Ocean Acidification, CO2, and the hidden impacts of man-made affects on Earth

[Chloe]

By Michael Graham Richard

The longer we wait to act, the more painful it'll be

Ocean acidification doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It's negative effects on our planet and its ecosystems are potentially so vast that I wish someone would make the equivalent of Inconvenient Truth (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/an-inconvenient-truth-oscar-winner.html) about it to explain what's going on to the average person. But while we wait for that film to be made, the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html)has a great feature-length piece that you should definitely read.
“I used to think it was kind of hard to make things in the ocean go extinct,” said James Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. “But this change we’re seeing is happening so fast it’s almost instantaneous. I think it might be so important that we see large levels, high rates, of extinction.”
Globally, we can arrest much of the damage if we bring down CO2 soon. But if we do not, the bad news won’t stop. And the longer we wait, the more permanent the change gets.
“There’s a train wreck coming and we are in a position to slow that down and make it not so bad,” said Stephen Palumbi, a professor of evolutionary and marine biology at Stanford University. “But if we don’t start now the wreck will be enormous.”
____

There are some great videos if you go to these links:

A closer look at the horrors of ocean acidification : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-conservation/closer-look-horrors-ocean-acidification.html)

Pacific Ocean takes perilous turn | Sea Change: Ocean acidification | The Seattle Times (http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/)

3985

[Mr. Freeze]

I think it is all part of man's turn towards atheism, as much as pollution. When we stop seeing all life as sacred and as our environment as a distant kinsmen then our sole reason for protecting it rests with "what it does for us".

I don't mean this to say that atheists can't be moral people, or to propose a "religion", necessarily, but without a spiritual earth-view then our depth of caring only goes so deep.

Thank you for raising awareness and hopefully you will find someone to connect with on this issue.

[Chloe]

I think it is all part of man's turn towards atheism, as much as pollution. When we stop seeing all life as sacred and as our environment as a distant kinsmen then our sole reason for protecting it rests with "what it does for us".

I don't mean this to say that atheists can't be moral people, or to propose a "religion", necessarily, but without a spiritual earth-view then our depth of caring only goes so deep.

Thank you for raising awareness and hopefully you will find someone to connect with on this issue.

Thanks, i'm happy that at least someone read this thread :)

[Alyosha]

Very sad Chloe

Carbon trading won't help that. People would need to actually reduce carbon use, not cap it.

[ptif219]

This may be another Doom and gloom BS scam just like Global warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130415100903.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

[Alyosha]

This may be another Doom and gloom BS scam just like Global warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130415100903.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

Neither actually makes your case if you read them. The first describes one type of ocean organism--not the coral she is speaking to. Cockroaches will outlast people, but that doesn't help us any. The second article refers to particular areas of the ocean. Again, not what she's referring to.

[ptif219]

Neither actually makes your case if you read them. The first describes one type of ocean organism--not the coral she is speaking to. Cockroaches will outlast people, but that doesn't help us any. The second article refers to particular areas of the ocean. Again, not what she's referring to.

So you are saying like GW they are doing doom and gloom with no proof

As with GW it is doom and gloom and no actual proof that is what is causing it

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/

http://www.ted.com/conversations/17162/fertilizer_not_co2_is_responsi.html

http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/10/11/what-doesnt-kill-a-coral-a-little-ash-is-still-a-bad-thing/

http://www.thegwpf.org/forget-doom-coral-reefs-bloom/

[Contrails]

I think it is all part of man's turn towards atheism, as much as pollution. When we stop seeing all life as sacred and as our environment as a distant kinsmen then our sole reason for protecting it rests with "what it does for us".
When one sees themselves as a part of nature, and not something they were given dominion over, I think it becomes much easier to find reasons to protect it. Besides, recent studies show that resistance to addressing climate change is higher among believers in Christian end-times theology.

http://prq.sagepub.com/content/66/2/267.abstract

[ptif219]

When one sees themselves as a part of nature, and not something they were given dominion over, I think it becomes much easier to find reasons to protect it. Besides, recent studies show that resistance to addressing climate change is higher among believers in Christian end-times theology.

http://prq.sagepub.com/content/66/2/267.abstract

More hate to support the lies of environmentalists.

[Contrails]

So you are saying like GW they are doing doom and gloom with no proof
Who says there is no proof?

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-PR-2013-FINAL.pdf

[Chloe]

This may be another Doom and gloom BS scam just like Global warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130415100903.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

Did you read the articles I posted?

[Dr. Who]

Thanks, i'm happy that at least someone read this thread :)

This is very disturbing Chloe. The oceans are the life blood of the planet. If the fish become brain damaged by CO2, they will eventually become extinct. What does that say about our viability as a species. The oceans will become swamps of algae. That will affect the air, the weather and the food supply. There will be mass starvation and extinction of ocean species and similar mass starvation and extinction of land species because all of nature is intertwined and interdependent.

[ptif219]

Who says there is no proof?

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-PR-2013-FINAL.pdf

The link does not work. They appear to be just another environmental group saying what fits their agenda for Climate change and how it hurts sea and animal life. More DOOM and GLOOM with no proof

[ptif219]

Did you read the articles I posted?

