. This is what happens when politicians run reports. The attacks on these two things are incredibly petty at best. At worst, criminal. The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.
The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO. Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.
-
You know what is hilarious? These attacks on things that are anecdotal at best, when talking about climate science. This would be akin to a defense Lawyer arguing that the defendant's fly was down, and his shoes untied, so therefore he couldn't possibly have robbed the mini mart....
The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.
Again, there's nothing here. The quoting of anecdotal references is poor in a scientific sense, but does absolutely nothing to destabilize the actual science behind climate. After all, the only thing they're attacking is the fact that there's not scientific study behind the "glacier gate scandal"...... something which any climate scientist will laugh at anyway. Glaciers are more dependent upon precipitation levels than on temperature anyway. The rainforest thing is just plain stupid. This is what happens when politicians run reports. The attacks on these two things are incredibly petty at best. At worst, criminal. The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.
The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO. Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.
highlighted sentence.......but then why are they all trying to say that warming 1/2 a degree will melt them all, etc etc?
i don't even remotely doubt your beliefs, or motives. i truly believe your motives are good. the problem comes from the fact that the data that has been use, has been proven to be flawed in some way shape or form. THAT alone is what proves that there may not be any of this caused by man. why? because if man WERe causing the planet to warm, then there would have been no need to change any data, or to cherry pick where they took their data from.
there was an entire new industry built off of this stuff. there is money to be made if it continues, and more to be made if it escalates.
the oil companies(whom everyone says are behind all attempts to show that global warming is not man made) will continue to make money(lots of it) regardless of the outcome, thus nullifying claims that they stand to lose.
the new industries built around global warming, on the other hand, stand to lose magnificently, should this all be disproven. due to this, they will stop at nothing to keep it going, regardless the cost to the people.
even the water vapor thing you mentioned before.........it all still comes back to the sun. it almost seems that since the co2 thing is falling apart, now they're gonna try the water vapor thing.
-
If glaciers rely more on percipitation than temp, and warming creates more percipitation, why are the glaciers receding?
-
Rising global temperatures that fit neatly with increasingly rapid industrialization make me suspect that, despite the botched UN climate report, they really might be onto something.
As for the argument about AGW distracting from issues that really matter. There is some merit to that, but at the same time it strikes me as a sleight of hand. In the United States, where the law and regulations have been enforced, there's been in improvement over the decades, not decline. The irony is that public support for enforcement of regulations has reacted inversely to the successes, and politicians take notice. So the next time we see a thread about the disintegration of enforcement of environmental protections here in the United States, some of which protect our drinking water, and you all are outraged, let me know.
But the numbers don't match what they predicted.
AGW is distracting from the issues as there are those that are hijacking it to make money.
The carbon trading schemes are a perfect example. Dunno bout the US but this system will kill manufacturing industries here that are already borderline. Those industries have a habit of packing up shop and moving to china (or india) where there are no carbon taxes (among other things). They drive the need for more power in china, and guess what china builds? New coal burning power stations that pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.
So the end result in participating in this stupid scheme is that first we give money to 3rd world countries and have no idea where it goes, and secondly drive our industries to those countries and end up with even more pollution in the atmosphere.
Next example, tuvalu. It's a small island nation in the pacific jumping up and down at AGW conferences demanding money and help for the AGW causing the sea to rise and flood the island. It's often held up as a real current example of the dangers of AGW by the AGW crowd and the press. BUT, the problem isn't AGW, it is that the locals dynamited the reefs for fishing and material to make roads. They also cleaned out the fresh water table underground destabilizing the land. The reefs provided a natural barrier to waves, no more natural barrier = waves hit the shore and cause erosion. But do they stop blowing the snot out of their reefs? No! Because it's AGW's fault.
I'm no pro-pollution, I hate it, and I think regardless of the AGW we need to stop dumping stuff into our atmosphere. But this AGW bandwagon has been hijacked by those out to make a quick buck. This has lead to sensationalism driving the predictions.
-
But the numbers don't match what they predicted.
That's not a surprise at all. Read some history of science and you will see just how infrequently predictions are confirmed. Of course, it's happened many times in the past that a theory is confirmed even though it turns out to be junk. And likewise, theories that were later accepted were at first big losers.
-
The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.
But the people driving the AGW argument were happy to hold them out as motivating factors for the public. Now if those people need to use dishonest examples how can we trust the science part of the equation they put forward - especially when so much of it is vague probabilities with no absolutes?
And before you say 'oh that was the politicians not the scientists', the scientists must've known the data was wrong. After all weren't these reports signed off by THOUSANDS of scientists? So either the scientists are not reading the reports being put out and signing them off blind, or they are reading them and keeping quiet about the dishonesty. Either way your pro-AGW scientists then exhibit a bias and dishonest, and that makes for bad science.
Oh and:
Climategate timeline banner
http://www.box.net/shared/77imjivith
-
even the water vapor thing you mentioned before.........it all still comes back to the sun. it almost seems that since the co2 thing is falling apart, now they're gonna try the water vapor thing.
Just to clear up any misconception, the link I posted was a study that showed a decrease in water vapor at a particularly important part of the atmosphere that influenced temperature.
The past decade hasn't been within the predictions, and many studies were trying to determine why, especially since the 80's and 90's were ABOVE CO2's predicted forcing. This study might have figured out why. Water vapor is the single most important gas involved. Even at small concentrations, it is a major player.
There was still warming over the time period, it simply wasn't the predictive value. You are missing the intent of the study.
-
as Ive said many times........... Ive yet to see a FACTUAL study that there even is "global warming"
Moray points out that 2009 ties for the warmest year in recorded history......... but he refuses to address the fact that they cherry picked weather station data to achieve that number
I personally believe that 2009 was the COLDEST year in recorded history......... and the temperatures have decreased at an astounding rate EVERY year for the last 100 years
I can quickly produce some fancy charts and graphs...... a few images that show world anomalies and they will be just as accurate as any chart that has been show so far in this thread
all I will need to do is EXACTLY the same things the "alarmists" are doing......... hand select which stations I want to use for my data and only use those temperatures............
I can very quickly prove that there is no such thing as global warming and be just as correct as any "alarmist" has been
that is of course unless you want to try to be honest about the situation and actually use ALL the data and show FACTUAL information about what is happening
for instance lets take all the data used for the 2009 averages which make up this "record" year.......... then compare them to data from the SAME stations and ONLY the same stations for the last 100 years....... you will find that 2009 was nowhere close to a record year and in fact not even the warmest in the last few decades
what they are trying to do is simple... as an exaggerated example:
'weve measured the average temperatures for the last 100 years in antartica...... then weve compared that to the average temperatures for the last 10 years in Columbia...... weve discovered that the last 10 years have been extremely hotter than the previous 90'................... DOH
-
But the people driving the AGW argument were happy to hold them out as motivating factors for the public. Now if those people need to use dishonest examples how can we trust the science part of the equation they put forward - especially when so much of it is vague probabilities with no absolutes?
And before you say 'oh that was the politicians not the scientists', the scientists must've known the data was wrong. After all weren't these reports signed off by THOUSANDS of scientists? So either the scientists are not reading the reports being put out and signing them off blind, or they are reading them and keeping quiet about the dishonesty. Either way your pro-AGW scientists then exhibit a bias and dishonest, and that makes for bad science.
No, I'm sorry you are wrong. When thousands of human beings work on a single project, some of them are going to screw up. Some of them did. Why they did is not exactly material. Again, these attacks are on limited anecdotal evidence contained within the IPCC report.
While I will support their validity at this point, I will also say that I already personally know of two studies ongoing in pre-publication that have empirical evidence supporting glacier recession over the past 20 years from colleagues involved. (I think someone saw this coming, BTW, but that is just my personal opinion.)
But again, refuting things on the basis of simple anecdotal evidence doesn't refute the postulate. It simply means someone will have to do the work more concisely to shut up those that are attacking it. But, in my estimation, those attacks on mundane points won't stop until they have self admitted 100% proof for AGW. 100% proof is virtually impossible for anything in science (see "gravity" and "atomic theory").... so by extension, nothing will ever be settled in the denialist world, even after it is way past too late....which I already personally feel it is.
-
as Ive said many times........... Ive yet to see a FACTUAL study that there even is "global warming"
Moray points out that 2009 ties for the warmest year in recorded history......... but he refuses to address the fact that they cherry picked weather station data to achieve that number
Did you read the study and methodology?
-
yes and the study and methodology very clearly points out cherry picking data
-
yes and the study and methodology very clearly points out cherry picking data
Explain how so. (I'm also assuming your use of Hansen et al (2010), because i posted it. If you are using HADCRUT, please indicate)
Here's the link. Have a blast. Find a clear methodological issue. Take all the time you need, and feel free to ask for some clarification on the more technical aspects from whomever you wish. (I would offer myself, but that might add to your mystery bias.)
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100127_TemperatureFinal.pdf)
-
Explain how so.
Yes, please do. You owe us a quote from the methodology that you believe indicates "cherry-picking."
-
I found an interesting study relating to the total carbon footprint of various autos and trucks. Dust to dust or design through junkyard.
These guys evaluate each model (supposedly using 3,000 data points) and list each in terms of energy efficiency. What it shows is that hybrids consume an enormous amount of energy (relatively) in design and manufacture, more than offsetting the fuel mileage. It seems that after initial concerns, Toyota accepts the analysis.
Many surprises here, and then again, some were no surprise at all. The Scion xB ranked at the top. However, the Jeep Wrangler ranked fourth. I believe that the Prius ranked 197 due to the vast outlay of energy to produce, and the very high expense to replace batteries. Their analysis shows that taken within the context of dust to dust, the Hummer H2 has a smaller carbon footprint than the Prius.
You can find the analysis using the links below. Whether or not you agree with the analysis is somewhat immaterial. Understanding what is being measured and its significance relative to the debate about C02 related warming and what defines a "green" vehicle. Thus, you should be able to understand why the Jeep ranks so high in total energy efficiency.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls)
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes, please do. You owe us a quote from the methodology that you believe indicates "cherry-picking."
He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.
A true banana argument. :banana:
Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does. (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)
-
He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.
A true banana argument. :banana:
Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does. (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)
DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?
doing anything else, seems just not right.,
-
I found an interesting study relating to the total carbon footprint of various autos and trucks. Dust to dust or design through junkyard.
These guys evaluate each model (supposedly using 3,000 data points) and list each in terms of energy efficiency. What it shows is that hybrids consume an enormous amount of energy (relatively) in design and manufacture, more than offsetting the fuel mileage. It seems that after initial concerns, Toyota accepts the analysis.
Many surprises here, and then again, some were no surprise at all. The Scion xB ranked at the top. However, the Jeep Wrangler ranked fourth. I believe that the Prius ranked 197 due to the vast outlay of energy to produce, and the very high expense to replace batteries. Their analysis shows that taken within the context of dust to dust, the Hummer H2 has a smaller carbon footprint than the Prius.
You can find the analysis using the links below. Whether or not you agree with the analysis is somewhat immaterial. Understanding what is being measured and its significance relative to the debate about C02 related warming and what defines a "green" vehicle. Thus, you should be able to understand why the Jeep ranks so high in total energy efficiency.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/From%20Low%20to%20High%20by%20Segment%2007%20CY.xls)
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf (http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf)
My regards,
Widewing
I've never regarded the hybrid push as being substantive in the short term. After all, when you have 4 million electric cars.... it still takes gas or coal to produce all that electricity, so the footprint is still there.
It makes some "feel" better though. :lol :rolleyes:
Long term, it may reduce effect somewhat, but I wonder if it would be substantive.
-
The temperature of the earth is driven by the amount of sunspots on the sun at any given time(to an extent). There is a study that has the temperature rise overlaid on a graph with the amount of sunspots and they correlate almost exactly. Global warming is a myth propagated to induce fear or to make money. Here is the study check it out.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html
-
DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?
doing anything else, seems just not right.,
Just like it is explained in the study.... please read the study.
The temperature anomalies are at a 5 degree‐by‐5 degree (latitude‐longitude)
resolution for the GISS data to match that in the HadCRUT analysis. In the lower two maps we
display the GISS data masked to the same area and resolution as the HadCRUT analysis.
The “masked” GISS data let us quantify the extent to which the difference between the
GISS and HadCRUT analyses is due to the data interpolation and extrapolation that occurs in the
GISS analysis. The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many gridboxes that do not
contain measurement data, specifically all gridboxes located within 1200 km of one or more
stations that do have defined temperature anomalies.
The rationale for this aspect of the GISS analysis is based on the fact that temperature
anomaly patterns tend to be large scale. For example, if it is an unusually cold winter in New
York, it is probably unusually cold in Philadelphia too. This fact suggests that it may be better to
assign a temperature anomaly based on the nearest stations for a gridbox that contains no
observing stations, rather than excluding that gridbox from the global analysis. Tests of this
assumption are described in our papers referenced below
The 2-sigma bias, when all is considered
Table 1. Two‐sigma error estimate versus period for meteorological stations and land‐0cean index.
1880‐1900 1900‐1950 1960‐2008
Meteorological Stations 0.2 0.15 0.08
Land‐Ocean Index 0.08 0.05 0.05
That's an incredibly small 2-sigma error, on the past 50 years. The previous 70 are due to sampling errors or instrument bias. (19th century/early 20th century measuring inaccuracy)
-
I've never regarded the hybrid push as being substantive in the short term. After all, when you have 4 million electric cars.... it still takes gas or coal to produce all that electricity, so the footprint is still there.
It makes some "feel" better though. :lol :rolleyes:
Long term, it may reduce effect somewhat, but I wonder if it would be substantive.
this is agreed.....hybrids are the absolute worst we could do....with the exception of using coal fired cars.......
-
DO THese computer programs not have the capacity to use data from ALL of the stations?
doing anything else, seems just not right.,
Also, yes they could, but the resulting data would need to be cleaned and fine toothed relentlessly, while not lowering the inherent error probability.
Also, you add in the possibility of multiple corruption of the data due to inaccuracy at each individual station, as they are all not uniform. By using a base area and then randomly using a number of station geographically in that area, you control the amount of error and bias within that data set, as long as that initial postulate (an area X degrees by Y degrees will show trendline) isn't disproved.
I would imagine at some point, some group of geeks will be pressed into service to do every station just to placate the denialist regime. When they come back with 99.8 % probability, then the denialist agenda will be to focus on that .2%, wasting the countless dollars poured into a study for an ever more precise approximation closer to 100% that the denialists require.
Like I've said before, it won't be until whatever is left of this species looks back incredulously 300 or so years from now, that the strange truth of this debate will be properly framed.
-
Also, yes they could, but the resulting data would need to be cleaned and fine toothed relentlessly, while not lowering the inherent error probability.
Also, you add in the possibility of multiple corruption of the data due to inaccuracy at each individual station, as they are all not uniform. By using a base area and then randomly using a number of station geographically in that area, you control the amount of error and bias within that data set, as long as that initial postulate (an area X degrees by Y degrees will show trendline) isn't disproved.
I would imagine at some point, some group of geeks will be pressed into service to do every station just to placate the denialist regime. When they come back with 99.8 % probability, then the denialist agenda will be to focus on that .2%, wasting the countless dollars poured into a study for an ever more precise approximation closer to 100% that the denialists require.
Like I've said before, it won't be until whatever is left of this species looks back incredulously 300 or so years from now, that the strange truth of this debate will be properly framed.
Your posting crap now.
-
The things they are picking out have really nothing to do with the "science" part of the equation.
The real damage is in public relations, something which science as a whole is horribly terrible at, IMO. Good science will be destroyed by badly handled publicity 10 out of 10 times.
Moray clearly you are a obviously good scientist. Quite often the most strident defenders of the AGW are in fact scientists. I crossed swords with a couple on another forum. I'm even married to a scientist, a very good one. Scientists know how it works and they trust the science. Their not unreasonable assumption is that the science is rigorously scrutinised, peer reviewed objectively and open to change as new data becomes available. That's the test.
But can you honestly say that hand on heart the IPCC report maintains that standard? I chose the quotes carefully because quite clearly you are implicitly accepting that the report is flawed. In fact you cannot escape that truth. The glacier thing, the missing Chinese data and these anecodotal reports masquerading as scientific conclusions. These should have been there, particuarly the Himalayan issue as it was known to be false and was included anyway. Saying it was 'badly handled publicity' simply isn't an excuse.
They should not have made into a report which was purportedly the conclusions of numerous experts in the field of climatology. That is not science and it cast doubts on the underlying science. The CRU emails are also very revealing and considering a great deal of the IPCC report was based on conclusions supplied by the CRU only adds to the doubts.
You say The people that are attacking them know they have pretty much zero to do with the actual science..... but they have interest in seeing it fail at all cost.
That's the warmist version of the conspiracy theory. I'm sorry, explain to me again why they want it to fail? That implies they know AGW is real but want it to fail for some devious reasons, probably to do with oil companies and profits. They apparently know the 'truth' but don't care about the fate of the Earth and it's denizens. On the other hand someone like me you will accuse of not understanding the science. I'm not a scientist after all, just a dull pilot. I can be dismissed as a dupe of the denialists who cannot and will not understand the pure science.
But I would accuse you not understanding human nature. Scientists are not immune to it. If anything came across from the leaked emails it's that scientists are human like the rest of us.
The reality is that the science, the real science has long since been left behind and been replaced by a quasi religious process. The conclusion that we humans are causing climate change, specifically warming was reached many years ago. All research since has been aimed a proving it and finding the mechanisms but all the while there is an essential belief that the Earth is warming and is warming because of carbon dioxide produced by mankind. Is that science? Anyone who demurs is classed as a 'denialist' or as the British PM put it 'Anti science and a flat Earther'. Is that the scientific way of doing things?
All this would be fine if the argument was over something more esoteric like 'Dark Matter' or 'gaseous nebula' near Omicron Persei 8. But this isn't an isolated scientific argument. AGW means massive changes in how the people of the whole world live their lives. Massive social changes and loss of freedoms we now take for granted. It's already happening. Like all of us, it costs me extra money every day. People have already and continue to die because of changes made in the light of AGW theories.
This cannot be treated like many other scientific discussion or theory. The science must withstand every test thrown at it. So far it hasn't. You are right about one thing. It's all about the science or it should be. The fact that it isn't is a failure of the scientists involved. Excuses about being poor at public relations doesn't cut it.
The onus is on the scientists to prove this, not on the skeptics like me.
-
He's going to come back with a rehash of his "Missouri had three stations represented" argument, saying that Region A is cooler (now) than Region C and "everyone" knows it....not actually comparing the temperatures from Region A in 1900 versus Region A in 2000, mind you.
A true banana argument. :banana:
Nor realizing that station use is determined from a random selection process, like random.org does. (It is also done multiple times in most analyses)
actually if youre going to try to spew falsities at least try to do so with something that makes sense.....
once again youre not letting facts get in your way......... its not a matter of random selections its a matter of total selections......... every study released is based on temperature data derived from these sources...... and these sources are all very clear in the data they are using...... they arent even trying to hide their warm bias.........
its hard to have random selections when youve already handpicked which stations are allowed to be randomly selected from
as I pointed out earlier in the thread and will do so again since your comprehension levels seem a bit skewed by bias toward funding:
when you rely on GISS for data and GISS openly admits they are using less than 10% of the data stations to derive that data than they did 40 years ago during the period the "baseline" comes from then you have no argument to make that data is not being cherry picked
so yes I will go back to the MO and CA argument but expand that a little for you since you have problems with basic scientific principles (must need more funding)....... there are literally thousands of data stations in the US and 10s of thousands globally.......... the GISS uses less than 200 for the entire continent and ALL of those stations are hand selected (not random).... they use a 1200Km radius around those stations and determine the temperature for that station must represent that radius (this is all clearly stated on their website for you).......... they then indicate an "error rate" but dont take that error rate into account in their overall averaging they simply quote it as an error rate.......... so the end result is cherry picked data with an error rate that exceeds the defined result
this is the same process used globally...... out of tens of thousands of stations only there are some 1100-1200 selected to represent the entire planet......... and ironically they are all selected from locations within their region that trend higher than the rest of the region........
certainly I could put 6000 stations in antartica and 1 station inside a crematorium and still come up with a warm temperature average.......... and each year after Im going to reduce the number of stations in antartica and see what happens to that average........ my guess is it will rise every year
you seem to let logic escape you completely............... but good luck on the funding.......... hope it works out for you
-
.
This cannot be treated like many other scientific discussion or theory. The science must withstand every test thrown at it. So far it hasn't. You are right about one thing. It's all about the science or it should be. The fact that it isn't is a failure of the scientists involved. Excuses about being poor at public relations doesn't cut it.
The onus is on the scientists to prove this, not on the skeptics like me. This is the biggest failure of the scientists involved.
I agree with that last statement completely. Science has consistently been extremely bad with the general public..... many of us just scream and point "it's right there!!!!!!" too often, without the ability to relate effectively.
Like I said, I'm not particularly happy with the way the IPCC went about with its work....but then again, I'm rarely happy when large groups of people take on projects. Even at my level, as a basic researcher, it becomes obvious that the more hands involved, the more issues the project may have. Add to the fact that there are politics involved, and the onus is quickly shifted.
I will say this, I'm incredibly glad I'm not implicitly involved in the AGW research. I wouldn't take funding to research any aspect of it...it's thermonuclear. My particular employer (institute) has an overriding policy of silence involving AGW, for fear of any public or corporate reprisal, or funding issues. I can be fired if I speak about any aspect of this topic, while on paid time. This is to protect the many different departments from issues ....well, it's all complicated.<edited because i thought it was getting too particular...I like my job>
This BBS is actually one of the few places I'll even comment on it, as it is anonymous. Very few on here know any personal details about me, and those that do have happily remained silent. :aok
What little I've had cited in conjunction with AGW, I've made sure that their work was good and analysis sound, otherwise I requested my papers be withdrawn from citation, even if my work had little to do with theirs. I will happily point out flaws in methodology when they are apparent.
