PDA

View Full Version : The Debate Is Not Over



Pages : [1] 2

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 05:07 AM
The next couple of decades are cooling; not warming. (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.



Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.



This article is from last year, but holds true today.


Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.


Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.



The warmists are fraudsters and dangerous. When they screech that "the debate is over" you know they they have lost the debate.

midcan5
03-23-2014, 06:23 AM
I couldn't agree more why just this mornin Iam out walkin and thinkin that some think the earth is round like a ball, why I walked yonder and fro a mile or two and it sure aint round. And can you all believe some even think the earth aint the center of the universe I declare people do believe the most foolhardy things.

Alyosha
03-23-2014, 06:40 AM
I couldn't agree more why just this mornin Iam out walkin and thinkin that some think the earth is round like a ball, why I walked yonder and fro a mile or two and it sure aint round. And can you all believe some even think the earth aint the center of the universe I declare people do believe the most foolhardy things.
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

one of the reasons I've always found you to be loathsome is because you genuinely feel you're better than other people. It's this type of attitude, this disdain for a segment of the population you know little about which proves it. Bill Clinton spoke with this vernacular and he was measurably brighter than you are. Accents do not make one ignorant, small minded attitudes and spirits do.

You stand on the shoulders of others, cite their work, most of the time without even understanding it, and in your own mind gain some sort of intellectual credit for it.

Pathetic and wormy.

Max Rockatansky
03-23-2014, 07:22 AM
The next couple of decades are cooling; not warming. (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)


The problem with the global warming debate is that it has been highly politicized. I blame Al Gore for kicking this off, but the right-wingers joined in with equal vigor and, IMO, equally wrong for politicizing a science subject.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) isn't a science group. It's a British political group started and run by Lord Nigel Lawson, a "skeptic of climate change" and politician in the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8398103.stm

It's better to keep the politics out of science. I'd rather rely on groups like NASA who have a proven track record of sticking with science and leaving politics with the politicians.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Should I worry? Of course not. It's taken hundreds of years for this to start and all of the really adverse effects will happen only after many of us are dead. Isn't the current right-wing attitude "Let the future take care of itself"?

nic34
03-23-2014, 07:24 AM
OK you win. We'll just ignore the preponderance of evidence:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

Alyosha
03-23-2014, 07:44 AM
So the MIT scientists are dumb fuck hillbillies? How about the head of the Department at Georgia Tech? She's probably not as bright as you guys, either? Oh and that physics professor at Cambridge who thinks we need to pause and rethink, he's probably a religious nutjob that thinks the world is flat, as well?

I don't have a position on the subject because I realize what areas of expertise I would have to master to even have an opinion, and I don't pretend that I have mastered all of the complex aspects of physics, geology, oceanography, solar radiation, meteorology, etc to even be able to understand the data.

Yes, it is rocket science and most of the people on this thread and others pretend they understand it. What takes 10 years of multi-field discipline to understand people on here somehow do.

That takes a lot of hubris, IMO. Making fun of people who question--especially when there are scientists now saying, let's pause this train for just a moment, is just a way of endorsing groupthink.

Green Arrow
03-23-2014, 07:55 AM
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.

Kabuki Joe
03-23-2014, 08:33 AM
I couldn't agree more why just this mornin Iam out walkin and thinkin that some think the earth is round like a ball, why I walked yonder and fro a mile or two and it sure aint round. And can you all believe some even think the earth aint the center of the universe I declare people do believe the most foolhardy things.


...well, because you said this I'm sold...thanks for posting this!...

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 09:51 AM
Strawman..., but thanks for keeping your response short this time. I actually skimmed it.

And for not including poetry. :wink:


I couldn't agree more why just this mornin Iam out walkin and thinkin that some think the earth is round like a ball, why I walked yonder and fro a mile or two and it sure aint round. And can you all believe some even think the earth aint the center of the universe I declare people do believe the most foolhardy things.

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 09:54 AM
You can't take politics out of the debate: the warmists would have trillions of dollars transferred to their pet projects and would destroy first world economies. That is the part I attack.




The problem with the global warming debate is that it has been highly politicized. I blame Al Gore for kicking this off, but the right-wingers joined in with equal vigor and, IMO, equally wrong for politicizing a science subject.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) isn't a science group. It's a British political group started and run by Lord Nigel Lawson, a "skeptic of climate change" and politician in the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8398103.stm

It's better to keep the politics out of science. I'd rather rely on groups like NASA who have a proven track record of sticking with science and leaving politics with the politicians.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Should I worry? Of course not. It's taken hundreds of years for this to start and all of the really adverse effects will happen only after many of us are dead. Isn't the current right-wing attitude "Let the future take care of itself"?

Alyosha
03-23-2014, 09:56 AM
Look at who funds their research--people invested in the outcome. Look at who now funds the opposing team. Hint: not oil companies, but scientists themselves.

Alyosha
03-23-2014, 10:03 AM
I agree the planet is warming. It's the "why" that I am still ruminating on. What if this is "normal" for the 4.5 billion year old planet to go through periodically?

What if we try to curb CO2 and it has a harmful effect on plant life? What if we try to curb CO2 and then have volcanic activity?

I just think we need more time to consider this.

The Xl
03-23-2014, 10:16 AM
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

one of the reasons I've always found you to be loathsome is because you genuinely feel you're better than other people. It's this type of attitude, this disdain for a segment of the population you know little about which proves it. Bill Clinton spoke with this vernacular and he was measurably brighter than you are. Accents do not make one ignorant, small minded attitudes and spirits do.

You stand on the shoulders of others, cite their work, most of the time without even understanding it, and in your own mind gain some sort of intellectual credit for it.

Pathetic and wormy.

Excellent analysis of the no count known as midcan5.

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 10:19 AM
I agree the planet is warming. It's the "why" that I am still ruminating on. What if this is "normal" for the 4.5 billion year old planet to go through periodically?

What if we try to curb CO2 and it has a harmful effect on plant life? What if we try to curb CO2 and then have volcanic activity?

I just think we need more time to consider this.

There are so many other pressing pollution issues that we can actually fix. Why this tilting at windmills? It is almost as if the warmists are deliberately distracting us.

Dr. Who
03-23-2014, 10:33 AM
There are so many other pressing pollution issues that we can actually fix. Why this tilting at windmills? It is almost as if the warmists are deliberately distracting us.

I agree. There are other reasons to address pollution, other than whether or not it is producing climate change, such as affecting air and water quality, thereby impacting human as well as animal and plant health.

Chris
03-23-2014, 10:46 AM
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

one of the reasons I've always found you to be loathsome is because you genuinely feel you're better than other people. It's this type of attitude, this disdain for a segment of the population you know little about which proves it. Bill Clinton spoke with this vernacular and he was measurably brighter than you are. Accents do not make one ignorant, small minded attitudes and spirits do.

You stand on the shoulders of others, cite their work, most of the time without even understanding it, and in your own mind gain some sort of intellectual credit for it.

Pathetic and wormy.


Worse is the misappropriation of Samuel Becket's image for avatar. The attitude, ironically, just doesn't fit: Of his art, Beckett said: "I realized that Joyce had gone as far as one could in the direction of knowing more, in control of one’s material. He was always adding to it; you only have to look at his proofs to see that. I realized that my own way was in impoverishment, in lack of knowledge and in taking away, in subtracting rather than adding."

Chris
03-23-2014, 10:51 AM
OK you win. We'll just ignore the preponderance of evidence:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming



Science doesn't work by consensus, and that what your link is all about in its attack on deniers who are just as bad as alarmist warmist.

Chris
03-23-2014, 10:56 AM
I agree the planet is warming. It's the "why" that I am still ruminating on. What if this is "normal" for the 4.5 billion year old planet to go through periodically?

What if we try to curb CO2 and it has a harmful effect on plant life? What if we try to curb CO2 and then have volcanic activity?

I just think we need more time to consider this.


Agree in part for from all I see coming out of science the predictions for warming are all over the place (not unlike prediction of the Keydnesian multiplier effect).

I think what we need to look at instead of focusing on stopping what man is doing to his environment, which would be ruinous economically, we should look for ways to adapt to it.

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 11:18 AM
Or research advanced technology. A win - win.


Agree in part for from all I see coming out of science the predictions for warming are all over the place (not unlike prediction of the Keydnesian multiplier effect).

I think what we need to look at instead of focusing on stopping what man is doing to his environment, which would be ruinous economically, we should look for ways to adapt to it.

Chris
03-23-2014, 11:28 AM
Or research advanced technology. A win - win.

Exactly, advanced technology would help us adapt.

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 11:30 AM
Exactly, advanced technology would help us adapt.

Or rather avoid.

Chris
03-23-2014, 11:31 AM
Came across this, thought it fit right in...

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: THE ANTITHESIS OF SCIENCE (http://spectator.org/articles/58416/political-correctness-antithesis-science)


Despite attempts to cloak itself in science, political correctness is the very opposite. The political correctness movement’s real emphasis is on politics, not correctness. Its goal is to have prevailing thought determined by a political dynamic.

As repeatedly witnessed, political correctness is about installing its subjective version of truth in the court of public opinion, not in distilling objective truth. Its end is to implant a certain idea, belief, or behavior as the only acceptable course of action or thought — to the exclusion of any other.

Usually, this puts political correctness in opposition to prevailing norms. Not holding a majority outright, political correctness takes a political approach toward installing itself. It is organized; it is coordinated; it marshals stock answers — all, to advance itself.

Political correctness attacks its opponents — it does not debate them. It is always on the offensive. It seeks to demonize its opponents and make them explain their opinion, because it knows in today’s soundbite world, explaining means losing in public discourse.

...

The ultimate problem for political correctness is that science and the scientific process is the very opposite of its approach.

True science is about constantly offering and testing new hypotheses, not inflicting one. Its goal is never to attempt to end debate.

True science is a never-ending debate.

...

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 11:34 AM
Sums it up.

nic34
03-23-2014, 09:33 PM
Science doesn't work by consensus, and that what your link is all about in its attack on deniers who are just as bad as alarmist warmist.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Green Arrow
03-23-2014, 09:45 PM
Ignorance is not an excuse.

An excuse for what?

Peter1469
03-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Ignorance is not an excuse.

And neither is the malevolence of the warmists.

Alyosha
03-23-2014, 09:57 PM
The world is warming, but why? Is it cyclical, is it man-made? I don't know these things and honestly neither does anyone else. The world is 4.5 billion years old. What we know of trends in poles, in warming and cooling, even in carbon levels is still +/- .

I just give the planet it's due for complexity. Man thinks too highly of himself that he can know anything definitively.

nic34
03-23-2014, 10:44 PM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.

Green Arrow
03-23-2014, 11:29 PM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.

Who is suggesting all of that in this thread?

Chris
03-24-2014, 06:28 AM
Ignorance is not an excuse.


Then why make it yours, nic?

Chris
03-24-2014, 06:33 AM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.



I'm looking around in this thread for someone arguing for that, nic, but I see no one. Where do you see it, besides your straw man?

Question: I'm all for finding alternative fuels and other adaptations. But this search for alternatives will be costly. How will you fund it, when the would is thrown into economic chaos because you would simply stop burning fossil fuel?

Kabuki Joe
03-24-2014, 08:34 AM
Ignorance is not an excuse.



...it is with you, isn't it?...

Alyosha
03-24-2014, 09:56 AM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.

I'm against the use of petroleum for other reasons. I am highly sensitive to chemicals and now moreso than ever. I had a build up of toxins due to petroleum based products (hair shampoo, cosmetics, bottles, etc) and now if I use a shampoo that has petroleum in it or a make up I will either react with skin rashes, or if a lot my throat will swell and I need to use my epi pen.

I speak out against these chemicals all the time. I'm against pollution for health reasons. I am feel violence should be used against polluters--yes, I said that.

I don't know that we can say with finality that the planet is warmer by 2 degrees because of CO2 when the life of the earth started 4.5 billion years ago. The last 2,000 years of recorded histories don't cut it, nor does the scattering of collected ice and tree data.

Contrails
03-24-2014, 12:45 PM
The next couple of decades are cooling; not warming. (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)

This article is from last year, but holds true today.
Think you might be reading a little too much into this article? Where does it make any projections about decadal trends? Willing to bet 2011-2020 will be warmer than 2001-2010?

By the way, it must have missed your attention that the Daily Mail had to correct their article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html). The actual "recovery" from August 2012 to August 2013 was only 29%, not the 60% they originally stated. That was barely enough to offset the 20% loss from 2011, and still 20% below the 1979 to 2000 average (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/).

Heyduke
03-24-2014, 01:15 PM
One thing is certain--- we're headed for another ice age. Another thing is certain--- we're headed for another warming period. In the end, the sun will become too hot for life to exist on earth, and then it will become a red dwarf and eventually it will supernova.

"There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain
As to statistics, the IPCC doesn't chart raw data (which is kept confidential by the University of East Anglia). The stats are run through a process of computer modelling (with its biases). This 'adjusted' data is what the public is privy to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

It's a info war between industry hacks and pseudo-science hacks, leaving the public ignorant

Contrails
03-24-2014, 01:42 PM
Question: I'm all for finding alternative fuels and other adaptations. But this search for alternatives will be costly. How will you fund it, when the would is thrown into economic chaos because you would simply stop burning fossil fuel?
I'm looking around in this thread for someone arguing for that, Chris, but I see no one.

nic34
03-24-2014, 01:45 PM
^^exactly^^

nic34
03-24-2014, 01:48 PM
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/reframe/wasteful

Heyduke
03-24-2014, 01:49 PM
I'm for onsite alternative energy. The great thing about solar, for example, is that a guy can buy a few panels to run his kitchen lights. He can invest more and run all of his lighting. He can invest even more and run the whole house, especially if he also practices conservation.

