|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 5, 2014 20:36:58 GMT -5
Yes, the global alasrmists' "get out" is:
Read that carefully, especially the last sentence. They DON'T KNOW why CO2 changes occur on a long timescale (ie, in response to changes in temperature), but they KNOW that explaining these changes "requires including CO2".
This is 100% pure, unadulterated quackscience doublespeak bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 5, 2014 21:02:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 5, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5
Bottom line: There is zero evidence that increased CO2 results in higher global temperature, and copious evidence that increases in temperature result in higher CO2 levels. This is the only correlation between the two events.
CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past than they are now - hundreds of times higher, in fact - yet life on earth did not become extinct. Even the penguins and the polar bears survived.
Human-produced CO2 accounts for just 3% of all the CO2 that goes into the earth's atmosphere. Why is no one interested in reducing the other 97%? Cows produce far more CO2 than humans. Why isn't there a tax on cows?
The whole thing is absurd. Yes, industrialization has resulted in all kinds of toxic substances being released into the atmosphere and the oceans (so have nuclear tests), but CO2 isn't one of them.
The flaw in all these "greenhouse" theories is that the earth is not a greenhouse. The earth is an active geo and ecosystem. It adapts, whereas greenhouses do not.
AGW is a hoax and a scam. It amazes me that so many people aren't able to see through it. And yet, in another way, it doesn't surprise me at all. People will believe just about any nonsense if it is endorsed by some "authority" and carries an official stamp of approval.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 0:08:15 GMT -5
People will believe just about any nonsense if it is endorsed by some "authority" and carries an official stamp of approval. Unfortunately that's all too true. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 6, 2014 12:09:01 GMT -5
Zak wrote: >So how to determine which side is telling the truth, or getting it right? Well, first of all, eliminate scientists who are being financially rewarded for coming up with evidence supportive of the government's position.
How about we also eliminate all the scientists who are being paid by the fossil fuel industry to say that there is no problem? Seems only fair. 8->
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 6, 2014 12:28:43 GMT -5
Zak you said something about pro-climate change folk mostly depending on computer models and not current measurements. Yet the stuff I read deals with current measurements, not the future based on models. Example: Scientific American Dec 2013, "Fungi on the March" - "Indeed, plant-pathogenic fungi have already been found to be moving toward the poles in response to climate change at the particularly brisk clip of about seven and a half kilometers a year since 1960."
This is only one of many, many examples that I see in my reading on the subject. May not be true, but it is not based on computer models of the future.
This thread is way too long now. Difficult to find previous posts. Maybe we should start a new one. Or just stop talking about the subject. Comparing our different experts never resolves the issue anyway. I like mine and you like yours. What else can we talk about? 8->
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 6, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5
Thanks Fred. There is another "current measurement" ( not a computer model ) which I am particularly fond of, oenophile that I am. The best regions for growing vitis vinifera have generally been between the 30th and 50th degrees latitude. I am pleased to report that the region is expanding northward as a result of global warming!
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 6, 2014 17:56:20 GMT -5
No one is denying that the climate is changing. The climate has always been changing. The earth is coming out of a mini ice age, and solar activity in the last 80-100 years has been twice as intense as it has been for over a thousand years. The question is whether the 3% of the CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere is causing the climate to change. I don't accept that for a minute, and there is no scientific basis for any such assumption. The climate would change, and to exactly the same extent, even if humans were producing zero CO2.
But you said "the poles". Ice levels in the Antarctic are at an all-time high (almost 50% higher than average). I can't imagine why fungi would be heading south, where temperatures are lower than they've been for hundreds of years.
Ice levels in the Arctic are below average, but there is nothing apocalyptic or even unusual about this. Again, Greenland was once ice-free (hence the name). Globally - and "global warming" is supposed to be global - ice levels are normal.
Look, up until 1980 many climate scientists were warning of an impending ice age, or extended cold period. On what evidence were they basing that hypothesis? On the weather and climate records up to 1980! So then - coincident with the establishment of the IPCC - there was a spike in global temperature in the mid 1990s (perfectly explainable in terms of solar activity), and all of a sudden this is being presented as evidence, not just of global warming, but of man-made global warming! (The very hypothesis the IPCC had been set up to find evidence in support of!) And since then there has been no warming (forcing them to change "global warming" to the catch-all term "climate change").