I'll stick to my little world, and watch my corals bleach more each year, as they have for decades. :frown:
-
actually if youre going to try to spew falsities at least try to do so with something that makes sense.....
once again youre not letting facts get in your way......... its not a matter of random selections its a matter of total selections......... every study released is based on temperature data derived from these sources...... and these sources are all very clear in the data they are using...... they arent even trying to hide their warm bias.........
its hard to have random selections when youve already handpicked which stations are allowed to be randomly selected from
as I pointed out earlier in the thread and will do so again since your comprehension levels seem a bit skewed by bias toward funding:
when you rely on GISS for data and GISS openly admits they are using less than 10% of the data stations to derive that data than they did 40 years ago during the period the "baseline" comes from then you have no argument to make that data is not being cherry picked
so yes I will go back to the MO and CA argument but expand that a little for you since you have problems with basic scientific principles (must need more funding)....... there are literally thousands of data stations in the US and 10s of thousands globally.......... the GISS uses less than 200 for the entire continent and ALL of those stations are hand selected (not random).... they use a 1200Km radius around those stations and determine the temperature for that station must represent that radius (this is all clearly stated on their website for you).......... they then indicate an "error rate" but dont take that error rate into account in their overall averaging they simply quote it as an error rate.......... so the end result is cherry picked data with an error rate that exceeds the defined result
this is the same process used globally...... out of tens of thousands of stations only there are some 1100-1200 selected to represent the entire planet......... and ironically they are all selected from locations within their region that trend higher than the rest of the region........
certainly I could put 6000 stations in antartica and 1 station inside a crematorium and still come up with a warm temperature average.......... and each year after Im going to reduce the number of stations in antartica and see what happens to that average........ my guess is it will rise every year
you seem to let logic escape you completely............... but good luck on the funding.......... hope it works out for you
And yet, surprisingly, not a single represented fact to back up your claim. I'm not surprised. All of what you wrote is conjecture until you prove otherwise. Please feel free to find any paper that shows they hand picked the data. Cite references.
Don't just type your opinion sir. That's exactly what "Glacier Gate" is about, albeit they actually had non scientific observations to support their conjecture. You've shown neither empirical nor even anecdotal evidence for your claim.
You didn't even reference the paper!!! :headscratch:
But yet find time to marginalize me as a scientist and a person, with personal attacks. Surprising.
Specifically, within the confines of either paper, point out a methodological deficiency. You may even cite denialist websites. Please. At least attempt to learn.
-
again with the problems you seem to have comprehending ............ the defenciency in either paper is that they rely on GISS data to support their conclusions............... GISS data is clearly cherry picked data..... they dont even try to hide that fact.... it says VERY clearly on their website in their methodology for acquiring the data that it is cherry picked.......... they simply try to sugar coat it by saying "we are scientists and we believe this will work"
source citations: GISS (even you should be able to find this one, would it help if I offer you a dollar?)
-
again with the problems you seem to have comprehending ............ the defenciency in either paper is that they rely on GISS data to support their conclusions............... GISS data is clearly cherry picked data..... they dont even try to hide that fact.... it says VERY clearly on their website in their methodology for acquiring the data that it is cherry picked.......... they simply try to sugar coat it by saying "we are scientists and we believe this will work"
source citations: GISS (even you should be able to find this one, would it help if I offer you a dollar?)
I suppose you are talking about this site? I don't know, since you refuse to give a source. It is not in comprehension, sir. It is upon you to cite your references in a debate, not upon me to provide you with them.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Updates to Analysis
Graphs and tables are updated around the 10th of every month using the current GHCN and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. NOAA updates the USHCN data at a slower, less regular frequency. We will switch to a later version, as soon as a new complete year is available.
Several minor updates to the analysis have been made since its last published description by Hansen et al. (2001). After a testing period they were incorporated at the time of the next routine update. The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15°C averaged over the United States and ~0.003°C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').
August 2003: A longer version of Hohenpeissenberg station data was made available to GISS and added to the GHCN record. This had no noticeable impact on the global analyses.
March 2005:SCAR data were added to the analysis. This increased data coverage over Antarctica, as evident in the global maps of temperature anomalies.
April 2006:HadISST ocean temperatures are now used only for regions that are identified as ice-free in both the NOAA and HadISST records. This change effects a small number of gridboxes in which HadISST has sea ice while NOAA has open water. The prior approach damped temperature change at these gridboxes because of specification of a fixed temperature in sea ice regions. The new approach still yields a conservative estimate of surface air temperature change, as surface air temperature usually changes markedly when sea ice is replaced by open water or vice versa. Because of the small area of these gridboxes the effect on global temperature change was negligible.
Aug. 7, 2007:A discontinuity in station records in the U.S. was discovered and corrected (GHCN data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center). This had a small impact on the U.S. average temperature, about 0.15°C, for 2000 and later years, and a negligible effect on global temperature, as is shown here.
This August 2007 change received international attention via discussions on various blogs and repetition by some other media, with no graphs provided to show the insignificance of the effect. Further discussions of the curious misinformation are provided by Dr. Hansen on his personal webpage (e.g., his post on "The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla").
Sep. 10, 2007: The year 2000 version of USHCN data was replaced by the current version (with data through 2005). In this newer version, NOAA removed or corrected a number of station records before year 2000. Since these changes included most of the records that failed our quality control checks, we no longer remove any USHCN records. The effect of station removal on analyzed global temperature is very small, as shown by graphs and maps available here.
Mar. 1, 2008: Starting with our next update, USHCN data will be taken from NOAA's ftp site — the original source for that file — rather than from CDIAC's web site; this way we get the most recent publicly available version. Whereas CDIAC's copy currently ends in 12/2005, NOAA's file extends through 5/2007. Note: New updates usually also include changes to data from previous years. Whereas the GHCN and SCAR data are updated every month, updates to the USHCN data occur at irregular intervals.
The publicly available source codes were modified to automatically adjust if new years are added.
June 9, 2008:Effective June 9, 2008, our analysis moved from a 15-year-old machine (soon to be decommissioned) to a newer machine. This will affect some results, though insignificantly. Some sorting routines were modified to minimize such machine dependence in the future.
A typo was discovered and corrected in the program that dealt with a potential discontinuity in the Lihue station record and some errors were noticed on www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html (set of stations not included in Met READER) that were not present before August 2007. We replaced those outliers with the originally reported values.
Those two changes had about the same impact on the results as switching machines (in each case the 1880-2007 change was affected by 0.002°C). See graph and maps.
Aug. 11, 2008: Nick Barnes and staff at Ravenbrook Limited have generously offered to reprogram the GISTEMP analysis using Python only, to make it clearer to a general audience. In the process, they have discovered in the routine that converts USHCN data from hundredths of °F to tenths of °C an unintended dropping of the hundredths of °F before the conversion and rounding to the nearest tenth of °C. This did not significantly change any results since the final rounding dominated the unintended truncation. The corrected code has been used for the current update and is now part of the publicly available source.
Sep. 10, 2008: Comments were added to the homogeneization program (PApars.f) and a line was changed to make the code compiler independent. (Thanks to Nick Barnes who noticed that some compilers may create an infinite loop due to roundoff errors.) These changes had no effect on any results.
Feb. 11, 2009:Two bugs in STEP0 programs were corrected before they had a chance to affect any results. Thanks to Mr. Peter O'Neill for discovering and reporting them to us.
SCAR corrected some errors in their data files; this had no effect on our work since we noticed and corrected most of them a few months ago (see 6/9/2008) and the others concerned stations whose records were too short to be included in our analysis. The analysis description was extended to describe the place where stations with short records are dropped.
May 2009:The sea ice mask adopted in April 2006 was slightly extended to include all ocean northward of 75N, since in that region in the winter months ice was present, particularly at the beginning of our data period, making water temperatures a bad proxy for air temperatures. This has no effect on our analysis, but it removes some odd discontinuities in some trend maps. The gridding tool on our ftp site was changed correspondingly. In addition, the last argument in that tool (mkTsMap.f) was changed to make it easier to use.
September 11, 2009: NOAA NCDC provided an updated file on 9 September of the GHCN data used in our analysis. The new file has increased data quality checks in the tropics. Beginning 11 September the GISS analysis uses the new NOAA data set. The change affects mainly part of South Africa.
November 13, 2009: NOAA is no longer updating the original version of the USHCN data; it ended in May 2007. The new version 2 currently extends to July 2009. Starting today, these newer data will be used in our analysis. Documentation and programs will be updated correspondingly.
December 3, 2009: Nick Barnes and staff at Ravenbrook Limited, while continuing reprogramming the whole GISS analysis, discovered a bug in a program used in STEP5; it was fixed and a rerun of the analysis showed that not a single number posted on this web site was affected by that correction. The public source code was modified correspondingly.
At no point do I see "we are scientists and we believe this will work".
-
So NASA is cherrypicking data to support the AGW hoax? :headscratch:
-
So NASA is cherrypicking data to support the AGW hoax? :headscratch:
Says the typical American Denialist where all things revolve around the dollar..."I bet they will now though! They just lost the shuttle, Constellation and Orion...." :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Your posting crap now.
Irony.
“Ignorant people think it's the noise which fighting cats make that is so aggravating, but it ain't so; it's the sickening grammar they use”
Mark Twain quotes (American Humorist, Writer and Lecturer. 1835-1910)
-
So NASA is cherrypicking data to support the AGW hoax? :headscratch:
i think there was some sort of errors pointed out in nasa;s stuff concerning this about 1 or 2 years ago.
-
So NASA is cherrypicking data to support the AGW hoax? :headscratch:
this guy wins the prize............ although moray should share it for actually finding the GISS website
now that you have found the site..... and youre so keen on methodology...... locate the parts where it explains theirs in deriving data........
then please explain to me (since Im obviously not a scientist and have no concept of what Im talking about) how using a 1200Km (approx 750 miles) radius from a SINGLE station as the average temperature for an entire area can possibly be anywhere close to accurate ......... this would imply that the average temperature in Amarillo, TX and Denver, CO are the same......... I guess its possible so maybe we should go with it
-
I've never regarded the hybrid push as being substantive in the short term. After all, when you have 4 million electric cars.... it still takes gas or coal to produce all that electricity, so the footprint is still there.
It makes some "feel" better though. :lol :rolleyes:
Long term, it may reduce effect somewhat, but I wonder if it would be substantive.
What I find interesting about vehicles like the Wrangler and Hummer is that they reduce the carbon footprint by sharing components and engineering. Adding to the low energy consumption is that Wranglers, for example, stay on the road for an average of 18 years or about 300,000 miles. Gas mileage (I get 17/25) isn't unreasonable, but still almost half of what the Prius gets. I found it fascinating the the Nickel used in the Prius' batteries must make four trans-oceanic and four railroad transits before it ends up at Toyota's battery factory. What makes long-term ownership of the car troublesome is the huge bill associated with battery replacement. This is killing resale of high mileage hybrids. No one wants to buy a Prius that will soon require more than $3,000 to replace the batteries. I've read and believe it to be true, that the Prius (and hybrids in general) will find their way into scrap yards far sooner than conventionally powered vehicles. Two major reasons. The rapid evolution of hybrid technology and the major expense of replacing worn components. Dealers don't want to take high mileage hybrids as trade-ins. They recognize that they risk much if they offer any kind of reasonable warranty. Should the batteries go belly up, they know it will cost them big money to replace them.
In comparison, the Wranglers retain 92% of their sticker price value after two years on the road. Even 10 years down the road, they can still command 40% or more of their original value. Few if any other vehicles can match this.
So, if being "green" is a legitimate goal, buying a Wrangler is one option that defies common, albeit incorrect, reasoning. Of course, when I bought mine, I never even considered that it was a true "green" vehicle. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
this guy wins the prize............ although moray should share it for actually finding the GISS website
now that you have found the site..... and youre so keen on methodology...... locate the parts where it explains theirs in deriving data........
then please explain to me (since Im obviously not a scientist and have no concept of what Im talking about) how using a 1200Km (approx 750 miles) radius from a SINGLE station as the average temperature for an entire area can possibly be anywhere close to accurate ......... this would imply that the average temperature in Amarillo, TX and Denver, CO are the same......... I guess its possible so maybe we should go with it
It's not implying that those areas have the same temperature.... It's implying they have similar climate effects upon that temperature. The specific temperature has very little to do with the actual analysis, besides a numerical base.
IE, if it's a cold winter in New York, statistically within one standard deviation, it's going to be a cold winter in Philadelphia. (about the same area as the study)
If you can show a specific 5 degree by 5 degree area of the planet that does not conform to this, please share it with Mr. Hansen and NASA. They will be interested, I assure you.
-
What I find interesting about vehicles like the Wrangler and Hummer is that they reduce the carbon footprint by sharing components and engineering. Adding to the low energy consumption is that Wranglers, for example, stay on the road for an average of 18 years or about 300,000 miles. Gas mileage (I get 17/25) isn't unreasonable, but still almost half of what the Prius gets. I found it fascinating the the Nickel used in the Prius' batteries must make four trans-oceanic and four railroad transits before it ends up at Toyota's battery factory. What makes long-term ownership of the car troublesome is the huge bill associated with battery replacement. This is killing resale of high mileage hybrids. No one wants to buy a Prius that will soon require more than $3,000 to replace the batteries. I've read and believe it to be true, that the Prius (and hybrids in general) will find their way into scrap yards far sooner than conventionally powered vehicles. Two major reasons. The rapid evolution of hybrid technology and the major expense of replacing worn components. Dealers don't want to take high mileage hybrids as trade-ins. They recognize that they risk much if they offer any kind of reasonable warranty. Should the batteries go belly up, they know it will cost them big money to replace them.
In comparison, the Wranglers retain 92% of their sticker price value after two years on the road. Even 10 years down the road, they can still command 40% or more of their original value. Few if any other vehicles can match this.
So, if being "green" is a legitimate goal, buying a Wrangler is one option that defies common, albeit incorrect, reasoning. Of course, when I bought mine, I never even considered that it was a true "green" vehicle. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
I miss mine so much. :frown: Gas was killing me a few years ago, and the mileage sucked.... but I loved her. Sold my 1999 Wranglerat very nice price, though.
Fuel cells would alleviate much of this discussion, but then again, putting a million potential bombs (what a fuel cell is in reality) on the road, driven by chicks doing makeup and reading proposals while texting and late for work.........<shudder>
I'll take climate change. I'd think all the explosions from traffic accidents would far outweigh the reduction in CO2 footprint.
-
so then your conclusion would be that specific temperatures play no part in global warming? if its cold somewhere then it stands to reason that its cold somewhere nearby? this is the answer to decreasing data station useage?
if its cold in St Louis then it must be cold in Kirksville since its only a couple hundred miles away.......... so we will just use the temperature in St Louis (even though its 6 degrees warmer) to represent both places.... after all cold is cold right?
-
so then your conclusion would be that specific temperatures play no part in global warming? if its cold somewhere then it stands to reason that its cold somewhere nearby? this is the answer to decreasing data station useage?
if its cold in St Louis then it must be cold in Kirksville since its only a couple hundred miles away.......... so we will just use the temperature in St Louis (even though its 6 degrees warmer) to represent both places.... after all cold is cold right?
Don't you get it? They take a set area. They take a set amount of measurements within that area. They reason that if there is a trend, that the trend will show within that area, which is not hinged upon the individual temperatures of all the represented stations.
Over time, if a trend develops and matches, the other stations don't matter.
It's like taking a frying pan and dividing it up into 100 1 inch squares. (HEAT IT, COOL it, WHATEVER !!!!)
In each 1 inch square you take three measurements at different points inside the square ( Points A, B, C). Even though the different 1 inch squares will have a different overall temp, and will heat differently, you can get the overall amount of heating within each 1 inch square, through each of the measurements taken within the square.
You can imply, that since A, B, C are all all within X amount of distance, that they are undergoing very similar radiative heating. Therefore D through infinity stations within that 1 inch square can be inferred to have similar properties.
Once you do this for all the squares on the frying pan, you can get the overall picture, and don't need to study the heating of each atom of iron within the frying pan, as you are implying needs to be done for climate.
A, B, C stations within all 100 of those squares comprise very little of the actual area of the pan. But, they do illustrate the heating trend within that pan nicely.
The actual temperature within each means nothing. THE CHANGE in temperature over time, DOES.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE, AGAIN
-
so your belief is that a trend sampled 3-6 decades ago is representative enough to derive an accurate SPECIFIC TEMPERATURE for an entire continent in order to average in with other global "trended" temperatures and state 2009 as 'tied for warmest in recorded history'...........
I liked your explanation (it made no sense logically) but it was thought out....... we arent talking about estimates based on trends....... we are talking about specific temperatures in comparison to other specific temperatures............ and those specific temperatures are being cherry picked to give the desired results
you cannot with ANY degree of fact say that 2009 temperatures were any warmer than <insert year here> without comparing temperatures from the same stations ...... this is NOT what they are doing............ they are taking temperatures from specific known warmer stations and comparing them to previous data from a larger set which contained cooler stations and saying the averages are rising
if you want to display changes in 'averages' then you must use the same original dataset in every calculation........
unless you are willing to submit that these "trends" are unchanging? and if you say the "trends" are unchanging then you by proxy must admit that its not possible for temperature variations outside of those trends............ which of course would mean given that we (according to popular concensus) have been in a cooling trend recently and this cannot change therefore global warming cannot exist
-
Don't you get it? They take a set area. They take a set amount of measurements within that area. They reason that if there is a trend, that the trend will show within that area, which is not hinged upon the individual temperatures of all the represented stations. first off.....sorry for butchering into your post this way.....it's just a little easier for me here.
now.....if i were to diagnose a computer problem on a car using the above methods, i'd spend days just trying to figure out something as simple as a non-functional turnsignal.
you of all people should realize that in science(just as in electronics diagnosis), one cannot assume anything.
Over time, if a trend develops and matches, the other stations don't matter. yes, they do, simply due to the fact that they may show that what is assumed to be a trend is not one after all.
It's like taking a frying pan and dividing it up into 100 1 inch squares. (HEAT IT, COOL it, WHATEVER !!!!)
In each 1 inch square you take three measurements at different points inside the square ( Points A, B, C). Even though the different 1 inch squares will have a different overall temp, and will heat differently, you can get the overall amount of heating within each 1 inch square, through each of the measurements taken within the square.again, you know as well as the rest of us that it isn't that simple. add in air currents, wind, changing barometric pressure, etc, and that will all change.
You can imply, that since A, B, C are all all within X amount of distance, that they are undergoing very similar radiative heating. Therefore D through infinity stations within that 1 inch square can be inferred to have similar properties.
Once you do this for all the squares on the frying pan, you can get the overall picture, and don't need to study the heating of each atom of iron within the frying pan, as you are implying needs to be done for climate.
A, B, C stations within all 100 of those squares comprise very little of the actual area of the pan. But, they do illustrate the heating trend within that pan nicely.
The actual temperature within each means nothing. THE CHANGE in temperature over time, DOES.this almost seems like a contradiction? as the temperature is necessary to show any change. but to see it accuratly, there needs to be unfiltered untouched data, from all sources. the only reason i keep saying this, is because batch is correct. in the example he chose, they could pick their stations, to make things appear as they wish, whereas those against global warming could pick stations within that very same region, and make things appear as they wish.
try it like this.
you and i both go to the cherry hill mall. we both are going to do a survey. one question. that one question can be simple. "is it cold outside right now?"(bearing in mind it's about 29F at the moment). we each get to ask 100 people this question. where i think it's cold(to me anything below 55F is cold), you think it's comfortable.
i can pretty much guarantee you that when we sit down in the bar to see each others results, i will have proven that the majority of people surveyed think it is cold outside, while you have proven just the opposite.
how? we each "cherry picked" the people we asked, and we did this in such a way as to skew our results.
therefore, the only way to find the true answer, is to ask everyone.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE, AGAIN
now, the weather/climate thing.
saying that the weather is not the climate, is like me telling you that the tires on your car are not a part of it. saying the weather doesn't effect the climate is like saying that flattening those tires will not effect your car.
i truly do respect you, and your opinions, and truly appreciate that you put so darn much info in your posts........
one final thing.... calling us "denialists" i think is somewhat bad. :aok
-
they are taking temperatures from specific known warmer stations and comparing them to previous data from a larger set which contained cooler stations and saying the averages are rising
What's your evidence for this claim? It's rather provocative. You're not merely accusing them of incompetence, so I think you owe us more than the bald claim by itself.
-
Also, yes they could, but the resulting data would need to be cleaned and fine toothed relentlessly, while not lowering the inherent error probability.
Also, you add in the possibility of multiple corruption of the data due to inaccuracy at each individual station, as they are all not uniform. By using a base area and then randomly using a number of station geographically in that area, you control the amount of error and bias within that data set, as long as that initial postulate (an area X degrees by Y degrees will show trendline) isn't disproved.
moray, sorry but where did you learn data analysis? Because you put on some wierd arguments.
Stats 101: the more data you sample the less influence errors have.
-
current weather at atlantic city airport.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KACY.html
wildwood automated.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWWD.html
mcguire afb......
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWRI.html
south jersey regional.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KVAY.html
these are all within 55 miles of each other, yet are(in my opinion) significantly varied for such a small area.
-
What's your evidence for this claim? It's rather provocative. You're not merely accusing them of incompetence, so I think you owe us more than the bald claim by itself.
Accusing these jokers of more than incompetence is what started the thread in the first place, remember? How many links throughout this thread have hashed out the fact they are cherry picking data? How many times do people have to remind everyone of the "hide the decline" comments and the non-existant hockey stick that was attempted to be passed off as legitamate?
Geesh, short attention spans around here.
I don't have a billion hours to go through a million stories, so here was one little site that looked like they were doing their best at compiling the various data out there. I have no idea if they are legit, but then, I have no reason to believe any IPCC or CRU site is legit either, so I'll go with it anyway.
Jones et al of CRU collected the measurements made by many land-based weather stations. For a map of the locations of the weather stations, see here. Below is a graph showing the total number of weather stations available in each year, plotted alongside the CRU trend.
(http://hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/Num_Stations.gif)
The CRU measurement of global temperature starts with around 250 stations in 1880. The number of stations rises to a peak of 1700 stations in 1950. The period between 1970 and 2000 sees the number of stations dropping from 1600 to 400. During that same period, the CRU global temperature estimate rises by 0.6°C.
(http://hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/Stations.gif)
Figure: Locations of All Stations in GCHN Database, as used by CRU and NCDC. The stations are color-coded to indicate the first year in which they provided twelve months of data. Red stations are the oldest and blue stations are the newest. There are 7280 distinct station locations in all. We obtained this figure using a TclTk script Stations.tcl, which operates upon Stations.txt, GYA.txt, and World_Map.gif, all of which you will find in our Climate.zip archive.
But if you look at the figure above, you will see that the distribution of thermometers in the data used by CRU and NCDC is not random. They are clustered together, and these clusters change as time goes by. In 1850, there were far more weather stations in the northern hemisphere than the southern, and we can imagine that there were far more in Europe than there were in Africa.
oops, forgot linky
http://hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/
-
What's your evidence for this claim? It's rather provocative. You're not merely accusing them of incompetence, so I think you owe us more than the bald claim by itself.
Here's another one if you don't like the last one.