Did you read mine. Your articles show no proof what causes it. The have opinions and assumption. Just like CO2 causes Global Warming yet in the last 15 years CO2 has increased and temp is not increasing. More made up doom and gloom based on junk science

[countryboy]

By Michael Graham Richard

The longer we wait to act, the more painful it'll be

Ocean acidification doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It's negative effects on our planet and its ecosystems are potentially so vast that I wish someone would make the equivalent of Inconvenient Truth (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/an-inconvenient-truth-oscar-winner.html) about it to explain what's going on to the average person. But while we wait for that film to be made, the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html)has a great feature-length piece that you should definitely read.
“I used to think it was kind of hard to make things in the ocean go extinct,” said James Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. “But this change we’re seeing is happening so fast it’s almost instantaneous. I think it might be so important that we see large levels, high rates, of extinction.”
Globally, we can arrest much of the damage if we bring down CO2 soon. But if we do not, the bad news won’t stop. And the longer we wait, the more permanent the change gets.
“There’s a train wreck coming and we are in a position to slow that down and make it not so bad,” said Stephen Palumbi, a professor of evolutionary and marine biology at Stanford University. “But if we don’t start now the wreck will be enormous.”
____

There are some great videos if you go to these links:

A closer look at the horrors of ocean acidification : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-conservation/closer-look-horrors-ocean-acidification.html)

Pacific Ocean takes perilous turn | Sea Change: Ocean acidification | The Seattle Times (http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/)

3985

I don't have time to read the info you provided in detail at the moment, but I will later. I couldn't help noticing though, the images you posted were caused from naturally occurring vents. What does that prove? What exactly can we do about naturally occurring volcanic vents?

Don't get me wrong, I grew up in San Diego and have always had a great love for the ocean. I am definitely in favor of preserving our oceans and the life contained within them. When I was a kid I didn't want to be a policeman or a fireman, I wanted to be a Marine Biologist. Of course, that was just delusions of grandeur, but that's beside the point. :D

[Alyosha]

So you are saying like GW they are doing doom and gloom with no proof

As with GW it is doom and gloom and no actual proof that is what is causing it

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/

http://www.ted.com/conversations/17162/fertilizer_not_co2_is_responsi.html

http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2012/10/11/what-doesnt-kill-a-coral-a-little-ash-is-still-a-bad-thing/

http://www.thegwpf.org/forget-doom-coral-reefs-bloom/

No offense but this is basic science. There is an effect anytime you change an ecosystem. Every article you post doesn't prove that there is no harm, just that the harm for Plant A doesn't effect Plant B.

From an impartial observer I suppose I shouldn't place cockroaches and insects lower than mammals on "things I want to be around or see continue", but as a partial observer, I do.

I like the bright colored coral. I like that better than brown algae. ((shrugs))

[ptif219]

No offense but this is basic science. There is an effect anytime you change an ecosystem. Every article you post doesn't prove that there is no harm, just that the harm for Plant A doesn't effect Plant B.

From an impartial observer I suppose I shouldn't place cockroaches and insects lower than mammals on "things I want to be around or see continue", but as a partial observer, I do.

I like the bright colored coral. I like that better than brown algae. ((shrugs))

You mean like Global Warming was basic science and not it is completely false. Environmentalists ans GW nuts show they have no credibility and their junk science and predictions have been proved false

[Alyosha]

You mean like Global Warming was basic science and not it is completely false. Environmentalists ans GW nuts show they have no credibility and their junk science and predictions have been proved false

If I said like Global Warming was basic science, then perhaps all of this might make sense^^.

[Contrails]

The link does not work. They appear to be just another environmental group saying what fits their agenda for Climate change and how it hurts sea and animal life. More DOOM and GLOOM with no proof

The link works just fine, and an international panel of marine scientists isn't "just another environmental group."

[Contrails]

You mean like Global Warming was basic science and not it is completely false. Environmentalists ans GW nuts show they have no credibility and their junk science and predictions have been proved false

It's basic enough that Joseph Fourier and Claude Pouillet were able to figure it out nearly 200 years ago.

[ptif219]

If I said like Global Warming was basic science, then perhaps all of this might make sense^^.

They are using the same arguments as GW More BS from environmentalist

[ptif219]

The link works just fine, and an international panel of marine scientists isn't "just another environmental group."

You mean environmentalists and animal scientists that make the same claims as the failed GW scientists

[ptif219]

It's basic enough that Joseph Fourier and Claude Pouillet were able to figure it out nearly 200 years ago.

You mean before fossil fuels? So then fossil fuels are not the problem?

[Contrails]

You mean before fossil fuels? So then fossil fuels are not the problem?

They didn't need global warming or fossil fuels to know that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and helps warm the Earth's surface, something you seem to fail to grasp.

[Contrails]

You mean environmentalists and animal scientists that make the same claims as the failed GW scientists

As opposed to an anonymous internet poster making unsubstantiated claims?

[Dr. Who]

I don't have time to read the info you provided in detail at the moment, but I will later. I couldn't help noticing though, the images you posted were caused from naturally occurring vents. What does that prove? What exactly can we do about naturally occurring volcanic vents?

Don't get me wrong, I grew up in San Diego and have always had a great love for the ocean. I am definitely in favor of preserving our oceans and the life contained within them. When I was a kid I didn't want to be a policeman or a fireman, I wanted to be a Marine Biologist. Of course, that was just delusions of grandeur, but that's beside the point. :D

Ha - me too, but I just couldn't get over some of the advanced math requirements - not my forte.

[Peter1469]

They didn't need global warming or fossil fuels to know that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and helps warm the Earth's surface, something you seem to fail to grasp.

The last 15 years suggests otherwise....

[Contrails]

The last 15 years suggests otherwise....
When 15 years of PDO cooling combine with reduced solar irradiance and all we get is a "pause" in warming instead of global cooling, don't you think something is retaining the heat?

[Mr. Freeze]

I have a friend in Toronto who works for solarimg and he's been saying for years that regardless of what the Earth does (humans), the sun's activity has more effect (scary) and that we are headed for heavy cooling. Perhaps the CO2 will counteract some of that slightly...?