Micro-solar is empowering, and leads to greater independence. Massive solar government funded projects give alternative energy a bad name. You end up with a gigantic array in the desert where the expensive energy needs to be piped into Los Angeles. Or, you end up with Solyndra, where the lobby has a $4 million marble floor and every over-payed employee has a personal robot.

Ethereal
03-24-2014, 01:51 PM
I couldn't agree more why just this mornin Iam out walkin and thinkin that some think the earth is round like a ball, why I walked yonder and fro a mile or two and it sure aint round. And can you all believe some even think the earth aint the center of the universe I declare people do believe the most foolhardy things.

You contribute nothing but condescension and smug self-satisfaction, none of it justifiable. If you ever say something substantive, I'll probably have a heart attack.

nic34
03-24-2014, 01:52 PM
But if you need a desalination plant or two in the SW.... you'll need more than a rooftop solar array...

Ethereal
03-24-2014, 01:58 PM
The problem with the global warming debate is that it has been highly politicized. I blame Al Gore for kicking this off, but the right-wingers joined in with equal vigor and, IMO, equally wrong for politicizing a science subject.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) isn't a science group. It's a British political group started and run by Lord Nigel Lawson, a "skeptic of climate change" and politician in the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8398103.stm

It's better to keep the politics out of science. I'd rather rely on groups like NASA who have a proven track record of sticking with science and leaving politics with the politicians.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Should I worry? Of course not. It's taken hundreds of years for this to start and all of the really adverse effects will happen only after many of us are dead. Isn't the current right-wing attitude "Let the future take care of itself"?

Then feel free to explain why James Hansen of NASA has been arrested several times for disturbing the peace with eco extremists at political rallies.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/13/top-nasa-climate-scientist-arrested-again-in-white-house-protest/

Chris
03-24-2014, 02:12 PM
I'm looking around in this thread for someone arguing for that, Chris, but I see no one.

Nic.

Chris
03-24-2014, 02:13 PM
^^exactly^^

Nic, you argued for it. Here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23860-The-Debate-Is-Not-Over?p=556247&viewfull=1#post556247.

Contrails
03-24-2014, 03:44 PM
Nic, you argued for it. Here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23860-The-Debate-Is-Not-Over?p=556247&viewfull=1#post556247.

And "developing alternatives" equates to "simply stopping" how?

Heyduke
03-24-2014, 03:49 PM
But if you need a desalination plant or two in the SW.... you'll need more than a rooftop solar array...

I recently helped my sister install a rain catchment system. All the water coming off of her roof is captured, and can be used later to water the garden.

Personal greywater systems can water the landscaping instead of run into the sewers.

Conceivably, you could make a solar-powered water condensation device to capture moisture from the air.

And, people could just immitate yours truly, by taking about 2 showers a week and never washing my truck. :smiley:

nic34
03-24-2014, 03:58 PM
I recently helped my sister install a rain catchment system. All the water coming off of her roof is captured, and can be used later to water the garden.

Personal greywater systems can water the landscaping instead of run into the sewers.

Conceivably, you could make a solar-powered water condensation device to capture moisture from the air.

And, people could just immitate yours truly, by taking about 2 showers a week and never washing my truck. :smiley:

And with thus you get the "great unwashed"....lol

nic34
03-24-2014, 04:00 PM
Nic, you argued for it. Here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23860-The-Debate-Is-Not-Over?p=556247&viewfull=1#post556247.

Um, no.

midcan5
03-24-2014, 04:18 PM
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

one of the reasons I've always found you to be loathsome is because you genuinely feel you're better than other people. It's this type of attitude, this disdain for a segment of the population you know little about which proves it. Bill Clinton spoke with this vernacular and he was measurably brighter than you are. Accents do not make one ignorant, small minded attitudes and spirits do.

You stand on the shoulders of others, cite their work, most of the time without even understanding it, and in your own mind gain some sort of intellectual credit for it.

Pathetic and wormy.
Alyosha

LOL ah jeez, you hurt my online feelings. Too funny I come from a different world, a difference place, I find humor, sarcasm, and calling stupid stupid appropriate some of the time, online much of the time. But I do find your feelings rather off the wall, is this the best you can do? Name calling is oh so useless, but carry on friend if it makes you feel good. Oh, by the way since you think I was just kidding, prove to me the earth isn't flat. Give me your best argument.

Chris
03-24-2014, 04:54 PM
And "developing alternatives" equates to "simply stopping" how?

I think you're confused. Got something to say come out and say it.

Chris
03-24-2014, 04:57 PM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.



Then explain just what it was you were arguing with this bit of sarcasm, nic, if not the opposite.

Ethereal
03-24-2014, 05:05 PM
Alyosha

LOL ah jeez, you hurt my online feelings. Too funny I come from a different world, a difference place, I find humor, sarcasm, and calling stupid stupid appropriate some of the time, online much of the time. But I do find your feelings rather off the wall, is this the best you can do? Name calling is oh so useless, but carry on friend if it makes you feel good. Oh, by the way since you think I was just kidding, prove to me the earth isn't flat. Give me your best argument.

My God, you are positively worthless.

Chris
03-24-2014, 05:15 PM
Eratosthenes proved the earth is curved with a couple sticks in 300 BC. And progressives say others are regressive.

Contrails
03-24-2014, 05:37 PM
I think you're confused. Got something to say come out and say it.

I just think it's funny how you criticize nic34 for arguing against a strawman, then proceed to create your own in the very same post. He was clearly making an argument for the development of alternatives to fossil fuel, which is as close to simply stopping as black is to not-white.

Alyosha
03-24-2014, 05:45 PM
@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

LOL ah jeez, you hurt my online feelings. Too funny I come from a different world, a difference place, I find humor, sarcasm, and calling stupid stupid appropriate some of the time, online much of the time. But I do find your feelings rather off the wall, is this the best you can do? Name calling is oh so useless, but carry on friend if it makes you feel good. Oh, by the way since you think I was just kidding, prove to me the earth isn't flat. Give me your best argument.

What was funny about your post? Would it have been funny if Libhater spoke in fake ebonics?

Chris
03-24-2014, 05:51 PM
I just think it's funny how you criticize nic34 for arguing against a strawman, then proceed to create your own in the very same post. He was clearly making an argument for the development of alternatives to fossil fuel, which is as close to simply stopping as black is to not-white.

Where was this straw man?

I agreed with him on developing alternative fuels, I disagreed with the intent of his sarcasm, that the solution wasn't as simple as black and white stopping. Miss that?

And, again, did you have a point?

Bob
03-24-2014, 06:10 PM
The next couple of decades are cooling; not warming. (http://www.thegwpf.org/arctic-ice-rebounds-top-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling/)



This article is from last year, but holds true today.



The warmists are fraudsters and dangerous. When they screech that "the debate is over" you know they they have lost the debate.


I admit that at times, the warmers had me on my mental ropes. I understood why they were wrong, but they kept coming back over and over saying I am the wrong one.

This has nothing to do with Earth being a ball or that you can walk down into canyons where some call it a ball. Climate is not like that.

When Democrats jumped on this issue, clearly it was good for their politics so they promoted it.

I mean, what can sound better than saving Earth???

Trouble is I had had climate training to become a pilot. While the topic is weather, clearly in the books climate is spoke of. That and growing up, i had plenty of science and math. I don't know about most of you, but I had two college semesters taking Calculus. I have Calculus books at my beck and call, in my library of books.

I had looked at that hockey stick and asked the most basic question.

Was that a correct graph?

What was fishy about it is the two scales used.

Scale for horizontal was in a long time range.

For temperatures, they were micro temperatures.

Hell, any graph can look alarming when you improperly scale them.

But we had scientists who quoted that useless hockey stick.

I pointed out that done properly, that scale was virtually a flat line.

It never alarmed me.

One last thing. If you get alarmed over a couple of degrees spaced over 150 years, you want to be alarmed.

As I have also pointed out, their cure was to harm humans. I smelled a rat when they did not want to go on a massive plant crusade covering earth with billions more plants. Those can suck up carbon dioxide. It was a fraud and I am happy to be one who was never fooled.

Oh, on harming humans. Look at the economy today and a big part is over energy. We got told we had to quit using gasoline so a lot have complied. But today they also want roads to be made better. Alas, all those electric cars and hybrids cut back on tax revenues. They wanted it both ways. Can't have it both ways.

Bob
03-24-2014, 06:14 PM
@midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765)

one of the reasons I've always found you to be loathsome is because you genuinely feel you're better than other people. It's this type of attitude, this disdain for a segment of the population you know little about which proves it. Bill Clinton spoke with this vernacular and he was measurably brighter than you are. Accents do not make one ignorant, small minded attitudes and spirits do.

You stand on the shoulders of others, cite their work, most of the time without even understanding it, and in your own mind gain some sort of intellectual credit for it.

Pathetic and wormy.

A normal human would have said, OUCH!!!!

Bob
03-24-2014, 06:18 PM
The problem with the global warming debate is that it has been highly politicized. I blame Al Gore for kicking this off, but the right-wingers joined in with equal vigor and, IMO, equally wrong for politicizing a science subject.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) isn't a science group. It's a British political group started and run by Lord Nigel Lawson, a "skeptic of climate change" and politician in the House of Lords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8398103.stm

It's better to keep the politics out of science. I'd rather rely on groups like NASA who have a proven track record of sticking with science and leaving politics with the politicians.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Should I worry? Of course not. It's taken hundreds of years for this to start and all of the really adverse effects will happen only after many of us are dead. Isn't the current right-wing attitude "Let the future take care of itself"?

However you believe in NASA, they are not in the business of climate. If they have time to fret over this, maybe we can cut their budget so they stick to space and rockets and space stations or lord help us, going back to the Moon and later to Mars.

Chris
03-24-2014, 06:32 PM
However you believe in NASA, they are not in the business of climate. If they have time to fret over this, maybe we can cut their budget so they stick to space and rockets and space stations or lord help us, going back to the Moon and later to Mars.


Thy're also not in the business of economics, yet...

We're All Redistributionists Now, So We'll Fail Together (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/03/24/were_all_redistributionists_now_so_well_fail_toget her_100965.html)


You have to wonder what on earth NASA is doing funding a "study" that examines global resource distribution and weaknesses in modern industrial society. Perhaps most fitting of the entire affair is that the actual funding, government tax dollars at work, for this terrestrial examination originates with the Goddard Space Flight Center. Nothing says the new NASA like massive facilities dedicated to leaving the earth taking on the task of appealing to economic "fairness."

...The folks that were once believed to be the best and brightest in science and engineering, in a facility named after a rocketry pioneer that helped those best and brightest put Americans on the moon, now tell us "scientifically" the government needs to take a stronger hand in the economy....

Contrails
03-24-2014, 06:40 PM
Where was this straw man?
For nic34, the line "Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink."

For you, the line "How will you fund it, when the would is thrown into economic chaos because you would simply stop burning fossil fuel?"


I agreed with him on developing alternative fuels, I disagreed with the intent of his sarcasm, that the solution wasn't as simple as black and white stopping. Miss that?
But nic34 never suggested simply stopping. That was your idea.


And, again, did you have a point?
Just that there is a lot of options between "burn it until there's nothing left" and "simply stopping", and not all of them end in economic chaos.

Bob
03-24-2014, 06:47 PM
So the MIT scientists are dumb fuck hillbillies? How about the head of the Department at Georgia Tech? She's probably not as bright as you guys, either? Oh and that physics professor at Cambridge who thinks we need to pause and rethink, he's probably a religious nutjob that thinks the world is flat, as well?

I don't have a position on the subject because I realize what areas of expertise I would have to master to even have an opinion, and I don't pretend that I have mastered all of the complex aspects of physics, geology, oceanography, solar radiation, meteorology, etc to even be able to understand the data.

Yes, it is rocket science and most of the people on this thread and others pretend they understand it. What takes 10 years of multi-field discipline to understand people on here somehow do.

That takes a lot of hubris, IMO. Making fun of people who question--especially when there are scientists now saying, let's pause this train for just a moment, is just a way of endorsing groupthink.

I happen to agree with you.

Though I will NEVER proclaim myself to be a climate expert, I do happen to have some experts books. Not only that, but that dumb fuck hillbilly Lindzen and I have corresponded. That man is the expert. He is powerful in his field. When he tells me it is fucked up, I believe him.

But my basis for belief is more than that. Starting in 1980, climate became vital to me. Not to know if it would rain one day, but to keep from dying in an airplane crash where I was pilot in command.

When you may die due to weather, you damn sure better pay attention to how it works. Some will say, hell this is not about weather. Bull shit. Sure it is climate, but weather is the evidence of climate.

Now we are told that the ice sheets are dominating again at the Arctic.

This is a cycle. We will later see less ice. But that is just a normal cycle. At times, though much of what we know is normal, an outside a range event or two happens. But the world is not ending.

You want proof?

All of you ought to want proof either way.

You want proof Gore is right or that we deniers are right.

What is the USA doing about this global warming?

Come on. They want you to drive micro cars. Cars like they drive in Paris for instance. Why is it still so smoggy in Paris?

OK, let's get down to my proof.

My proof is that if government actually believes in global warming, they would go like a bat out of hell to solve the problem. This con job that by making cars smaller is going to fix it is bull shit. Do you actually think Obama is actually persuaded? A major planting of plants would work magic to consume carbon dioxide. They are not doing that.

Why would a man devoted to cutting down on fuel use, hop into a jumbo jet virtually daily to do his talking?

He brags he knows how to use the media. He brags he knows the internet.

But that sumabitch flies all over hell and back but thinks he will persuade me he is serious about global warming?

The great Gore had those flaws too. He made a lot of money talking this up. So why did he own several very large homes that consumed a hell of a lot of energy then? Why was he also flying all over to talk? We watch movies on TV all the time. PBS is not out flying airplanes to tell you about PBS. The networks don't fly all over to tell you about network programs. True some actors fly to promote, but in their defense they do not do it in special airplanes such as Obama flies in. When Obama goes all over hell and back flying, he does not merely use one airplane. His flights consume a fleet of airplanes.
The man is a major con artist.