Really, this stuff is all over the place.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/4521.html
For the purposes of this article we looked closely at what has been happening to ground weather stations across the United States record first. What we have found is nothing short of scandalous. From a peak of 1,850 thermometer stations in 1968, there now exists a paltry 136 surviving American stations as of December 2009.
What we have also observed is that there is pattern in what kinds of weather stations are closing and it appears most are in rural areas unaffacted by what scientists call the ‘urban heat island’ effect. In other words, the missing stations tended to be giving ‘colder’ temperature readings. Our findings are very much in accord with those of the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) that recently reviewed IPCC scientists’ reports. The Russian analysis revealed that UN-funded climatologists had been dumping data for an area larger than 40 per cent of Russia. They also noted that almost all were in ‘cooler’ rural areas. IPCC climate reports had proclaimed that the largest rise in global ground temperatures has been occurring in Russia. But according to the numbers now revised by IEA, that is a proven lie. Russia was especially significant for climatoligists as it’s the world’s largest country and accounts for 12.5 per cent of total landmass.
-
Let's be clear about whether we're talking about the CRU or NASA's GISS, as batch was referring to the latter, not the former.
I'll give those links and graphs a look.
-
moray, sorry but where did you learn data analysis? Because you put on some wierd arguments.
Stats 101: the more data you sample the less influence errors have.
Vulcan, since the stations aren't standardized with the same exact equipment, with the same maintenance and "zeroing procedure" , you introduce variance into your experiment with the increase in total stations.
-
if you had read my post which outlined stations in use a few days ago you would already have your answer....... but I can tell you again.....
all you need do is pick a state ANY state and I can show you exactly which stations were used in the 2009 GISS report.......
its not that hard since they only used 136 for the entire continent...... but since you enjoyed the banana comparison so much I can give you a couple that Ive already posted.......
MO: over 600 available stations........ 3 yes 3 were used....... St Louis which has their station on the tarmac at the airport (I wonder if its hotter there?).... Springfield (in the heart of a metro area) and Columbia (another metro area)...... these 3 sites are among the warmest in the state........ not 1 single site used north of I-70 (which cuts through the center of MO)
CA: with over 1000 available stations.... 4 yes 4 were used......San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles, and San Diego........ while I would suggest that you certainly couldnt confuse these 4 places as being urban (doh)........ I would ask how come all 4 sites used are on the beach which doesnt suffer the lower temperatures that inland locations might suffer....... due to ocean proximity (theyre on the coast) they are always warmer than the inland portions of the state........ not a single station used in northern or inland CA....I guess the temperatures in San Francisco average out the same as in the Sierra Nevadas?
HA: not sure on the number of available stations..... 3 were used...... the same number used in MO and more than used in alot of other states......... all 3 btw are located at airports....... airports are NEVER cooler than the areas around them
so as I said just pick a state and its easy to show you that GISS has only chosen to use sites that are ALWAYS warmer than the rest of the state........
as far as trends vs actual specific temperatures go........ they dont average in 'trends'......... they take the temperature for these sites and use that as the representative temperature for that area.........I would suspect (this is entirely my opinion) that in areas where the 1200Km radius lines overlap...... they simply use the higher temperature from the 2 stations as representative for the overlap area
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
current weather at atlantic city airport.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KACY.html
wildwood automated.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWWD.html
mcguire afb......
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KWRI.html
south jersey regional.....
http://weather.hometownlocator.com/icao-KVAY.html
these are all within 55 miles of each other, yet are(in my opinion) significantly varied for such a small area.
And yet, when I looked....
Temp: 34°F AC
Temp: 34°F Wildwood
Temp: 33°F McGuire
Temp: 33°F Mount Holly
Big difference.( And Mount Holly actually is 33.72 degrees when I looked into NWS station data.)
-
And yet, when I looked....
Temp: 34°F AC
Temp: 34°F Wildwood
Temp: 33°F McGuire
Temp: 33°F Mount Holly
Big difference.
at the time i linked them, it was 34, 31, 33, and 36.
humidity was pretty far seperated too, as well as dew point, and baro was almost .9 difference between the highest and lowest
EDIT
which brings another factor into the testing....time of day.
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
just a quick fyi.....fox news has told me nothing. nor any other news source, as i avoid them,.....they all sell doom n gloom, thus are not worht wtching.
-
I'm out.
Well I'd like to thank you Moray for your contributions to the topic, I think you've shown remarkable patience in taking on the mob and I for one have learnt a great deal more about the subject from your posts. Ive also learnt a bunch of new stuff about statistical analysis (and refreshed alot I'd forgotten.) :)
-
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out.
I'm not surprised. This is not a scientific forum. This is the website of a company that features cartoon airplanes fighting an online virtual game. You must tailor your comments to the population of the forum. You failed to do so. As for you snide comments about Fox News. I don't get Fox News in fact the media of Ireland and UK from which I get much of my news is almost universally pro AGW and readily trot out every scare story they are fed.
Maybe America is different but AGW is the orthodox view almost everywhere else. Skeptics barely get a look in and are often derided as cranks and stooges of big oil.
But cracks are appearing have a look at this article from the Guardian. Yes I know it's anothe link to a news article not a scientific paper. It's worth pointing out that the Guardian is a fluffy left wing paper that is effectively the cheerleader of AGW in the UK. Even the author is a committed to AGW. But this article goes to the heart of the scientific process to which you are obviously devoted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
-
Hi cpxx,
I read the Guardian article, and what it says about the human foibles of scientific review is worth taking seriously. However, I have to point out again that the problems it describes are not new. Ever since science became a profession and Newton tried to erase Hooke (maybe even before that), some scientists have been eager to destroy their colleagues for their own personal glory. This is important because we have to reconcile the success of science with the fact that it has rarely been so pure as the public believes it ought to be. Like you say, this is a forum for a cartoon airplane game, but that doesn't mean the players here are not capable of learning some history of science or understanding charts and graphs. On the contrary, there are some very bright individuals here whose love of aviation has pushed them to understand the physics of powered flight. At the very least, it's within the ability of everyone who has a passion for this stuff to also be able to understand the current debate, and to have a little historical background on scientists and the nasty things they've done to each other over the centuries. ;)
-
Hi cpxx,
I read the Guardian article, and what it says about the human foibles of scientific review is worth taking seriously. However, I have to point out again that the problems it describes are not new. Ever since science became a profession and Newton tried to erase Hooke (maybe even before that), some scientists have been eager to destroy their colleagues for their own personal glory. This is important because we have to reconcile the success of science with the fact that it has rarely been so pure as the public believes it ought to be. Like you say, this is a forum for a cartoon airplane game, but that doesn't mean the players here are not capable of learning some history of science or understanding charts and graphs. On the contrary, there are some very bright individuals here whose love of aviation has pushed them to understand the physics of powered flight. At the very least, it's within the ability of everyone who has a passion for this stuff to also be able to understand the current debate, and to have a little historical background on scientists and the nasty things they've done to each other over the centuries. ;)
what you say about scientists, is very true. it is also true of pretty much any profession though. it seems to be human nature to try to "destroy"? the other guy, to try to make ones self look good.
also, moray was/is correct in part, on one of his last statements.
my mind is made up. but i think he was/is slightly off kilter, as although my mind is made up, this does not mean that it cannot be changed. all that is needed, is rock solid proof......
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
Generalizing any one who doesn't agree with you as part of the denialist regime,ignorant,right wing,fox news watching people does not endear you to anyone. You then prop yourself(or any one who agrees with you) up as the only one who "knows" what they are talking about. You don't want a debate you want everyone to agree with you.
-
Generalizing any one who doesn't agree with you as part of the denialist regime,ignorant,right wing,fox news watching people does not endear you to anyone. You then prop yourself(or any one who agrees with you) up as the only one who "knows" what they are talking about. You don't want a debate you want everyone to agree with you.
.
i actually have to defend moray here.,.......he has been much more patient with many of us in here than i generally see or expect on these boards.
the post you quoted, almost just sounds like he may have been in a bad mood when he read this thread.......
-
Be interesting to cross check the weather stations used by GISS with the sites surveyed by http://www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org)
With 78% of all US weather stations surveyed it's astounding how many fail to adhere to NOAA guidelines!
(http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Watts_fig23.png)
NOAA guidelines here (pdf) - http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf)
Is it any wonder there is so much skepticism on the temperature record!
-
Vulcan, since the stations aren't standardized with the same exact equipment, with the same maintenance and "zeroing procedure" , you introduce variance into your experiment with the increase in total stations.
So when was all the equipment standardized and zero'd using the same procedures, what year?
-
Moray is a biologist. A marine biologist.
I belive his sense for GW comes from his field of work rather than numbers that people are trying to haggle about.
The thing is, that GW will show it self in many forms. Air temp (that being divided into spheres and zones), ocean temps, Ice (that being a lot of things), and Moray's speciality,- LIFE.
Oddly enough, that is also my business, since I am a farmer. Moray is in the technical side of studying life, while I am on the business side. He has no special benefit from GW, while I actually do, so I have already started using it for my own benefit. So have my partners in the same trade. So has our fishing industry. And oddly, - so has the oil industry. The very nice new oil grounds opening due to retreating arctic ice must after all be quite a treat to companies that hire people to tell the world that the ice is not retreating.... :devil
-
Be interesting to cross check the weather stations used by GISS with the sites surveyed by http://www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org)
With 78% of all US weather stations surveyed it's astounding how many fail to adhere to NOAA guidelines!
(http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Watts_fig23.png)
NOAA guidelines here (pdf) - http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf)
Is it any wonder there is so much skepticism on the temperature record!
Holy cow! That's freaky when you get to the bottom!
Angus, you do have a point there. But here's my question, if AGW is going on, then how does that help farmers? Doesn't it mean more irrigation?
-Penguin
-
It helps and spoils. Those in the cooler areas like me do indeed benefit. Where you could barely grow barley some 20 years ago, you now grow wheat and rapeseed. So, as I say, it is simply in the business, and I always laugh at some "experts" treying to show me on paper that what I am doing should not be possible.
That said, we do get new plagues of all sorts that did not thrive before because of the cold. Fungus, bugs, etc.
Farmers in the warmer zones however have problems with droughts and more violent weathers. With more energy in the system, the extremes grow.
The Ocean system also tells it tale, our migrating stock that we fish is pushing north, while we get new species in quite some quantity that were not there before, - coming from the south.
No speculation of surface temps, just the fact of biological and industrial matters that in this case quite well agree, - upon warming.
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
Sorry, but in all seriousness, it just sounds like you've decided it is too hard to continue to tote the party line given all the evidence the alarmists' case is on shaky ground at best and outright fraud at worst.
I have yet to see you concede a point in the skeptics favor despite the evidence presented. Instead, you've been deflecting and changing the subject everytime you've been shown the "facts" you claim are false.
Now that it has been shown for a fact that the CRU/IPCC/Whoever are INDEED using a declining number of weather stations, and using those that tend to be warmest - again, rather than admit you were wrong, you simply quit the thread. Quite convenient.
Perhaps instead of being willfully blind to contrary evidence, you yourself should use that scientific brain of yours to take another look at the issue with an open mind.
-
Let's be clear about whether we're talking about the CRU or NASA's GISS, as batch was referring to the latter, not the former.
I'll give those links and graphs a look.
Here's another link to walk through when you have time. I couldn't find it the other day (I thought it had been posted in this thread, but couldn't find it), but saw it posted on another board and thought you might like seeing, step by step, the kind of manipulation that has gone on in at least a few sites.
When you couple what appears to be outright manipulation of at least a few sites with the fact they are using fewer and fewer sites to get their figures (as the previous links showed), it is little wonder the data shows warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
-
Read his post carefully, and look at the page count of the thread. He's actually gotten a temporary ban and a warning from the skuzzmeister himself for breaking the rules.
He's worried about his temper, so he left to post another day. You say that he hasn't conceded any points, but neither have you!
-Penguin
-
Read his post carefully, and look at the page count of the thread. He's actually gotten a temporary ban and a warning from the skuzzmeister himself for breaking the rules.
He's worried about his temper, so he left to post another day. You say that he hasn't conceded any points, but neither have you!
-Penguin
due to the fact that almost all of the data gathered in relation(favoring) to global warming is from sources that are known to have "doctored" their information.
-
I think we should give Moray lots of slack... He's being careful not to incite trouble, and his personal schedule is very daunting.
We can simply agree to disagree.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Is the variance in ocean temperatures a relationship to how we're polluting them v.s. any CO2 influences?
-
Want a laugh?
Do a search for YAD061 and find out why it is the most important single tree in whole history of AGW.
[edited] missed off the 1.
-
Thought this was interesting........
by Mark Imisides
7th December 2009
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.
Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?
The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.
The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by greenhouse warming of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?
Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.
That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.
And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water. Thus, if the ocean were being heated by greenhouse heating of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).
Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all. So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does? The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days). The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometers). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).
All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of greenhouse heating of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous. If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?
Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.
The End
Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist working in the private sector.
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
Talk about framing the debate insnt this called and ad homine argument or something like that.
I tried and cant even get a decent response on the so called "facts"
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce
This might be sattirical but isnt even remotely inteligent. Hmm evo.......................... .......lution didnt produce gills either.
"Atmosphere: A body of air occupying 100% of the earths surface made for man.......who has lungs"
Daniel Struse
-
This might be sattirical but isnt even remotely inteligent. Hmm evo.......................... .......lution didnt produce gills either.
:headscratch:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Georgia_Aquarium_-_Giant_Grouper_edit.jpg/541px-Georgia_Aquarium_-_Giant_Grouper_edit.jpg)
First even...
-
Who the heck is Daniel Struse? :huh
-
Stick to the context. the quote isnt about fish. Its about man. My comment regarding man. but you already knew that. Or did you not really think through it on a logical level.
It great how you take a quote out of context... and try to make it something different.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Mt Everest yesterday (7th Feb), not much snow for the winter.
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/jackfrost_011/Everest.jpg)
-
all the snow is in Washington DC............ it cant be everywhere at once
-
Mt Everest yesterday (7th Feb), not much snow for the winter.
xx
everest 1924
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5426/everest1924.jpg)
(http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5053/324pxbundesarchivbild13.jpg)
but when look down from a few kilometers you can also see this (picture taken 1/21/2010)
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5703/iss022e33582.jpg)
so, i guess it depends on the photographers position to determine how much snow is in the Himalaya :)
Regards
SF
-
Hey CAP!
Have you noticed that our points aren't mutually exclusive?
The earth could have been on the start of a natural uptrend, and man just pushed it up enough that it wreaked havoc on the ecosystem.
~or~
Man was plugging way at the thermostat, and the earth pushed it up for a while, and then it was man alone again
~or~
Man was plugging away, and now he's fighting a cooling trend, trying every method to warm us up
~or even~
Earth was doing it, and then man helped, then stopped, and the earth is alone again
See, it isn't black 'n white. There's more gray out there than you can shake a stick at! This is just to show that one of us being right, doesn't mean that the other is wrong. (1+1=2 doesn't preclude .5+1.5=2) If we tried that approach, it would be a special case of the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
Or, the way mom tells me, don't be so rigid, by flexible and look at the in-between.
To sum it up, we each have our hypothesis's, and we all have a lot of work to do. Our hypthesis's aren't mutally exclusive, so one of us being right doesn't mean that the other is wrong. Man could or couldn't be involved, and the earth might have a role too. So before the mudlslinging begins again, let's at least agree that our two sides don't have the only two options. In a few words;
Relax,
have fun,
it's debate, not war
that's what Aces High is for
(http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/05/million_peace.jpg)
-Penguin
-
Stick to the context. the quote isnt about fish. Its about man. My comment regarding man. but you already knew that. Or did you not really think through it on a logical level.
It great how you take a quote out of context... and try to make it something different.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I took it the way I did because the thought that an organism optimized to live in the plains & rainforests of Africa should develop gills is much more stupid than a simple mixup like the way I took it...
-
For Moray, I know you must dip in occasionally and for others. This to me is the heart of the problem. Scientists involved have failed to maintain the objective standards that are absolutely essential in science. I have long believed that there is no fraud or conspiracy merely the usual human factors. I don't believe in the fraud or the conspiracy version. These people genuinely believed in what they were doing. The problem was that they lost sight of their own responsibilities and forgot what it means to be a scientist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262
-
Well, here is the crude data. Sattelite readout, and now awaits the work of comparing it with ground measurements.
Belive it or not, but the measurements are getting better every year. In this case the measurements are for global temperatures on an months scale, not local weather for a day. In this case, the "cold" January.
(http://emilhannes.blog.is/users/03/emilhannes/img/rss_jan2010_958738.jpg)
The calculated outcome is...warm. The sun is a bit low, but we have a small Nino which makes it up.
-
I hope you all realized that the warming and cooling of the earth is a natural Phenomenon. There are these micro fluctuation occurring all the time. It just like year to year weather in one area. You have a wet years, drought years, hot years and cool years/ The best way to tell this is one of two ways; 1) study the rings of trees that are over 500 years old, 2) go to the polar caps and collect samples of the ice at certain depth. In both cases we can study the carbon levels which tells us a lot of what is going on.
-
Well, here is the crude data. Sattelite readout, and now awaits the work of comparing it with ground measurements.
Belive it or not, but the measurements are getting better every year. In this case the measurements are for global temperatures on an months scale, not local weather for a day. In this case, the "cold" January.
(http://emilhannes.blog.is/users/03/emilhannes/img/rss_jan2010_958738.jpg)
The calculated outcome is...warm. The sun is a bit low, but we have a small Nino which makes it up.
is that figure supposed to be saying that this past jan. was warmer than it has been in the past?
-
Globally Yes. In your back yard maybe not. Look at the chart.
Seriously, one of the predictions of the possible consequences of GW is more violent and impredictable weather. Tat means weather, not climate.
And Oakranger: It was a good point on the tree rings. FYI, the oldest still living tree is about 9.000 years old. It sort of marks the end of the last ice-age. Anyway, there are fossilized trees as well, so the tree-ring story is quite a batch!
-
Globally Yes. In your back yard maybe not. Look at the chart.
Seriously, one of the predictions of the possible consequences of GW is more violent and impredictable weather. Tat means weather, not climate.
And Oakranger: It was a good point on the tree rings. FYI, the oldest still living tree is about 9.000 years old. It sort of marks the end of the last ice-age. Anyway, there are fossilized trees as well, so the tree-ring story is quite a batch!
the thing i find odd about that, is that it's not just in my back yard that it's cold. it's being reported as cold all over the place.
when i look at weather, i'm not seeing anything any less predictable than normal either,.
-
Not to worry to all you Global Warmest, As soon as the snow melts we will find Al Gore.
-
the thing i find odd about that, is that it's not just in my back yard that it's cold. it's being reported as cold all over the place.
when i look at weather, i'm not seeing anything any less predictable than normal either,.
Anecdotal, vague, but just homegrown enough to catch on...
Anyway, I guess neither side has been clean, but to call a conspiracy will need a bit more evidence. The scientists forgot their purpose, and the opposition: Big Oil, Big Logging, let their purpose get in the way of seeing clearly.
I suppose both sides have some catching up to do. Either way this climate was built by the slow and steady actions of cyanobacteria that added in oxygen, and the sun helping plants to grow. Who knows, perhaps adding in CO2 and methane will have a climate changing effect. Until then, we should realize that oil isn't going to come back as quickly as we use it up, and should find ways to ease the load on it as fast as we can.
Even if we are wrong, it's still a win-win; you get jobs, a new energy grid, and a new energy manufacturing system. If you are right, the rewards are even greater. Temperature might not even be the problem in the first place, adding all of those gases to the ocean don't make them dissapear, they will show up in the rain, eroding us like our stomachs erode food.
Undeniably, we have limited amounts of uranium, plutonnium, and other fossil fuels, and we can't rely on them forever. Either we change now, or change quickly, and painfully later as we quite literally run out of gas.
-Penguin
-
Anecdotal, vague, but just homegrown enough to catch on...
Anyway, I guess neither side has been clean, but to call a conspiracy will need a bit more evidence. The scientists forgot their purpose, and the opposition: Big Oil, Big Logging, let their purpose get in the way of seeing clearly.
I suppose both sides have some catching up to do. Either way this climate was built by the slow and steady actions of cyanobacteria that added in oxygen, and the sun helping plants to grow. Who knows, perhaps adding in CO2 and methane will have a climate changing effect. Until then, we should realize that oil isn't going to come back as quickly as we use it up, and should find ways to ease the load on it as fast as we can.
Even if we are wrong, it's still a win-win; you get jobs, a new energy grid, and a new energy manufacturing system. If you are right, the rewards are even greater. Temperature might not even be the problem in the first place, adding all of those gases to the ocean don't make them dissapear, they will show up in the rain, eroding us like our stomachs erode food.
Undeniably, we have limited amounts of uranium, plutonnium, and other fossil fuels, and we can't rely on them forever. Either we change now, or change quickly, and painfully later as we quite literally run out of gas.
-Penguin
Which is all well and good BUT... If you are suggesting that a free market system would be too stupid to know what is good for itself and must be forced by the hand of government, you couldn't be more wrong. Can you name one self-reliant necessary industry that was forced into prosperity by any government?
-
Anecdotal, vague, but just homegrown enough to catch on...how so? weather reports are anecdotal?
Anyway, I guess neither side has been clean, but to call a conspiracy will need a bit more evidence. The scientists forgot their purpose, and the opposition: Big Oil, Big Logging, let their purpose get in the way of seeing clearly.these scientistsas mentioned before) have quite a bit to gain by keeping this going. big oil companies will continue to make massive money regardless of what the outcome is.
I suppose both sides have some catching up to do. Either way this climate was built by the slow and steady actions of cyanobacteria that added in oxygen, and the sun helping plants to grow. Who knows, perhaps adding in CO2 and methane will have a climate changing effect. Until then, we should realize that oil isn't going to come back as quickly as we use it up, and should find ways to ease the load on it as fast as we can.
Even if we are wrong, it's still a win-win; you get jobs, a new energy grid, and a new energy manufacturing system. If you are right, the rewards are even greater. Temperature might not even be the problem in the first place, adding all of those gases to the ocean don't make them dissapear, they will show up in the rain, eroding us like our stomachs erode food.you realize that you yourself will be taxed into oblivion due to this stuff, right?. and an fyi...our stomachs do not erode food.
Undeniably, we have limited amounts of uranium, plutonnium, and other fossil fuels, and we can't rely on them forever. Either we change now, or change quickly, and painfully later as we quite literally run out of gas.
-Penguin
-
(In response to CAP's words in red, in order of occurence)
1. No, but what you said was
2. That argument is self defeating, if the oil company has a money motive, of course you would see botched research at the least. Not only that, but bad science happens in all fields, not just here (law of statistics).