I'm hoping. I came from a very cold place and not lookin forward to more of it.

[ptif219]

They didn't need global warming or fossil fuels to know that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and helps warm the Earth's surface, something you seem to fail to grasp.

The last 15 years proves that wrong. co2 added and no warming. Can't have it both ways

[ptif219]

As opposed to an anonymous internet poster making unsubstantiated claims?

I posted links showing it wrong. It could be as simple as volcano ash or fertilizer

[ptif219]

When 15 years of PDO cooling combine with reduced solar irradiance and all we get is a "pause" in warming instead of global cooling, don't you think something is retaining the heat?

Wait I thought you said CO2 caused warming

[Contrails]

The last 15 years proves that wrong. co2 added and no warming. Can't have it both ways


Wait I thought you said CO2 caused warming

I asked this on the other thread but I'll ask it here too. What happens when you add a cyclical variable (natural variability) with a linear variable (increasing CO2)?

4359

[ptif219]

I asked this on the other thread but I'll ask it here too. What happens when you add a cyclical variable (natural variability) with a linear variable (increasing CO2)?

4359

You mean the CO2 theory is wrong and it is the sun that causes climate change. We would be better off if the Global Warming propagandists would quit making excuses and admit they were wrong

[Kalkin]

The longer we wait to act, the more painful it'll be

Sorry to divert, but why can't the left understand that statement also applies to the national debt?

[Contrails]

You mean the CO2 theory is wrong and it is the sun that causes climate change.
I'll take that as a 'no' to my question. Maybe you should learn what the theory actually says before you try telling people it is wrong.


We would be better off if the Global Warming propagandists would quit making excuses and admit they were wrong
We'll do that just as soon as it starts cooling.

[ptif219]

I'll take that as a 'no' to my question. Maybe you should learn what the theory actually says before you try telling people it is wrong.


We'll do that just as soon as it starts cooling.

So you refuse to face facts, I got it

[Contrails]

So you refuse to face facts, I got it

Somehow I don't think you really do. Are you saying it's not a fact that Earth's global temperature is still 0.6°C warmer than it was between 1951 & 1980?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[ptif219]

Somehow I don't think you really do. Are you saying it's not a fact that Earth's global temperature is still 0.6°C warmer than it was between 1951 & 1980?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Wow we are talking last 15 years and you want to go back 60 years. That is not a big deal over that many years. It will not stay that way and many believe we are going into a cooling period.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

[Contrails]

Wow we are talking last 15 years and you want to go back 60 years. That is not a big deal over that many years.
Erasing 5,000 years of cooling in only one century is "not a big deal"? What would you consider a big deal?


It will not stay that way and many believe we are going into a cooling period.
Do you have a climate theory to back that up? In science it's not enough to just question other theories. You have to produce an explanation that fits the data better.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/
If reduced solar activity will lead to global cooling, why hasn't it started yet? Solar activity has been declining since 1950 and yet global temperature increased by 0.6°C.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
You do know that despite increasing by 29% from last year's minimum, arctic sea ice is still below 2009 levels, don't you? And didn't I already show you how natural variability can temporarily mask linear trends?

[ptif219]

Erasing 5,000 years of cooling in only one century is "not a big deal"? What would you consider a big deal?


Do you have a climate theory to back that up? In science it's not enough to just question other theories. You have to produce an explanation that fits the data better.


If reduced solar activity will lead to global cooling, why hasn't it started yet? Solar activity has been declining since 1950 and yet global temperature increased by 0.6°C.


You do know that despite increasing by 29% from last year's minimum, arctic sea ice is still below 2009 levels, don't you? And didn't I already show you how natural variability can temporarily mask linear trends?

You keep talking crap. We have not been cooling for 5000 years.Temp cools and warms it has not been constant cooling for 5000 years just like this is not the hottest the earth has ever been

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_chan ge/

[Contrails]

You keep talking crap. We have not been cooling for 5000 years.Temp cools and warms it has not been constant cooling for 5000 years just like this is not the hottest the earth has ever been

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_chan ge/

Here's some advice for you. If you're going to make claims about the last 5000 years, don't use a source that only looks back 2000 years. You should also stop relying on newspapers to interpret science for you. The paper behind the article you linked to (Esper et al. 2012 (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html)) only looked at tree rings from northern Scandinavia, hardly a proxy for global temperature.

"Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

[ptif219]

Here's some advice for you. If you're going to make claims about the last 5000 years, don't use a source that only looks back 2000 years. You should also stop relying on newspapers to interpret science for you. The paper behind the article you linked to (Esper et al. 2012 (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html)) only looked at tree rings from northern Scandinavia, hardly a proxy for global temperature.

"Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

You should stop listening to the Global warming propagandists that lie and manipulate data

[Contrails]

You should stop listening to the Global warming propagandists that lie and manipulate data

I don't. I listen to the scientists. You should try it some time.

[Peter1469]

I don't. I listen to the scientists. You should try it some time.

Like the fake "hockey stick?"

[Contrails]

Like the fake "hockey stick?"

You mean the one that keeps being proven correct?

Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg

[Peter1469]

You mean the one that keeps being proven correct?

Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg


:laugh: The "hockey stick" has been thoroughly debunked. It ignores periods of greater warmth within the last 2000 years.

[Contrails]

:laugh: The "hockey stick" has been thoroughly debunked. It ignores periods of greater warmth within the last 2000 years.
Countless investigations — three in the U.K., two by Penn State, by the EPA, by the NOAA inspector general — have all vindicated Mann and the hockey stick.

