-
-
-
so what you're really saying is two things
1. this man is unqualified to doubt AGW, but has been peer reviewed (one of your requirements) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
2. you're smarter than him and know more about AGW“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
Nice find.
Not only that, he's not even a climatologist actively researching as I requested you to find. Try again.In 2012, documents stolen from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."sigpicComment
-
lol wut?We are insignificant to the change of Earthly cycles as our comments are about the issue.
A quick recap from post #615:
Humans emit a shitton more co2 than all the volcanoes on earth.
-http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.phpIt would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate.
Is somebody telling you that 11,200 volcanoes (human powered emitters) are insignificant. Why?
It looks like we, humans, are pushing the amount of carbon up, each year, by about 2-3ppm per year. Which is a shitton.
So now the debate: we KNOW we are putting more carbon into the atmosphere than is being naturally re-absorbed every year. We can measure that. Will that 'extra human caused carbon' do anything to the climate?
The last 400,000 years of data pretty much shows that temperature and carbon follow each other closely:
Remember that we, humans, have pushed co2 from the natural 180-250/300 and into the 300-400 range. We are currently at 395.55ppm so we might want to make that range higher, higher that it has been for the past 2.5 MILLION years. And it only got that way in the last 200 years after we, humans, started emitting additional carbon above the natural levels. And we are adding 2-3ppm per year on top of that. In 100 years at the current rate we could double the amount of atmospheric carbon that our natural system should have.The many previous glacial terminations in the past 2.5 million years (a period known as the Pleistocene Epoch) have seen lows of about 180 ppm of CO2, and highs between 250 ppm and 300 ppm.
This is the fastest co2 rate per year since forever existed before times 10. The end of the ice age temperature rise was only .2 ppm per year or something, and now we, the humans, have bumped it up to about 2-3, just to see if anything will maybe happen.
Dont try and wiggle in any of that sun-spot solar radiation stuff either. There seems to be a short term correlation but not a long term.
Now I am always confused when people cant understand this stuff. It is all out there, easily searchable and identifiable with peer reviewed sources. Not blogs and somebody's opinion they felt like writing a book about, but rather somebody's phd research paper that everyone can go back and actually verify the data. Not exactly a blank chart with no explanation of what is going on, some really technical stuff you spend your whole life studying to figure out what the hell it means.
The only option for the 'doubters' and typical response by 'non-believers' is that global warming is some kind of mythical conspiracy to euthanize brown people so that the whites stay in control.
I say 'look at the data'.
Personally if there is even the possibility that we can bump our temperature up to major-mass extinction level I would rather avoid it. We humans do enough to help everything else go extinct as-is, although the fact that we can do it in 100 years instead of 100-million years is interesting.
Use your brain. Use google. Doubt everything and base your opinions on what proves itself to be fact. For those of us who have spent a lot of time looking into this you will need a very long post, with very good sources, no cherry picked data from blogs, no non-data sexy-novel writing conspiracy theories, and no articles from a person who is paid by an anti-(climate)science shit institute. Posting the same bullshit over and over only re-affirms everything I have read because I keep re-checking it all.
If you seem like someone who never checks anything and just blurts out what you heard at the tea-party, nra meeting, blog, church, kkk meeting, nazi-youth or wherever you get some of these conspiracy ideas from while having no actual proof/backing/science the ONLY way I can take you seriously is if you admit that fact first and have an intelligent conversation about it. If you claim it as fact without any proof that it is fact then you are assuming a little too much.
I would love to have a conversation about funding bias in research~ I think that could be very interesting. However there are certain people I can't have it with since that is not the actual reason they are bringing it up and they tend to ignore it, and the facts, completely when it involves a 'scientist' that supports 'their side'.
/monday lunch coffee rant
Comment
-
Comment
-
that's the AARP generation for you. The greatest wealth transfer of all: from the young to the old. they'll be dead and we'll be left with a fucked up planet and trillions of debt with no way to pay it back.Comment
-
Actually, the effects of climate change are all happening right now. so he is alive to see it, just blind. I think what you mean to say is that he may not be alive to see the effects to his own personal lifestyle and security. Mmmm I dunno, maybe a decade or so away from that. But the senility has already kicked in so it won't matter.sigpicComment
-
Head of IPCC admits no warming for 17 years
which is actually a longer time period than I thought
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226583112134
and is the habit of alarmists, he now aledges the trend must extend for 30 or 40 years for the AGW hypothesis to be wrong. LOL
"Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality."
and for those that don't know, the head of the IPCC, the most influential AGW organization in the world, is not headed by a climate scientist, or a scientist of any kind“There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
Sir Winston ChurchillComment
-
You with that sig is cute, it's like Michael J. Fox explaining the significance of coloring within the lines.Comment
Comment