3. That point is even more alarmist than what these scientists wrote. You do realize that we are already heavily taxed to keep the long arm of Uncle Sam strong? Yes, I know, but I just wanted to use the same word for effect. If you want to nit-pick me on poetic liscence, this isn't the place for it.
-Penguin
-
(In response to CAP's words in red, in order of occurence)
1. No, but what you said wasthis is what i said:::it's being reported as cold all over the place.
::: so if that was stated from seeing weather reports, again, how is it anecdotal?
2. That argument is self defeating, if the oil company has a money motive, of course you would see botched research at the least. Not only that, but bad science happens in all fields, not just here (law of statistics).please explain how?
3. That point is even more alarmist than what these scientists wrote. You do realize that we are already heavily taxed to keep the long arm of Uncle Sam strong? Yes, I know, but I just wanted to use the same word for effect. If you want to nit-pick me on poetic liscence, this isn't the place for it.i don't do this like this to nitpick. i don't know how to to multiple quotes, so i do this. and yes, as one that works about 80 hours a week, to pay taxes for schools that don't teach half of what they should, and about 3 times of what they shouldn't, crappy roads, un-educated and rude(for the most part) police officers, and other fun things, yes i do realize we're already heavily taxed. it's gonna get worse. a LOT worse.
-Penguin
-
(In response to the words in red)
1. Sorry, you're wrong, you said: The thing that I find odd about that is that it isn't just in my backyard, but that it's happening all over the place
I didn't see the word weather report anywhere around here.
2. That is simply a fundamental law of human nature and statistics, nobody's perfect, and eventually, given enough trials, somebody's going to do something that they will regret. For more information, click this link http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=black+swan+paradox&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS347&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx1&oq=Blakc+swan+para&fp=a048890d3c90c6fc (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=black+swan+paradox&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS347&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx1&oq=Blakc+swan+para&fp=a048890d3c90c6fc)
3. Alright, I see that I have pushed the wrong button here :(. I was talking about how I used eroded in those two scentences for poetic flow, and you nitpicked them. If you are worried about the economy and all of that, so am I. In around 6-7 years I'm gonna be in college, and dang I hope that nothing happens to my parents' jobs. As to the subject of schools, I guess you'll just have to tough it out. I can't do anything about it right now. If your town is making you mad, don't take it out on me. alright?
-Penguin
-
(In response to the words in red)
1. Sorry, you're wrong, you said: The thing that I find odd about that is that it isn't just in my backyard, but that it's happening all over the place
I didn't see the word weather report anywhere around here.
2. That is simply a fundamental law of human nature and statistics, nobody's perfect, and eventually, given enough trials, somebody's going to do something that they will regret. For more information, click this link http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=black+swan+paradox&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS347&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx1&oq=Blakc+swan+para&fp=a048890d3c90c6fc (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=black+swan+paradox&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS347&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx1&oq=Blakc+swan+para&fp=a048890d3c90c6fc)
3. Alright, I see that I have pushed the wrong button here :(. I was talking about how I used eroded in those two scentences for poetic flow, and you nitpicked them. If you are worried about the economy and all of that, so am I. In around 6-7 years I'm gonna be in college, and dang I hope that nothing happens to my parents' jobs. As to the subject of schools, I guess you'll just have to tough it out. I can't do anything about it right now. If your town is making you mad, don't take it out on me. alright?
-Penguin
quote my post with those words.
-
the thing i find odd about that, is that it's not just in my back yard that it's cold. it's being reported as cold all over the place.
when i look at weather, i'm not seeing anything any less predictable than normal either,.
There you go!
-Penguin
-
the thing i find odd about that, is that it's not just in my back yard that it's cold. it's being reported as cold all over the place.
when i look at weather, i'm not seeing anything any less predictable than normal either,.
for penguin.
-
Hey, look, we did it in stereo!
-Penguin
-
There you go!
-Penguin
you don't see that what you typed is different than what you said that i typed?
-
See? Ok, yes, I did paraphrase a bit, but you get what I was quoting (too lazy to go back and find it).
-Penguin
-
Oh, shoot, I didn't see that word. My bad!
EDIT: Anyway, the rest of the argument is still sound, there wasn't anything relating the three statements to each other. So the debate rages on! Can we make a rule not to double post, so that we can see what the other person is trying to say? Because I put in that quote right after you put the next thing in, beating me to the punch.
-Penguin
-
There you go!
-Penguin
i'm gonna put this nicely..........go back to school, and learn reading comprehension. then come back here.
-
Sorry, ok, I guess I misread the quote. But anyway, I was an ace on those tests, I'm still one of the best in my grade.
Fine, I apologize, my bad, I didn't read your quote correctly and made an unfounded argument. To put it nicely; happy now?
-Penguin
-
Intersting interview with Jones from the CRU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)
Just checked it again.
A whole section where Jones admits the reason he belives in AGW is because the models can't replicate it (not that the models could be wrong, or could be due to something else) has vanished or been re-written.
And you wonder why us skeptics think something stinks!!!!
Here is one of the CRU leading scientists admitting that only because the models can't replicate AGW it must be us, and it disappears.
I hope someone has it cached somewhere.
Here is the original blog entry were it is mentioned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm)
Yes, it was originally there, it was only when I went back to get the exact words from the interview I realised it had been deleted. (bit like their original temperature records I guess)
-
Intersting interview with Jones from the CRU.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)
Just checked it again.
A whole section where Jones admits the reason he belives in AGW is because the models can't replicate it (not that the models could be wrong, or could be due to something else) has vanished or been re-written.
And you wonder why us skeptics think something stinks!!!!
Here is one of the CRU leading scientists admitting that only because the models can't replicate AGW it must be us, and it disappears.
I hope someone has it cached somewhere.
Here is the original blog entry were it is mentioned
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm)
Yes, it was originally there, it was only when I went back to get the exact words from the interview I realised it had been deleted. (bit like their original temperature records I guess)
they moved, and "accidentally" threw it all in the trash
-
CAP1,
2. That is simply a fundamental law of human nature and statistics, nobody's perfect, and eventually, given enough trials, somebody's going to do something that they will regret. For more information, click this link http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=black+swan+paradox&rlz=1R2ADSA_enUS347&aq=0sx&aqi=g-sx1&oq=Blakc+swan+para&fp=a048890d3c90c6fc
If you understand the origion of the Black Swan paradox it is an easy way out for penguin by a cosmic league generalisation. Wait long enough and someone will screw up in the Oil industry and prove penguin correct. Even if at this time the Oil industry has a 1000% honesty rate, eventualy someone will screw up and penguin will be validated. It's like the argument of God's existance. Scientific discoveries happen all the time. Just wait long enough and God will be discovered to not exist. We just have to get out of the way and allow how ever many generations of scientists to finally prove it.
It's a sophmoric debate team ploy to avoid revealing ones personal bias in the argument while moving the debate out of an area the speaker is weak in.
CAP why are you debating someone who lives with his parents and his only experience in life are based on excellent memory recall, an aptitiude for taking tests with it, and knows how to use the google search function? Have you ever looked at the Paradox of the Ravens? Its logic construct is long, well constructed and very stimulating to the logic bent. But in the end proves nothing other than the enjoyment of the mental exercise. After all a white handkerchief can be used to show that a Raven is black via generalised observation. Debate team tricks....................... ..
-
CAP why are you debating someone who lives with his parents and his only experience in life are based on excellent memory recall, an aptitiude for taking tests with it, and knows how to use the google search function? Have you ever looked at the Paradox of the Ravens? Its logic construct is long, well constructed and very stimulating to the logic bent. But in the end proves nothing other than the enjoyment of the mental exercise. After all a white handkerchief can be used to show that a Raven is black via generalised observation. Debate team tricks....................... ..
basically in hopes of making him look up information, and actually learning something(since they seem to only teach poop in the schools today)
heck.....when i visited my brother last month for my neices birthday, as much as i love them, i had to walk away from her a couple of times.(as opposed to hurting her feelings,,,,,she's 10).
first, she tells me that their taking a collection at her school to help kids in haiti. all well and fine.....good to help others......but i very nicely asked her "if you want to help some kids, why not help some kids right here. you know there's kids here in your own hometown that've needed help for longer than them?" she looked at me like i had 2 heads, so i told her it was very nice, and changed the channel.
then she starts talking to me in spanish......it turns out that spanish is required learning in her school?? other languages used to be elective. teaching our kids another language is a fantastic waste of time that could be used to teach them something they really need.
dam....now i'm ranting......sorry guys.
-
THe pro glopbal warming people are all pissed, because people keep pointing to the blizzards in the north (worst in decades) and other non hot things as proof global warming is greatly exaggerated.
They say they you CANNOT point to a blizzard or one oddball thing and claim that disproves global warming.. its just one event.
the same people point to every mud slide, and hurricane as proof of global warming.
:headscratch:
-
THe pro glopbal warming people are all pissed, because people keep pointing to the blizzards in the north (worst in decades) and other non hot things as proof global warming is greatly exaggerated.
They say they you CANNOT point to a blizzard or one oddball thing and claim that disproves global warming.. its just one event.
the same people point to every mud slide, and hurricane as proof of global warming.
:headscratch:
ya...that's just human nature though. in the arenas, it's a ho when you face shoot me, but a hi angle deflection when i shoot you........go figure...... :rofl
-
the thing i find odd about that, is that it's not just in my back yard that it's cold. it's being reported as cold all over the place.
when i look at weather, i'm not seeing anything any less predictable than normal either,.
Look at the picture again..... It is NOT all over the place. In fact, the anomality is in the positive direction, not the negative one....
-
basically in hopes of making him look up information, and actually learning something(since they seem to only teach poop in the schools today)
heck.....when i visited my brother last month for my neices birthday, as much as i love them, i had to walk away from her a couple of times.(as opposed to hurting her feelings,,,,,she's 10).
first, she tells me that their taking a collection at her school to help kids in haiti. all well and fine.....good to help others......but i very nicely asked her "if you want to help some kids, why not help some kids right here. you know there's kids here in your own hometown that've needed help for longer than them?" she looked at me like i had 2 heads, so i told her it was very nice, and changed the channel.
then she starts talking to me in spanish......it turns out that spanish is required learning in her school?? other languages used to be elective. teaching our kids another language is a fantastic waste of time that could be used to teach them something they really need.
dam....now i'm ranting......sorry guys.
Teaching another language is just what we need! This generation is heading into a world where either:
A.) They will work white collar and will have to adapt to international climates
or
B.) Work Blue collar and have to deal with any mexican immigrants that happen upon them (nothing against them, it's just that there are tons of them)
Not only that, teaching another language helps you "get" English a heck of a lot better, since now you understand where a good 10-15% of our words came from (that's French for my case). For example mansion (English) and maison (French).
But back to the main point (oops, ranting up there).
Anyway, "1000% [100%]sic" correctness just can't be true. Somewhere along the line an error must be made. Think of how unrealistic that is. Over 150 years or so of oil drilling, and not one issue has come up? I may be wrong though, I'll have to look this up later.
Two questions though guys, sophmoric, as in the year of highschool, or is this some other meaning of the term, like the meaning of automoronic (for one's own pleasure)? Also, why are you guys bashing the schools? I can't do anything about it! But if you please, do tell me what the "poop" is, and what is missing from education? I don't see anything wrong with it, but that's probably because I'm part of the system. This is the first time something like this has come up for me, and I wish to know more about it (PM please, to keep reduce unnesecary debate on the forum about another hot-button issue).
-Penguin
-
Teaching another language is just what we need! This generation is heading into a world where either:
A.) They will work white collar and will have to adapt to international climatesin that instance, it should be their choice to learn another language.
or
B.) Work Blue collar and have to deal with any mexican immigrants that happen upon them (nothing against them, it's just that there are tons of them)in this instance, i will not attempt to understand one that lives in this country, and is not at least TRYING to learn english..
Not only that, teaching another language helps you "get" English a heck of a lot better, since now you understand where a good 10-15% of our words came from (that's French for my case). For example mansion (English) and maison (French).negative on that.
But back to the main point (oops, ranting up there).
Anyway, "1000% [100%]sic" correctness just can't be true. Somewhere along the line an error must be made. Think of how unrealistic that is. Over 150 years or so of oil drilling, and not one issue has come up? I may be wrong though, I'll have to look this up later.
Two questions though guys, sophmoric, as in the year of highschool, or is this some other meaning of the term, like the meaning of automoronic (for one's own pleasure)? Also, why are you guys bashing the schools? I can't do anything about it! But if you please, do tell me what the "poop" is, and what is missing from education? I don't see anything wrong with it, but that's probably because I'm part of the system. This is the first time something like this has come up for me, and I wish to know more about it (PM please, to keep reduce unnesecary debate on the forum about another hot-button issue).
-Penguin
as for what's missing from our education system?
things i hear.............some history, they seem to have dumbed down math, then the advanced math, gym, drivers ed(which i'm on the fence about, as i'd want to teach my own kid to drive...so i know that he can really handle the car)......i'll call my brother tomorrow if i get home before my neice goes to bed, and ask her what all they teach her. that'll give me more insight.
-
as for what's missing from our education system?
things i hear.............some history, they seem to have dumbed down math, then the advanced math, gym, drivers ed(which i'm on the fence about, as i'd want to teach my own kid to drive...so i know that he can really handle the car)......i'll call my brother tomorrow if i get home before my neice goes to bed, and ask her what all they teach her. that'll give me more insight.
Education is done by the states for the most part of course so I can't speak for things in New Jersey, only for what goes on across the Delaware, though I can't imagine it's that much different. Just some things I noticed in your posts. Another thing is that I go to a public school (which I am told scores in the bottom 5% of schools in Pennsylvania) so I can't speak for private schools.
first, she tells me that their taking a collection at her school to help kids in haiti. all well and fine.....good to help others......but i very nicely asked her "if you want to help some kids, why not help some kids right here. you know there's kids here in your own hometown that've needed help for longer than them?" she looked at me like i had 2 heads, so i told her it was very nice, and changed the channel.
The whole time I've been going to school we've had canned food drives, pennies for patients, etc. intermittently throughout the year. She probably has the same kinds of programs in her own school and just didn't understand you. I can't imagine a school not having those kinds of programs.
then she starts talking to me in spanish......it turns out that spanish is required learning in her school?? other languages used to be elective. teaching our kids another language is a fantastic waste of time that could be used to teach them something they really need.
Does she go to a private school, or a public one?
At all of the Catholic/'exclusive' schools around here, from what I gather from my friends who attend them, foreign language starts in elementary school, is mandatory, and is Spanish. I know that this continues through 8th grade and I think all of the private High Schools around here only offer Spanish, I don't know if it's mandatory at that level, though.
In the public schools, in 7th grade (provided you don't have to take remedial reading, so only about half of the class :lol ) you take a 'survey' of all of the offered languages (French, Spanish, German, and Latin), each for one quarter and then from 8th grade forward you are allowed to take any of these languages as electives (and more than one if your schedule allows).
negative on that.
Taking German for three years so far actually has helped me understand the way that English works in a technical manner better. I would imagine it's the scientific (rather than natural like when you learn a language as a child) approach to teaching the new language that does this than any kind of relation to your native tongue.
-
Education is done by the states for the most part of course so I can't speak for things in New Jersey, only for what goes on across the Delaware, though I can't imagine it's that much different. Just some things I noticed in your posts. Another thing is that I go to a public school (which I am told scores in the bottom 5% of schools in Pennsylvania) so I can't speak for private schools.
The whole time I've been going to school we've had canned food drives, pennies for patients, etc. intermittently throughout the year. She probably has the same kinds of programs in her own school and just didn't understand you. I can't imagine a school not having those kinds of programs.
Does she go to a private school, or a public one?
At all of the Catholic/'exclusive' schools around here, from what I gather from my friends who attend them, foreign language starts in elementary school, is mandatory, and is Spanish. I know that this continues through 8th grade and I think all of the private High Schools around here only offer Spanish, I don't know if it's mandatory at that level, though.
In the public schools, in 7th grade (provided you don't have to take remedial reading, so only about half of the class :lol ) you take a 'survey' of all of the offered languages (French, Spanish, German, and Latin), each for one quarter and then from 8th grade forward you are allowed to take any of these languages as electives (and more than one if your schedule allows).
Taking German for three years so far actually has helped me understand the way that English works in a technical manner better. I would imagine it's the scientific (rather than natural like when you learn a language as a child) approach to teaching the new language that does this than any kind of relation to your native tongue.
i am actually glad to hear your school does those things.
i don't think that public schools are bad....at least they didn't used to be.
my niece goes to a public school.....thankfully.
over on another board, there is always a bunch of poop going on about the public vs private schools.
the thing i find funny(funny weird, not funny haha), is that in our neighborhood, a group of us as kids, only one went to private school, and he's been a policeman for the last 10 years. a noble profession, but after all this time, he's still only a patrolman.
one of my classmates just retired......as a detective. his brother was the chief.
the rest of us from the neighborhood either own our own business's, or are in upper management jobs.
now...back to the subject. :aok
-
Oh screw the debate!
Reminiscing about old times (you guys) and complaining about school (me) is much more fun than this!
But my mind wouldn't rest should I leave the debate without being beaten. Hmmm, I'm too tired right now to post anything constructive. So, just for laughs I'll satirize both sides of the debate as best as I can:
I'll start with my side first!
(http://www.bangitout.com/uploads/34haight-hippie.jpg)
Hey man, want some funky dreams with that Prius?
And now you guys:
(http://rat-hunter.com/red-neck-rat-hunting.jpg)
This is my truck, this is my gun, both can kill, but only one let's me get away with it
No harm intended guys, just for laughs and to liven the mood. Since you know, who likes being serious all the time? Do that and you end up like this guy!
(http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/soup_nazi.jpg)
:lol
-Penguin
-
read and enjoy.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/scientist-admits-there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1995/
-
Too tired to read, too tired to fight. Leaving this for tommorow. I hope you're not going to hit me when I can't hit back. Good night CAP!
-Penguin
-
Look at the picture again..... It is NOT all over the place. In fact, the anomality is in the positive direction, not the negative one....
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)
Where is Al Gore hiding these days?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Too tired to read, too tired to fight. Leaving this for tommorow. I hope you're not going to hit me when I can't hit back. Good night CAP!
-Penguin
i'm not hitting, or am i fighting. :aok
-
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)
Where is Al Gore hiding these days?
My regards,
Widewing
in the back seat of his mercedes suv
-
I thought it was in his private jet?
Strip
-
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)
Where is Al Gore hiding these days?
My regards,
Widewing
He'll pop up around July.
"See its hot in here. It's like we're in a looock booox."
:lol,
Wab
-
I thought it was in his private jet?
Strip
you might be right....it's faster
:rofl :rofl
-
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html)
Where is Al Gore hiding these days?
My regards,
That's odd when thinking of the changes still happening in the environment.....Well, at least I live under a good spell of local warming :D
Widewing
-
Seems like what is being discussed is very similar to the mini-ice age that spawned the Middle Ages and the fall of the Roman Empire and the gentle and beneficial warming trend that made the prosperity of the Renaissance possible. What we have here is people like Angus who, although freely admit to the personal benefits of a warming trend, cannot help but look a gift horse in the mouth.
-
Alrighty then... the last part was strange.
-Penguin
-
It's not just me....basically a good chunk of N-Europe with a good chunk of the N-Atlantic included. An area totalling vastly more than the USA.
Recently there was a conference of the odds and ends of GW, i.e. what we can do to counter the bad sides as well as what we can do to benefit from the better sides.
This is not a position where we are waiting for our part of the world to warm, - it's already there.
So, Farmwise, like in my case, we have an actual opening of growing new crops, which were to heat demanding for our climate before. Alike, we get new bugs and pests and Fungi that have never or very rarely been here before.
Potatoe fungus: 1955, 1994, 1996 and now a resident.
Tics: Starting. Unknown before.
Bumble bees: Saw my first one in July 1985. Now you can spot them all the way to the 10th of April.
Better parts: Growing barley with very high efficiency and increasing crops, instead of a 20% chance of catastrophy.
Growing wheat, and now even mature rapeseed. Growing Danish stock of various brands, such as clovers, as well as English stocks of various lawn grasses, - could have forgotten all about this some 30 years ago.
And ocean life...now you're talking. Now there is a debate between the more northerly countries, since the more resident stock of fish is shifting northwards. The cod is moving north, and so is the Herring, but we are getting big batches of Macril instead from the more warm parts of the Atlantic.
The list is endless, and so, the businesses move on to practical application instead of trying to haggle about it on paper.
For me, trying to tell me that there is nothing happening in that block of the world, is like a colour blind Jehova's witness trying to convince me that God does not have red and green on the list. I don't need Al Gore, or all those grabby bureucrats trying to imply some taxation for GW, nor opportunitists of the political sort, nor do I put a blind eye on the oil companies rubbing their palms as new oil fields open up where the ice is retreating.
For me, it's a fact that the northern part of the northern hemisphere is showing reasonable warming. I just have to live with it, and leave it to more computing power to calculate how it works on a global scale.
Odd though, GW was supposed to be detected first nearer to the poles once starting, and since weather systems can get messed up quite a bit, some areas will have some cooling. And this, ladies and gentlemen, I learned in my bio studies in the 1980´s.
-
Sounds good!
-Penguin
-
(http://www.politifake.org/some-people-losers-will-try-anything-political-poster-1396.html)
-
Angus, local climates change. They can vary at the limits of the norm. Whether it's warming or cooling, man is powerless to change that. Rather than waste trillions attempting to prevent something out of our control, the resources need to be spent adapting to the changes. Climate is never truly static.
Adapt or die... A basic rule of nature.
My regards,
Widewing
-
CAP,
Untill Penguin's parents aren't paying his bills and taking responsibility for his mistakes. His 3 digiit IQ and glib debating style does not mean he has a dog in this fight with us no matter how enchanting or entertaining he is. Where you and I have worries and consiquences every day that can bankrupt and make us destitute inside of a few months. Penguin can crawl back into his bed and wake up in the morining knowing mommy and daddy have him covered. He has no experience to have a real opinion other than what he has memorised and emotionaly identifies with. He will not suffer the same consiquences we will if he identifies with an erronious set of ideological ideals. He is also baiting you to continue paying attention to him becuase his flavor of the month ideologicly is 180 degrees from your own.
CAP, why are you letting a child run you in circles? Do you fight with children in person as an adult?
-
Angus, local climates change.
Using the word "local" is bit of a slanting word, isn't it? The phenomenon of arctic warming covers a very wide area.