[ptif219]

I don't. I listen to the scientists. You should try it some time.

The ones that manipulate data and claim more hurricanes when this the slowest season in 45 years

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-45-years-experts-170425159.html

[ptif219]

Countless investigations — three in the U.K., two by Penn State, by the EPA, by the NOAA inspector general — have all vindicated Mann and the hockey stick.

More data manipulation

[Contrails]

The ones that manipulate data and claim more hurricanes when this the slowest season in 45 years
Why do you keep confusing local phenomenon with global patterns and short-term variability with long-term trends?

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204

[Contrails]

More data manipulation

Then show me the un-manipulated data?

[ptif219]

Why do you keep confusing local phenomenon with global patterns and short-term variability with long-term trends?

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204

So more and stronger hurricanes? Not when warming stops

http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2013/10/24/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-in-45-years-exp

[ptif219]

Then show me the un-manipulated data?

There is none from the GW propagandists

[Contrails]

So more and stronger hurricanes? Not when warming stops http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2013/10/24/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-in-45-years-exp When are you going to stop trying to use local data to disprove global trends? The North Atlantic isn't even the largest source of tropical cyclones. The North Indian ocean is certainly trying to pick up the slack though. 286% above normal year to date!

Source: http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy)]

Basin
Current YTD
Normal YTD
% of Normal YTD
Yearly Climo*


Northern Hemisphere
340.613
484
70%
562


Western N Pacific
220.808
247
89%
302


Central N Pacific
6.31





Eastern N Pacific
68.365
133
51%
138


North Atlantic
28.55
94
30%
104


North Indian
22.89
8
286%
18


Southern Hemisphere +
191.827
211
90%
209


Global++
464.908
658
70%
771

[ptif219]

When are you going to stop trying to use local data to disprove global trends? The North Atlantic isn't even the largest source of tropical cyclones. The North Indian ocean is certainly trying to pick up the slack though. 286% above normal year to date!

Source: http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php

Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy)]

Basin
Current YTD
Normal YTD
% of Normal YTD
Yearly Climo*


Northern Hemisphere
340.613
484
70%
562


Western N Pacific
220.808
247
89%
302


Central N Pacific
6.31





Eastern N Pacific
68.365
133
51%
138


North Atlantic
28.55
94
30%
104


North Indian
22.89
8
286%
18


Southern Hemisphere +
191.827
211
90%
209


Global++
464.908
658
70%
771




What about this year's season

[Contrails]

What about this year's season

That is this season.

[ptif219]

That is this season.

Then it makes no sense. How many have happenedY What do they mean by energy?

How do you have 22.89?

So now you are using local weather. This has little to do with global warming. We are not warming at this time

http://www.livescience.com/40407-super-cyclonic-storm-phailin-the-strongest-cyclone-ever-in-the-north-indian-ocean-basin.html

[Contrails]

Then it makes no sense. How many have happenedY What do they mean by energy?

How do you have 22.89?

So now you are using local weather. This has little to do with global warming. We are not warming at this time

It makes perfect sense if you take the time to do a little research and learn something. ACE is a measure of the energy of a tropical system and is a much more accurate measure than just the number of storms.

The table I posted gives a global total for the season. To suggest I am using local weather when all you've posted is numbers for the North Atlantic is really duplicitous of you. And before you repeat yet again that we are not warming at this time, you should look at the oceans.

[ptif219]

It makes perfect sense if you take the time to do a little research and learn something. ACE is a measure of the energy of a tropical system and is a much more accurate measure than just the number of storms.

The table I posted gives a global total for the season. To suggest I am using local weather when all you've posted is numbers for the North Atlantic is really duplicitous of you. And before you repeat yet again that we are not warming at this time, you should look at the oceans.

You are using local numbers. the fact is we are not warming and you refuse to accept it

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/26/global-warming-chile-hit-with-worst-cold-spell-in-80-years/

[Dangermouse]

It makes perfect sense if you take the time to do a little research and learn something. ACE is a measure of the energy of a tropical system and is a much more accurate measure than just the number of storms.

The table I posted gives a global total for the season. To suggest I am using local weather when all you've posted is numbers for the North Atlantic is really duplicitous of you. And before you repeat yet again that we are not warming at this time, you should look at the oceans.

He is impervious to reason or logic, and immune to facts. His position is not amenable to persuasion, being dogmatic political belief based.

[Contrails]

You are using local numbers. the fact is we are not warming and you refuse to accept it

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/26/global-warming-chile-hit-with-worst-cold-spell-in-80-years/
You accuse me of using local numbers without a shred of evidence, and then post an article about a cold spell in Chile to refute global warming.

http://www.troll.me/images/yoda-senses/the-denial-is-strong-with-this-one-thumb.jpg

[Contrails]

He is impervious to reason or logic, and immune to facts. His position is not amenable to persuasion, being dogmatic political belief based.

Actually, his arguments are more supportive of global warming than he realizes.

[countryboy]

Actually, his arguments are more supportive of global warming than he realizes.
Yes, because according to alarmists, everything is caused by AGW. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[Contrails]

Yes, because according to alarmists, everything is caused by AGW. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Are you suggesting that global climate is not important to life as we know it?

[countryboy]

Are you suggesting that global climate is not important to life as we know it?
Did I say anything even remotely to that effect?

[ptif219]

You accuse me of using local numbers without a shred of evidence, and then post an article about a cold spell in Chile to refute global warming.

http://www.troll.me/images/yoda-senses/the-denial-is-strong-with-this-one-thumb.jpg

Global warming yet record cold in southern hemisphere. That does not make sense. The article says 4th warmest September on record which means we are not warming but cooling

[ptif219]

Actually, his arguments are more supportive of global warming than he realizes.