Which poster has the basic understanding of global climate?

To this day, I still do not. I know a lot more than normal folks know, but to this day the global climate is still a great mystery.

Bob
03-24-2014, 06:57 PM
I agree the planet is warming. It's the "why" that I am still ruminating on. What if this is "normal" for the 4.5 billion year old planet to go through periodically?

What if we try to curb CO2 and it has a harmful effect on plant life? What if we try to curb CO2 and then have volcanic activity?

I just think we need more time to consider this.

The warming is no issue. That is the problem. They want it to be the issue, but it is far too small to be the issue.
Blaming man is their only goal.

Were they to truly think it is man's fault, they would counter the problems. I mean a good way, not this crap where they attack energy all the time. Notice that each attack is made on energy. So much so that they claim some who argue against this are in the pockets of oil companies. Hell, oil companies are also at fault. They caved in.

Dr Curry was introduced to this forum. Listen to her. This is her field. Gore is not in this field. Obama is not in the field. Dr. Lindzen is in the field.

Contrails
03-24-2014, 06:59 PM
Now we are told that the ice sheets are dominating again at the Arctic.
Who is telling you this? Arctic sea ice has been below the 1981-2010 average every year for the last decade.

Chris
03-24-2014, 07:04 PM
Can't post the videos but here's a couple from the Independents. Nye is your typical warmist/alarmist, the second video is a skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts global warming, but looks at the economics of adapting to it.

What Happens When You Try to Have a Rational Climate-Change Conversation With Bill Nye the Science Guy (http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/24/what-happens-when-you-try-to-have-a-rati)

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:05 PM
I agree. There are other reasons to address pollution, other than whether or not it is producing climate change, such as affecting air and water quality, thereby impacting human as well as animal and plant health.

Fortunately, much that man pollutes came directly from the very place he returns it to.

Bear in mind, even Uranium came from Earth. Mercury came from Earth. There is no special place for this stuff.

Let me give you an example. Trying to actually solve the storage of nuclear waste, republicans located federal lands that were so remote, that nearby was where this country tested nuclear bombs. And yet far enough away from Las Vegas they would never notice it. Remote from highways and into a mountain.

But hell no says Democrats, we can't have you tucking nuclear waste away. That will destroy our issue.

Democrats need the issue of spent nuclear fuels. They use it for political purposes.

Democrats also use climate. Good lord ????????????? Fucking climate?

How dumb.

But sure as I said that, out comes truck drivers and even some in business who fell for Democrat's con jobs.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:07 PM
Can't post the videos but here's a couple from the Independents. Nye is your typical warmist/alarmist, the second video is a skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts global warming, but looks at the economics of adapting to it.

What Happens When You Try to Have a Rational Climate-Change Conversation With Bill Nye the Science Guy (http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/24/what-happens-when-you-try-to-have-a-rati)

Bjorn happens to be rational. If it is real, at least he takes actual positive actions in his proposals.

He is one I studied. God, the man is simply too rational to be a politician.

Chris
03-24-2014, 07:09 PM
For nic34, the line "Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink."

For you, the line "How will you fund it, when the would is thrown into economic chaos because you would simply stop burning fossil fuel?"


But nic34 never suggested simply stopping. That was your idea.


Just that there is a lot of options between "burn it until there's nothing left" and "simply stopping", and not all of them end in economic chaos.



Contrails, we all know what nic posted and what I posted, it's public information. Where's the straw man?



But nic34 never suggested simply stopping. That was your idea.

That was my interpretation of his sarcastic remarks. Even if I was mistaken, it's not a straw man.



Just that there is a lot of options between "burn it until there's nothing left" and "simply stopping", and not all of them end in economic chaos.

So your opinion is there are opinions. Wow. But I give you credit you've reached the same conclusion that was my point to nic.

Chris
03-24-2014, 07:11 PM
Bjorn happens to be rational. If it is real, at least he takes actual positive actions in his proposals.

He is one I studied. God, the man is simply too rational to be a politician.


I've been following him since he first came out, when he was more of a denier, and through his becoming a skeptic. But his economic message has been consistent: What warmists/alarmists demand is not economically feasible and would lead to economic chaos.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:13 PM
Science doesn't work by consensus, and that what your link is all about in its attack on deniers who are just as bad as alarmist warmist.

They love to quote this magic 97 percent being persuaded.

Little do they understand that it takes 100 percent for it to be true, not 97 percent true.

I am persuaded by some of the world's finest of the finest climate experts who do not accept that man runs around ruining Earth to the extent climate is changed forever.

And nothing pleases the warmers.

Nothing we do pleases them.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:22 PM
So just burn that fossil fuel till its so scarce only the wealthy can use it. Burn it, pipe it, truck it, spill it, we can move to mars when there's nothing left to breath, eat and drink. There's no hurry to develop alternatives.......

Keep on the way it is, but don't claim ignorance.

Normally, man comes up with solutions once he becomes desperate. Your solution drags misery out for a very long time. Hell, use all the oil up right now and if you are right, man will find out and figure out solutions.

If not, artificial intelligence will do the job for us.

Say. a book I advise for you guys is THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE. Read his book and learn more about Earth.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil/dp/0387985468

Contrails
03-24-2014, 07:32 PM
Contrails, we all know what nic posted and what I posted, it's public information. Where's the straw man?

Yes, we can all see what nic34 posted, and it is clear that he was arguing against inaction, not for simply stopping.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:34 PM
I'm for onsite alternative energy. The great thing about solar, for example, is that a guy can buy a few panels to run his kitchen lights. He can invest more and run all of his lighting. He can invest even more and run the whole house, especially if he also practices conservation.

Micro-solar is empowering, and leads to greater independence. Massive solar government funded projects give alternative energy a bad name. You end up with a gigantic array in the desert where the expensive energy needs to be piped into Los Angeles. Or, you end up with Solyndra, where the lobby has a $4 million marble floor and every over-payed employee has a personal robot.

We all need to understand limits.

We believe the limit to gasoline was supply. Suddenly science proved we have far more supply than we ever dreamed. Matter of fact, this government puts out of reach vast amounts of fuel. By making law to block it's use.

LIMITS are key.

Solar is brought up.

Solar works fine when conditions are correct. We have periods of time where it is dark longer than it is light. True solar can and is stored. But how? Lead poisons so we use cheap lead batteries. Solve one problem by making a different problem. Solar panels can be subject to dirt storms. Subject to weather, such as snow or ice.

While it can be of help, it is not the solution.

Wind has periods where it simply will not be there to spin windmills. Sad as that is, it also kills birds. You want to piss off ecowhack jobs? Go wind.

Face one fact. Gasoline in your car is very compact. At 6 lbs per gallon, vs 8 for water, you get a good deal. Some try to scare you by saying it is limited. Man will learn to make it with some chemicals. Costs more, but it will still be compact and portable and an outstanding source of energy. Try carting around a solar array or windmills on your car sometime.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:37 PM
I've been following him since he first came out, when he was more of a denier, and through his becoming a skeptic. But his economic message has been consistent: What warmists/alarmists demand is not economically feasible and would lead to economic chaos.

We are in agreement.

See, it is not that Democrats tilt at windmills in their messages, they don't know squat. And they are hypocrites. All of them, to a man are hypocrites. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

BJorn at least has solutions.

Chris
03-24-2014, 07:40 PM
Yes, we can all see what nic34 posted, and it is clear that he was arguing against inaction, not for simply stopping.

No one least of all I said nic called for inaction, contrails. You are seriously misreading what I posted. And you would call your mistake a straw man I suppose.

Chris
03-24-2014, 07:45 PM
We are in agreement.

See, it is not that Democrats tilt at windmills in their messages, they don't know squat. And they are hypocrites. All of them, to a man are hypocrites. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

BJorn at least has solutions.


Well, I think some Republican deniers are as unknowing hypocrites, but, yes, Bjorn offers solutions, and puts the problem is perspective.

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:45 PM
Who is telling you this? Arctic sea ice has been below the 1981-2010 average every year for the last decade.

Well, Peter's first post alleges this.

However, let's look at what the news is about the Arctic for February.


Arctic sea ice extent in February 2014 averaged 14.44 million square kilometers (5.58 million square miles). This is the fourth lowest February ice extent in the satellite data record, and is 910,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. The lowest February in the satellite record occurred in 2005.
Overall, sea ice grew slowly through the month of February. There were periods of declining ice, likely related to changes in ice motion. Bering Sea ice cover has been below average throughout winter, in contrast to the last several winters. Ice extent also remains below average in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, helping to keep the Arctic ice extent two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.

Before you go, SEE THERE, let's now look at the map. See the red lines? Pretty close to what the ice is. There simply is not enough change to rush about screaming that the sky is falling. Still that is one hell of a lot of pack ice. So much so, i do call that dominating.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/03/Figure1-350x417.png

Bob
03-24-2014, 07:47 PM
Well, I think some Republican deniers are as unknowing hypocrites, but, yes, Bjorn offers solutions, and puts the problem is perspective.

Deniers of what? Do you even suspect democrats have genuine solutions?

Dr. Who
03-24-2014, 08:02 PM
Fortunately, much that man pollutes came directly from the very place he returns it to.

Bear in mind, even Uranium came from Earth. Mercury came from Earth. There is no special place for this stuff.

Let me give you an example. Trying to actually solve the storage of nuclear waste, republicans located federal lands that were so remote, that nearby was where this country tested nuclear bombs. And yet far enough away from Las Vegas they would never notice it. Remote from highways and into a mountain.

But hell no says Democrats, we can't have you tucking nuclear waste away. That will destroy our issue.

Democrats need the issue of spent nuclear fuels. They use it for political purposes.

Democrats also use climate. Good lord ????????????? Fucking climate?

How dumb.

But sure as I said that, out comes truck drivers and even some in business who fell for Democrat's con jobs.

Whether or not uranium by-product or any other by-product ends up in the oceans, these are not things that would normally combine in nature to end up in oceans, waterways or in toxic waste dumps. These things would not naturally separate themselves from rock formations to become toxic waste. Just because they are naturally occurring, does not mean that there would ever be any natural condition that would cause them combine to create the toxins that we can manufacture except in insignificant situations.

It is not political parties that simply create this assault on the environment, it is collusion with business and that is not confined to one party or another. It is endemic to American government irrespective of political ties. It doesn't matter which party is in government, big business pays the freight for election campaigns and as a result government turns a blind eye to that which will make the electorate ill. After the fact they will pretend to find numerous reasons why these people have become ill, but dismiss the elephant in the room. It has been going on for a long time and with various governments. There is only one conclusion possible - government is has been overtaken by business interests, whether Dem or Rep. to the detriment of the environment and by extension to the American public.

Contrails
03-24-2014, 08:05 PM
Well, Peter's first post alleges this.
Peter's first post was wrong, as I explained in Post #34.


However, let's look at what the news is about the Arctic for February.


Arctic sea ice extent in February 2014 averaged 14.44 million square kilometers (5.58 million square miles). This is the fourth lowest February ice extent in the satellite data record, and is 910,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. The lowest February in the satellite record occurred in 2005.
Overall, sea ice grew slowly through the month of February. There were periods of declining ice, likely related to changes in ice motion. Bering Sea ice cover has been below average throughout winter, in contrast to the last several winters. Ice extent also remains below average in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, helping to keep the Arctic ice extent two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.

Before you go, SEE THERE, let's now look at the map. See the red lines? Pretty close to what the ice is. There simply is not enough change to rush about screaming that the sky is falling. Still that is one hell of a lot of pack ice. So much so, i do call that dominating.
Do you think it is possible to identify a trend from one data point? You do realize the red line represents where the ice typically was just a few years ago. If you think this is "dominating", keep in mind it's February when Arctic is usually at it's maximum. Maybe you should see what September looks like (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/).

Bob
03-24-2014, 08:16 PM
Whether or not uranium by-product or any other by-product ends up in the oceans, these are not things that would normally combine in nature to end up in oceans, waterways or in toxic waste dumps. These things would not naturally separate themselves from rock formations to become toxic waste. Just because they are naturally occurring, does not mean that there would ever be any natural condition that would cause them combine to create the toxins that we can manufacture except in insignificant situations.

It is not political parties that simply create this assault on the environment, it is collusion with business and that is not confined to one party or another. It is endemic to American government irrespective of political ties. It doesn't matter which party is in government, big business pays the freight for election campaigns and as a result government turns a blind eye to that which will make the electorate ill. After the fact they will pretend to find numerous reasons why these people have become ill, but dismiss the elephant in the room. It has been going on for a long time and with various governments. There is only one conclusion possible - government is has been overtaken by business interests, whether Dem or Rep. to the detriment of the environment and by extension to the American public.

If you can find it on land, it is in the ocean. And there the same way it is on land.

Why is it OK for uranium to be in rocks but not used up and then put in Yucca Mountain in NV? Believe me when I tell you that spent nuclear fuel is all over this country right now. Not in best places to dump it, but by cities. OR course not to alarm anybody, but it has been spent or depleted. Were it not so, it still would be used.

Man is a creature that invents. I can't think of other creatures that invent. We can invent problems and solutions.

Yucca Mountain is a solution. To Democrats it is just one more problem.

As to business, it solves problems. And when you stop solving problems, things really do suck. Government creates more problems than it solves.

Business does not create rules, regulations and laws that all must abide by.

However, Government does. Why would a sane government want or need 2.65 million books on law?

George Washington did just fine and did not suffer 2.65 million books on law.

I see Democrats partly as if they were spiders crafting webs. Slowly you are not aware of their web. Suddenly it is too late. They spun the web that binds you. Freedom means nothing to Democrats.

I wish I was lying. Really, I honestly wish I was flat wrong. But look what Obama keeps doing. Law upon law upon law. And in his talks, he brings up that is what he is doing to us. The law to drive us into the arms of insurance companies?