-
CAP,
Untill Penguin's parents aren't paying his bills and taking responsibility for his mistakes. His 3 digiit IQ and glib debating style does not mean he has a dog in this fight with us no matter how enchanting or entertaining he is. Where you and I have worries and consiquences every day that can bankrupt and make us destitute inside of a few months. Penguin can crawl back into his bed and wake up in the morining knowing mommy and daddy have him covered. He has no experience to have a real opinion other than what he has memorised and emotionaly identifies with. He will not suffer the same consiquences we will if he identifies with an erronious set of ideological ideals. He is also baiting you to continue paying attention to him becuase his flavor of the month ideologicly is 180 degrees from your own.
CAP, why are you letting a child run you in circles? Do you fight with children in person as an adult?
yea, you're right........
like i said before......hopefully, he starts to question authority, and question the drivel that's being pumped into his head, and read a little.......ane possibly form his own opinions.......which if he reads a little, will be significantly different than those that he's being told to have.
appreciate the insight dude!
BTW......i don't fight with anyone in rl........discuss, yes....fight no.........and you're also right.... not with kids.
-
no offence CAP but its a bit rich you telling someone to go read when you yourself cant be bothered to pick up a dictionary to learn the difference between climate and weather...
-
no offence CAP but its a bit rich you telling someone to go read when you yourself cant be bothered to pick up a dictionary to learn the difference between climate and weather...
that would be due to the fact that weather systems combined make up our weather? :aok
-
here ya go........http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
-
OOOPS :rofl
They finally admit their falsehood.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
-
OOOPS :rofl
They finally admit their falsehood.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews
From your article
"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a public-policy think tank, told Fox News.
No kidding captain obvious.
-
CAP,
Untill Penguin's parents aren't paying his bills and taking responsibility for his mistakes. His 3 digiit IQ and glib debating style does not mean he has a dog in this fight with us no matter how enchanting or entertaining he is. Where you and I have worries and consiquences every day that can bankrupt and make us destitute inside of a few months. Penguin can crawl back into his bed and wake up in the morining knowing mommy and daddy have him covered. He has no experience to have a real opinion other than what he has memorised and emotionaly identifies with. He will not suffer the same consiquences we will if he identifies with an erronious set of ideological ideals. He is also baiting you to continue paying attention to him becuase his flavor of the month ideologicly is 180 degrees from your own.
CAP, why are you letting a child run you in circles? Do you fight with children in person as an adult?
Are you just trolling for fun?
Well yes, I can't really change much about my age except for waiting at the moment. Attacking that shows how much more you crave attention than I do. Why is it that whenever I try to debate, someone pulls the "Can it kid, you're stupid and shouldn't speak until spoken too" argument.
3 points of IQ, I doubt it. Glib? You think I'm glib? Take a look at yourself, making pointless personal attacks that really make no sense at all. I'm a kid, I haven't learned everything yet, so what? What can I do about it? Really, you should think your arguments through a little more.
CAP, Widewing, and assorted others, have I been trolling and attention seeking? (I mean this seriously!)
-Penguin
-
Are you just trolling for fun?
Well yes, I can't really change much about my age except for waiting at the moment. Attacking that shows how much more you crave attention than I do. Why is it that whenever I try to debate, someone pulls the "Can it kid, you're stupid and shouldn't speak until spoken too" argument.
Because you've been exposed to the tools of debate without having a sound teacher to instruct you on their proper use. It's like you found a foil, but try to hack with it instead of making precise thrusts.
That said, I do not think you're stupid. But it might be worth noting that there are a number of younger players here who do not give away their age when they post, e.g. mensa, bubi, enker...and frankly those three have far more sense than a big chunk of the adults here.
-
Are you just trolling for fun?
Well yes, I can't really change much about my age except for waiting at the moment. Attacking that shows how much more you crave attention than I do. Why is it that whenever I try to debate, someone pulls the "Can it kid, you're stupid and shouldn't speak until spoken too" argument.
3 points of IQ, I doubt it. Glib? You think I'm glib? Take a look at yourself, making pointless personal attacks that really make no sense at all. I'm a kid, I haven't learned everything yet, so what? What can I do about it? Really, you should think your arguments through a little more.
CAP, Widewing, and assorted others, have I been trolling and attention seeking? (I mean this seriously!)
-Penguin
Looks to me as they are saying your lack of life's experiences limits your input. That seems factual and in no way resembles a personal attack.
When you are older and your choices dictate whether or not you eat tomorrow or go hungry then your opinion takes on a more realistic view.
I don't believe anyone called you stupid, just inexperienced.
-
Wow, Anax was right, I need a teacher for this! I guess I misread his post, I saw a sneering personal shot; because he called me a baiter, and attacked my ideology (I guess, I really haven't gotten that far in politics), and he said that I'm not arguing that well (from as much as I can tell from "he doesn't have a dog in this fight as much as we do").
On that last point, do enlighten me. Anax, you're right, I need a teacher for this. Can you teach me the way of the word-warrior? :pray
-Penguin
-
On that last point, do enlighten me. Anax, you're right, I need a teacher for this. Can you teach me the way of the word-warrior? :pray
I have neither the time nor the desire, but I cringe at the phrase "word-warrior." Our arguments are only as good as the true facts they express, and even the uneducated can tell the difference between someone who genuinely aims for clarification and understanding with their arguments, versus someone who is out to score verbal points.
My advice is to take a college level English or Philosophy course on critical thinking and go from there. The kind of student peers you have can make a world of difference, however. For example, a course at a junior college isn't worth as much as a 4-year university course, not because it lacks quality content or a competent instructor, but because your peers won't give a damn and won't have many interesting things to say.
Naturally, that's a generalization and there will be fortunate exceptions.
-
I have neither the time nor the desire, but I cringe at the phrase "word-warrior." Our arguments are only as good as the true facts they express, and even the uneducated can tell the difference between someone who genuinely aims for clarification and understanding with their arguments, versus someone who is out to score verbal points.
My advice is to take a college level English or Philosophy course on critical thinking and go from there. The kind of student peers you have can make a world of difference, however. For example, a course at a junior college isn't worth as much as a 4-year university course, not because it lacks quality content or a competent instructor, but because your peers won't give a damn and won't have many interesting things to say.
Naturally, that's a generalization and there will be fortunate exceptions.
On this bolded point I coud not disagree more. The student peers of a community junior college are much more likely to come from all walks of life with vast life skills and experience than students of a four year university whom are there right out of high school on mom and dad's dime.
Naturally, that's a generalization and there will be fortunate exceptions.
-
On this bolded point I coud not disagree more. The student peers of a community junior college are much more likely to come from all walks of life with vast life skills and experience than students of a four year university whom are there right out of high school on mom and dad's dime.
Naturally, that's a generalization and there will be fortunate exceptions.
top off what you said, with the mere thought of having to go to college to learn to think.............
if you can't think on your own, or can't reason on your own, college will do nothing more than empty your wallet.
-
true, but if you can think for yourself further education will give you a bunch of new tools which you never even knew existed :aok
-
true, but if you can think for yourself further education will give you a bunch of new tools which you never even knew existed :aok
further education could give me common sense?
i dated a woman whose iq was 2 points(i think) short of being rated genius. i wish there was an official way to rate common sense, 'cause she'd be in the negative there.......and i don't say that to be mean.........
-
On this bolded point I coud not disagree more. The student peers of a community junior college are much more likely to come from all walks of life with vast life skills and experience than students of a four year university whom are there right out of high school on mom and dad's dime.
Experiences differ widely, I guess. What I experienced in Junior college was that along with the young do-nothings, the older students were equally apathetic about required courses that did not pertain to their area of study, or wanted to talk about nothing except themselves. My experience at a four year university was the exact opposite.
Anyway, we're way off track now, aren't we. ;)
-
Experiences differ widely, I guess. What I experienced in Junior college was that along with the young do-nothings, the older students were equally apathetic about required courses that did not pertain to their area of study, or wanted to talk about nothing except themselves. My experience at a four year university was the exact opposite.
Anyway, we're way off track now, aren't we. ;)
bolded,,,,,,,that's simply human nature.
-
CAP, Widewing, and assorted others, have I been trolling and attention seeking? (I mean this seriously!)
-Penguin
No. I haven't seen you do this at all....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks Widewing!
Sorry anax, I don't want to make you cringe, but if you dislike it, can you refer me to anyone here that can teach me a little bit about debate and the like? I don't know how far I've come, and how far I've yet to go. College, that's a long way away.
-Penguin
-
Thanks Widewing!
Sorry anax, I don't want to make you cringe, but if you dislike it, can you refer me to anyone here that can teach me a little bit about debate and the like? I don't know how far I've come, and how far I've yet to go. College, that's a long way away.
-Penguin
My wife used to teach critical thinking with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Real-Arguments-Alec-Fisher/dp/0521654815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266379108&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Real-Arguments-Alec-Fisher/dp/0521654815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266379108&sr=8-1)
-
some may find this interesting.....from another board......
once again, not co2, or anything man made. veeely interesting...... :aok
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=69134&ct=162
-
Angus, local climates change. They can vary at the limits of the norm. Whether it's warming or cooling, man is powerless to change that. Rather than waste trillions attempting to prevent something out of our control, the resources need to be spent adapting to the changes. Climate is never truly static.
Adapt or die... A basic rule of nature.
My regards,
Widewing
Round we go.
We know that mankind can change climate. In a flash, by going into a total nuke war.
However it's must tougher to say what our daily activities do. But here goes:
We know we can change and have changed the surface and vegetation of our planet by quite some measure. And we know as well, that capturing warmth is related to the surface.
We also know that we can and have changed the composition of the atmosphere by some bit, and we steadily carry on. And we do know, that the composition of the gases in our atmosphere does affect the temperature.
All we have done has a push towards causing warming. It is but a question of by how much and not if.
Sadly, this has gone into the trenches of propoganda, fake, paranoia, denialism, populism and money grabbing.
In the meantime, guys like myself, who is very dependant on both weather and climate, try to conclude something from our own heads. And the "local" climate I am looking into is on a very BIG "local" area.
BTW, GW would not leat to every zone on the earth warming.
So, I do hope that the measurements carry on, and some real truth will see the daylight.
Meanwhile, I look forward to growing rapeseed for oil, and Exxon gets the drill-grease ready for new ventures in new ice-free zones.
-
My wife used to teach critical thinking with this book: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Real-Arguments-Alec-Fisher/dp/0521654815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266379108&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Real-Arguments-Alec-Fisher/dp/0521654815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266379108&sr=8-1)
Looks like a good read, and cheap too! Eventually I'll have to practice with someone though. Hey, at least I have a book to study from!
-Penguin
-
There are multiple problems at the moment -
a) None of the models predicted the last 15 years cooling, cooling that is admitted by Phil Jones.
b) None of the models can predict any other earlier periods of warming in the temp record, warming that is in the same scale as now. (this current warming is not unprecedented in the temp record)
c) The AR4 report from the IPCC is slowly being picked apart.
d) Cap and Trade, Carbon trading et all will do nothing for the climate, what is will do is make a small minority a great deal of money.
e) Temperature station siting is laughable, the majority not meeting standards.
f) For peer reviewed read 'Pal/mate reviewed'.
g) No account for changes in land use. If I asphalt over a large area with a thermometer nearby, temp will rise. But not due to CO2. Remember Phil Jones claimed UHI effect was "negligable".
h) The majority of the rise in temps is night time temps, UHI effect. Un-massaged rural data shows little difference to earlier records.
i) Unaccounted for or unexplained massaging of data.
Not expecting much from any of the investigations but a paper over the cracks whitewash, unfortunately.
Its a mess.
-
Well if it wasn't, the whole thing would be settled then, wouldn't it?
-Penguin
-
Kev:
"Cap and Trade, Carbon trading et all will do nothing for the climate, what is will do is make a small minority a great deal of money."
Exactly what I am afraid of. Not to mention the focus point of environmental issues going into just THAT.
As for this:
"Temperature station siting is laughable, the majority not meeting standards."
- Firstly it does not explain changes in those exact spots, since many of them have been in the same place for a very long time.
- Secondly, these numbers are now being looked into alongside the sattellite data, which is a very interesting field indeed.
-
Fresh data.
Notice that those who debate GW occuring the most, mainly live in a "cold" pocket. This January actually ranks as one of the top ten hottest...ever, but take measurements that suggest warming with a grain of salt, right?
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
-
Fresh data.
Notice that those who debate GW occuring the most, mainly live in a "cold" pocket. This January actually ranks as one of the top ten hottest...ever, but take measurements that suggest warming with a grain of salt, right?
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
just an fyi.......from what i can see on that chart......new jersey is shown aa being in the "hot" area.
it's colder here than it has been in the last few years.
-
See the big picture though, it could have been warming before. And can we get that in a more eye-friendly picture, please? It makes my eyes sore to look at it.
-Penguin
-
Fresh data.
Notice that those who debate GW occuring the most, mainly live in a "cold" pocket. This January actually ranks as one of the top ten hottest...ever, but take measurements that suggest warming with a grain of salt, right?
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
Funny... That chart DOES NOT correlate with your own experience, does it?
-
Funny... That chart DOES NOT correlate with your own experience, does it?
ssshhhh
-
Fresh data.
Notice that those who debate GW occuring the most, mainly live in a "cold" pocket. This January actually ranks as one of the top ten hottest...ever, but take measurements that suggest warming with a grain of salt, right?
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
I notice that this chart is bullhockey. It shows the NE US as being warmer than normal... Someone should have told us about this, and perhaps we would not have been freezing our tulips off... For the record, the average temperature for January in my region was 3.7 degrees F below normal. That idiot charts shows it being warmer than normal by 1 to 2 degrees C.
The best indicator of temperature trends for me is home heating oil and electric consumption. My oil use in gallons has been 15% higher this year, and we programmed the thermostat 2 degrees lower. Last summer, out electric use in kilowatt hours (air conditioning being the single biggest factor) was 19% lower.
Another confusing thing... Our weather in the NE, specifically cold air, comes from Canada. So, how is it that we were colder than the source? Seriously, this chart defies logic. Hell, it defies reality. Then again, if it's NOAA's data, they're probably using rectal thermometers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I notice that this chart is bullhockey.
NOAA is a very reputable institution, and the chart refers to the years 1971-2000, not a specific year.
-
NOAA is a very reputable institution, and the chart refers to the years 1971-2000, not a specific year.
So we should just disregard it since it is at least ten year old data, right?
-
NOAA is a very reputable institution, and the chart refers to the years 1971-2000, not a specific year.
It states, Temperature Anomalies January 2010, with respect to a 1971-2000 time period. It is referring to a specific year, relative (or in comparison to) to a 30 year period.
My regards,
Widewing
-
It states, Temperature Anomalies January 2010, with respect to a 1971-2000 time period. It is referring to a specific year, relative (or in comparison to) to a 30 year period.
My regards,
Widewing
You are right. I'm reading the fine print and ignoring the title. :lol
-
You are right. I'm reading the fine print and ignoring the title. :lol
:) Don't sweat it... I miss the obvious so often that it's... obvious.
My regards,
Widewing
-
just some food for thought on that latest image.......... and I say food for thought simply because I just noticed it and havent had a chance to dig deeper and draw my own conclusions yet
on the page you took that image from..... which is a combined land/sea using 1971-2000 as their baseline......... right beside it is another image which is only land and uses a 1961-1990 baseline...... but somehow they have the exact same anomalies over land shown .......
so the 90s which are widely accepted in the alarmist circles as being a great deal hotter (this after all does include the 2 years they cite as hottest on record) did not make any difference in the averages whatsoever?
first thought would be that one of the 2 images is obviously fiction ...... but that cant be ....... they are reputable
-
oin my own little corner of the world...the last 2 summers, it was not warm enough to warrant the use of my a/c in my home or car.
last winter was a little mild....but we had some really cold days...in January.........and this past winter, is stupidly cold......
unfortunately, that chart shows my little corner of the world as warmer....thus i say this.
shenanigans.
-
Funny... That chart DOES NOT correlate with your own experience, does it?
Oh, yes it does.
Bear in mind, that we are promtly at a solar minimum now. Just wait some 6 years :devil
-
Oh, yes it does.
Bear in mind, that we are promtly at a solar minimum now. Just wait some 6 years :devil
Angus... Now you're just being disingenuous. You have been going on about how crops are growing in your area that haven't grown there before. You've said over and over that your glaciers are melting. You stated again and again that your region is noticeably warmer. Now you are going to blindly concur with an obviously skewed chart with this "solar minimum" silliness....
Now... Once and for all... Is it warmer or colder than what is historically "normal" where you are? Does your chart accurately reflect your personal observations?
-
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4337/wolframalpha20100219105.gif)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=temperature+iceland
looking at this data, temperature in center of Iceland in last 70 years declined about -0.0091 deg C/y+-0.0125 deg C/y (-110 yr/deg C)
Regards
SF
edit:
here the same in Fahrenheit:
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9223/wolframalpha20100219110.gif)
-
Angus... Now you're just being disingenuous. You have been going on about how crops are growing in your area that haven't grown there before. You've said over and over that your glaciers are melting. You stated again and again that your region is noticeably warmer. Now you are going to blindly concur with an obviously skewed chart with this "solar minimum" silliness....
Now... Once and for all... Is it warmer or colder than what is historically "normal" where you are? Does your chart accurately reflect your personal observations?
Simple.
Warmer. About the same as last winter. Go back to the times quoted in the chart (1970 onward), and the winters were much tougher. The summers may have been similar, but it does make a difference WHEN exactly the winter gives away. Which means a longer growing season. It's been growing longer over the years, so in my career as a "driller", - a person who is seeding crops ASAP in the spring, the difference of my 21 years in that field is simply staggering. And pushing in records in the low end of the solar cycle (silliness????...the solar output is swinging steadily on a 11 years cycle or so)...means what? Oh, my business end becomes better due to warmer years.
NE stiff wind now, which should be freezing. Temperature 0 deg Celcius.
-
Simple.
Warmer. About the same as last winter. Go back to the times quoted in the chart (1970 onward), and the winters were much tougher. The summers may have been similar, but it does make a difference WHEN exactly the winter gives away. Which means a longer growing season. It's been growing longer over the years, so in my career as a "driller", - a person who is seeding crops ASAP in the spring, the difference of my 21 years in that field is simply staggering. And pushing in records in the low end of the solar cycle (silliness????...the solar output is swinging steadily on a 11 years cycle or so)...means what? Oh, my business end becomes better due to warmer years.
NE stiff wind now, which should be freezing. Temperature 0 deg Celcius.
Why is this like pulling teeth?
Does the graph or does the graph not accurately represent your personal experience with your local climate?
-
Kev:
"Cap and Trade, Carbon trading et all will do nothing for the climate, what is will do is make a small minority a great deal of money."
Exactly what I am afraid of. Not to mention the focus point of environmental issues going into just THAT.
As for this:
"Temperature station siting is laughable, the majority not meeting standards."
- Firstly it does not explain changes in those exact spots, since many of them have been in the same place for a very long time.
- Secondly, these numbers are now being looked into alongside the sattellite data, which is a very interesting field indeed.
No it doesn't I agree.
Then again when all these institutions can take a rural flat or declining temp record, homogenize it and turn it into a convenient warming trend......
Whats annoying is the revisionist hindsight they come out with.
EVERY climate model forecast rapidly declining snowfall, yet now these people are saying increased snowfall is totally in line with their predictions!
Weather is not climate unless it's in relation to climate change. In which case they claim hot, cold, drought, snow, rain, floods etc are ALL due to climate change. Covered all the bases haven't they?
-
Way way back in 1988 Hansen (GISS) used their computer models to predict what the global anomoly would be up to 2010.
The results contained 3 predictions, scenarios A, B and C.
(http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansencomparedrecent.jpg)
Scenario C looks pretty close doesn't it?
However - Scenario C was based on CO2 emissions being frozen at 1988 levels! Where we should be is scenario A, i.e. continuously increasing CO2 levels.
Scenario C is the most referred to by AGW proponents as proof that Hansen 'got it right', they just neglect or don't know about what scenario C was based on (CO2 emissions freeze in 1988).
So scenario C is wrong, and thats the closest to reality.
Scenario A is wrong, thats were we should be now.
Scenario B was based on freezing CO2 in 2000, but thats wrong also.
Something up with the models/programming perhaps?
-
Why is this like pulling teeth?
Does the graph or does the graph not accurately represent your personal experience with your local climate?
IT DOES.
Simple enough?
-
I notice that this chart is bullhockey. It shows the NE US as being warmer than normal... Someone should have told us about this, and perhaps we would not have been freezing our tulips off... For the record, the average temperature for January in my region was 3.7 degrees F below normal. That idiot charts shows it being warmer than normal by 1 to 2 degrees C.
The best indicator of temperature trends for me is home heating oil and electric consumption. My oil use in gallons has been 15% higher this year, and we programmed the thermostat 2 degrees lower. Last summer, out electric use in kilowatt hours (air conditioning being the single biggest factor) was 19% lower.
Another confusing thing... Our weather in the NE, specifically cold air, comes from Canada. So, how is it that we were colder than the source? Seriously, this chart defies logic. Hell, it defies reality. Then again, if it's NOAA's data, they're probably using rectal thermometers.
My regards,
Widewing
I will throw you a riddle. There is a factor that is not calculated into temp measurements, but yet will do quite a bit when it comes to your power bills. This factor has been predicted to grow in magnitude in the case of more energy in the atmosphere. Make my day and tell me what it is :devil
-
WoooooooooooHoooooooooo :rock :banana:
100 pages of beating a dead horse. Every argument in this thread has gone around in more circles then a NASCAR race. :bolt:
-
IT DOES.
Simple enough?
So... What you are saying.... Is that even though you have professed warmer temps in your area - so warm in fact that you are able to grow crop that are not even indigenous to your area- and even though you have told tales of personally witnessing receding glaciers near your home.... Even though you have told us again and again about all of these things... You are going to stand by a "graph" that states that YOUR AREA has recently trended BELOW AVERAGE.
This is just going around and around. When asked for proof of global warming we are either shown crayola drawings made using "messaged" data or pictures of trash floating in the ocean. We are told that glaciers that are receding are due to higher temps but when the fact that the areas are in fact colder we are then told that glacier growth actually relies more on precipitation than temp and that receding glaciers are an indicator of lowered precipitation which is caused by global warmer --THEN... IN THE NEXT BREATH... We are told that global warming and HIGHER average global temps are the cause of colder winters and INCREASED PRECIPITATION!!!
You guys just need to get your story straight. OR... Better yet.. Admit that you've had the wool pulled over your eyes and take the ribbing that you've got coming to you so we can get to the real issue which is tracking down the perpetrators of this massive fraud and seeing justice served.