The evidence shows we are not warming

[Contrails]

Did I say anything even remotely to that effect?

You're link certainly did. It is nothing more than a collection of articles where climate change has been associated with various effects. Suggesting that the mere identification of these links is "alarmist" tells me you don't believe such links exist. Since climate change in an integral part of our environment, shouldn't one be surprised if these links didn't exist?

[Contrails]

Global warming yet record cold in southern hemisphere. That does not make sense. The article says 4th warmest September on record which means we are not warming but cooling

It means you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Long-term warming trends are not disproven by short-term cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

[Contrails]

The evidence shows we are not warming

You should check your evidence.

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/trend

[countryboy]

You're link certainly did. It is nothing more than a collection of articles where climate change has been associated with various effects. Suggesting that the mere identification of these links is "alarmist" tells me you don't believe such links exist. Since climate change in an integral part of our environment, shouldn't one be surprised if these links didn't exist?
I think you missed the point. :wink:

[Contrails]

I think you missed the point. :wink:

By all means, please explain how your link is not misrepresenting the articles it reports as "things caused by global warming".

[ptif219]

It means you don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Long-term warming trends are not disproven by short-term cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

That is what you say now but if it continues you will find another excuse to promote the Global Warming scam.

[Contrails]

That is what you say now but if it continues you will find another excuse to promote the Global Warming scam.

You can try to predict my actions all you want, you've already demonstrated your knowledge on the subject.

[ptif219]

You can try to predict my actions all you want, you've already demonstrated your knowledge on the subject.

You have shown your denial of the facts

[Contrails]

You have shown your denial of the facts

Please put away the mirror before you type.

[ptif219]

Please put away the mirror before you type.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist


I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.

According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.

Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now - and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.

And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate - witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years - and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.

Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.

He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.

Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.

[Contrails]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.

Since then the sun has been getting quieter.

No one is denying the fact that the sun has been getting quieter since around 1985. You on the other hand repeatedly deny the fact that global temperature continued to increase since then. Please explain how a quieter sun explains increasing temperature?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/trend

[countryboy]

No one is denying the fact that the sun has been getting quieter since around 1985. You on the other hand repeatedly deny the fact that global temperature continued to increase since then. Please explain how a quieter sun explains increasing temperature?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/trend
Shouldn't your little graph have a bit of a downward tic in that green line? Or, at least flatten out? Seems a little disingenuous to moi.

[Contrails]

Shouldn't your little graph have a bit of a downward tic in that green line? Or, at least flatten out? Seems a little disingenuous to moi.

The green line represents the 30 year trend. Since the graph extends from 1983 to 2013, or 30 years, the trend is linear.

[ptif219]

No one is denying the fact that the sun has been getting quieter since around 1985. You on the other hand repeatedly deny the fact that global temperature continued to increase since then. Please explain how a quieter sun explains increasing temperature?

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/trend

And once the lack of activity took hold we stopped warming showing sun is the source of climate change not man

[ptif219]

The green line represents the 30 year trend. Since the graph extends from 1983 to 2013, or 30 years, the trend is linear.

So you admit the graph is false as all predictions have been

[Contrails]

And once the lack of activity took hold we stopped warming showing sun is the source of climate change not man
Please explain what physical mechanism would cause a 20 year lag between reduced solar activity and global temperatures.


So you admit the graph is false as all predictions have been
What gives you the idea that I would admit that a graph depicting actual global temperature data is false?

[jillian]

And once the lack of activity took hold we stopped warming showing sun is the source of climate change not man

the fact that the science disagrees with that is wholly irrelevant to science deniers.

[Contrails]

the fact that the science disagrees with that is wholly irrelevant to science deniers.
Describing an alternate process seems to be irrelevant to them as well. The fact that CO2 absorbs thermal radiation has been understood for almost 200 years, yet they dismiss AGW because of a 15 year pause that science can readily explain. Meanwhile they claim that the sun is the only factor that determines climate with no explanation why they've been going in opposite directions for nearly 30 years.

[ptif219]

Please explain what physical mechanism would cause a 20 year lag between reduced solar activity and global temperatures.


What gives you the idea that I would admit that a graph depicting actual global temperature data is false?

It was mot 20 years more like 10 years. The heating slowed slowly

[ptif219]

the fact that the science disagrees with that is wholly irrelevant to science deniers.

It does not disagree. No warming for 17 years but continued increase in CO2 shows Man Made Global Warming is false

[Contrails]

It was mot 20 years more like 10 years. The heating slowed slowly

But what mechanism can you point to that explains this? Climate scientists have explained how CO2 traps heat (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html) in the atmosphere and how short-term variations in PDO along with the drop in solar activity can temporarily mask that warming (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/501318a.html). The problem with your prediction is that solar activity and PDO are already at their lower limits and cannot cause any further cooling.

[Contrails]

It does not disagree. No warming for 17 years but continued increase in CO2 shows Man Made Global Warming is false

It only shows how little you understand the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming and what it says about how climate works. Here's a hint for you, it doesn't say that CO2 is the only factor affecting global temperature.

[ptif219]

But what mechanism can you point to that explains this? Climate scientists have explained how CO2 traps heat (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html) in the atmosphere and how short-term variations in PDO along with the drop in solar activity can temporarily mask that warming (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/501318a.html). The problem with your prediction is that solar activity and PDO are already at their lower limits and cannot cause any further cooling.