3000 pages of law then tens of thousands pages rules or laws crafted over what Obama signed, the ACA.

Bob
03-24-2014, 08:28 PM
Peter's first post was wrong, as I explained in Post #34.


Do you think it is possible to identify a trend from one data point? You do realize the red line represents where the ice typically was just a few years ago. If you think this is "dominating", keep in mind it's February when Arctic is usually at it's maximum. Maybe you should see what September looks like (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/).

I am not saying it is the evidence of the trend, but I do happen to recall scientists telling us we were involved in a mass cooling age. Perhaps that tipped me off that something is wrong by claiming 97 percent of scientists do agree. I hear that not from scientists, but from politicians. Politicians are far worse than what you claim business is.

I may be confusing you with another poster but some claim business is at fault, not government.

But I want to confront the matter of the ice in the North.

Earth only needs a figure of ????? for enough ice, We have plenty of ice in the south. As to the amount that is just right at the north, nobody knows. I don't think I plan to lose sleep over ice at the north.

For me to worry, it would imply that you or I have solutions.

We do not. We may be damned arrogant, but we are pretty narcissistic to assume we know how to create more ice at the north.

Correction.

Dr Who runs down business and so far as i can tell, does not run down government.

To him I comment. Beware of those who make laws. They are like spiders and the webs of deceit by them many and binding on you. Business lacks those powers.

Give me the power to make laws you plan to follow and I own you.

Dr. Who
03-24-2014, 08:39 PM
Because in it's natural state uranium is not all that toxic, nor are many other naturally occurring elements toxic until separated and combined in manners unknown in nature. It's not really all about politics, but politicians and the degree to which they sell out to big money.




If you can find it on land, it is in the ocean. And there the same way it is on land.

Why is it OK for uranium to be in rocks but not used up and then put in Yucca Mountain in NV? Believe me when I tell you that spent nuclear fuel is all over this country right now. Not in best places to dump it, but by cities. OR course not to alarm anybody, but it has been spent or depleted. Were it not so, it still would be used.

Man is a creature that invents. I can't think of other creatures that invent. We can invent problems and solutions.

Yucca Mountain is a solution. To Democrats it is just one more problem.

As to business, it solves problems. And when you stop solving problems, things really do suck. Government creates more problems than it solves.

Business does not create rules, regulations and laws that all must abide by.

However, Government does. Why would a sane government want or need 2.65 million books on law?

George Washington did just fine and did not suffer 2.65 million books on law.

I see Democrats partly as if they were spiders crafting webs. Slowly you are not aware of their web. Suddenly it is too late. They spun the web that binds you. Freedom means nothing to Democrats.

I wish I was lying. Really, I honestly wish I was flat wrong. But look what Obama keeps doing. Law upon law upon law. And in his talks, he brings up that is what he is doing to us. The law to drive us into the arms of insurance companies?

3000 pages of law then tens of thousands pages rules or laws crafted over what Obama signed, the ACA.

Bob
03-24-2014, 08:49 PM
Because in it's natural state uranium is not all that toxic, nor are many other naturally occurring elements toxic until separated and combined in manners unknown in nature. It's not really all about politics, but politicians and the degree to which they sell out to big money.

I agree that yellow cake is not much to call toxic.

Take iron ore or copper from mines. Both must be heavily processed to be used. Iron is used to make tanks and ships. That is no reason blast iron nor copper.

Man can invent as I said, so he can invent solutions. But to refuse to use yellow-cake makes no sense since it can be simply put back into the earth, from whence it came to begin with.

Those who see business as the enemy are not thinking clearly. Especially when compared to government.

Dr. Who
03-24-2014, 09:08 PM
I agree that yellow cake is not much to call toxic.

Take iron ore or copper from mines. Both must be heavily processed to be used. Iron is used to make tanks and ships. That is no reason blast iron nor copper.

Man can invent as I said, so he can invent solutions. But to refuse to use yellow-cake makes no sense since it can be simply put back into the earth, from whence it came to begin with.

Those who see business as the enemy are not thinking clearly. Especially when compared to government.

It is the combination of big business and government that creates a juggernaut that decimates the environment. If government was not influenced by big business, then business would have to consider it's impact on the environment, and invest in the appropriate technology. As it is big business seem to get a free pass.

Mister D
03-24-2014, 09:16 PM
It is the combination of big business and government that creates a juggernaut that decimates the environment. If government was not influenced by big business, then business would have to consider it's impact on the environment, and invest in the appropriate technology. As it is big business seem to get a free pass.

no, it's a way of life that decimates the environment. We consume so much I don't how we can allow ourselves get away with talking about "big business and government". Our habits have to change.

Dr. Who
03-24-2014, 09:41 PM
no, it's a way of life that decimates the environment. We consume so much I don't how we can allow ourselves get away with talking about "big business and government". Our habits have to change.

Yes they do. But until government and business break their unholy alliance, people will continue along the same path that advances business at the expense of human health and the environment.

nic34
03-24-2014, 10:26 PM
They love to quote this magic 97 percent being persuaded.

Little do they understand that it takes 100 percent for it to be true, not 97 percent true.

I am persuaded by some of the world's finest of the finest climate experts who do not accept that man runs around ruining Earth to the extent climate is changed forever.

And nothing pleases the warmers.

Nothing we do pleases them.

And you continue to post political nonsense. Who even brings up Al Gore besides you?

nic34
03-24-2014, 10:30 PM
It is the combination of big business and government that creates a juggernaut that decimates the environment. If government was not influenced by big business, then business would have to consider it's impact on the environment, and invest in the appropriate technology. As it is big business seem to get a free pass.

Corporations should have a finite lifespan.

You know, just like the people that have the same "rights".

Max Rockatansky
03-24-2014, 10:50 PM
Corporations should have a finite lifespan.

You know, just like the people that have the same "rights".

Agreed. I was watching a documentary earlier which mentioned corporations having the rights of citizens came about shortly after the 14th Amendment was passed.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 04:33 AM
no, it's a way of life that decimates the environment. We consume so much I don't how we can allow ourselves get away with talking about "big business and government". Our habits have to change.

Or our science has to advance....

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 04:33 AM
Corporations should have a finite lifespan.

You know, just like the people that have the same "rights".

They used to. And had to have a very specific charter.

Chris
03-25-2014, 06:09 AM
Deniers of what? Do you even suspect democrats have genuine solutions?

Deniers predominate among Republicans, alarmists among Democrats, just two sides the same coin.

Chris
03-25-2014, 06:11 AM
Peter's first post was wrong, as I explained in Post #34.


Do you think it is possible to identify a trend from one data point? You do realize the red line represents where the ice typically was just a few years ago. If you think this is "dominating", keep in mind it's February when Arctic is usually at it's maximum. Maybe you should see what September looks like (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/).



Nor is "a few years" a trend.

Chris
03-25-2014, 06:13 AM
And you continue to post political nonsense. Who even brings up Al Gore besides you?



Al is the patron saint of warmist despite science disavowing his wild claims.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 06:50 AM
Nor is "a few years" a trend.

Two points define a line. A line is a "trend". However, it could be highly in accurate. Especially if using a short term trend to project long term ones.
Al is the patron saint of warmist despite science disavowing his wild claims.

Agreed on "patron saint", not quite true on science disavowing all of his claims. Gore is guilty of politicizing global warming. His "we're all gonna DIE if we don't do something NOW"-style hysteria is both wrong and disruptive. Many of the facts he presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" are correct.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 07:00 AM
Two points define a line. A line is a "trend". However, it could be highly in accurate. Especially if using a short term trend to project long term ones.

4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Our only way of measuring beyond human scripting is to look at polar ice and tree rings. This is an imprecise science in that it can only measure within points before extrapolating.

Trends that came even within 100,000 years against 4.5 billion can't be considered Gospel.

I don't doubt that the planet is warming and I also recognize that certain life forms, coral for an example, are highly sensitive to slight changes in temperatures. However, I'm not sure that this is man made given the size of the planet. The planet used to be quite hot, hot enough to house and maintain large animals like dinosaurs for millions of years. According to "scientists" forests covered 90% of the Earth's landmass.


Just before the dinosaurs went extinct the forests changed as angiosperms – flowering plants – made an appearance. "Flowering trees similar to present-day magnolias took off, bringing color and scent to the world for the first time," says Peralta-Medina. The angiosperms gradually spread over habitats previously dominated by the conifers; by the end of the Cretaceous they are the most common tree species.As well as mapping the fossil forests, the team gathered measurements of tree rings from samples of fossil trees and from earlier studies, and found that Cretaceous trees grew twice as fast as their modern counterparts, particularly nearer to the poles.
The reason for this baking hot climate seems to have been extremely high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - at least 1000 parts per million (ppm) compared to 393 ppm today.
"If carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise unabated, we will hit Cretaceous levels in less than 250 years," explains Falcon-Lang. "If that happens, we could see forests return to Antarctica."
More information: Peralta-Medina, E, Falcon-Lang, HJ, 2012. Cretaceous forest composition and productivity inferred from a global fossil wood database. Geology 40(3) doi: 10.1130/G32733.1
The Daily Galaxy via Geology (http://geology.com/) and PlanetEarth Online (http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/)

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/ecoalert-earth-was-stifling-hot-during-peak-age-of-dinosaurs-1.html

I'm not sure they were using vehicles back then, although that would be kinda cool if they had.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:23 AM
Two points define a line. A line is a "trend". However, it could be highly in accurate. Especially if using a short term trend to project long term ones.

Agreed on "patron saint", not quite true on science disavowing all of his claims. Gore is guilty of politicizing global warming. His "we're all gonna DIE if we don't do something NOW"-style hysteria is both wrong and disruptive. Many of the facts he presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" are correct.



Read up on the 15, no, 16 year lull in the rise in temps. It was first reported by Curry at 10 years. The scientific community considered it and said, no, 10 years is not enough for a trend, need to wait 15 years for it to be significant.

That's a trend when it comes to climate, not a few years.


As for Gore...

Al Gore’s ‘melting’ Antarctic claims refuted by reality — Climate Depot’s A-Z Global Warming Report counters Gore (http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/02/02/read-all-about-it-al-gores-melting-antarctic-claims-refuted-by-reality-climate-depots-az-global-warming-report-counters-gore/)
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html)
Gore's B.S. Science Claims Refuted By -- Science (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2761180/posts)
New Scientific Research Refutes Many Of Al Gore's Climate Claims (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message406285/pg1)

Just the tip of the iceberg there.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 07:35 AM
There wasn't a "lull" in warming, the planet continued to warm, there was a shift in the rate of warming.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 07:42 AM
4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Our only way of measuring beyond human scripting is to look at polar ice and tree rings. This is an imprecise science in that it can only measure within points before extrapolating.

Trends that came even within 100,000 years against 4.5 billion can't be considered Gospel.

Disagreed. The planet has evolved in the past 4.5 billion years. To say we should include molten rock and an atmosphere of methane and very little free oxygen in our trend analysis for the present situation of the next few hundred years would need some explanation on why that is so important.

http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science-oxygen-atmosphere-01413.html

Polar ice core samples give an accurate record of over 200,000 years. That's a pretty good trend analysis. Extrapolating that trend for a million years much less a billion years would be silly but using it to predict a pattern over the next thousand years, 0.5% of the total trend, is reasonable.

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html

Mister D
03-25-2014, 07:47 AM
Or our science has to advance....

It has tremendously but our 'needs' continue to keep pace. The problem isn't science or technology per se but our seemingly limitness desires.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 07:52 AM
Disagreed. The planet has evolved in the past 4.5 billion years. To say we should include molten rock and an atmosphere of methane and very little free oxygen in our trend analysis for the present situation of the next few hundred years would need some explanation on why that is so important.

http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science-oxygen-atmosphere-01413.html

I am rather confused as to your position. You aren't being very clear.

1. Can you explain planet evolution for me in your words?
2. Can you explain how molten lava or rock has anything to do with evolution?
3. Why do you think that human and animal life are so different? The earth has had organic life for billions of years and animal life for hundreds of millions.

I swear, I am clueless as to what you're trying to say.


Polar ice core samples give an accurate record of over 200,000 years. That's a pretty good trend analysis. Extrapolating that trend for a million years much less a billion years would be silly but using it to predict a pattern over the next thousand years, 0.5% of the total trend, is reasonable.

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html

200,000 years is not much in a lifecycle of 4.5 billion and that ice also doesn't tell a complete story when human civilization can only be tracked back to 6,000 to know habits. If you're saying its man-made conclusively, which you seem to be, you need to have more data than what you're providing--or what other people are providing.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:58 AM
There wasn't a "lull" in warming, the planet continued to warm, there was a shift in the rate of warming.

"Lull" may have been a poor choice in words but temps have been flat for 15-16 years now.

http://i.snag.gy/hYskm.jpg

This is especially striking since CO2 levels continue to rise, and, while we know it's far more complicated, most alarmist models predict CO2 rise drives temp rise

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 08:37 AM
200,000 years is not much in a lifecycle of 4.5 billion and that ice also doesn't tell a complete story when human civilization can only be tracked back to 6,000 to know habits. If you're saying its man-made conclusively, which you seem to be, you need to have more data than what you're providing--or what other people are providing.

No it's not, but to claim that 200,000 years doesn't mean anything and that no trends can be established from it is silly.

Everything I've read indicates the present situation is a combination of a natural warming trend combined with the effects of the industrial age.

As stated on several occasions, I'll be dead well before the end of the century. Y'all do what you want.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 08:47 AM
No it's not, but to claim that 200,000 years doesn't mean anything and that no trends can be established from it is silly.

Everything I've read indicates the present situation is a combination of a natural warming trend combined with the effects of the industrial age.

As stated on several occasions, I'll be dead well before the end of the century. Y'all do what you want.


I still would like to better understand what you meant by the planet evolution comment and rocks and lava. Evolution is a biological process.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 08:57 AM
I still would like to better understand what you meant by the planet evolution comment and rocks and lava. Evolution is a biological process.