-
So... What you are saying.... Is that even though you have professed warmer temps in your area - so warm in fact that you are able to grow crop that are not even indigenous to your area- and even though you have told tales of personally witnessing receding glaciers near your home.... Even though you have told us again and again about all of these things... You are going to stand by a "graph" that states that YOUR AREA has recently trended BELOW AVERAGE.
This is just going around and around. When asked for proof of global warming we are either shown crayola drawings made using "messaged" data or pictures of trash floating in the ocean. We are told that glaciers that are receding are due to higher temps but when the fact that the areas are in fact colder we are then told that glacier growth actually relies more on precipitation than temp and that receding glaciers are an indicator of lowered precipitation which is caused by global warmer --THEN... IN THE NEXT BREATH... We are told that global warming and HIGHER average global temps are the cause of colder winters and INCREASED PRECIPITATION!!!
You guys just need to get your story straight. OR... Better yet.. Admit that you've had the wool pulled over your eyes and take the ribbing that you've got coming to you so we can get to the real issue which is tracking down the perpetrators of this massive fraud and seeing justice served.
AGAIN.
The "graph" consists of a "climate qualified" length of time, - 30 years, compared to a particular month, which many folks on the board have been yelling about as being cold. In my case, it shows warming, which is very much in consistence of what I experience. Now, for those more focused on the solar output ("it's the sun stupid"), this is occuring when we have the solar output on the minimum of the typical 11 years cycle.
Note how temps are going down on the mid-continents compared to the oceans and the areas nearer to the poles stay in the warming zone.
And...this map is pretty rough. By sectors I mean. Not a lot of resolution.
-
sluggish: just to make sure you were looking at the right image, here it is...again:
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
RED means the warming side, and I live in the middle of the N-Atlantic, on a dot which shows a +1 anomality above the last 30 years. Pretty much agrees with my memory of not being able to go skating since 1982.
-
sluggish: just to make sure you were looking at the right image, here it is...again:
(http://www.loftslag.is/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jan_2010_NOAA.gif)
RED means the warming side, and I live in the middle of the N-Atlantic, on a dot which shows a +1 anomality above the last 30 years. Pretty much agrees with my memory of not being able to go skating since 1982.
Well Angus, I apologize. I thought you were in the Netherlands. However, the map does not correlate with my mild summers and extreme winters for the past eight or ten years here in Michigan.
-
Well Angus, I apologize. I thought you were in the Netherlands. However, the map does not correlate with my mild summers and extreme winters for the past eight or ten years here in Michigan.
Winter 2008/2009 Climate Summary For Southwest
CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY FOR DETROIT - JANUARY 2010
...FAIRLY TYPICAL JANUARY BUT LIKE DECEMBER...A BIT LIGHT ON THE SNOW
ALSO THE 11TH DRIEST JANUARY ON RECORD...
...JANUARY ENDED THE WAY IT CAME IN...COLD RELATIVE TO NORMAL...
...JANUARY THAW ARRIVES AS THOUGH CUED...RIGHT ON SCHEDULE...
...SNOWFALL THIS SEASON PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE LAST FEW SEASONS...
***DOMINANT TEMPERATURE/RAIN-SNOW TREND...NORMAL/BELOW NORMAL***
ALL THINGS CONSIDERED...JANUARY TURNED OUT TO BE A TYPICAL JANUARY...
ALBEIT WITH SOMEWHAT LESS STORM ACTION AND SNOW. TEMPERATURES ROAD AN
ACTIVE ROLLER-COASTER BUT IN THE END...CAME OUT JUST A SMIDGEN ABOVE
NORMAL (OR IN THE NORMAL RANGE)
Winter 2008/2009 Climate Summary For Southwest
Lower Michigan
4
The relative coldness of the winter of 2008/2009 compared to previous winters is seen in Figure 2. Since 1987 there have been only four colder than normal winters: 1993/1994, 1995/1996, 2002/2003 and 2008/2009. Out of the twenty-three winters since 1986/1987, ten winters were warmer than normal
-
Hover and pounce?
Cut and paste all you like. The fact of the matter is that I haven't had to run my AC for years (in fact I haven't even put it in the window for the last three) and my gas consumption has increased almost every year. Maybe you could post another picture of trash floating in the ocean to prove how wrong I am about my own surroundings...
-
Hover and pounce?
Cut and paste all you like. The fact of the matter is that I haven't had to run my AC for years (in fact I haven't even put it in the window for the last three) and my gas consumption has increased almost every year. Maybe you could post another picture of trash floating in the ocean to prove how wrong I am about my own surroundings...
Yeah, I'm sickened by the obfuscation and blatant mis-truths by you and others on here.
The difference is, I post empirical results. Empirically, (meaning observations not based on theory or system) 10 of the winters in your area since 1987 have been warmer than the base, 4 have been cooler than the base, and the rest have been "normal" (9). That's 19 of the last 23 winters, being warmer (10) or normal (9).
Your assertion that the last decade has been colder than normal in Michigan, isn't tied to the empirical data and therefore completely lacks merit.
The fact you don't run your AC and your gas consumption rose isn't necessarily tied implicitly to exterior temps. Perhaps the temps are swinging wildly in both extremes and you focus on the cold more.... Perhaps your own tastes have changed. Perhaps you're just getting old and like it warmer... who knows. But the bottom line, is you are dead wrong about your statement.
-
This ol' cat was in Wales a few days ago visiting friends. One of them uttered this gem:
'Global warming? Here in Wales? Bring it on, man, bring it on!'
Too right.
<warms hands on glass of hot toddy>
:cool:
-
LoL. I knew Moray couldn't stay out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU)
:D :rofl :rofl :rofl :D
Wab
-
LoL. I knew Moray couldn't stay out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU)
:D :rofl :rofl :rofl :D
Wab
Lol...it's just been painful to watch.
-
This is just going round and around. It really isn't worth going about anymore....every point is a point of contention and there isn't a single person here even remotely skeptical, besides perhaps Anax and CAP..... your minds are made up and aren't open to the simplest of explanations, even the basic analysis of data is misunderstood and questioned. You call yourselves skeptical.... but many of you have made up your minds by being told by Fox News what is going on. I haven't seen a single rebuttal worth arguing over yet...just posting of news stories...if anyone even bothers to do even that.
There is absolutely no ability to find any perspective of common ground from which to even frame a debate.
It just isn't worth the time I've spent on it. I've enjoyed the polite debate with some, but I'm really tired of the personal vendettas on here. When in the past two pages I've been called stupid, a tool, had my intelligence questioned.....etc etc....
Enjoy the remainder of the thread. I'm out. When it ceases to be fun, there's no point in continuing. I'll just end up PNG'd.
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/tyvyUnhJybQ/default.jpg)
I'm out.
:banana:
-
:banana:
:banana:
-
just out of curiousity........ why are we seeing annual summaries for southwest michigan? I guess my map must be as skewed as some of these ficticious charts
-
i like it when people try to tell me that what i see out the window matters not, as there is printed data showing that i am wrong.
it shows that i didn't really need to wear 2 days worth of clothes each day this winter. it shows that my oil bill shouldn't have gone up(gonna call the oil company and tell em the gave me too much oil). it shows that we haven't had 4+ feet of snow here. it shows that my waste oil heater at the shop shouldn;t have been on for most of the last couple months(gonna hafta have it checked, as it has burned about 500 gallons so far, since november)
so.........well........i dunno............
-
Check the map and data again.
30 years January average vs this January, and it is not too fine in resolution.
How many of you remember January 1980? or 1982? I do :D
And guess what, - my powerbill is going up to. Guess that proves global cooling huh? Can't have anything to do with the unit price rising?
And the factor that affects the heating apart from that, but unrelated with temperature? Well, - a little wind will do quite a lot :D
-
Dang, so simple but yet so difficult! (Curse your ingenuity :banana:).
Anyway... personal tastes, wind, aging (you and heating equipment), unit cost, those all affect your powerbill. It's not
y=mx+b relation
y-y1=m(x-x1 ) relation, or even an
ax+by=c relation
There are too many variables for this to be emperical. With just those you would have an (v,w,x,y,z) plot going on, that's more than the 3D's that you can see! (I'm sure that you could graph it though) Please do not cite anecdotal, highly variable evidence to prove a claim that streches across the globe. If you want to use home heating, please have at least a state average of bbl. burned over a long period (20+ years is the minimum), and this data should be per capita.
-Penguin
-
Check the map and data again.
30 years January average vs this January, and it is not too fine in resolution.
How many of you remember January 1980? or 1982? I do :D
And guess what, - my powerbill is going up to. Guess that proves global cooling huh? Can't have anything to do with the unit price rising?
And the factor that affects the heating apart from that, but unrelated with temperature? Well, - a little wind will do quite a lot :D
i remember winter of 1980 fairly well. i spent a lot of time doing donuts in one of these in the parking lot of grants in clementon nj.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/1971_ford_ranch_bic_001.jpg).
sometimes i wasn't able to get that one, so i used this one...although ours had a black vinyl roof.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa135/1LTCAP/1967-Green-Mustang-Coupe-front.jpg)
it was my first year driving, as i got my dl in april of 1979.
funny thing about that.....back then, there seemed to be less incidents and accidents in the snow than there are now. and there were very very few front wheel drive cars.
power bill going up? i never said my bill went up. i said my usage went up. when my oil gets delivered to my home, they leave a reciept, stating how many gallons of oil i got. so...when i see (for instance) 200 gallons delivered this month, vs the historical average of (for instance again) 100 gallons, yet my thermostat is set the same......my house hasn't changed in the last 20 years(that i know of) then i must in all obviousness be using more oil.
-
i like it when people try to tell me that what i see out the window matters not, as there is printed data showing that i am wrong.
it shows that i didn't really need to wear 2 days worth of clothes each day this winter. it shows that my oil bill shouldn't have gone up(gonna call the oil company and tell em the gave me too much oil). it shows that we haven't had 4+ feet of snow here. it shows that my waste oil heater at the shop shouldn;t have been on for most of the last couple months(gonna hafta have it checked, as it has burned about 500 gallons so far, since november)
so.........well........i dunno............
Cap...THIS WINTER, in your locale has been under what the average was. Being that I used to live not so far from you, I remember the early 80's where every winter December and January had temps in the single digits as highs. It hasn't been like that since.
His statement was that the last decade has had brutal winters. I proved that he was wrong, by empirical means, not personal de facto observations.
-
Check the map and data again.
30 years January average vs this January, and it is not too fine in resolution.
How many of you remember January 1980? or 1982? I do :D
And guess what, - my powerbill is going up to. Guess that proves global cooling huh? Can't have anything to do with the unit price rising?
And the factor that affects the heating apart from that, but unrelated with temperature? Well, - a little wind will do quite a lot :D
Never said anything about my power bill. Of course my power bill has nearly doubled in the last ten years because the cost of energy has risen. That does not account for that fact that each of the three years since we moved into the new house our usage has increased significantly; six hundred gallons in 08, eight hundred gallons in 09 and I've just called to have the eight hundredth gallon delivered next week. With a good majority of winter left I will most probably have to have another two hundred gallon drop before the weather breaks in the spring.
-
Cap...THIS WINTER, in your locale has been under what the average was. Being that I used to live not so far from you, I remember the early 80's where every winter December and January had temps in the single digits as highs. It hasn't been like that since.
His statement was that the last decade has had brutal winters. I proved that he was wrong, by empirical means, not personal de facto observations.
Please inform my energy provider of their mistake.
-
why on earth would you want to try to measure temps using such an abstract indicator as heating fuel use? when you can measure temps using ... I dunno ... a thermometer? :headscratch:
-
Please inform my energy provider of their mistake.
So you're proven wrong and get snarky. Typical.
-
Cap:
"funny thing about that.....back then, there seemed to be less incidents and accidents in the snow than there are now. and there were very very few front wheel drive cars."
Same here. However, in the old days everyone had quite some snow-driving time under the belt, while nowadays people have had their licence dor years and years and hardly ever driven in snow...experience does matter...but is hard to acquire when there is no snow :D
-
I remember the early 80's where every winter December and January had temps in the single digits as highs. It hasn't been like that since.
Is that due to global warming? Because some also claim the current rather harsh winter in NA is due to global warming. Which is it?
They say the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are receding due to global warming. Well glaciers recession is caused by lack of precipitation, then they tell us global warming will cause more precipitation because warmer air holds more moisture. Ummm... OK :headscratch:
They blamed big hurricanes 4-5 years ago on global warming, because the warmer air puts more energy into the storms. Then last year when we had NO hurricanes, it was because of global warming causing the warm sea currents to shift. :headscratch:
Bill Nye the Science Guy was on some pundit show last week, and I kid you not, in the same sentence he claimed that the big storms and record snowfall in the eastern US, AND the lack of snow at the Olympics in B.C. were both caused by global warming. :headscratch:
Then last week Phil Jones admits to the BBC that there has been no warming since 1995, and the data going back 1,000s of years they based their research on is not reliable.
So to summarize:
Warmer = Global warming
Not warmer = Global warming
Cooler = Global warming
More precipitation = Global warming
Less precipitation = Global warming
More hurricanes = Global warming
Less hurricanes = Global warming
It seem that anything but perfect 72°F, partly cloudy, 3mph breeze weather is now blamed on global warming.
The weather has always been volatile.
The climate has always been changing, IT'S WHAT CLIMATE DOES!!
The Great Basin were I live used to be tropical, I can go out and find fossils of sea life here. Did prehistoric creatures driving their SUVs cause the climate change that changed the Great Basin from an ocean, to a tropical rain forest, to a desert? (and a couple ice ages fit in there somewhere too.)
How many ice ages have there been? What caused the global warming that melted all that ice?
What about the medieval warm period, surely that was caused by all those serf pig farmers putting out methane.
We are not causing climate change, we are witnessing and recording it. Claiming that humans are causing the natural cycles of the climate by our actions, is like claiming we cause the sun to rise and set by waking up and going to bed. The actions coincide, it MUST be cause and effect right?!?
I wouldn't get so worked up about this if it weren't for the politicians who are trying to funnel trillions of $$$ worth of policy and taxes worldwide based on these very dubious claims.
-
Is that due to global warming? Because some also claim the current rather harsh winter in NA is due to global warming. Which is it?
They say the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are receding due to global warming. Well glaciers recession is caused by lack of precipitation, then they tell us global warming will cause more precipitation because warmer air holds more moisture. Ummm... OK :headscratch:
They blamed big hurricanes 4-5 years ago on global warming, because the warmer air puts more energy into the storms. Then last year when we had NO hurricanes, it was because of global warming causing the warm sea currents to shift. :headscratch:
Bill Nye the Science Guy was on some pundit show last week, and I kid you not, in the same sentence he claimed that the big storms and record snowfall in the eastern US, AND the lack of snow at the Olympics in B.C. were both caused by global warming. :headscratch:
Then last week Phil Jones admits to the BBC that there has been no warming since 1995, and the data going back 1,000s of years they based their research on is not reliable.
So to summarize:
Warmer = Global warming
Not warmer = Global warming
Cooler = Global warming
More precipitation = Global warming
Less precipitation = Global warming
More hurricanes = Global warming
Less hurricanes = Global warming
It seem that anything but perfect 72°F, partly cloudy, 3mph breeze weather is now blamed on global warming.
The weather has always been volatile.
The climate has always been changing, IT'S WHAT CLIMATE DOES!!
The Great Basin were I live used to be tropical, I can go out and find fossils of sea life here. Did prehistoric creatures driving their SUVs cause the climate change that changed the Great Basin from an ocean, to a tropical rain forest, to a desert? (and a couple ice ages fit in there somewhere too.)
How many ice ages have there been? What caused the global warming that melted all that ice?
What about the medieval warm period, surely that was caused by all those serf pig farmers putting out methane.
We are not causing climate change, we are witnessing and recording it. Claiming that humans are causing the natural cycles of the climate by our actions, is like claiming we cause the sun to rise and set by waking up and going to bed. The actions coincide, it MUST be cause and effect right?!?
I wouldn't get so worked up about this if it weren't for the politicians who are trying to funnel trillions of $$$ worth of policy and taxes worldwide based on these very dubious claims.
bolded line. this is the only reason we are being constantly inundated with global warming crap.
-
I believe that what saggs said has been attributed to geologic shifts in the earth. The tropical basin argument is absurd, that change happened over hundreds of thousands of years. Now what we have seen here is a sudden uptake in the temperature over the last two hundred years. That uptake corresponds to the industrial revolution. To make the argument that we can't change the climate because it can change on its own is a false dichotomy, since neither precludes the other from being true if true.
Now as to the question of the medieval warm period, I'm not able to reason that one off. But how long were the middle ages? Fall of Rome to Renissance. That was from the 400's to the 1500's, that was 900 years. We've seen an uptake in less than one quarter of that time. Volcanic activity was also poorly recorded since we didn't know that much of our world existed, so just about anything that they couldn't see could have blasted the thermostat to the max.
-Penguin
-
I believe that what saggs said has been attributed to geologic shifts in the earth. The tropical basin argument is absurd, that change happened over hundreds of thousands of years. Now what we have seen here is a sudden uptake in the temperature over the last two hundred (more like 50 yrs, from the 1940's till the 1990's) years. And you have no idea if that trend will continue, in fact evidence suggests it has already reversed, like I said Phil Jones has admitted there has been no warming since 1995. That uptake corresponds to the industrial revolution. Correlation does not equal causation I wake up every morning, the sun also rises, does that mean I cause the sun to rise? To make the argument that we can't change the climate because it can change on its own is a false dichotomy, since neither precludes the other from being true if true.
Now as to the question of the medieval warm period, I'm not able to reason that one off. But how long were the middle ages? Fall of Rome to Renissance. That was from the 400's to the 1500's, that was 900 years. We've seen an uptake in less than one quarter of that time. Again, what evidence have you that this trend will continue, I can say "Since the sun rose this morning it has warmed 20°, so I predict in 2 weeks time the temperature will be 500°" it's absurd. Meteorologists cannot accurately predict what the weather will be a month from now. Yet we believe these climate "scientists" who tell us what the climate will be in 100 years. I don't care how many Playstation 360s they have doing their computer models, there are billions of unknown variables, it is impossible to predict. All they are doing is extrapolating a curve from recent past data (which data we know now was manipulated) saying IF, and that is a humongous IF the warming of the past hundred years continue it will be 3° warmer in the next hundred. My prediction is that IF the sun never sets, and the earth magically moves closer to the sun, it will be 1000° in 2 weeks. It's a prediction based on unknown variables as well, so it's just as good as global warming predictions right? Volcanic activity was also poorly recorded since we didn't know that much of our world existed, so just about anything that they couldn't see could have blasted the thermostat to the max. So you admit that the medieval warm period must have been natural causes, yet now you assume the current warming, (well from the 1940's to the 1990's anyway) must be man-made. :rolleyes: Remember in the early 70s these same kind of people were predicting we were all gonna die from global cooling they even had articles about it in Newsweek, and Time magazines.
Did you know there was also a mini ice age in NA in the 1850's? Yup, the pioneers who settled I live suffered absolutely brutal winters for several years, much more brutal then anything seen since. It happened naturally, it stopped naturally, no one understands how, or why. The only constant on our planet is change.
-Penguin
Last word, even if the dire predictions of the IPCC do come true SO WHAT!?!?!?
Species like sea turtles, crocodiles, and rhinos have survived dozens of warming/cooling cycles, among other earth changes. Yet humans, the most advanced species on the planet, will all die in a fiery flood if it warms 3°?!?!?! Come on, be realistic, we would adapt and life would go on.
Places like Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, and Russia would get a longer, more productive growing season, they would love it. And remember more people die every year from cold weather, then from heat waves. So in that way global warming is saving lives. So I'm gonna go idle my SUV in the driveway for 3 hours now to do my part and save a life. :D
-
So tell me which Time magazine cover I'm to believe, the one from 1974, or the more recent one?
(http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/Timeflipflop.jpg)
Or is Newsweek from 1975 more reliable?
(http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global-cooling.jpg?w=227&h=300)
(http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/christmas_snow_fig1.JPG)
-
Ah yes, but doing so would also cause sea levels to rise. That means that most of New York's financial sector would become part of the Atlantic Ocean. Many parts of coastline would be flooded, leaving jagged underwater rock formations that skewer ships like shiskebab's.
Not only that, but tropics would become deserts, temperate regions become tropical in temperature (cue incessant mosquito buzzing and malaria screams), and the tundra would melt, along with its permafrost, which is ice mixed with CO2.
The great plains will become arid at the bottom, and the rocky soil of central Canada doesn't make good wheat even if you boil it! Many species of flora and fauna will die out, and since the climate will become less varied, biodiversity will decrease.
As you said saggs, we are the most advanced and intelligent species on the planet. We owe that to all of the life that lives with us, and should try to respect its existence. Is idling an SUV for three hours on the driveway intelligent? I don't think so, it wastes gas and puts needless wear on the engine. Most of all though, it gets you nowhere, dead polar bear or not. Advancement can solve the problem all together, since not burning anything on an industrial scale won't screw up our atmosphere. You can clearly see then, that even though we can do nothing, the rewards of doing something about our pollution are much, much greater.
-Penguin
-
You can clearly see then, that even though we can do nothing, the rewards of doing something about our pollution are much, much greater.
-Penguin
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I SWEAR MY FREAKIN' HEAD IS GONNA EXPLODE!!!!!
I'M TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING NOT POLLUTION!!!
get it through your head that
THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES!!
See my previous posts like 30 pages ago in this same thread, I AM A TREE-HUGGER, GLOBAL WARMING DENIER.
And the blasted cute and fuzzy, baby seal eating Polar Bears are NOT DYING, there are more of them now then ever before in the past 50 yrs.
And if you don't get that idling my SUV for 3 hrs is a joke then heaven help you. :rolleyes:
Oh, I give up, yes, YES, YES let's throw trillions of dollars at a problem that does not exist, and which we could not stop even if it did.
-
I have to admit, I am in the sceptics camp.
However, I do not trust Lord Monckton any more than I would trust Al Gore.
I am willing to change my mind about MMGW if someone can explain it to me.
I certainly am a layman (but willing to learn.. my math might be off).
My main question is:
Why is all the focus of the MMGW camp on CO2?
All the charts I've seen show that CO2 never was the driving force behind temperature change. CO2 increase always lagged several hundred years behind temperature.
To me, it looks like a clear violation of causality to claim CO2 is responsible.
The IPCC AR4 says in it's Dumb-People-Summary
[..]The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8] W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. [..]
The Sun chunks out enough energy that roughly 341W/m2 reach the upper atmosphere and 163W/m2 reach the surface on average.