If that is true why has warming stopped. The sun is the source of heat and CO2 is irrelevant

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

[ptif219]

It only shows how little you understand the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming and what it says about how climate works. Here's a hint for you, it doesn't say that CO2 is the only factor affecting global temperature.

It shows how you will not accept truth and only want to promote the lie of global warming

[Contrails]

If that is true why has warming stopped.
Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered?


The sun is the source of heat and CO2 is irrelevant

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
Still a lot of denial but no alternate theory or climate model. Do you think we'd know who Einstein was if he didn't follow up his claim that Newton was wrong with his own Theory of Relativity?


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
You realize this link doesn't help your argument, and it only illustrates why climate is based on 30 year averages.

[ptif219]

Why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered?


Still a lot of denial but no alternate theory or climate model. Do you think we'd know who Einstein was if he didn't follow up his claim that Newton was wrong with his own Theory of Relativity?


You realize this link doesn't help your argument, and it only illustrates why climate is based on 30 year averages.

Read it says CO2 causes cooling not warming.

[Contrails]

Read it says CO2 causes cooling not warming.

You must be referring to this paragraph:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
Do you know where the thermosphere starts and where 98% of the atmospheric CO2 resides?

[ptif219]

You must be referring to this paragraph:

Do you know where the thermosphere starts and where 98% of the atmospheric CO2 resides?

So you are calling NASA a liar?

[Contrails]

So you are calling NASA a liar?

No. Now can you tell me where the thermosphere starts and where 98% of the atmospheric CO2 resides?

[ptif219]

No. Now can you tell me where the thermosphere starts and where 98% of the atmospheric CO2 resides?

So now you want to play games. Make your point without the BS

[Contrails]

So now you want to play games. Make your point without the BS

Who's playing games? I asked you a simple question because you seem to think that CO2 shedding heat in the thermosphere means it cannot store heat in the troposphere. Now, can you answer the question or not?

[ptif219]

Who's playing games? I asked you a simple question because you seem to think that CO2 shedding heat in the thermosphere means it cannot store heat in the troposphere. Now, can you answer the question or not?

Apparently the last 15 years it has not been storing heat even though CO2 continues to increase

[Peter1469]

Apparently the last 15 years it has not been storing heat even though CO2 continues to increase

That would be a inconvenient truth. It is a shame that the Warmists focus on a non-issue, when there are so many more pressing pollution issues that should take precedence, even if their fake theories were true. They are only looking at the payoff- the money.

[Contrails]

Apparently the last 15 years it has not been storing heat even though CO2 continues to increase

Still fails to answer the question. And does the fact that I can toss a ball into the air also disprove the theory of gravity?

[ptif219]

Still fails to answer the question. And does the fact that I can toss a ball into the air also disprove the theory of gravity?

What happens when there is no warming for 20 more years? Will you still continue ti justify it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

[Captain Obvious]

What happens when there is no warming for 20 more years? Will you still continue ti justify it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

What happens when there is a marked increase in ocean levels and coastal cities begin to flood, will you continue to deny it?

Oh wait, both are happening already.

[ptif219]

What happens when there is a marked increase in ocean levels and coastal cities begin to flood, will you continue to deny it?

Oh wait, both are happening already.

With all the claims of melting ice caps it has not happened

[Contrails]

What happens when there is no warming for 20 more years? Will you still continue ti justify it?
I'll continue to justify it as long as the evidence supports it. What do you think will happen after 20 more years? Did global warming stop after the pause from 1940 to 1980?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

You really need to research your sources better. While Mr. Rose seems to think that Wyatt and Curry's ‘stadium wave’ disproves AGW, the authors are saying exactly the opposite:


The paper is about natural internal variability, it says absolutely nothing about AGW.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396434

[ptif219]

I'll continue to justify it as long as the evidence supports it. What do you think will happen after 20 more years? Did global warming stop after the pause from 1940 to 1980?



You really need to research your sources better. While Mr. Rose seems to think that Wyatt and Curry's ‘stadium wave’ disproves AGW, the authors are saying exactly the opposite:


http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396434

Yet it shows the warming is not from man but the sun. what happens after that depends on the sun

[Contrails]

Yet it shows the warming is not from man but the sun. what happens after that depends on the sun

I says nothing of the sort. Apparently, you failed to read the actual paper. I'll quote the relevant section in case you miss it:


The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the ‘stadium wave.’ The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.
No one denies that the sun can cause short-term variations in climate, but it cannot explain the long-term warming that still exists. This can only be explained by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused by human CO2 emissions.

[Captain Obvious]

With all the claims of melting ice caps it has not happened

Then you are either incapable of comprehension or you are blatantly ignoring facts.

I won't bother citing sources, you're head's too deep in the sand. Waste of time.

Carry on.

[ptif219]

I says nothing of the sort. Apparently, you failed to read the actual paper. I'll quote the relevant section in case you miss it:


No one denies that the sun can cause short-term variations in climate, but it cannot explain the long-term warming that still exists. This can only be explained by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused by human CO2 emissions.

That is BS. Climate change is natural not man made

[ptif219]

Then you are either incapable of comprehension or you are blatantly ignoring facts.

I won't bother citing sources, you're head's too deep in the sand. Waste of time.

Carry on.

You ignore the fact that CO2 continues to increase yet warming has stopped. This shows warming is not caused by the way the Global Warming scientists claim

[Captain Obvious]

You ignore the fact that CO2 continues to increase yet warming has stopped. This shows warming is not caused by the way the Global Warming scientists claim

Look - you regularly quote Brietbart as a valid source of information. I have no interest in your position on global warming, I only want to ridicule it because that's all it's good for. Save it for the mindless zombies.

