Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming is over.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by herbivor View Post
    Uh, I'm not sure where you thought anyone was suggesting we had 250 million years worth of ice core samples. I think the Vostok Ice core is only 800,000 years. But look at the atmospheric carbon concentrations in the graph below:



    Roughly 4%. We've been over this. If you don't think 4% is much, then eat 4% more calories than your body burns each day, then tell me if you don't see some pretty significant weight gain in 10 years.
    ding ding ding we have a winner. we're not talking about eliminating anthro CO2.

    now herb, please do the math, and in all seriousness, this has always been the data that has tripped me up

    the AGW crowd wants to basically impoverish the third world by denying them access to fossil fueled energy, and ruin the economies of the developed world my reducing CO2 levels back to where they were 15 years ago or so, i don't remember the exact date
    i believe this would require a roughly 20% reduction in annual anthro CO2 emissions.

    20% of 4% is 0.8%, and lets round that up to 1%

    and lets remember that CO2 is logarithmic in its forcing effect, you need to increase by a factor of 4 to double its effect, it is not linear

    you're arguing a 1% reduction on annual CO2 emissions from all sources will meaningfully mitigate the effect, if any, the CO2 plays in warming. 99% is ok, 100% trips us over the edge.

    this makes no sense from a logical viewpoint

    your chart is interesting, except from a longer term viewpoint





    what am i missing about CO2?
    Last edited by gwb72tii; 02-25-2012, 08:55 PM.
    “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
    Sir Winston Churchill

    Comment


      ^ Thankyou for sharing this. This is EXACTLY the type of propaganda I was trying to tell you guys about.
      I've seen this graphic come up a few times to refute this argument and similar ones.

      Here's the original source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

      The page's author, Monte Hieb, is listed at the bottom. Poking around a little more on Google will give you a sense of his paleoclimate qualifications. (Basically, he is a chief engineer for the WV Office of Mine Safety and an amateur fossil hunter)

      Anyway. There are a few problems with trying to use this argument. One, is that climatologist don't just use CO2 concentration to correlate temperature. There are many factors that are taken into account. One that the propaganda machines like to ignore is the fact that the sun was much dimmer in prehistoric times and the land mass concentration and plant life was much different as well. In other words, we are talking about trying to compare apples and oranges if you are comparing today's CO2 concentrations to prehistoric ones. Back then, a concentration of less than 3000ppm would have triggered a global ice age when considering all other factors at the time. There are 100 of pages on this subject if you want to get a more eloquent and detailed answer than what I'm providing. But again, thankyou for sharing that graph because it is one of many excellent examples of convincing propoganda completely fabricated by non-experts.

      If you really want some convincing evidence that GW is anthropogenic, do a little research on C13/C12 isotope ratios. I've yet to see any of the propagandist share a misguided counter-argument to that.
      Last edited by herbivor; 02-26-2012, 09:00 AM.
      sigpic

      Comment


        Herbi is talking about propagandists? Wait, I'm gonna go find a "mind blown" Jackie Chan image.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Farbin Kaiber View Post
          Herbi is talking about propagandists? Wait, I'm gonna go find a "mind blown" Jackie Chan image.
          Save it for that research on the C13/C12 isotope ratio. How's that ice age reading been going by the way? Learn any good stuff you wanna share?
          sigpic

          Comment


            I'm still waiting for you to post links.

            Comment


              i will read up, but you still haven't explained why 99% is perfectly good vs 100% is the end of the earth.

              funny that this is the first link to pop up
              NOTE: This post is the second in the series from Dr. Roy Spencer of the National Space Science and Technology Center at University of Alabama, Huntsville. The first, made last Friday, was called At…


              oh shit, i forgot, spencer is a faux scientist
              Last edited by gwb72tii; 02-26-2012, 03:50 PM.
              “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
              Sir Winston Churchill

              Comment


                So, again, it's the 1%'s fault.

                And,

                Originally posted by herbivor View Post
                Save it for that research on the C13/C12 isotope ratio. How's that ice age reading been going by the way? Learn any good stuff you wanna share?
                This is what I've read so far. It looked to be the newest information I could find by date.