In other words the IPCC calculated MM warming effect adds 0.9% to the sun's. Now factor in that for a 1% increase in energy we get a tiny increase in temperature (if I didn't get the dreaded physics of Mr Boltzmann wrong: E = s * T4. Since I am only interested in the change that human made warming effect has i can omit any constants and focus on the difference between temperatures with and without human RF.)
Putting in the numbers, our glorious effect on temperature is an increase of approx. 0.25% .
The globe has warmed by (I'm willing to change that number if someone has better sources) 1 degree in the last century.
How will changing CO2 output change anything here?
EDIT: spellingses r bad
-
Is that due to global warming? Because some also claim the current rather harsh winter in NA is due to global warming. Which is it?
They say the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are receding due to global warming. Well glaciers recession is caused by lack of precipitation, then they tell us global warming will cause more precipitation because warmer air holds more moisture. Ummm... OK :headscratch:
Pretty much your only valid point in here. Glaciers are poor indicators of temperature until the temperature shift becomes too pronounced to be ignored by other means
They blamed big hurricanes 4-5 years ago on global warming, because the warmer air puts more energy into the storms. Then last year when we had NO hurricanes, it was because of global warming causing the warm sea currents to shift. :headscratch:
Out of everything, Hurricane predictions are not tied into higher temperatures, only for casted strength. Since there is no way to empirically measure whether a CAT 1 would have become a CAT 2 due to the .15C rise between seasons.... this statement is void. The only link that can be implied is that more heat may influence the strength, not that it will make more storms, since hurricane development is more dependent upon other factors.
Bill Nye the Science Guy was on some pundit show last week, and I kid you not, in the same sentence he claimed that the big storms and record snowfall in the eastern US, AND the lack of snow at the Olympics in B.C. were both caused by global warming. :headscratch:
Comparing what happens in two locations separated by 3500 miles, that have two completely different weather drivers.... and you expect them to both have the exact same effect from more energy in the system? Climate and weather is not simple, and two different places will not respond in the same way. Elementary science. Bill Nye was completely correct about both, which you would understand if you actually looked into things.
Then last week Phil Jones admits to the BBC that there has been no warming since 1995, and the data going back 1,000s of years they based their research on is not reliable.
This is what Phil Jones said...
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
What he said, is that you can't pull out the trend as easy from such a short period of time. You are completely and utterly wrong here, with your statement... That is exactly NOT what Dr. Jones said.. Like most of your kin, you stop reading after the initial "yes", and forget about the rest of his answer.
The Great Basin were I live used to be tropical, I can go out and find fossils of sea life here. Did prehistoric creatures driving their SUVs cause the climate change that changed the Great Basin from an ocean, to a tropical rain forest, to a desert? (and a couple ice ages fit in there somewhere too.)
A simple foray in the basis for prehistoric climate shifts will easily reveal that our sun and earth have cycles that produce climate shifts. Currently, the sun is farther away and dimmer than it has been in over 2,000 years. ( Milankovitch cycles)
How many ice ages have there been? What caused the global warming that melted all that ice?
See above response, and look into reading.
What about the medieval warm period, surely that was caused by all those serf pig farmers putting out methane.
Considering the Greenland Ice Sheet is 400,000 years old..... this line of argument is completely bereft of merit. The 400,000 year old ice sheet is melting, now.
After commenting there, probably the most important graph I've found to date. It might show some of you something.
(http://www.weaversway.coop/blog/uploaded_images/Total-Heat-Content-740309.gif)
-
All the charts I've seen show that CO2 never was the driving force behind temperature change. CO2 increase always lagged several hundred years behind temperature.
CO2 does lag the temperature in prehistoric times, by about 100 to 200 years roughly. This is because, now stay with me here, there weren't events that put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to push the temperature. The forcing was done from outside the system, due to either solar variability or the swings in the orbital mechanics of the earth.
Take a moment to think before you respond.
CO2 lagged because there was a natural force that led.
After that force subsided, CO2 held temperatures artificially higher then they would have been otherwise.
Repeat. This isn't a natural situation. CO2 is leading now because it is being introduced artificially into the system.
-
That rise in ocean temps is scary. Note that some 30 feet of seawater contains more mass than the atmosphere.
-
So tell me which Time magazine cover I'm to believe, the one from 1974, or the more recent one?
(http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/Timeflipflop.jpg)
Or is Newsweek from 1975 more reliable?
(http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global-cooling.jpg?w=227&h=300)
(http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/christmas_snow_fig1.JPG)
(http://www.sprattiart.com/UserFiles/Image/SprattiFolio/Spratti-GW-toon.jpg)
-
CO2 does lag the temperature in prehistoric times, by about 100 to 200 years roughly. This is because, now stay with me here, there weren't events that put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to push the temperature. The forcing was done from outside the system, due to either solar variability or the swings in the orbital mechanics of the earth.
Take a moment to think before you respond.
CO2 lagged because there was a natural force that led.
After that force subsided, CO2 held temperatures artificially higher then they would have been otherwise.
Repeat. This isn't a natural situation. CO2 is leading now because it is being introduced artificially into the system.
I would like to agree with you here, but reality says no :)
We do introduce CO2 artificially now, no arguing with that. But, if what you say is true wouldn't there be a correlation of CO2 and temperature if CO2 is now leading?
Current temperature upswing started after the Maunder Minimum and it started well before we put out any meaningful amount of CO2.
Most of that warming is before 1950 and most of the CO2 output is after 1950.
There just isn't a correlation between these two (and as far as i can make out, never was).
If CO2 is now "leading" there are still stronger forces out there which were able to cool the earth during 1950-1970 despite the increase of CO2.
Even with the now massive 25% jump in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (our doing) those forces were easily able to generate global .. cooling in the 2000's after a big temperature runup in the 1990s.
I would argue that CO2's warming effect is modulated on the natural cycles.. but it seems to me that these natural cycles still dominate (and even the "unnatural" situation w/regards to CO2 post 1950 seems to support this reasoning) and if you look at my second question it seems pretty clear why: at 400ppm CO2 just isn't driving climate. It can't. Laws of physics.
-
I would like to agree with you here, but reality says no :)
We do introduce CO2 artificially now, no arguing with that. But, if what you say is true wouldn't there be a correlation of CO2 and temperature if CO2 is now leading?
Current temperature upswing started after the Maunder Minimum and it started well before we put out any meaningful amount of CO2.
Most of that warming is before 1950 and most of the CO2 output is after 1950.
There just isn't a correlation between these two (and as far as i can make out, never was).
If CO2 is now "leading" there are still stronger forces out there which were able to cool the earth during 1950-1970 despite the increase of CO2.
Even with the now massive 25% jump in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (our doing) those forces were easily able to generate global .. cooling in the 2000's after a big temperature runup in the 1990s.
I would argue that CO2's warming effect is modulated on the natural cycles.. but it seems to me that these natural cycles still dominate (and even the "unnatural" situation w/regards to CO2 post 1950 seems to support this reasoning) and if you look at my second question it seems pretty clear why: at 400ppm CO2 just isn't driving climate. It can't. Laws of physics.
the focus is on co2, due mostly to the fact that the vast majority of people do not know what it is, or what it does.
they need some way to get the masses to back whatever they want...so they picked somethign that can have a catchy sound to it, and sound scary at the same time. that combined with lack of knowledge of what it is, makes it easy fot them to get the people in tiff.
i know i sound cynical saying that crap, but the signs of bs are all over this mess. the fact that they're willing to trade carbon credits shows that htis has nothing to do with changing anything.......with the exception of fattening someones wallets.
-
It's a secret military project code naned HAARP. High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. We have the installations as well as Russia and China. Welcome to the next generation in global warfare. :bolt:
Google it and consider what HAARP is actually capable of. :cool:
-
the focus is on co2, due mostly to the fact that the vast majority of people do not know what it is, or what it does.
they need some way to get the masses to back whatever they want...so they picked somethign that can have a catchy sound to it, and sound scary at the same time. that combined with lack of knowledge of what it is, makes it easy fot them to get the people in tiff.
i know i sound cynical saying that crap, but the signs of bs are all over this mess. the fact that they're willing to trade carbon credits shows that htis has nothing to do with changing anything.......with the exception of fattening someones wallets.
CAP...
Do YOU know what it is? Specifically why it's so important? Do you know the bonding angles? The hybridization of the electron orbitals? The net dipole movement? Could you draw the orbital structure? Could you say anything that you aren't regurgitating?
No, you can't. But somehow you think your opinion is equal to people that have spent 20 years in the field with multiple PhD's. It's like a 15 year old girl telling you how to change an alternator, because she saw a CHILTON diagram once..
Your sudden militant turn to the cynical is troubling. You were at least somewhat open to discussion...but now your true colors shine through.
As far as what "they're willing to do"...scientists have said repeatedly to just halt CO2 emissions at pre 1990 levels... as a start. Other aspects of life, politicians, want to make money off this. You are way off base in your opinion. Your posts have become like other un-intelligent American pseudo drivel...whoever lies the most and the longest wins.
History will not look kindly on this period of time.
We had the "Enlightenment". This time will be called the "Return to Darkness".
-
Could one of the pro MMGW posters please inform me of what the claim is specifically?
Have read most of the posts on this topic and it seems that there are some implied claims.
In MMGW is the claim that man is responsible 100% for it, or is it a natural earth cycle and man has what percent part in it?
Also is the claim that co2 causing the heating of the atmosephere and then doing what heating the water? Is there anyother part to the claim? A, B or C is heating the earth also?
What kind of temperature are we talking about 1degree in 10 years or 1/4 a degree in a hundred?
Thanks.
-
CAP...
Do YOU know what it is? Specifically why it's so important? Do you know the bonding angles? The hybridization of the electron orbitals? The net dipole movement? Could you draw the orbital structure? Could you say anything that you aren't regurgitating?
No, you can't. But somehow you think your opinion is equal to people that have spent 20 years in the field with multiple PhD's. It's like a 15 year old girl telling you how to change an alternator, because she saw a CHILTON diagram once..
Your sudden militant turn to the cynical is troubling. You were at least somewhat open to discussion...but now your true colors shine through.
As far as what "they're willing to do"...scientists have said repeatedly to just halt CO2 emissions at pre 1990 levels... as a start. Other aspects of life, politicians, want to make money off this. You are way off base in your opinion. Your posts have become like other un-intelligent American pseudo drivel...whoever lies the most and the longest wins.
History will not look kindly on this period of time.
We had the "Enlightenment". This time will be called the "Return to Darkness".
yea, i do. it is a natural part of our atmosphere. it is used by plants, trees, foilage, etc, to live, and in return they provide us with o2.
it is a normal part of what we exhale, as do most all animals on the planet. it is heavier than air.
do i know the more technical things? no, as i don't study them.
so, how does me stating my opinion(the one you quoted) make me militant? because i see through their charade?
i mean, c'mon. you can't possibly believe that trading "credits" from here to there, thus allowing one to produce more than they were, because they bought these crdedits is going to help eliminate it, do you?
i thought more highly of you than that.
i almost forgot......co2 also varies according to the seasons, as things thrive, in the spring(lowering the amounts) and do not thrive in the fall(raising it).
funny how that brings us back to the natural cycle of things.
-
I think the earth is fine, its just the humans that need to worry :aok
-
(http://www.sprattiart.com/UserFiles/Image/SprattiFolio/Spratti-GW-toon.jpg)
Nice deflection.
Wab
-
Could one of the pro MMGW posters please inform me of what the claim is specifically?
Have read most of the posts on this topic and it seems that there are some implied claims.
In MMGW is the claim that man is responsible 100% for it, or is it a natural earth cycle and man has what percent part in it?
Also is the claim that co2 causing the heating of the atmosephere and then doing what heating the water? Is there anyother part to the claim? A, B or C is heating the earth also?
What kind of temperature are we talking about 1degree in 10 years or 1/4 a degree in a hundred?
Thanks.
Claim is simple -
None of the current climate models can account for the current warming therefore we have to be responsible for it. Mind you the models can't replicate the two other warming periods since 1850 either!
In fact the climate models have failed miserably, they also predicted lower amounts of snowfall (specifically), yet now the AGW promoters are claiming this period of snowfall is expected. They want it both ways.
The amount of heating depends on who you believe, Al baby, the IPCC, or the skeptics.
Good analogy - If you were to walk 1km, the last 12mm would represent the amount of CO2 added by man to the atmosphere.
-
Claim is simple -
None of the current climate models can account for the current warming therefore we have to be responsible for it. Mind you the models can't replicate the two other warming periods since 1850 either!
In fact the climate models have failed miserably, they also predicted lower amounts of snowfall (specifically), yet now the AGW promoters are claiming this period of snowfall is expected. They want it both ways.
The amount of heating depends on who you believe, Al baby, the IPCC, or the skeptics.
Good analogy - If you were to walk 1km, the last 12mm would represent the amount of CO2 added by man to the atmosphere.
careful there you militant you. :neener:
-
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I SWEAR MY FREAKIN' HEAD IS GONNA EXPLODE!!!!!
I'M TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING NOT POLLUTION!!!
get it through your head that
THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES!!
See my previous posts like 30 pages ago in this same thread, I AM A TREE-HUGGER, GLOBAL WARMING DENIER.
And the blasted cute and fuzzy, baby seal eating Polar Bears are NOT DYING, there are more of them now then ever before in the past 50 yrs.
And if you don't get that idling my SUV for 3 hrs is a joke then heaven help you. :rolleyes:
Oh, I give up, yes, YES, YES let's throw trillions of dollars at a problem that does not exist, and which we could not stop even if it did.
Ok, calm down, calm down. My bad.
-Penguin
-
careful there you militant you. :neener:
:x
LOL.
Interesting 1.5hr presentation by a self admitted skeptic just highlighting some of the AGW problems.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=CM7Vo9rBhqACFQ2Y2AodxmV2mQ (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=CM7Vo9rBhqACFQ2Y2AodxmV2mQ)
Not 100% accurate, but then again neither is 'the other side'.
-
:x
LOL.
Interesting 1.5hr presentation by a self admitted skeptic just highlighting some of the AGW problems.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=CM7Vo9rBhqACFQ2Y2AodxmV2mQ (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html?gclid=CM7Vo9rBhqACFQ2Y2AodxmV2mQ)
Not 100% accurate, but then again neither is 'the other side'.
cool.....ill check that out when i get home.
none of us are really accurate. the difference is in who can and who cannot admit it.
-
You have a point there. Nobody can be 100% accurate in anything except that they are going to die at some point.
-Penguin
-
You have a point there. Nobody can be 100% accurate in anything except that they are going to die at some point.
-Penguin
Speak for yourself, I'm gonna live forever :D
-
Speak for yourself, I'm gonna live forever :D
+1
i am invincible.
till the day they stick me in the ground. oo...wait....it'll be underwater from all the melting glaziers....... :noid
-
I have been avoiding this thread because i don't care for the issue on Global Warming, but how the hell did it get to 103 pages!? :huh
-
Damn 103 pages! Now that is a thread that I MUST participate...
Global Climate CHANGE is the only thing I can agree on here.
The climate will change no matter if humans are influencing it or not.... It just is!
T
-
Hmmm i didnt get a specific claim yet. I understands all the overgeneralizations. Its you just can't debate them. Read lots of articals one out of a hundred make a specific claim the rest are. the earth is getting " warmer". how warm is what I want to know.
the earth is warming by 1.2 degrees in 50 years. yet they havent seen one sixth of that yet. My question is how can you measure that?
How can you acurately measure less than 1/4 of a degree worldwide?
Then 1/4 warmer compared to what? 60 years of tempuratures the have flucuated more than that.
See my previous post you can't heat the earths water 1 degree with air if you wanted too. There just isn't enough air in the atmosphere to do it.
Fill a bathtub with water and blow hot air on it. Let me know how long it takes to heat the water in the tub 1 degree?
-
CAP...
Do YOU know what it is? Specifically why it's so important? Do you know the bonding angles? The hybridization of the electron orbitals? The net dipole movement? Could you draw the orbital structure? Could you say anything that you aren't regurgitating?
No, you can't. But somehow you think your opinion is equal to people that have spent 20 years in the field with multiple PhD's. It's like a 15 year old girl telling you how to change an alternator, because she saw a CHILTON diagram once..
<snip>
We had the "Enlightenment". This time will be called the "Return to Darkness".
And right here you just demonstrate once again the pomposity of the alarmists. All us "leetle peeple" just can't possibly fathom all the intricacies of your arguments, so we should all just shut up and kow-tow to the people with the PhD's.
Someone with a PhD is certainly not above having his own personal agenda. To claim otherwise is the either the height of arrogance or complete ignorance. And a liar with a PhD is still a liar.
This entire thread began because that very pomposity and the hidden agendas of those who are supposed to be keepers of the data were exposed in spades. You don't need a PhD to recognize when a scammer is scamming.
-
And right here you just demonstrate once again the pomposity of the alarmists. All us "leetle peeple" just can't possibly fathom all the intricacies of your arguments, so we should all just shut up and kow-tow to the people with the PhD's.
Someone with a PhD is certainly not above having his own personal agenda. To claim otherwise is the either the height of arrogance or complete ignorance. And a liar with a PhD is still a liar.
This entire thread began because that very pomposity and the hidden agendas of those who are supposed to be keepers of the data were exposed in spades. You don't need a PhD to recognize when a scammer is scamming.
but did you notice the silence after my answer? the very loud silence?
-
If you need a Chilton diagram to figure out how to change an alternator, you gotta be pretty dense. ;)
To use your mechanic analogy, I'm not an ASE certified mechanic, just a shade tree one who works on his own vehicles. But I know enough to tell when a mechanic is trying to rip me off. Likewise I'm not a Ph.D climatologist, but I am smart enough to tell that when one hides, and manipulates data in order to keep political power on their side, something very fishy is going on.
I don't need a doctorate degree to realize scientists, who intentionally manipulate and hid data to mislead the public, obviously have some less then ethical motives. And politicians who accept one side of the scientific debate unquestionably, and refuse to even entertain ideas from the opposition -despite public opinion- are even worse.
In a recent Pew research poll of US citizens biggest concerns, global warming comes in at #21. Only 28% of Americans rate it as a "top priority"
http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010
Yet some political powers are still pushing it as one of their top 3 priorities. :headscratch: Hmmmmmm... suspicious, I think so.
So you gotta ask yourself the question; Their constituents don't give a hoot about GW, so why are they so gung-ho on passing cap & trade, and signing worldwide GW treaties? Is there something in it for them?
BTW: those are rhetorical questions, any thinking person already knows the answer.
And I'm sure you would ridicule anyone who tried to claim one or two storms amount to proof AGAINST GW. (so would I, one storm in a worldwide climate is insignificant right?) Yet you defend Bill Nye when he cites those same storms as proof OF GW.
Again how come:
Warmer = Global warming
Not warmer = Global warming
Cooler = Global warming
More precipitation = Global warming
Less precipitation = Global warming
More hurricanes = Global warming
Less hurricanes = Global warming
That's the way AGW advocates argue, EVERYTHING is evidence of GW to them, it's completely absurd.
Moray: I know you understand the science and believe GW is a significant threat. BUT... so did those scientist who predicted doom from global cooling in 1974-75 they had PH.D's and they were WRONG. Having a PH.D in a subject does not make one infallible. I studied biology in school, remember when the scientific "consensus" was that La Marck's theory of evolution was correct. La Marck's theory made sense, and fit with the available data at the time. Of course we know how that story ends. So to many people think man made GW is true because it makes sense to them, and fits the data available at the time. But I think in the end the man made GW theory will end up the same way that La Marckism did.
I'm gonna go find the edge of the earth now, cause I think it's flat of course. :rolleyes: By all means keep mocking and insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. Makes you seem like such a gentleman.
PS. I think anyone interested in this debate should read the whole Jones-BBC interview. I found it very revealing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
-
Moray: I know you understand the science and believe GW is a significant threat. BUT... so did those scientist who predicted doom from global cooling in 1974-75 they had PH.D's and they were WRONG. Having a PH.D in a subject does not make one infallible. I studied biology in school, remember when the scientific "consensus" was that La Marck's theory of evolution was correct. La Marck's theory made sense, and fit with the available data at the time. Of course we know how that story ends. So to many people think man made GW is true because it makes sense to them, and fits the data available at the time. But I think in the end the man made GW theory will end up the same way that La Marckism did.
By all means look into that one line. Do the research. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643)
Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
(http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bams-cooling.jpg)
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/ (http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/)
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf) NAS (National Academy of Sciences) SUMMARY 1979
As well, attacking Lamarck as an example of failure, is incredibly myopic. His theory was Darwin's starting point, and he missed the mechanism after actually postulating it, natural selection, in some of his work. His theory was parallel to Darwin's in many aspects. He postulated inheritance, and other points in Evolution. Lamarck's views were never thought to be "consensus"...far from it. He, along with Darwin were mercilessly attacked and ridiculed by the gentile and academic for their careers' entireties, who were heavily favoring a creationist platform.
But Lamarck's works never became popular during his lifetime, and Lamarck never won the respect or prestige enjoyed by his patron Buffon or his colleague Cuvier. While Cuvier respected Lamarck's work on invertebrates, he had no use for Lamarck's theory of evolution, and he used his influence to discredit it. Most of Lamarck's life was a constant struggle against poverty; to make matters worse, he began to lose his sight around 1818, and spent his last years completely blind, cared for by his devoted daughters (he had been married four times). When he died, on December 28, 1829, he received a poor man's funeral (although his colleague Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire gave one of the orations) and was buried in a rented grave; after five years his body was removed, and no one now knows where his remains are.
Maybe you should re-read those sections again..although he is never more than a passing mention in Bio 101 courses. You were taught about him, not because he was wrong, but because he was almost right, and laid the foundation for Darwin's work... :aok
You really couldn't be further from being correct in that entire paragraph you addressed to me.
-
but did you notice the silence after my answer? the very loud silence?
There really wasn't anything worth commenting on from you. Sorry.
I wonder if you question the need for Doctors, since, by your reasoning with climate scientists, they must have a vested interest in disease....and they have all the power.
Have a nice day.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_10292009_520.gif)
-
(http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/media/blogs/blog/19/global_warming_lectureonglobalewarming.jpg)
-
There really wasn't anything worth commenting on from you. Sorry.
I wonder if you question the need for Doctors, since, by your reasoning with climate scientists, they must have a vested interest in disease....and they have all the power.
Have a nice day.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_10292009_520.gif)
i do not question the need for doctors....but then, doctors have helped me. they've fixed my broken hands, wrist, arm, ect.
this is not the same thing though. when i'm told that what i see and feel is wrong, then i feel i'm being lied to.
i find it difficult to believe that you don't see through their crap yet.