Correct. The Earth evolved from a hot, molten lifeless ball into the blue oasis teeming with life as we see today.

Contrails
03-25-2014, 08:57 AM
I am not saying it is the evidence of the trend, but I do happen to recall scientists telling us we were involved in a mass cooling age.
What you recall are reports in the press (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf) that we're heading into an ice age, but even back in 1970's a majority of the science literature (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) supported a warming trend.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 08:58 AM
Correct. The Earth evolved from a hot, molten lifeless ball into the blue oasis teeming with life as we see today.

That's not what you implied. You implied that rock evolves, hence my confusion. So in the lifecycle of the earth, why have extreme heat spells?

nic34
03-25-2014, 09:02 AM
Carefull contrails, they'll remind you that SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is not "SCIENTIFIC-y".

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 09:04 AM
That's not what you implied. You implied that rock evolves, hence my confusion. So in the lifecycle of the earth, why have extreme heat spells?

I think you just like to argue.

Green Arrow
03-25-2014, 09:05 AM
Carefull contrails, they'll remind you that SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is not "SCIENTIFIC-y".

Do you have anything to add besides unnecessary snark? There are individuals I expect this tactic from. You're not one of them.

nic34
03-25-2014, 09:06 AM
Do you have anything to add besides unnecessary snark? There are individuals I expect this tactic from. You're not one of them.

Just giving back....:wink:

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 09:33 AM
The phrase: knows enough to be dangerous, should apply.

I've had enough hard sciences in my academic career to know a good resume, but I will admit that my limited knowledge should give me pause. Climate science is the study of trends over 4.5 billion years and is only as good as the data. For a complex system like the planet I would think more of a healthy respect is in order.

Unfortunately, the adage of correlation is not causation is ignored because of the "tempo". I understand that sentiment, but it's just not good enough for artificial fixes.

I am again pollution in general because that is a controlled experiment and we can see and know that these chemicals are not good for us, but to say that man alone is responsible for the changes in the earth, to me, is allowing fear to overrule common sense and that is not scientific.

The hottest the planet has ever been was a period of hundreds of millions of years when dinosaurs, not man, ruled the earth. Why was it so hot? Why when we know there was volcanic activity and plate tectonics in high gear as it the hottest period on the earth?

I have more questions than answers and when all I see is: this correlates to this, and the pause can be correlated to that

I get nervous.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 09:35 AM
And, btw, all of us arguing now will go google articles that support our theories. In the field of archaeology this is called "esiogesic" or "isogesic" reasoning. When we have a religious belief we find evidence to support it. When we believe that man made global warming happen we'll find that evidence to support it.

This is just bad.

I'd rather just admit I don't know and keep questioning.

Mister D
03-25-2014, 09:36 AM
I thought this debate was over?

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 09:46 AM
I thought this debate was over?

In reality it is.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 09:47 AM
I thought this debate was over?

Apparently not. For the most part it doesn't matter to me except on a curiosity level.

Chris
03-25-2014, 10:08 AM
What you recall are reports in the press (http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf) that we're heading into an ice age, but even back in 1970's a majority of the science literature (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) supported a warming trend.



Just can't get out of the old habit of thinking of science authoritatively, as consensus or majority opinion. That's politics, not science.

Chris
03-25-2014, 10:10 AM
Carefull contrails, they'll remind you that SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is not "SCIENTIFIC-y".



It's not and he's already been reminded but old habits are hard to break.

Chris
03-25-2014, 10:11 AM
That's not what you implied. You implied that rock evolves, hence my confusion. So in the lifecycle of the earth, why have extreme heat spells?

I think what was meant was just change, not mutation, selection and inheritance.

Chris
03-25-2014, 10:13 AM
Just giving back....:wink:


Learn to distinguish between attacking messengers and messages. Seems those who attack messengers, as you've been doing, always claim they've been attacked, when in reality it's your messages that have. Your messages are not you, nic.

Chris
03-25-2014, 10:17 AM
And, btw, all of us arguing now will go google articles that support our theories. In the field of archaeology this is called "esiogesic" or "isogesic" reasoning. When we have a religious belief we find evidence to support it. When we believe that man made global warming happen we'll find that evidence to support it.

This is just bad.

I'd rather just admit I don't know and keep questioning.



Judith Curry on Climate Change (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html) addresses that, our natural biases. First step is of course recognizing them, second is being open to opposing opinions.

midcan5
03-25-2014, 11:45 AM
My God, you are positively worthless.
Ethereal, Alyosha

Thanks, I always appreciate 'positive' comments. Scientific proof the earth is flat and you can prove it yourself. You have seen the ocean, rivers, or a lake right? You agree there is lots of water in those places. Now get a basketball, round correct? Now pore water on the basketball, notice the water flows around and off the ball. So obviously if the earth were round the water would flow off. There would be no ocean lake or river. See you are now a scientist, just like the scientists who claimed smoking never hurt anyone, or global warming is a myth. Of course unlike paid corporate think tank scientists you won't be paid, but maybe some day you too can cast doubt. Easy huh.

And for those who do not simply parrot corporate talking points, check out the book below. And please don't cry on-line because my thoughts differ from yours, only one of us can be right. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8


2013 news on GW.


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htmhttp://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htm


http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Global-warming-will-go-on-for-centuries-WMO-20140324


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274510.php

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 11:50 AM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

Thanks, I always appreciate 'positive' comments. Scientific proof the earth is flat and you can prove it yourself. You have seen the ocean, rivers, or a lake right? You agree there is lots of water in those places. Now get a basketball, round correct? Now pore water on the basketball, notice the water flows around and off the ball. So obviously if the earth were round the water would flow off. There would be no ocean lake or river. See you are now a scientist, just like the scientists who claimed smoking never hurt anyone, or global warming is a myth. Of course unlike paid corporate think tank scientists you won't be paid, but maybe some day you too can cast doubt. Easy huh.

And for those who do not simply parrot corporate talking points, check out the book below. And please don't cry on-line because my thoughts differ from yours, only one of us can be right. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8


2013 news on GW.


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htmhttp://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htm


http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Global-warming-will-go-on-for-centuries-WMO-20140324


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274510.php

Post of the week.

... from an unlikely source too.

Contrails
03-25-2014, 11:50 AM
I don't doubt that the planet is warming and I also recognize that certain life forms, coral for an example, are highly sensitive to slight changes in temperatures. However, I'm not sure that this is man made given the size of the planet.

Do you doubt that Earth is about 33 °C warmer than it would be if our atmosphere didn't contain gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, and O3?

Contrails
03-25-2014, 12:02 PM
"Lull" may have been a poor choice in words but temps have been flat for 15-16 years now.

This is especially striking since CO2 levels continue to rise, and, while we know it's far more complicated, most alarmist models predict CO2 rise drives temp rise

Do you know that global mean temperature was also flat from about 1940 to 1970 before rising again from 1970 until 2000? Did it ever occur to you that there is a non-linear function superimposed on top of CO2's linear response resulting in a pattern of rise, pause, rise, etc.?

Contrails
03-25-2014, 12:03 PM
I still would like to better understand what you meant by the planet evolution comment and rocks and lava. Evolution is a biological process.

Evolution with a big 'E' is a biological process. Evolution with a little 'e' as Max used it can apply to anything that changes, including planets. Ever hear of stellar evolution?

Ravi
03-25-2014, 12:06 PM
Rocks evolve:

http://www.economist.com/node/12592248

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:19 PM
Post of the week.

... from an unlikely source too.


For utter nonsense, like "Now pore water on the basketball, notice the water flows around and off the ball. So obviously if the earth were round the water would flow off." it damn well takes the cake.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:21 PM
Do you know that global mean temperature was also flat from about 1940 to 1970 before rising again from 1970 until 2000? Did it ever occur to you that there is a non-linear function superimposed on top of CO2's linear response resulting in a pattern of rise, pause, rise, etc.?

Sure, but from 1940 to 1970 were alarmists insisting, by popular demand, on the rise of temps as they do now? No, they weren't, but they do now, and those predictions don't make sense.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:21 PM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

Thanks, I always appreciate 'positive' comments. Scientific proof the earth is flat and you can prove it yourself. You have seen the ocean, rivers, or a lake right? You agree there is lots of water in those places. Now get a basketball, round correct? Now pore water on the basketball, notice the water flows around and off the ball. So obviously if the earth were round the water would flow off. There would be no ocean lake or river. See you are now a scientist, just like the scientists who claimed smoking never hurt anyone, or global warming is a myth. Of course unlike paid corporate think tank scientists you won't be paid, but maybe some day you too can cast doubt. Easy huh.

And for those who do not simply parrot corporate talking points, check out the book below. And please don't cry on-line because my thoughts differ from yours, only one of us can be right. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8


2013 news on GW.


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htmhttp://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htm


http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Global-warming-will-go-on-for-centuries-WMO-20140324


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274510.php

Why do you keep talking about the curvature of the Earth? Are you senile or something?

And stop acting like you have the first clue about the science behind man-made climate change. You sound like you're an English major or something.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:22 PM
Rocks evolve:

http://www.economist.com/node/12592248


The most basic three pillars of evolution are mutation, selection and inheritance. Now, based on your finding, ravi, explain how rocks do that.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 12:29 PM
The most basic three pillars of evolution are mutation, selection and inheritance. Now, based on your finding, ravi, explain how rocks do that.

Can a mountain range evolve? A project? Of course. As Contrails mentioned previously, it's the difference between big E evolution and little e. Another way of looking at it is biological evolution versus evolution in general.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:29 PM
Any of the warming proponents who have the stones are more than welcome to address my thread in the current events section: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23915-APS-to-Review-Statement-on-Climate-Change

Apparently, the APS thinks there is a debate worth having, which is strange, because cultists like Oblivious have told us there is no debate. Who is right? Will Oblivious ever work up the intellectual integrity and courage to actually say something substantive instead of insulting and quipping from the sidelines? Only time will tell.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 12:31 PM
Do you know that global mean temperature was also flat from about 1940 to 1970 before rising again from 1970 until 2000? Did it ever occur to you that there is a non-linear function superimposed on top of CO2's linear response resulting in a pattern of rise, pause, rise, etc.?

Was that an indirect admission that average global temperatures have been flat during the 21st Century?

Ravi
03-25-2014, 12:31 PM
The most basic three pillars of evolution are mutation, selection and inheritance. Now, based on your finding, ravi, explain how rocks do that.
You can read, I assume, and google. If you disbelieve that rocks evolve, state why.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:34 PM
ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions


1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.



synonyms:
Darwinism (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=669&q=define+Darwinism&sa=X&ei=7L0xU8aGAfGa0gHq84DIAg&ved=0CCgQ_SowAA), natural selection (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=669&q=define+natural+selection&sa=X&ei=7L0xU8aGAfGa0gHq84DIAg&ved=0CCkQ_SowAA) More"his interest in evolution"











2.
the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.







1. Rocks are not organisms
2. Rocks don't become more complex, they become weathered.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:35 PM
I think you just like to argue.

And I think you like to dodge. When are you going to explain why, if NASA is so apolitical and scientific, that James Hansen has multiple arrests for disturbing the peace in political demonstrations. I'm sure you saw my post, which can only mean you just ignored (dodged) it for whatever reason.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:36 PM
If Rush said rocks evolved, every right wing lemming monkey would be arguing it to the death.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 12:38 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3KYNjbN72Ps/T0r3ShSh9BI/AAAAAAAAANI/EuZL6rXxARA/s1600/conspiracy keanu pet rock.jpg

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:38 PM
Can a mountain range evolve? A project? Of course. As Contrails mentioned previously, it's the difference between big E evolution and little e. Another way of looking at it is biological evolution versus evolution in general.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution


We're not speaking in a literary sense, we're speaking in a scientific sense and there is literally nogeologist who would make the statement that rocks evolve.

Mountain ranges undergo weathering or they rocks themselves are pushed higher by a shift in the plates, but those rocks existed prior and are not evolving. Their position is moved by pressure in the earth.

This is just turning into one of those moving goalposts of discussion where you refuse to admit that you're wrong.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:38 PM
In reality it is.

:rollseyes:

I guess the American Physical Society, which has a membership of over 50,000 physicists, exists in an alternate reality, because they are actively debating the issue as we speak. Maybe you should write them a letter and let them know that the debate is over in "reality".

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:39 PM
If Rush said rocks evolved, every right wing lemming monkey would be arguing it to the death.

Who cares? Seriously, I don't. I'd like for once on here to have an intellectual discussion with honest contributors. Contrails gives that and I appreciate it.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:40 PM
Can a mountain range evolve? A project? Of course. As Contrails mentioned previously, it's the difference between big E evolution and little e. Another way of looking at it is biological evolution versus evolution in general.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution



I understand you mean change. But in context the use of evolution led to confusion, easily cleared up by clarifying you just meant change.

I think ravi was just obfuscating for argument sake.



Never heard of big E and little e evolution. I suppose that's like big L and little l libertarian.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:40 PM
:rollseyes:

I guess the American Physical Society, which has a membership of over 50,000 physicists, exists in an alternate reality, because they are actively debating the issue as we speak. Maybe you should write them a letter and let them know that the debate is over in "reality".

http://www.posters.ws/images/846938/whoop_dee_fucking_do.jpg

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:42 PM
:rollseyes:

I guess the American Physical Society, which has a membership of over 50,000 physicists, exists in an alternate reality, because they are actively debating the issue as we speak. Maybe you should write them a letter and let them know that the debate is over in "reality".



Saw your thread on that, good post.

I did notice though that while they include warmists and skeptics, they exclude deniers. Personally I see little difference between warmists and deniers and consider most scientists skeptics.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:42 PM
From Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02)



The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.


The explanation

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.


The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:42 PM
Do you doubt that Earth is about 33 °C warmer than it would be if our atmosphere didn't contain gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, and O3?