How could the climate stats that supported an impending ice age until 1980 suddenly support global warming? Only by *interpreting* them differently. And wasn't it "lucky" for the IPCC that, as soon as they began to look for anomalies in the climate, the global temperature spiked? It hadn't spiked before, and it hasn't spiked since.
The CRU's climate predictions are based on computer models. The data that goes into those models is "secret". They have consistently refused to make this data available. All the models they devise are predicated on the assumption that CO2 causes global warming. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the results they come up with are always going to support their theory. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They've been making predictions for 20 years now, and not one of their predictions has materialized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 19:02:40 GMT -5
People will believe just about any nonsense if it is endorsed by some "authority" and carries an official stamp of approval. Unfortunately that's all too true. Bob There are also people who are willing to believe any kind of nonsense as long as it disagrees with established authorities and approved truths - see e.g. Anti-Vaccers, GW Deniers, Creationists, UFO believers, or any other of the hundreds of popular conspiracy theories throughout the world.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 6, 2014 19:11:03 GMT -5
Here's some good science for a change from my skeptics friends--- "To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things: from: www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm"1. Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles • 2. CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone 3. CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet 4. Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3)."
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 6, 2014 19:22:21 GMT -5
"The earth is coming out of a mini ice age,"
Off the top of my head, my understanding is that we are still in an ice age, the Pleistocene or Quaternary ice age, which began over 2 million years ago. During this time there have been glacial advances and retreats, with glacial periods lasting on the order of 100,000 years and inter glacial periods of 10-15 thousand years. Our current inter glacial has been going on for about 10,000 years and some scientists have said that we should be moving back toward the next glacial period in accord with previous Milankovitch rhythms and the cycles revealed in arctic ice and sea floor core samples. People commonly confuse "ice age" with glacial periods.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 6, 2014 19:50:14 GMT -5
"There are also people who are willing to believe any kind of nonsense as long as it disagrees with established authorities and approved truths - see e.g. Anti-Vaccers, GW Deniers, Creationists, UFO believers, or any other of the hundreds of popular conspiracy theories throughout the world."
Boy! Isn't this the truth. My rousing debates at Pete's Coffee over the years have revealed something very conspicuous. There are a few folks who appear to have never heard a conspiracy theory they didn't like, combined with a very high suspicion of science and government. While I believe it is always good to question authority, and I too am always suspicious of government, these people are way over the top.
Some of the more reasonable of my cronies there have noted that the following seems to hold for these folks: 1. a knee-jerk opposition to any kind of authority, 2. a sense of failure or disenfranchisement in their lives, 3. a seeming unwillingness to recognize a problem in themselves and a persistent conviction that all problems in the world are "out there". 3. A crack sure attitude that they are right, and with an absence skeptical reserve. 4. No formal education in any of the sciences.
One of my friends has noted another peculiar thing. The people in our group who seem most disposed to accepting conspiracy theories all share two things, ( and please don't laugh ): 1. They've never studied calculus and 2. They have never seen a live major illusionist show, like David Copperfield. Why the coexistence of these two things should matter, or whether they are just a silly coincidence, we have yet to determine. But we have our theories.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 6, 2014 20:24:46 GMT -5
"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles."
No, it doesn't! That's just not true. And the rest of those bullet point statements are meaningless. The central claim of global alarmists is that the historical record shows a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. What they FAILED TO NOTE was that the temperature led CO2 levels and not vice versa. They have been trying to backtrack on this HUGE MISTAKE ever since, with all kinds of convoluted misdirections and red herrings. The fact is their most basic assumption was WRONG. And they've been wrong about everything else ever since.