It just stuns me how easily manipulated people are. And then we wonder why everything is so fucked up.

[Captain Obvious]

It's just hugely disappointing that these threads turn into political pissing matches of futility.

But that's the mindset of too many I guess.

[Peter1469]

The problem is that the issue is political and science doesn't drive the train. The so called scientific consensus (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/scientists-fear-new-little-ice-age-00999) is a myth, and the entire concept is almost anti-science, which is about falsification.


In the last 15 years there hasn’t been a rise in global temperature and additional to that the last few years we have had the lowest solar activity in the last one hundred years. Researchers in Germany suggest that if this continues then we are becoming closer to a new Little Ice Age. The article was published in the German version of the popular Focus magazine in Germany.

Our sun in 2008 entered the 11th year cycle and yet the solar activity has remained extremely low. And in 2013 we were expecting a 100 hundred year solar maximum which also didn’t happen. On the contrary we have the weakest cycle in the last 100 years. The Northern hemisphere of the Sun was active more than the southern creating a strange asymmetry that was observed at the Marshall NASA Space Flight Centre by researcher David Hathaway.

The last time that a little Ice age happened was between 1550 and 1850 AD. During a little Ice Age the temperatures drop, glaciers expand, crops are destroyed, and strange weather phenomena would be observed including flooding, temperature extremes, unpredictable weather etc. The last Little Ice Age resulted in more than 10% of the population of most countries to die and in Estonia and Finland the losses were estimated to be up to one third of the population. Even though today we are more technologically advanced the losses from a little Ice Age would be significant. - See more at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/scientists-fear-new-little-ice-age-00999#sthash.XmIspJPi.dpuf

[Contrails]

The problem is that the issue is political and science doesn't drive the train. The so called scientific consensus (http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/scientists-fear-new-little-ice-age-00999) is a myth, and the entire concept is almost anti-science, which is about falsification.

Calculating the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is science, not politics. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Stefan Rahmstorf.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf)

[Contrails]

That is BS. Climate change is natural not man made
Are you saying that adding 12 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year is natural?


You ignore the fact that CO2 continues to increase yet warming has stopped. This shows warming is not caused by the way the Global Warming scientists claim

It only shows that you don't understand what climate scientists are saying. When all other climate forcings should be driving temperatures down and all you have is a pause in warming, then you can't say that CO2 is not having an effect on the climate.

[Peter1469]

Calculating the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is science, not politics. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Stefan Rahmstorf.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf)

Climate scientists have used computer models, of which almost all of them over shoot the warming that we have seen. That is why they keep modifying them down. Computer models don't follow the scientific method and are just as manipulable as statistics.

Stefan Rahmstorf makes a very good living off his over-hyped predictions; after all, if man made global warming (I am only referring to CO2) had very little affect on climate, his net worth would stop growing (other than current investments of course). He even got a $1M award for his advocacy.

[Contrails]

Climate scientists have used computer models, of which almost all of them over shoot the warming that we have seen. That is why they keep modifying them down. Computer models don't follow the scientific method and are just as manipulable as statistics.
Did Svante Arrhenius estimate a climate sensitivity of 4–6°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in 1896 from computer models?


Stefan Rahmstorf makes a very good living off his over-hyped predictions; after all, if man made global warming (I am only referring to CO2) had very little affect on climate, his net worth would stop growing (other than current investments of course). He even got a $1M award for his advocacy.

Is that the only argument you could come up with to refute his paper?

[Peter1469]

Did Svante Arrhenius estimate a climate sensitivity of 4–6°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in 1896 from computer models?


if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#cite_note-Walter-9)
ΔF = α Ln(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/d/6/0d61f8370cad1d412f80b84d143e1257.png/http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/4/d24fd2d83d8cae85cf655d3b5bba1a15.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius)



The last 15 years seem to have falsified the theory- or at least casts doubts on it; yet the warmist don't seem to be curious, in a scientific sort of way. We have seen a great increase in CO2, yet flat temps......

[ptif219]

Look - you regularly quote Brietbart as a valid source of information. I have no interest in your position on global warming, I only want to ridicule it because that's all it's good for. Save it for the mindless zombies.

It just stuns me how easily manipulated people are. And then we wonder why everything is so fucked up.

You mean you can show proof to refute me.

[ptif219]

It's just hugely disappointing that these threads turn into political pissing matches of futility.

But that's the mindset of too many I guess.

Global warming is political and not about science

[ptif219]

Calculating the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is science, not politics. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Stefan Rahmstorf.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf)

CO2 continues to increase but no warming for 17 years so the warming is not caused by CO2

[ptif219]

Are you saying that adding 12 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year is natural?



It only shows that you don't understand what climate scientists are saying. When all other climate forcings should be driving temperatures down and all you have is a pause in warming, then you can't say that CO2 is not having an effect on the climate.

Those scientists have been manipulating data for decades. They even tried to use September temps to claim warmest October and would not have said a word except they got caught

[Contrails]

if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#cite_note-Walter-9)
ΔF = α Ln(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/d/6/0d61f8370cad1d412f80b84d143e1257.png/http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/4/d24fd2d83d8cae85cf655d3b5bba1a15.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius)

The last 15 years seem to have falsified the theory- or at least casts doubts on it; yet the warmist don't seem to be curious, in a scientific sort of way. We have seen a great increase in CO2, yet flat temps......

Climate science doesn't say that CO2 is the only radiative forcing, does it?

[Contrails]

You mean you can show proof to refute me.

You would have to present something to refute first.

[Peter1469]

Climate science doesn't say that CO2 is the only radiative forcing, does it?