Do you doubt that CO2's radiative forcing is logarithmic? Or that the feedback mechanisms which amplify CO2's forcing in the consensus models are assumed to be positive even though there is an active debate within the physics community as to whether or not that is true? I've been reading through the APS working group debate on this very issue and I can tell you that the word "uncertainty" shows up quite a bit in their discussions.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:43 PM
http://www.posters.ws/images/846938/whoop_dee_fucking_do.jpg

Exactly as I expected. You are nothing more than an intellectually dishonest coward.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:44 PM
http://www.posters.ws/images/846938/whoop_dee_fucking_do.jpg



Thank you Cigar for your contributions to this thread.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:44 PM
ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions


1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.



synonyms:
Darwinism (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=669&q=define+Darwinism&sa=X&ei=7L0xU8aGAfGa0gHq84DIAg&ved=0CCgQ_SowAA), natural selection (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=669&q=define+natural+selection&sa=X&ei=7L0xU8aGAfGa0gHq84DIAg&ved=0CCkQ_SowAA) More"his interest in evolution"











2.
the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.







1. Rocks are not organisms
2. Rocks don't become more complex, they become weathered.



But

http://i.snag.gy/cu9Ja.jpg

nic34
03-25-2014, 12:45 PM
:rollseyes:

I guess the American Physical Society, which has a membership of over 50,000 physicists, exists in an alternate reality, because they are actively debating the issue as we speak. Maybe you should write them a letter and let them know that the debate is over in "reality".

Let us know when they reach a "consensus."


Like this one:


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:46 PM
You can read, I assume, and google. If you disbelieve that rocks evolve, state why.

Was just asking you for your explanation. Sorry.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:47 PM
Let us know when they reach a "consensus."


Like this one:


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus



I thought it was just Congress but you even want to impose majoritarian rule on science as well. Progressive purging of dissent and opposition.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:47 PM
Thank you Cigar for your contributions to this thread.

Arguing with the institutionally insane is a waste of time.

It's more fun to mock them.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:47 PM
Saw your thread on that, good post.

I did notice though that while they include warmists and skeptics, they exclude deniers. Personally I see little difference between warmists and deniers and consider most scientists skeptics.

I would characterize them as pro- and con-AGW, and I've been reading their discussions in the working group. Lindzen does a very good job of articulating where a lot of the model uncertainty arises from, which are the feedback mechanisms. At present, that is an active point of contention within the broader scientific community.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:49 PM
What is the single common ancestor of rocks?

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:50 PM
Let us know when they reach a "consensus."


Like this one:


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

... but ... but... but...

... it's the APS!

... but, but... but

... Rush said!

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:50 PM
Arguing with the institutionally insane is a waste of time.

It's more fun to mock them.

No offence because I do like you, but do you actually understand what Contrails is saying and can you describe the process of global climate change from his POV?

I think you're just going with it because you see most people are going with it.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to know it.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:50 PM
What is the single common ancestor of rocks?

You're moniker is one of them?

Ravi
03-25-2014, 12:51 PM
We're not speaking in a literary sense, we're speaking in a scientific sense and there is literally nogeologist who would make the statement that rocks evolve.


this guy would probably disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_L._Bowen

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:52 PM
I would characterize them as pro- and con-AGW, and I've been reading their discussions in the working group. Lindzen does a very good job of articulating where a lot of the model uncertainty arises from, which are the feedback mechanisms. At present, that is an active point of contention within the broader scientific community.

True, contention. If Lindzen is like Curry, though, it's a position that questions the models, but doesn't go so far as to deny them. The models are today's best guesses for what Curry calls a wicked problem, so complex in variables no one really understands (like Hayek described economics).

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:53 PM
No offence because I do like you, but do you actually understand what Contrails is saying and can you describe the process of global climate change from his POV?

I think you're just going with it because you see most people are going with it.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to know it.

No offense taken, I'm not sure you could offend me to be honest.

I've heard all of these arguments before, trust me. I prefer "discussions". Once it becomes a "debate" I run like hell.

Sitting around watching people cherry pick data/information to support an argument while ignoring data/information that doesn't support their argument...

... no thanks, I'd rather watch fleas fucking.

I'd rather participate in a pygmie orgie.

Chris
03-25-2014, 12:53 PM
this guy would probably disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_L._Bowen


IOW, even geologists speak in metaphors to help laypeople understand.

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 12:57 PM
No offence because I do like you, but do you actually understand what Contrails is saying and can you describe the process of global climate change from his POV?

I think you're just going with it because you see most people are going with it.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to know it.

Plus, denial is part of the RWNJ cookbook to be a conservative.

All good little conservatives believe climate change is false because Rush tells them to, so I'm a bleeding heart liberal because I don't follow in lock-step with the massah's gameplan.

People are fucking sheep sometimes, incapable of thinking independently.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 12:57 PM
Let us know when they reach a "consensus."

How many times do AGW proponents have to be told that science has nothing to do with "consensus". This is not a popularity contest.


Like this one:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

The APS is a major element of the consensus and they are in the process of reviewing their position.

It's also worth noting that the consensus keeps changing from year-to-year as the IPCC issues revisions to their estimates on climate sensitivity and projected future warming based upon new evidence. For all you know, the consensus could swing wildly in the other direction next year. That is because science is not done by consensus but by falsification and evidence.

As for the claim that "97% of climate scientists agree", that is based upon junk statistical methodology which arbitrarily defines "climate scientist" to mean only those people who publish papers on AGW. The study does not contain a representative sample of scientists in general, which means valid statistical inferences can not be made from it, except to say that people who study AGW for a living support AGW. Big shocker there!

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 12:59 PM
Let us know when they reach a "consensus."


Like this one:


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

NASA says "yes" and Russia's Federal Space Agency says "no".

http://www.roscosmos.ru/

Is your consensus better because you're the USA?

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:01 PM
Plus, denial is part of the RWNJ cookbook to be a conservative.

All good little conservatives believe climate change is false because Rush tells them to, so I'm a bleeding heart liberal because I don't follow in lock-step with the massah's gameplan.

People are fucking sheep sometimes, incapable of thinking independently.


Whilst I agree with RWNJ and LWNJ denials to their particular persuasions being de rigueur... Ethereal from what I know, and I'll confess it is Alyosha and Codename that I know in real life and he through her and him, is a bit of a pro-drug, pro-gay marriage, pro-sex trade bohemian and not exactly a "right winger".

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:01 PM
... but ... but... but...

... it's the APS!

... but, but... but

... Rush said!

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

So the APS is not a credible scientific organization? They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh in your deluded mind?

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:02 PM
You're moniker is one of them?

Good one. :)

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:04 PM
Arguing with the institutionally insane is a waste of time.

It's more fun to mock them.

You are nothing more than a deluded troll who is too afraid to debate the issue in a serious and substantive manner. At least contrails is educated and intellectually serious enough to produce cogent and coherent counter-arguments. You, on the other hand, provide nothing but juvenile commentary and worthless visual distractions. Someone get this dimwit a coloring book.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:04 PM
this guy would probably disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_L._Bowen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license

See how wiki works?

I can speak to the evolution of rock music, it doesn't mean I'm speaking in scientific terms but common terminology. I've already explained via Berkeley, an American uni, in their words why it is not the same.

But feel free to google to your hearts context and wiki like it won't stop.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:06 PM
From Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02)


The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.


The explanation

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.


The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

nic34
03-25-2014, 01:06 PM
I thought it was just Congress but you even want to impose majoritarian rule on science as well. Progressive purging of dissent and opposition.

National politics is similar to the scientific understanding of the world.... just how?

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:07 PM
No offense taken, I'm not sure you could offend me to be honest.

I've heard all of these arguments before, trust me. I prefer "discussions". Once it becomes a "debate" I run like hell.

Sitting around watching people cherry pick data/information to support an argument while ignoring data/information that doesn't support their argument...

... no thanks, I'd rather watch fleas fucking.

I'd rather participate in a pygmie orgie.

Yet, you are still here, contributing absolutely nothing of substance or intelligence.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 01:08 PM
So the APS is not a credible scientific organization? They are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh in your deluded mind?
If the APS decides, on review, that climate change/global warming are fact, you'll believe them?

Chris
03-25-2014, 01:08 PM
National politics is similar to the scientific understanding of the world.... just how?

That's what I was challenging you on, nic. You seem to treat both the same, or should I say dissent and opposition in both with the same disdain.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:09 PM
Plus, denial is part of the RWNJ cookbook to be a conservative.

All good little conservatives believe climate change is false because Rush tells them to, so I'm a bleeding heart liberal because I don't follow in lock-step with the massah's gameplan.

People are fucking sheep sometimes, incapable of thinking independently.

Keep thrashing those strawmen. It's a great way to evade serious discussion of the issue.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:10 PM
I posted a poll here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/23938-Is-Ethereal-a-Right-Wing-Nut-Job


Is Ethereal a Right Wing Nutter?

The debate is not over.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:12 PM
I think the planet is warming by a degree. One more degree and we'll have coral white out. Will we become tropical soon? I highly doubt it. It is worthwhile, however to save coral, IMO.

Chris
03-25-2014, 01:12 PM
If the APS decides, on review, that climate change/global warming are fact, you'll believe them?


It simply not so simple as "climate change/global warming are fact", ravi. It's more a matter how much we're contributing, whether or not we can't reverse what we may have done, or whether we should consider adapting (back to evolution of a sorts) to it. And more complex than I care to get into.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 01:13 PM
No one actually stated "biological evolution" so yeah, rocks do evolve but maybe not in your black and white sense of the word.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:15 PM
No one actually stated "biological evolution" so yeah, rocks do evolve but maybe not in your black and white sense of the word.

So does my fashion sense, but that's not what we were speaking of.

The planet's organisms create a system. People are part of that system, as are animals and plant life, which was the original posit.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:16 PM
If the APS decides, on review, that climate change/global warming are fact, you'll believe them?

That is not the issue at hand. Some people have asserted that the "debate is over". Clearly, that is not the case, nor will it ever be the case as long as scientists adhere to the strictures of the scientific method. That is why the APS has a policy of periodically reviewing their positions every five years, because they understand that theories and explanatory models are tentative by their very nature.

Also, the debate is not over the veracity of climate change/global warming - virtually every serious person, including myself, accepts that they are occurring in fact - the debate is over what variables are causing it to occur and to what extent each variable is responsible.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 01:17 PM
That is not the issue at hand. Some people have asserted that the "debate is over". Clearly, that is not the case, nor will it ever be the case as long as scientists adhere to the strictures of the scientific method. That is why the APS has a policy of periodically reviewing their positions every five years, because they understand that theories and explanatory models are tentative by their very nature.

Also, the debate is not over the veracity of climate change/global warming - virtually every serious person, including myself, accepts that they are occurring in fact - the debate is over what variables are causing it to occur and to what extent each variable is responsible.


This is what goes flying right over heads on here. If you're not part of the cult you must disagree with global warming.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 01:20 PM
That is not the issue at hand. Some people have asserted that the "debate is over". Clearly, that is not the case, nor will it ever be the case as long as scientists adhere to the strictures of the scientific method. That is why the APS has a policy of periodically reviewing their positions every five years, because they understand that theories and explanatory models are tentative by their very nature.

Also, the debate is not over the veracity of climate change/global warming - virtually every serious person, including myself, accepts that they are occurring in fact - the debate is over what variables are causing it to occur and to what extent each variable is responsible.
The only person I've seen state the debate is over is the OP.

There must be a lot of non-serious posters here as I've seen many of them that seemingly do not believe the earth is getting warmer.

But thanks for the answer. I think it would be ludicrous to conclude that the earth can suck up all the crap we throw at it. And that seems to be the belief of your average RWNJ.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 01:25 PM
No offence because I do like you, but do you actually understand what Contrails is saying and can you describe the process of global climate change from his POV?

I think you're just going with it because you see most people are going with it.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy to know it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of what Contrails is saying is that there is not a 1 to 1 linear relationship between CO2 levels and warming.

Billions of termites are farting methane into the atmosphere. That's a factor.

"Albido is the rate at which heat is reflected back into the atmosphere. A high albido happens with light colours for example grass, whilst a low albido occurs with dark colours such as tarmac. Therefore high albido occurs in the countryside and low albido in the cities."
Therefore, if your weather station was surrounded by a meadow in 1950, and now it's surrounded by a parking lot, that's going to influence your temp readings. The 33 million pop city of Wuhan in China increases ablido. Chopping down the rainforest increases albido.

Particulates in the atmosphere block sunlight. That's the global dimming effect. So, the burning of coal not only contributes to warming, but also contributes to cooling. Imagine a greenhouse with dirty glass.

It should go without saying that there has never been a time when global temperatures weren't either warming or cooling. We've had 4 ice ages during the last 200 or so million years (off the top of my head, don't quote me on that). And then you've got your Holocene climatic optimum, which had nothing to do with human activity. It should be obvious that whatever is happening with the climate today could primarily be due to non-human factors.

The frustrating thing for open-minded people is that an organization like the National Science Foundation lobbies our public schools to defend to the last that the climate is warming and will continue to warm for centuries, and that the debate is over, and that the burning of fossil fuels are the primary factor to blame.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 01:26 PM
True, contention. If Lindzen is like Curry, though, it's a position that questions the models, but doesn't go so far as to deny them. The models are today's best guesses for what Curry calls a wicked problem, so complex in variables no one really understands (like Hayek described economics).

Freeman Dyson has been much less charitable towards the models than Curry.

"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
--Dyson (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html)

Chris
03-25-2014, 02:35 PM
This is what goes flying right over heads on here. If you're not part of the cult you must disagree with global warming.

It's that black and white thing some speak of but don't see in themselves.

Chris
03-25-2014, 02:37 PM
Freeman Dyson has been much less charitable towards the models than Curry.

"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
--Dyson (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html)


Yep, by that, he has. But these two skeptics are, I'll bet, given equal treatment as deniers by alarmists.