                As I continue to read, I'm learning a whole lot about this whole Climate Change thing, thanks Herbi. All sorts of stuff about how it's not about the 3% of human related carbon dioxide in relation to the 97% produced by the planets natural activities, or how warming is actually related to the Sun, and not by human action. I'm really enjoying it. Again, thanks.
                Last edited by Farbin Kaiber; 02-26-2012, 04:20 PM.

                Comment


                  I think I'll be buying this book.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Farbin Kaiber View Post
                    I think I'll be buying this book.
                    Great, another scientist paid for by Australian mining companies to deny climate change. Here's a funny blog about a journalist who tears this Plimer guy apart in an interview on his own claims.

                    Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
                    funny that this is the first link to pop up
                    NOTE: This post is the second in the series from Dr. Roy Spencer of the National Space Science and Technology Center at University of Alabama, Huntsville. The first, made last Friday, was called At…


                    oh shit, i forgot, spencer is a faux scientist
                    Ding ding ding. Right answer again. Spencer is a joke. That's why the editor of his own journal stepped down in disgust:
                    Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer

                    Posted on 3 September 2011 by John Cook
                    Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, which we examine at http://sks.to/negspencer. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".

                    Some key excerpts from Wagner's editorial:

                    I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News, to name just a few.
                    Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.
                    The editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors
                    The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer
                    You guys should do a little background check on the authors of the "science" you like to link. It's pretty hard to take the claims under serious consideration when the people have a reputation of completely distorting or falsifying the information. You won't find a reputable climate scientist that supports your viewpoint, because they don't exist. So, pretty much everything you are reading and linking may as well be garbage, because it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. I'll be happy to read and study any findings that do.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      But the authors paid to agree and propigate climate change are infallible doing the exact same thing you deride?

                      Comment


                        you see herb, replies like your last one are about Spencer is where you hit the fail button.
                        you cannot dismiss Richard Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, Henk Tennekes and others as quacks because they disagree with the "consensus".
                        they are eminently qualified as research scientists in the climate field to give a peer review of AGW. these are really smart, educated people. it is not some conspiracy from the oil industry or the Koch brothers. many of the scientists that question AGW were in fact formerly in the "consensus" camp, but have now changed their opinion for a variety of reasons.
                        the more you marginalize these scientists the more you undermine your own arguments.

                        keep the faith

                        also, i believe this is still true, the fact Mann and other AGW scientists will not allow scrutiny of their data that fed their mathematical models should, at the very least, riase a few doubts, eh?
                        and the climate gate emails that show Mann and Jones specifically trying to discredit M&M analyses (as opposed to challenge) of AGW research should also raise a few doubts too, eh?

                        still waiting on the 99% vs 100%
                        Last edited by gwb72tii; 02-27-2012, 11:43 AM.
                        “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                        Sir Winston Churchill

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by gwb72tii View Post
                          you see herb, replies like your last one are about Spencer is where you hit the fail button.
                          you cannot dismiss Richard Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, Henk Tennekes and others as quacks because they disagree with the "consensus".
                          they are eminently qualified as research scientists in the climate field to give a peer review of AGW. these are really smart, educated people. it is not some conspiracy from the oil industry or the Koch brothers. many of the scientists that question AGW were in fact formerly in the "consensus" camp, but have now changed their opinion for a variety of reasons.
                          the more you marginalize these scientists the more you undermine your own arguments.

                          keep the faith

                          also, i believe this is still true, the fact Mann and other AGW scientists will not allow scrutiny of their data that fed their mathematical models should, at the very least, riase a few doubts, eh?
                          and the climate gate emails that show Mann and Jones specifically trying to discredit M&M analyses (as opposed to challenge) of AGW research should also raise a few doubts too, eh?

                          still waiting on the 99% vs 100%
                          First of all, the reason the scientists you speak of aren't welcomed warmly amongst the debate is not because they disagree with the climate science data or the "consensus", it's because their own interpretations, and models have been proven time and time again by climatologists to be incorrect or lacking important information. Richard Lindzen is a perfect example of this. He was saying the GW models in the early 80's were bogus just as he still does today. He made his own predictions of temperatures in the early 2000 decade and guess what? The climate models were overly conservative in the since that the temperatures went higher than projected, and Lizden was just dead wrong with his prediction. Spencer is the same deal. So when someone is consistently wrong and doesn't analyze the data correctly, from a scientific method, why should anyone take them seriously?