-
Too bad years ago we started fighting natural selection allowing those that would not be here to multiply at our expense. Now it is easy for those like al gore to bilk millions of dollars because so many are gullible.
I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom. You can keep the "change".
-
Moray can you answer some questions?
How much warmer is the earth getting in how much time?
And is it possible to heat the earths water 1degree with air? How hot would the air have to be?
What part is natural climate change and what percent of that would be man made?
If the water is warmer woulnt that mean more evaporation and more water in the atmosphere to come back in the from of snow rain ect?
If the water is warmer doesnt it release more co2 into the atmosphere? Could the higher levels of Co2 be from the oceans warming first ( maybe undergound volcanos) then releasing more co2 into the air?
Thanks
-
Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a
sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of
moisture creates a lot of snow. A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc,
ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms,
flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species. That's simple science.
Course global-warming skeptics like to point to these snowtorms as thier "proof" all
the while conveniently ignoring snow droughts like those in Vancouver.
I guess it just depends on how much Faux news and talk radio one takes in. Like
salt and arteries too much Limbaugh or Beck can clog your brain.
-
I wonder if Gore will show up and will we get to see him sweat under questioning about the 'Suppressed Climate Change Report' and the inaccuracies in his movie?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/sen-inhofe-calls-inquiry-suppressed-climate-change-report/
Will he return his Nobel? :D
-
If you people really belive in Global Warming, you shouldn't listen to Al-Gore! He did that to get everybody fraked out. My science teacher, Mr.Moore, doesn't belive in that! I don't! What about the "Medival Warm Period"? What about the "Ice Age"?! The Earth will warm and cool. Don't get worried!!!
-
Marking down the day till i can laugh at Moray....2011...2012...crap.. .earth is gone!
-
Didn't I read somewhere that the ultimate goal of the warmists is to reduce the earth's population by 4/5? Wasn't it the Sierra Club that put out a study that concluded that the maximum sustainable population of the earth is 500 mil?
I'm all for that... BUT... How do we get there?
Actually it's 1 -2 bil...
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
-
Didn't I read somewhere that the ultimate goal of the warmists is to reduce the earth's population by 4/5? Wasn't it the Sierra Club that put out a study that concluded that the maximum sustainable population of the earth is 500 mil?
I'm all for that... BUT... How do we get there?
soylent green?
-
Green is good. Or is it? *click* (http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-un-documents-reveal-plan-for-green-world-order-by-2012.html)
-
Green is good. Or is it? *click* (http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-un-documents-reveal-plan-for-green-world-order-by-2012.html)
that article borders on getting political.......but that kind of crap is a large part of what makes it nearly impossible to believe in global warming(manmade). the larger part is common sense.
-
Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a
sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of
moisture creates a lot of snow. A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc,
ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms,
flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species. That's simple science.
Course global-warming skeptics like to point to these snowtorms as thier "proof" all
the while conveniently ignoring snow droughts like those in Vancouver.
I guess it just depends on how much Faux news and talk radio one takes in. Like
salt and arteries too much Limbaugh or Beck can clog your brain.
How much a rise in temp?
-
the stuff you quoted also just happens as part of our normal weather systems.
and an FYI........we do not need warm air to create rain/snow.
-
No, just warmER :D
-
No, just warmER :D
nope. :D
-
srry I put " a rise in global temperature" in bold.
Then I ask the question at the bottom.
How much warmer??????????????????????????????????????????????????? specifically.
Does no one here know how to stick to a topic or argue a point???????????
Mostly soppy overgeneralizations
-
No, just warmER :D
warmER will only make thunderstorms.
-
warmER will only make thunderstorms.
You really don't understand what you are talking about.
-
You really don't understand what you are talking about.
None of us do. That includes you, too.
-
You really don't understand what you are talking about.
yea, i do.....as the air warms up, it can hold more moisture. as it cools, it can hold less. as the air cools, it reaches a point where it can no longer hold the moisture it contains.
you do not need a warm, or a warmer air mass in order to create precipitation though. you simply need the air to be saturated.
-
yea, i do.....as the air warms up, it can hold more moisture. as it cools, it can hold less. as the air cools, it reaches a point where it can no longer hold the moisture it contains.
you do not need a warm, or a warmer air mass in order to create precipitation though. you simply need the air to be saturated.
No, but the simple physical properties of air dictate the warmer it gets the more water it can hold.
Also, even if it just makes more thunderstorms.....isn't it counter-intuitive to say that's not more rain? :headscratch:
No logic in your statement whatsoever (it only makes more thunderstorms).
-
Moray can you answer some questions?
How much warmer is the earth getting in how much time?
And is it possible to heat the earths water 1degree with air? How hot would the air have to be?
What part is natural climate change and what percent of that would be man made?
If the water is warmer woulnt that mean more evaporation and more water in the atmosphere to come back in the from of snow rain ect?
If the water is warmer doesnt it release more co2 into the atmosphere? Could the higher levels of Co2 be from the oceans warming first ( maybe undergound volcanos) then releasing more co2 into the air?
Thanks
With all due respect, you may find any or all of this information at the NOAA website. I don't have to spoon feed it to you in here. You can read it as well as I can re-type it here.
I know what you are attempting to do and I won't be a part of it. You are using well-trodden contrarian ideology that rests on false grounds, which, like the inundation of FOI requests, is mostly meant to make me waste my time defending your false accusations, at the same time lending credence to your position simply in the defense.
-
None of us do. That includes you, too.
I'll stand by my understanding of complex science, over yours, every day of the week. :aok
-
I'll stand by my understanding of complex science, over yours, every day of the week. :aok
That, along with a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee. :aok
-
That, along with a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee. :aok
Actually, it's gotten me quite a bit of research money and quite a few publications. You?
-
Actually, it's gotten me quite a bit of research money and quite a few publications. You?
And I'm sure the gravy train will keep rolling as long as you tow the line...
But what we were talking about was the complexities of climate not how much money you have been paid to swim with fishes.
-
Actually, it's gotten me quite a bit of research money and quite a few publications. You?
and THAT ladies and gentlemen, is what global warming is all about. :aok
-
No, but the simple physical properties of air dictate the warmer it gets the more water it can hold.
Also, even if it just makes more thunderstorms.....isn't it counter-intuitive to say that's not more rain? :headscratch:
No logic in your statement whatsoever (it only makes more thunderstorms).
i never said more thunderstorms...........
-
warmER will only make thunderstorms.
You didn't ??
-
warmER will only make thunderstorms.
You didn't ??
-
And I'm sure the gravy train will keep rolling as long as you tow the line...
But what we were talking about was the complexities of climate not how much money you have been paid to swim with fishes.
Gravy train...lol.
9 years of school for an undergraduate and two graduate degree. 25K in school loans (the rest scholarships). For a 48 thousand a year job....that I put 75 or more hours a week into in field conditions that you would run home to mommy in.
Yeah... it's all gravy. Further indication you know nothing about what you talk of.
-
You didn't ??
where is the word more in there?
-
and THAT ladies and gentlemen, is what global warming is all about. :aok
Proof?
-
Proof?
and theres the other thing its all about
nobody needs to disprove man made global warming............ it hasnt been proven to exist yet
we also dont need to prove that leprechauns dont ride unicorns into your bedroom at night and steal your dreams......... which btw is just as likely as man made global warming
-
I'll surmise that you have never learnt logic or probability.
-
logic and probability suggest very clearly that man made global warming does NOT exist
-
Is that so...
I think not. But the question remains by how much or how little....
-
I'll surmise that you have never learnt logic or probability.
logic and probability show that what the earth is doing at this moment is nothing more than her normal cycle.
-
I know what you are attempting to do and I won't be a part of it. You are using well-trodden contrarian ideology that rests on false grounds, which, like the inundation of FOI requests, is mostly meant to make me waste my time defending your false accusations, at the same time lending credence to your position simply in the defense.
nicely put :aok exact same tactic used by the creationist/ID folks :rolleyes:
-
Proof?
simply look at all of the new businesses forming based on this. look at the carbon trading sham.
-
Money always has it's way....
-
Too bad years ago we started fighting natural selection allowing those that would not be here to multiply at our expense. Now it is easy for those like al gore to bilk millions of dollars because so many are gullible.
I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom. You can keep the "change".
Kinda scary dude, how far are you looking into eugenics? An inch, a mile? Complete and total reorganization of the human gene pool? Be careful what you wish for, as you know what happens when you take this kind of thing too far.
-Penguin
-
Kinda scary dude, how far are you looking into eugenics? An inch, a mile? Complete and total reorganization of the human gene pool? Be careful what you wish for, as you know what happens when you take this kind of thing too far.
-Penguin
Penguin,
Print the post that you quoted. Put it away for twenty years. Take it out and see if it makes more sense to you.
-
Not so far from our gene-pool to chimps. Or cows for that sake. Total re-organization could mean...anything :D
-
Penguin,
Print the post that you quoted. Put it away for twenty years. Take it out and see if it makes more sense to you.
I am sorry, but I do not understand how the words in bold will make any more sense to me now then later. If you mean to keep people with really bad congenital problems from procreating, that makes sense; the good of the whole comes before the good of the one. If you are talking about, you know, that other way of doing it (think Queen of Hearts' favorite saying), I am shocked and horrified at the degeneration that I see in humankind.
-Penguin
-
I am sorry, but I do not understand how the words in bold will make any more sense to me now then later. If you mean to keep people with really bad congenital problems from procreating, that makes sense; the good of the whole comes before the good of the one. If you are talking about, you know, that other way of doing it (think Queen of Hearts' favorite saying), I am shocked and horrified at the degeneration that I see in humankind.
-Penguin
Why would anything make more sense to you now than after many years of experience and growth? Or do you feel the pearls of youth include wisdom that is lost with age?
-
Perhaps this would make more sense with time, but I am still confused as to what the poster was trying to convey. If he meant just making eugenics a bit stronger, ok. If he meant going to the length of cleaning the gene pool the *ahem* quicker way, I'd be shocked.
-Penguin
-
Perhaps this would make more sense with time, but I am still confused as to what the poster was trying to convey. If he meant just making eugenics a bit stronger, ok. If he meant going to the length of cleaning the gene pool the *ahem* quicker way, I'd be shocked.
-Penguin
he's trynig to tell you that if you survive for 20 years, that you'll understand the post that you quoted.
-
Here's one for you scientists. Apparently it's not standard practice to release data to other scientists in case they want to find mistakes in it. This from Prof Jones of CRU climagegate fame. Here's the video, go about four minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo&feature=player_embedded At about 6.5 minutes he makes not 'not standard practice' comment.
Is this now standard practice among scientists or is it just climate science? Or maybe it's just Professor Jones. He's not very convincing is he? Makes you wonder if he really has something to hide. Robust science........I wonder!
-
I think the bogus information and incredible amounts of money spent on hyping up global warming are more based on potential bank profits than personal wellbeing. All this misinformation and hype needs a place to go. I'm not a scientist but I'd have to say, with the exception of a few road bumps, everything going as planned. :confused: A greener, more healthy way of thinking is at our feet.... for a nobminal weekly fee.
If we could just figure out how to stop cow flatulence the world would be a better place :)
-
Is this now standard practice among scientists or is it just climate science? Or maybe it's just Professor Jones. He's not very convincing is he? Makes you wonder if he really has something to hide. Robust science........I wonder!
There is such a thing as propriety data in science. The idea is to allow a scientist that worked hard to obtain data the time to analyze it thoroughly and publish, before others with an army of grad-students and post-docs take his data and publish quick, half-baked research just to be "first". However all such data normally becomes public after a set time. Some level of the data must be released together with the publication of the research. The norm is to allow other scientists to use "private" data in exchange for including the contributer as part of the authors list. If such collaboration does not work out, the waiting time till the data becomes public is not long on scientific research scale. Scientists are human and not all of them are nice humans, so there are sometimes dirty tricks in delaying data.
-
Here's one for you scientists. Apparently it's not standard practice to release data to other scientists in case they want to find mistakes in it. This from Prof Jones of CRU climagegate fame. Here's the video, go about four minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo&feature=player_embedded At about 6.5 minutes he makes not 'not standard practice' comment.
Is this now standard practice among scientists or is it just climate science? Or maybe it's just Professor Jones. He's not very convincing is he? Makes you wonder if he really has something to hide. Robust science........I wonder!
More interesting is when he says no peer reviewer EVER asked for his models or raw data!
It certainly helps when 'mates' peer review your papers, doesn't it?
-
Helps with homework papers! Just kidding. But yes, there was trouble afoot in those labs, some other climate scientists should look at what they did, after they provide the raw data, again.
-Penguin
-
Helps with homework papers! Just kidding. But yes, there was trouble afoot in those labs, some other climate scientists should look at what they did, after they provide the raw data, again.
-Penguin
Dude. The raw data is gone. It was "lost".
-
That's the point, so that they have to do all of their work again. If it's true, there shouldn't be any problem.
-Penguin
-
That's the point, so that they have to do all of their work again. If it's true, there shouldn't be any problem.
-Penguin
you don't seem to understand. it's "lost" doesn't mean it's lost. it's "lost" means it was destroyed.
don't you think there is a reason that they did that?
-
Dude. The raw data is gone. It was "lost".
what data was destroyed?
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
Reported. But please, Skuzzy, don't shut the thread down!
And Cap, that's exactly my point, if they have anything to hide, they should show us now; by doing another experiment.
-Penguin
there was no reason to report the post you did,,,,,,,
and my point was that if there was nothing to hide, then the original data would not have vanished. there is no need for another "experiment"....
-
QUIT QUOTING POSTS YOU KNOW ARE IN VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES!!
So, here you are.....
The building is on fire, so while you are calling the fire department, you go ahead and add more gasoline to the fire. What can it hurt?
Sheesh!!
I am so going to start busting people for it!
-
was i guilty this time again? if i was, sorry bout that.......
-
and my point was that if there was nothing to hide, then the original data would not have vanished. there is no need for another "experiment"....
what data vanished? I was watching the enquiry and didnt seen any questioning on missing/ vanished/ lost data...
-
what data vanished? I was watching the enquiry and didnt seen any questioning on missing/ vanished/ lost data...
Sorry to hear your google's busted...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=9YW&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=cru+data+dump&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
-
google not busted, thought it would be quicker to ask the experts here, suppose I'll have to look for it tomorrow myself.
-
Sorry to hear your google's busted...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=9YW&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=cru+data+dump&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
beat me to it.
-
exactly what I thought - neither of you actually know, just going on heresay. I'll find out for you over coffee in the morning :)
-
exactly what I thought - neither of you actually know, just going on heresay. I'll find out for you over coffee in the morning :)
you may wanna look.........slug linked one for ya.
we all know there was the big "to do" about the "massaged" data, then when people wanted to see the raw(un-doctored data), they said they "lost" or destroyed it during a move to a new building.
-
Phase 4 Final Stage of the Global Warming Blue print hoax almost complete.. 4:40 and on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qGI0aAdjh4&feature=related
-
And... Now NASA is admitting that they used the CRU info for their "model" because they felt their own data was inferior...
-
ok got it, CRUs copy of the raw data was destroyed 30 years ago to save on storage costs. It wasnt the original data, CRU doesnt itself collect data, it was copies of data provided by other organisations (who presumably still have that data.) reconstructing the gridded dataset that CRU uses to base their models on shouldnt be difficult to do, the raw data is still available, albeit from the original sources rather than CRUs copies, and the models used to grid the data are available from CRU. looks like a red herring to me.
Phase 4 Final Stage of the Global Warming Blue print hoax almost complete.. 4:40 and on
link removed so skuzzy doesnt have to ;)
I took a 4 day break last month, does that make me a gangsta too? :lol :headscratch: :rolleyes:
-
I posted based on politics race or religion? Where? Can I get clued in on that?
-PenguinQUIT QUOTING POSTS YOU KNOW ARE IN VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES!!
So, here you are.....
The building is on fire, so while you are calling the fire department, you go ahead and add more gasoline to the fire. What can it hurt?
Sheesh!!
I am so going to start busting people for it!
Or is this it?
Not to hijack, but Skuzzy, can we at least get a message with our violating post so that we can not do it again? I'm trying to keep my record clean, so can you help me out here?
- :salute Penguin
-
I posted based on politics race or religion? Where? Can I get clued in on that?
-Penguin
Or is this it?
Not to hijack, but Skuzzy, can we at least get a message with our violating post so that we can not do it again? I'm trying to keep my record clean, so can you help me out here?
- :salute Penguin
you're tryin to get this thread locked, aren't ya?
-
CAP, I'm not that underhanded. Not only that, but I like watching and speaking here, the thread is too interesting to shut down.
-Penguin
-
CAP, I'm not that underhanded. Not only that, but I like watching and speaking here, the thread is too interesting to shut down.
-Penguin
then please....please don't argue with the skuzzmeister!!!
he told ya what to do..........i don't want to do it again, as then i'm breaking a rule too..........
-
I'm not arguing, I just don't know what I posted! I can't figure it out! Maybe I quoted a bad post.
Let's keep this thread going!
-Penguin
-
I'm not arguing, I just don't know what I posted! I can't figure it out! Maybe I quoted a bad post.
Let's keep this thread going!
-Penguin
i'm gonna take a chance here.......
you quoted the post you reported. as per skuzzmeister, do not quote those types of posts.
i've made the same mistake in the past if it helps.
-
That's probably it.
-Penguin
-
So, where is the debate located at the moment?
-
So, where is the debate located at the moment?
It's located about here.
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/krail969/Denial.png)
-
Harffff. what a slim and nimble little kitty. Proving some fat there is going to be tougher than promoting the possibility og GCC or GW.......
-
:lol Moray
(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/CON1210.jpg)
-
:lol Moray
(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/CON1210.jpg)
That's awesome!
-
That's awesome!
Yeah! Hotlinking copyrighted material is teh kewl!
-
i'm seeing proof positive of global warming today. it's in the 60's and sunny.
oo...wait!! it's spring!! silly me! :rofl :rofl :neener:
-
i'm seeing proof positive of global warming today. it's in the 60's and sunny.
oo...wait!! it's spring!! silly me! :rofl :rofl :neener:
Still don't understand weather and climate, I see. After 100+ pages.
-
Yeah! Hotlinking copyrighted material is teh kewl!
Thing is... wasn't C'd when I pasted it. Yup well. :rofl
-
Still don't understand weather and climate, I see. After 100+ pages.
yea, actually, i do.
-
What Moray is trying to say is, that weather is a part of climate, and they are not equal. I'll have to prove this using math...
let weather=w
let climate=c
w does not equal c
w=c/x
in which x=a certain number far less than c
wx=c
Note that weather is the meteorological occurences over a period of time (for this, 5 years)
Climate is the average of weather over the long-term (for this 50 years)
So with this given data...
w=5
c=50
wx=c
x=10
So you can see, that a number of "weathers" (not a word, but I have to use it like this) make up one "climate". This means that they are describing the same thing, but weather is more variable than climate. This means that weather is harder to use as evidence for or against AGW.
I think that this cleared up that little struggle.
-Penguin
-
^^ complete nonsense
-
Elaborate.
-Penguin
-
sure. your post was complete nonsense.
-
ROFL.. I have to agree
edit: not even gonna get into the nonsense
-
yea, actually, i do.
Really?
(http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/images/nj_temp.jpg)
Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist
-
^^ complete nonsense
Elaborate.
sure. your post was complete nonsense.
:rock RT!!!! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Really?
(http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/images/nj_temp.jpg)
Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist
This does NOT meet the Criteria for Graphs, as according the Lusche Graph and Statistics Company. :furious
-
Oh, weather is indeed a part of climate.
Did anyone ponder on seasons?
:devil :bolt:
-
when I look at the graph below, I cant hold back the feeling, that something is utterly wrong in the climate debate :noid
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/311/mwpgraphcompare.gif)
Regards
SF
-
Really?
(http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/images/nj_temp.jpg)
Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist
heya storchie! thought ya weren't comin back here? :rofl
-
Really?
(http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/images/nj_temp.jpg)
Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist
I wonder... Does this graph take into account urban sprawl?
-
I wonder... Does this graph take into account urban sprawl?
none of em do.
-
Really?
lol, classic way of exaggerating results. I agree that overall there seem to be a rising trend. HOWEVER, you cannot compare a 75 year mean with a following 30 and 9 year mean. I bet that the years between the bins were carefully chosen to present the clearest rise.
-
lol, classic way of exaggerating results. I agree that overall there seem to be a rising trend. HOWEVER, you cannot compare a 75 year mean with a following 30 and 9 year mean. I bet that the years between the bins were carefully chosen to present the clearest rise.
they need to........
-
heya storchie! thought ya weren't comin back here? :rofl
I would have returned earlier, but I was too busy laughing at your concept of proof. :rofl :rolleyes: :rofl :noid :rofl :aok
-
I wonder... Does this graph take into account urban sprawl?
Yep - check the source.
-
I would have returned earlier, but I was too busy laughing at your concept of proof. :rofl :rolleyes: :rofl :noid :rofl :aok
so...not to hijack......but ya been in the arenas yet?
just curious.........no one leaves for good.
-
lol, classic way of exaggerating results. I agree that overall there seem to be a rising trend. HOWEVER, you cannot compare a 75 year mean with a following 30 and 9 year mean. I bet that the years between the bins were carefully chosen to present the clearest rise.
I agree, it would have been better if they had used 10 year bins for the means, since the method they chose does lead to your valid point.
However, there is an obvious positive trend over the timeframe. Furthermore, I find such data infinitely preferable to the anecdotal "evidence" of air-conditioning usage and heating bills over the last few years.
-
so...not to hijack......but ya been in the arenas yet?
just curious.........no one leaves for good.
Maybe you are confusing me with somebody else? I have been AKH or AKHoopy of the Arabian Knights since 2001.
I've never really been away from the arenas, apart from the odd break of a month or two now and then. I have refrained from posting on the BBS for some time now.
-
So, now burgers and stakes are to blame for global warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm
Soon we will come to the conclusion that hunting the whales, bears and buffalo to extinction is the way to save the planet.
Where's the beef?
-
I saw an article months ago calling dogs carbon polluters. :rofl Of course, cats were perfectly ok to the eunuchs.
Today I saw a piece written about "Green Sex". :rolleyes:
How soon until the Greenies recommend breathing out of only one nostril?
-
Some "green" stuff is....too green.
You will find out quickly that these are mostly if not completely very much urban people with very little rural life behind. The wording of "practical application" may also be missing by miles.
Anyway, to put up a bait for the other camp, I must say that my country is now unvolunterely contributing to global cooling via a volcanic eruption. More is due.....