Green Arrow
03-25-2014, 04:01 PM
I thought this debate was over?

There is no such thing. As long as man's knowledge remains infinite, there will always be debate.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 04:31 PM
It has tremendously but our 'needs' continue to keep pace. The problem isn't science or technology per se but our seemingly limitness desires.

Clean, or cleaner energy is my point.

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 04:33 PM
@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

Thanks, I always appreciate 'positive' comments. Scientific proof the earth is flat and you can prove it yourself. You have seen the ocean, rivers, or a lake right? You agree there is lots of water in those places. Now get a basketball, round correct? Now pore water on the basketball, notice the water flows around and off the ball. So obviously if the earth were round the water would flow off. There would be no ocean lake or river. See you are now a scientist, just like the scientists who claimed smoking never hurt anyone, or global warming is a myth. Of course unlike paid corporate think tank scientists you won't be paid, but maybe some day you too can cast doubt. Easy huh.

And for those who do not simply parrot corporate talking points, check out the book below. And please don't cry on-line because my thoughts differ from yours, only one of us can be right. LOL


http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8


2013 news on GW.


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htmhttp://www.techtimes.com/articles/4759/20140325/humans-fault-extreme-weather-2013-un.htm


http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Global-warming-will-go-on-for-centuries-WMO-20140324


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/274510.php
midcan5

defer to Contrails for an intelligent poster who understands the subject matter you agree with. You've listened to no one and assumed everything.

Later!

Alyosha
03-25-2014, 04:38 PM
Do you doubt that Earth is about 33 °C warmer than it would be if our atmosphere didn't contain gases like H2O, CO2, CH4, and O3?

I believe that we've had some effect, but I don't believe that you can lay the entirety or even majority at the feet of man. Naturally, an increase in greenhouse gases will raise the temperature, but I don't necessarily believe that we're the sole culprit.

Honestly, I don't know. I do love science. Especially the study of the ancient earth, so when I read about climate change I think back millions of years, even billions, and look to see what caused it then, as well.

I think we should curb pollution but also be prudent and not rush to action that may not be in our best interests.

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:00 PM
I believe that we've had some effect, but I don't believe that you can lay the entirety or even majority at the feet of man. Naturally, an increase in greenhouse gases will raise the temperature, but I don't necessarily believe that we're the sole culprit.

Honestly, I don't know. I do love science. Especially the study of the ancient earth, so when I read about climate change I think back millions of years, even billions, and look to see what caused it then, as well.

I think we should curb pollution but also be prudent and not rush to action that may not be in our best interests.


Ask them to display facts supporting that the super tiny amount of Carbon Dioxide has had the impact they claim it has had. They might blame methane due to the enormous increase of all sorts of animals, humans, cows, etc. but they only blame carbon dioxide. Find out why.

CO2 comes in tiny parts per million. And the amount is super low, not high.

Fact is, the variations of temperature do not match the amount of carbon dioxide. Were Carbon Dioxide the driver, the temperature from year to year would never be lower than the past year, but a constant increase.

Non scientists won't notice that part.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 05:12 PM
Ask them to display facts supporting that the super tiny amount of Carbon Dioxide has had the impact they claim it has had. They might blame methane due to the enormous increase of all sorts of animals, humans, cows, etc. but they only blame carbon dioxide. Find out why.

CO2 comes in tiny parts per million. And the amount is super low, not high.

Fact is, the variations of temperature do not match the amount of carbon dioxide. Were Carbon Dioxide the driver, the temperature from year to year would never be lower than the past year, but a constant increase.

Non scientists won't notice that part.

There are a lot of natural processes that would not allow for a consistent year to year increase.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 05:21 PM
Yep, by that, he has. But these two skeptics are, I'll bet, given equal treatment as deniers by alarmists.

Dyson isn't a skeptic. He just thinks other things are more important than global warming.

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:27 PM
Freeman Dyson has been much less charitable towards the models than Curry.

"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."
--Dyson (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html)

More on Dyson

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/


Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:30 PM
Dyson isn't a skeptic. He just thinks other things are more important than global warming.

Except, Dyson is, along with Richard Lindzen some of the scientists who call boorah on this fraud.

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:32 PM
There are a lot of natural processes that would not allow for a consistent year to year increase.

That is true, however for it to be man made, for carbon dioxide to be the fault, what I said is totally true. I posted something to back this up. I believe it is also what Dyson reports who is a senior climate scientist.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 05:33 PM
Except, Dyson is, along with Richard Lindzen some of the scientists who call boorah on this fraud.

Sorry. Your hero believes in global warming. He just doesn't think it is very important.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 05:45 PM
Dyson isn't a skeptic.

How do you figure?


He just thinks other things are more important than global warming.

He thinks global warming is good for humans, or, at the very least, that is not anything to worry about.

And if they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed. That’s the crucial point: I don’t see the evidence...
-Dyson (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151)

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:46 PM
The only person I've seen state the debate is over is the OP.

There must be a lot of non-serious posters here as I've seen many of them that seemingly do not believe the earth is getting warmer.

But thanks for the answer. I think it would be ludicrous to conclude that the earth can suck up all the crap we throw at it. And that seems to be the belief of your average RWNJ.

I will try to explain it to you.

Suppose you read the LWNJ claim that by tossing ice cubes up into the air, you will cure global warming? Matter of fact, only one solution is proposed by the left. And it greatly harms humans. And it blames humans.

Curry, Dyson, Lindzen and many others would not risk harming humans by denouncing the silly claims it is mans's fault were the claims by Hanson, et al true.

If you enjoy being conned, We can't help that.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 05:46 PM
Sorry. Your hero believes in global warming. He just doesn't think it is very important.

Yes, he believes the globe is warming, but he does not believe that it is mostly man-made, which is what the entire debate between skeptics and the consensus crowd is all about. Dyson is entirely on the side of the skeptics.

"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic."
-Dyson (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html)

Ravi
03-25-2014, 05:50 PM
How do you figure?



He thinks global warming is good for humans, or, at the very least, that is not anything to worry about.

And if they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed. That’s the crucial point: I don’t see the evidence...
-Dyson (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151)

By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:51 PM
Sorry. Your hero believes in global warming. He just doesn't think it is very important.

You weaken your claims by calling him my hero. I believe in global warming. Most of us believe in it. I often cite the great lakes as evidence of global warming. Yosemite in it's remarkable beauty would still be held hostage by glaciers but for global warming.

No, my comments, were you to try to understand them, is that this time we rushed to judgment and blamed man. I simply, along with Richard Lindzen, Curry and Dyson and no doubt hundreds of others of like mind are not persuaded it is human's fault.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 05:51 PM
That has been asked before: is climate science a hard science? All I see is models based on data with lots of unknowns.


More on Dyson

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/freeman-dyson-speaks-out-about-climate-science-and-fudge/

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Bob
03-25-2014, 05:56 PM
By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?

[PERK] planting trees???? It pleases me to find that others believe what I believe. That if this is to be blamed on man, man can plant trees and lots of other plants. We have some trees, evergreens for instance, that suck up carbon dioxide every month of the year.

Think of programs on TV by various doctors. Doctor A tells you to do this. Doctor B tells you to not do A, but to do B. We all expect medicine to be a non exact science yet for some odd reason, democrats put full faith in one group who report on global climate.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 05:56 PM
By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

...there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities.


He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?

I would love to see people become more agrarian and in touch with the land. We should plant trees, flowers, bushes, crops, all of the above. I love the idea of making the earth a richer and more biologically diverse place to live.

Paperback Writer
03-25-2014, 05:59 PM
By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?

Yes. Good for the planet and the soul.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 05:59 PM
[PERK] planting trees???? It pleases me to find that others believe what I believe. That if this is to be blamed on man, man can plant trees and lots of other plants. We have some trees, evergreens for instance, that suck up carbon dioxide every month of the year.

Think of programs on TV by various doctors. Doctor A tells you to do this. Doctor B tells you to not do A, but to do B. We all expect medicine to be a non exact science yet for some odd reason, democrats put full faith in one group who report on global climate.

So you don't believe global warming exists and at the same time you think it can be fixed by planting trees.

Fascinating.

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:00 PM
That has been asked before: is climate science a hard science? All I see is models based on data with lots of unknowns.

Compare it to medicine. If some doctor tells you to do A and you will be cured of cancer, and some other doctor reports that A won't work, you will find some who believe in one side or the other. Both may be wrong.

It might be that in special cases, what A does works, yet for the rest of us, won't work. And that is on the human body that is a closed system.

Climate is not a closed system. I think of it like you might think of all those soap bubbles. Bubbles all over the earth.

That is one reason I do not accept that they can be averaged to produce some results with merit.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 06:00 PM
...there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities.



I would love to see people become more agrarian and in touch with the land. We should plant trees, flowers, bushes, crops, all of the above. I love the idea of making the earth a richer and more biologically diverse place to live.At least we agree on something.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 06:02 PM
I'm still not convinced that the planet is warming. We can babble for pages and pages without anyone linking to any sort of graph that shows that. I don't know how reliable this graph is, but it shows we've returned to 1997 levels;
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/Fig1MoS.jpg

And anyway, have we really had the same instruments measuring temperature in the same places with the same surroundings (albido) consistently for any useful length of time?

Will the next 20 years be warming or cooling? I'll wait and see. I think it's a coin flip. In the meantime, I'll maintain my relatively light carbon footprint, by Californian standards. I'm an anti-consumer. Everything you buy has an environmental cost attached to it, even if it's a pair of hemp yoga pants.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 06:06 PM
By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?

To comment further on planting trees, I really like the idea of intensive living. It always struck me as mad that people in the suburbs have grass lawns when they could be growing food and trees and wild grasses instead. There is so much idle land and soil that we could be putting to good use in urban and suburban environs, that it just seems wasteful not to do anything about it. We need more healthy food and cleaner water and air and I think encouraging agrarian/urban hybrid lifestyles will go a long way to help achieve that.

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:08 PM
So you don't believe global warming exists and at the same time you think it can be fixed by planting trees.

Fascinating.

Why did you say that?

It has warmed. I simply do not blame humans.

As I told Peter, one can look at this problem as if earth is covered with soap bubbles. Each bubble represents climate. For instance, the bubble over Sahara clearly is not like those at Antarctica. This goes part of the way to explaining faults with models.

The math for climate is way over the top being complex. Nobody has a handle on what happens. We can be in a clear sky bubble today but tomorrow be in a bubble loaded by storms.

Anyway, you are not getting it.

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:14 PM
That has been asked before: is climate science a hard science? All I see is models based on data with lots of unknowns.

Models that are not reliable.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 06:15 PM
To comment further on planting trees, I really like the idea of intensive living. It always struck me as mad that people in the suburbs have grass lawns when they could be growing food and trees and wild grasses instead. There is so much idle land and soil that we could be putting to good use in urban and suburban environs, that it just seems wasteful not to do anything about it. We need more healthy food and cleaner water and air and I think encouraging agrarian/urban hybrid lifestyles will go a long way to help achieve that.
Grass is actually now thought to be a pretty good way to combat CO2 pollution.

I think we can agree on a simple concept. Pollution is harmful. It doesn't really matter if it causes global warming in the long run.

Ravi
03-25-2014, 06:17 PM
Why did you say that?

It has warmed. I simply do not blame humans.

As I told Peter, one can look at this problem as if earth is covered with soap bubbles. Each bubble represents climate. For instance, the bubble over Sahara clearly is not like those at Antarctica. This goes part of the way to explaining faults with models.

The math for climate is way over the top being complex. Nobody has a handle on what happens. We can be in a clear sky bubble today but tomorrow be in a bubble loaded by storms.

Anyway, you are not getting it.

No, I don't get that what we do doesn't affect the atmosphere. Sorry.

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:27 PM
No one actually stated "biological evolution" so yeah, rocks do evolve but maybe not in your black and white sense of the word.

Tell me, given you have posted for a period of time, have you evolved at all?

It seems you showed up blaming humans for warming Earth. In what way have you evolved?

It seems you believe in Obama. How have you evolved?

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:29 PM
No, I don't get that what we do doesn't affect the atmosphere. Sorry.

How many ants have taken a dump on your dinner plate?

This is not a silly question.

We are not even ants to the globe. Maybe we are germs.

Ethereal
03-25-2014, 06:32 PM
Grass is actually now thought to be a pretty good way to combat CO2 pollution.

I think we can agree on a simple concept. Pollution is harmful. It doesn't really matter if it causes global warming in the long run.

Yes, but most grass in the US is bluegrass, which is very water intensive and not as efficient as absorbing CO2 as trees are:

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

I think it would be better if the vegetation on people's land actually produced something of value aside from CO2 absorption. That is why I would like to see more crops, trees, and flowers (for bees and pollination) and less lawns. If you're going to have a lawn, you might as well do what the gentry did and let some sheep graze it, so you have a source of wool, milk, cheese, and meat... :grin:

Bob
03-25-2014, 06:33 PM
Grass is actually now thought to be a pretty good way to combat CO2 pollution.

I think we can agree on a simple concept. Pollution is harmful. It doesn't really matter if it causes global warming in the long run.

CO2 feeds plants. Yet your side claims it is a pollution.

How can you explain that?

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 07:04 PM
When the hard core warmists want humans to revert to a pre-industrial age? Yes.


Grass is actually now thought to be a pretty good way to combat CO2 pollution.

I think we can agree on a simple concept. Pollution is harmful. It doesn't really matter if it causes global warming in the long run.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:07 PM
(B) Dyson isn't a skeptic. (A) He just thinks other things are more important than global warming.


Explain how (A) entails (B).

Give a listen to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JSRG2oujeo

Contrails
03-25-2014, 07:08 PM
Sure, but from 1940 to 1970 were alarmists insisting, by popular demand, on the rise of temps as they do now? No, they weren't, but they do now, and those predictions don't make sense.
Scientists proved in the 1940's that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but they also believed the oceans would absorb all of the excess CO2 we were producing. It wasn't until temperatures began to rise again in the 1970's that serious research began that's behind the theory we have today.