Twenty years ago, when I first called bullshit on AGW (I was a member of Greenpeace, involved in campaigns against pollution, deforestation etc), the alarmists told me "you'll eat your words ten years from now, when the planet has been devastated". Twenty years later the planet looks to me to be in pretty good shape. There's still too much pollution, of course, but overall planet earth is probably in better health than it was 20 years ago. The global temperature is no higher than it was 100 years ago. Or 500 years ago. Sea level hasn't risen and swallowed up any Pacific islands. The polar bears are thriving. There's been no shortage of snow (in fact we've had record snowfalls). Nor has the weather been any more "extreme" than it was in previous decades, or in previous centuries. In short, everything is normal. In fact it's been colder than usual these last few years. I don't like cold weather myself. I'm not fond of ice, either. I don't even like it in my whiskey. I wouldn't lose any sleep if all the ice in the poles melted tomorrow. What's so great about ice? A hundred people die of cold for every person who dies from heat. Global warming? If only it were real. But, unfortunately, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 6, 2014 21:41:29 GMT -5
What they FAILED TO NOTE was that the temperature led CO2 levels and not vice versa. Just the opposite appears to be true since everything I am reading going back to 2007 fully stipulates to the priority of CO2 in the core records: "The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming."www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 6, 2014 21:53:13 GMT -5
What amplifying effects of CO2? What observed warming?
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 7, 2014 0:39:59 GMT -5
What amplifying effects of CO2? What observed warming? Good questions. Well, to start with, the warming is certainly observed in the record going back in time. We know that CO2 is one of various green house gasses. Therefore, its presence among other contributing molecules and particulates amplifies the effect, as is true of course for all the molecular contributors to the effect. Seems reasonable to me. Like so many things in science, things are more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 7, 2014 1:05:37 GMT -5
Warming certainly is observed in the record. So is cooling. Overall, it's colder now than the mean historical average. So where is the warming? There was a spike in the global temperature in the mid 1990s (which coincided with exceptional solar activity), but only when compared to temperature readings from the last 100 years or so (since reliable records began). Compared with other periods in the earth's history, the 1990's spike didn't even come close. The alleged "warming" is based on a couple of unusually high temperature readings (for the 20th century) in the 1990s. I presume you know how old the earth is?
As for this "amplified heat" - where is it? (With the atonal apples?) A couple of months ago the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth was recorded in the Antarctic by a NASA satellite. And I don't know where you are, but where I am the mountains are covered in snow and people are freezing their asses off. Twenty years of "global warming" hasn't raised the temperature by as much as a fraction of a degree. What's the delay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 9:24:52 GMT -5
Yea, it sure is colder now than four billion years ago, when the Earth was a glowing ball of magma!
Therefore global warming is a hoax!
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 14, 2014 15:55:01 GMT -5
Resorting to facetiousness? Tsk! Global warming isn't a hoax, it's a scam.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 12:40:55 GMT -5
Where was I facetious? That is the actual argument you are advancing here.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 18, 2014 10:44:59 GMT -5
Maybe we have been paying too much attention to atmospheric CO2 and not enough attention to our oceans! "Scientists already have evidence of trouble in the seawater. The use of fossil fuel, in large measure, is the primary pathway behind this impending extinction event. Excessive quantities of CO2, of which the ocean absorbs 30% of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, are changing the ocean’s chemistry, called acidification, which eventually has the potential to kill most, but not all, ocean life forms. This problem is unquestionably serious, and here’s why: The rate of change of ocean pH (measure of acidity) is 10 times faster than 55 million years ago. That period of geologic history was directly linked to a mass extinction event as levels of CO2 mysteriously went off the charts. Ten times larger is big, very big, when a measurement of 0.1 in change of pH is consistent with significant change! According to C.L.Dybas, On a Collision Course: Oceans Plankton and Climate Change, BioScience, 2006: “This acidification is occurring at a rate [10-to-100] times faster [depending upon the area] than ever recorded.” " www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/17/the-oceans-death-march/
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 18, 2014 11:22:21 GMT -5
Well, obviously. But what can we use instead? There is currently no viable alternative that can deliver all the energy used worldwide. Over time -- time that we do not have -- alternates can be developed and deployed. But right now, the choice is fossil fuels or no energy.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 18, 2014 18:54:47 GMT -5
There isn't a speck of evidence to suggest that using fossil fuels causes "extinction events". Why invent problems that don't exist? There is no global warming. There is no reduction in ice or snow. Etc. It's all baloney. The climate is 100% normal.
|
|