                          Secondly, I think you and many misunderstand the Mann & Jones emails, taking it out of context and not quite understanding the whole situation. I can go into specifics, but the point is, there is no "Climategate" conspiracy except one fabricated by Fox News et al.

                          And Finally:
                          now herb, please do the math, and in all seriousness, this has always been the data that has tripped me up......
                          you're arguing a 1% reduction on annual CO2 emissions from all sources will meaningfully mitigate the effect, if any, the CO2 plays in warming. 99% is ok, 100% trips us over the edge.]
                          NO, where was I arguing that? I can't say your math is completely accurate and inclusive of all factors as it pertains to GW, but I suspect like you do that such a reduction at this point will have little effect in reducing the long term damage we've already caused.
                          Yay, we agree on something.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            but when the AGW climatologists are also wildly incorrect in their predictions you defend them anyways? it is not a one way street friend.
                            mann was quoted directly from the emails in the climategate saga. it was not made up by fox news, and was not a made up issue. some i suppose was sensationalized, as all network "news" is. but no, it is not a made up issue.

                            have mann, jones and others made public their data and models for all to see/challenge/evauluate?
                            “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                            Sir Winston Churchill

                            Comment


                              gwb, you claim to be as old or older then me so I suspect you've had a similar discussion with your doctor as I'm about to use an example of (and this might even answer your question about 1% making a difference, too):

                              When your doctor told you that you need to reduce fatty intake, and he told you to switch from whole milk to 2% (which is a 1% difference), but then you came back a year later and your cholesterol was still higher than he predicted it would be...do you a) walk out the door and listen to your mechanic about how his dad smoked and drank liquor until he was 95 so he's smoking and drinking and eating deep fried butter sticks or b) figure out how to further reduce your cholesterol intake?


                              for the rest of you:
                              the difference between whole milk and lowfat milk is 1% fat relative to the contents...but it's a 100% increase in fat content
                              the mechanic is an expert in mechanical engines but not a very good source of how to run *your* engine
                              when someone is "wrong" that does not necessarily indicate that person should be ignored...it depends on what the person is wrong about and in which direction
                              Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

                              Comment


                                smoothie, its not the same
                                cholesterol is known in its effects inside your arteries. there is a causal link, for some people (i have good genes fyi).

                                CO2 is suspected as a forcing factor, but there is data that supports that position, and data that supports CO2 is a latent result of global warming, not a causal factor. that is, GW causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.

                                the argument i'm trying to inspire herbie with and others is that so far, we don't really know. skeptics will tell you that there is an 800 year lag between the start of GW and rising CO2 levels. AGW scientists will explain all this away, but it does not prove their argument.

                                and there's the rub, eh? what AGW scientists have maintained is that by now the climate would be warmer, and while CO2 levels have risen for the last 10/12 years, the climate has not. there is no atmospheric warming over the equator, where it should be, there is no ocean warming, where there should be. plus there is scientific evidence in the past there has been higher CO2 levels than today with lower temps than today.

                                herbie is going to say the AGW crowd has explained all this, which they have certainly tried to do. so far without empirical data to support their viewpoints.

                                but that, in the end, doesn't matter either. even if the AGW crowd is wrong, man should abandon fossil fueled energy anyways.

                                that friend is a political argument and completely discredits their motives.

                                and at the end i'm wondering what the fuss is all about anyways. google midievil climate optimum. grapes grown in northern england, wheat grown in greenland and at at elevations 3000-ft higher than today in i believe switzerland (i read this some time ago but would need to google it again).

                                yes, oceans will rise (obama will be gone), coastal cities will be forced to relocate, but we've been through this all before. maybe polar bears will revert back to brown bears, as they were before.

                                its not the end of the world, in fact it may be better.
                                Last edited by gwb72tii; 02-27-2012, 06:59 PM.
                                “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place”
                                Sir Winston Churchill

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X