Was that an indirect admission that average global temperatures have been flat during the 21st Century?
Flat, but not cooling.


Do you doubt that CO2's radiative forcing is logarithmic? Or that the feedback mechanisms which amplify CO2's forcing in the consensus models are assumed to be positive even though there is an active debate within the physics community as to whether or not that is true? I've been reading through the APS working group debate on this very issue and I can tell you that the word "uncertainty" shows up quite a bit in their discussions.
Logarithmic, but not periodic. Add these two together and you'll get a function that looks like rise-pause-rise-pause-rise, etc.


I believe that we've had some effect, but I don't believe that you can lay the entirety or even majority at the feet of man. Naturally, an increase in greenhouse gases will raise the temperature, but I don't necessarily believe that we're the sole culprit.

Honestly, I don't know. I do love science. Especially the study of the ancient earth, so when I read about climate change I think back millions of years, even billions, and look to see what caused it then, as well.

I think we should curb pollution but also be prudent and not rush to action that may not be in our best interests.
I didn't say man was responsible for all of the greenhouse effect, did I? Scientists estimate that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% which equals 3 to 8.5 °C. Do you doubt that?


CO2 feeds plants. Yet your side claims it is a pollution.

How can you explain that?

Water is essential to life too, but too much of it can kill you.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:09 PM
By his words:

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans

He also has a theory that planting a lot of trees would solve the problem. Should we do that?



Thank you for demonstrating he's not an alarmist or a denier but a skeptic.

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 07:14 PM
I'm still not convinced that the planet is warming. We can babble for pages and pages without anyone linking to any sort of graph that shows that. I don't know how reliable this graph is, but it shows we've returned to 1997 levels;
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/Fig1MoS.jpg

And anyway, have we really had the same instruments measuring temperature in the same places with the same surroundings (albido) consistently for any useful length of time?

Will the next 20 years be warming or cooling? I'll wait and see. I think it's a coin flip. In the meantime, I'll maintain my relatively light carbon footprint, by Californian standards. I'm an anti-consumer. Everything you buy has an environmental cost attached to it, even if it's a pair of hemp yoga pants.

How about something longer than 15 years? Say over 115 years in the US and globally?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us 1895-2014

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201401.gif

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:16 PM
That has been asked before: is climate science a hard science? All I see is models based on data with lots of unknowns.


Models that are not reliable.



But that's basically what science is about, taking data and building explanatory and predictive models. It shouldn't be dismissed for being tentative, incomplete and probabilistic, but taken for what it's worth. Curry and these others I'm hearing about in the last couple days, like Dyson, don't reject the models but point out their shortcomings.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:18 PM
That has been asked before: is climate science a hard science? All I see is models based on data with lots of unknowns.


I'm still not convinced that the planet is warming. We can babble for pages and pages without anyone linking to any sort of graph that shows that. I don't know how reliable this graph is, but it shows we've returned to 1997 levels;
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/Fig1MoS.jpg

And anyway, have we really had the same instruments measuring temperature in the same places with the same surroundings (albido) consistently for any useful length of time?

Will the next 20 years be warming or cooling? I'll wait and see. I think it's a coin flip. In the meantime, I'll maintain my relatively light carbon footprint, by Californian standards. I'm an anti-consumer. Everything you buy has an environmental cost attached to it, even if it's a pair of hemp yoga pants.



That's the virtually flat temps Judith Curry started pointing out 5 years ago. People are scrambling to explain it now because the models don't explain or predict it.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 07:19 PM
I didn't say man was responsible for all of the greenhouse effect, did I? Scientists estimate that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% which equals 3 to 8.5 °C. Do you doubt that?



Over what time period? And there is a big difference between 3 and 8.5C.

The more sane models predict ~+1-1.5C per 100 years. If that is true, we will be long off fossil fuels and much more scientifically advanced by 2114. If the proponents of of man-made warming don't drag use back to a pre-industrial age existence.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:21 PM
Scientists proved in the 1940's that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but they also believed the oceans would absorb all of the excess CO2 we were producing. It wasn't until temperatures began to rise again in the 1970's that serious research began that's behind the theory we have today.


Flat, but not cooling.


Logarithmic, but not periodic. Add these two together and you'll get a function that looks like rise-pause-rise-pause-rise, etc.


I didn't say man was responsible for all of the greenhouse effect, did I? Scientists estimate that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% which equals 3 to 8.5 °C. Do you doubt that?



Water is essential to life too, but too much of it can kill you.




Scientists proved in the 1940's that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but they also believed the oceans would absorb all of the excess CO2 we were producing. It wasn't until temperatures began to rise again in the 1970's that serious research began that's behind the theory we have today.

Yet current models do not explain the virtually flat temps of the last 15-16 years.

Give it a shot, explain it.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 07:26 PM
The models have incomplete data, therefore they can't give an accurate prediction. Ethereal's thread has the APS transcript where factoring in for these unknows is discussed- pros and cons.

Climate science is closer to Keynesian economics (a soft science), with all of its mathematical formulas that don't predict accurately either.


Yet current models do not explain the virtually flat temps of the last 15-16 years.

Give it a shot, explain it.

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:33 PM
How about something longer than 15 years? Say over 115 years in the US and globally?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us 1895-2014

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201401.gif



Why not go further?

http://i.snag.gy/CfcuN.jpg

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ice-ages-or-20th-century-warming-it-all-comes-down-to-causation/

Chris
03-25-2014, 07:35 PM
The models have incomplete data, therefore they can't give an accurate prediction. Ethereal's thread has the APS transcript where factoring in for these unknows is discussed- pros and cons.

Climate science is closer to Keynesian economics (a soft science), with all of its mathematical formulas that don't predict accurately either.


Right, I'm just saying while it can't be blindly accepted it likewise can't be blindly rejected.

Heyduke
03-25-2014, 07:38 PM
How about something longer than 15 years? Say over 115 years in the US and globally?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us 1895-2014

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global


https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201401.gif

Okay, so the mercury thermometers and weather balloons in use in 1900 were perfectly synched with the satellite measurements we've been taking since 1979? That weather station on the outskirts of Sao Paulo that has since been surrounded by a concrete jungle has provided sound scientific control over the course of a century? That thermometer buoy out in the southern Indian Ocean in 1940, errrr, did we have one of those?

Captain Obvious
03-25-2014, 07:57 PM
CO2 feeds plants. Yet your side claims it is a pollution.

How can you explain that?

Salt is needed to live, consume too much of it and you will die.

I understand that a large bottle of soy sauce is enough for some people.

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 08:35 PM
Right, I'm just saying while it can't be blindly accepted it likewise can't be blindly rejected.

I agree. I actually believe man has some effect on warming. Just not to the degree that the loons do. There are many more pressing pollution issues to worry about like factory farm waste getting into the water supply and oceans as just one example.

Mister D
03-25-2014, 08:38 PM
Salt is needed to live, consume too much of it and you will die.

I understand that a large bottle of soy sauce is enough for some people.

Last time I said that donttread accused me of being in the pocket of Big Salt. :grin:

Contrails
03-25-2014, 09:51 PM
Over what time period? And there is a big difference between 3 and 8.5C.
That is a single data point, not a trend, and 3 to 8.5 °C represents the range of likely values. Do you doubt that CO2 contributes this much to the greenhouse effect, even at the most conservative value?


The more sane models predict ~+1-1.5C per 100 years.
Which models are those? Even using RCP4.5 (http://asr.science.energy.gov/publications/program-docs/RCP4.5-Pathway.pdf) which represents significant limits on CO2 emissions over the next century, most climate models (http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/) predict between 1.5°C and 4°C with 2°C more likely than not.


If that is true, we will be long off fossil fuels and much more scientifically advanced by 2114. If the proponents of of man-made warming don't drag use back to a pre-industrial age existence.
Alternative energy will certainly grow over the next century, but even Shell forecasts an increase in fossil fuels use through most of that time as well. The RCP4.5 scenario is not looking very likely.

http://cdn.oilprice.com//js/common/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/AE1802.png
http://s08.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corporate/Scenarios/Downloads/Scenarios_newdoc.pdf

Peter1469
03-25-2014, 09:54 PM
Are you a Luddite? :wink:


That is a single data point, not a trend, and 3 to 8.5 °C represents the range of likely values. Do you doubt that CO2 contributes this much to the greenhouse effect, even at the most conservative value?


Which models are those? Even using RCP4.5 (http://asr.science.energy.gov/publications/program-docs/RCP4.5-Pathway.pdf) which represents significant limits on CO2 emissions over the next century, most climate models (http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/) predict between 1.5°C and 4°C with 2°C more likely than not.


Alternative energy will certainly grow over the next century, but even Shell forecasts an increase in fossil fuels use through most of that time as well. The RCP4.5 scenario is not looking very likely.

http://cdn.oilprice.com//js/common/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/AE1802.png
http://s08.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corporate/Scenarios/Downloads/Scenarios_newdoc.pdf

Contrails
03-25-2014, 10:01 PM
Yet current models do not explain the virtually flat temps of the last 15-16 years.

Give it a shot, explain it.

Weren't you just saying something about understanding the limitations of models? When climate models are designed to predict decadal trends, should we fault them for failing to "predict" the year-to-year variability? Maybe you're just not looking at the right climate models.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140325102007.htm

Max Rockatansky
03-25-2014, 11:43 PM
Okay, so the mercury thermometers and weather balloons in use in 1900 were perfectly synched with the satellite measurements we've been taking since 1979? That weather station on the outskirts of Sao Paulo that has since been surrounded by a concrete jungle has provided sound scientific control over the course of a century? That thermometer buoy out in the southern Indian Ocean in 1940, errrr, did we have one of those?

You are free to disregard all science and medicine in favor of magick and home remedies. It's a free country.

Heyduke
03-26-2014, 12:33 AM
You are free to disregard all science and medicine in favor of magick and home remedies. It's a free country.

Well, I am in favor of magic and home remedies. But, I don't think I waded into that territory on this thread. I asked a few rational questions. I asked questions along these lines; Did we have a weather station in Antarctica in 1880, and if so, how consistently was it checked (answers, no and never)? Why is that an unreasonable question?

I can't imagine that the continent of Africa was well served with meteorological equipment in 1880. Maybe I'm wrong.

"Measurements of SST [sea surface temps] have had inconsistencies over the last 130 years due to the way they were taken. In the nineteenth century, measurements were taken in a bucket off of a ship. However, there was a slight variation in temperature because of the differences in buckets. Samples were collected in either a wood or an uninsulated canvas bucket, but the canvas bucket cooled quicker than the wood bucket. The sudden change in temperature between 1940 and 1941 was the result of an undocumented change in procedure. The samples were taken near the engine intake because it was too dangerous to use lights to take measurements over the side of the ship at night." -wiki

Max Rockatansky
03-26-2014, 12:37 AM
I can't imagine that the continent of Africa was well served with meteorological equipment in 1880.
Then disregard it all as I suggested.

It amazes me how selective people are in what science they accept and which they deny. Talk on a cell phone, chat on the Internet or hop on coast-to-coast red-eye flight? No problem. Scientists tell them something that conflicts with their religious or political ideology? Big fucking problem.

Heyduke
03-26-2014, 12:50 AM
Disregard what? There's no there there.

There's nothing in my spirituality that conflicts me with a warming planet. I'm not accepting or denying. I'm questioning the reliability of historical meteorological methods and the availability of data. Wouldn't that fall under the category of a healthy skepticism, which is the root and fountain of science?

You, on the other hand, are hiding behind an irrelevant and inaccurate characterization of my metaphysical beliefs.

Bob
03-26-2014, 03:04 AM
Well, I am in favor of magic and home remedies. But, I don't think I waded into that territory on this thread. I asked a few rational questions. I asked questions along these lines; Did we have a weather station in Antarctica in 1880, and if so, how consistently was it checked (answers, no and never)? Why is that an unreasonable question?

I can't imagine that the continent of Africa was well served with meteorological equipment in 1880. Maybe I'm wrong.

"Measurements of SST [sea surface temps] have had inconsistencies over the last 130 years due to the way they were taken. In the nineteenth century, measurements were taken in a bucket off of a ship. However, there was a slight variation in temperature because of the differences in buckets. Samples were collected in either a wood or an uninsulated canvas bucket, but the canvas bucket cooled quicker than the wood bucket. The sudden change in temperature between 1940 and 1941 was the result of an undocumented change in procedure. The samples were taken near the engine intake because it was too dangerous to use lights to take measurements over the side of the ship at night." -wiki

This nonsense about averaging air temperatures can be looked at this way.

Air temperature and sea temperature are comparable. It is ridiculous to try to add the temperature of the gulf waters or Hawaiian waters with the polar waters. It is not useful.

I spoke of this nonsense with Dr. Richard Lindzen who agrees. Dr. Lindzen made a lot of papers available to me, some of which I have studied. I discovered that he works with other scientists on his papers so there are many other scientists that participated with him on research.

I think some of us want to be blamed. We assume we have enormous power to modify earth. We are germs to earth. Even our impact on carbon dioxide is said to be measured in millions of a part. We don't even get credit for a thousand of a part or a hundred of a part, it is millions. This means any so called effect is super tiny.

And democrats want me to worry about that?

Rubbish.

Bob
03-26-2014, 03:21 AM
No, I don't get that what we do doesn't affect the atmosphere. Sorry.

I can't rule out the possibility that germs have a greater impact, by far, than humans have.

Captain Obvious
03-26-2014, 07:02 AM
Last time I said that donttread accused me of being in the pocket of Big Salt. :grin:

LOL! The sodium lobby.

Codename Section
03-26-2014, 07:49 AM
You are free to disregard all science and medicine in favor of magick and home remedies. It's a free country.

WTF, dude?

You need to cut back on the coffee there, marine.