No, but they focus on it. Because it is the one thing that we can spend money on to "fix." It keeps the grant money flowing. If sun cycles were the primary driver, they would end up looking elsewhere for work.

[Contrails]

No, but they focus on it. Because it is the one thing that we can spend money on to "fix." It keeps the grant money flowing. If sun cycles were the primary driver, they would end up looking elsewhere for work.

Do you agree that Earth's mean surface temperature would be 33 °C below its current temperature of approximately 14 °C if not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

[Peter1469]

Do you agree that Earth's mean surface temperature would be 33 °C below its current temperature of approximately 14 °C if not for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

I won't dispute it. What I dispute is that CO2 is a major contributor to warming. That data doesn't so that.

Remember CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in ppm. 280 ppm to 400 ppm is like a hand full of sand in the Sahara.

[ptif219]

Climate science doesn't say that CO2 is the only radiative forcing, does it?

Yet it is all about politics screwing tax payers over CO2. It is political not science. If they want to go after pollution stop the scams like GW

[ptif219]

You would have to present something to refute first.

I have and you spin and show nothing. Warming is caused by the sun that is why warming has slowed

[Peter1469]

Yet it is all about politics screwing tax payers over CO2. It is political not science. If they want to go after pollution stop the scams like GW


Go after immediate environment threat, like us poisoning the water supply and oceans with industrial and farm waste.

[Contrails]

I won't dispute it. What I dispute is that CO2 is a major contributor to warming. That data doesn't so that.

Remember CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in ppm. 280 ppm to 400 ppm is like a hand full of sand in the Sahara.

Global annual mean surface-atmosphere energy budgets have been constructed over the last 100 years specifically to determine the contribution of each effect. The most recent such budget from 1997 shows CO2 is the second largest forcing, responsible for 26% of clear sky warming. That means we can attribute about 8.5 °C of the total 33 °C warming from the greenhouse effect. Can you dispute any of this?

"Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)

[Contrails]

Go after immediate environment threat, like us poisoning the water supply and oceans with industrial and farm waste.

Why can't we do both?

[Peter1469]

Why can't we do both?


Because we have limited resources. Better to spend money to fix real problems instead of tilting at windmills.

[Peter1469]

Global annual mean surface-atmosphere energy budgets have been constructed over the last 100 years specifically to determine the contribution of each effect. The most recent such budget from 1997 shows CO2 is the second largest forcing, responsible for 26% of clear sky warming. That means we can attribute about 8.5 °C of the total 33 °C warming from the greenhouse effect. Can you dispute any of this?

"Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)

The article was published in 1997, about the time when warming started to level off- and between then and now, CO2 levels rose "dramatically".

From the summary:
In discussing increasesin greenhouse gases and their impact on
climate change, the dominant contribution of water
vapor to the current greenhouse effect is often over-
looked. We have also demonstrated that the presence
of clouds in the atmosphere complicates these percent
contributions due to the strong wavelength overlap
between absorption by water vapor and liquid.



And you did the math:
That means we can attribute about 8.5 °C of the total 33 °C warming from the greenhouse effect.

Look at figure 2 here (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/). If we didn't have that 8.5 C we would be off the chart and in an ice age. And you can see that we are almost 4 C cooler than the peak of the Medieval Warming Period.

[Contrails]

The article was published in 1997, about the time when warming started to level off- and between then and now, CO2 levels rose "dramatically".
Fortunately, greenhouse forcing effects have been directly observed in the Outgoing Longwave Spectra (OLS) from space-borne infrared instruments for the last decade. And while global mean temperatures has remained relatively constant, the amount of heat retained by atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise.


Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1). Observed decreases in BT trends are expected due to ten years of increased greenhouse gasses even though global surface temperatures have not risen substantially over the last decade.

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262)


Look at figure 2 here (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/). If we didn't have that 8.5 C we would be off the chart and in an ice age. And you can see that we are almost 4 C cooler than the peak of the Medieval Warming Period.

Actually, figure 2 shows peak Medieval Warming only 0.4 °C warmer than modern temperatures. Decimal points are important here. Also, Loehle had to correct his calculations which are shown in figure 3 right below it. If you look carefully, you'll see that the reconstruction ends at 1950, and since global temperature has increased by about 0.6 °C since then, it's a safe bet that temperatures today are higher than they've been in the last 2,000 years.

Regardless, are you going to dispute that CO2 makes a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect?

[Contrails]

Because we have limited resources. Better to spend money to fix real problems instead of tilting at windmills.

What limited resources are you referring to? We already have regulations dealing with water quality and waste disposal. Why not have regulations limiting CO2 emissions as well?

[Peter1469]

What limited resources are you referring to? We already have regulations dealing with water quality and waste disposal. Why not have regulations limiting CO2 emissions as well?

The warmist crowd is demanding that serious money be transferred from the first world to the developing world so they can skip a generation in energy production. We don't have the money to do it. And it is a waste of money to do so, even if we had it.

[Contrails]

The warmist crowd is demanding that serious money be transferred from the first world to the developing world so they can skip a generation in energy production. We don't have the money to do it. And it is a waste of money to do so, even if we had it.

Since first world nations are responsible for most of the additional atmospheric CO2, shouldn't they bear the majority of the cost to correct it?

[Peter1469]

Since first world nations are responsible for most of the additional atmospheric CO2, shouldn't they bear the majority of the cost to correct it?

You have to prove that CO2 is a significant contributor to warming. The last 15 years have seen flat temps with large increases of CO2.

[Contrails]

You have to prove that CO2 is a significant contributor to warming.
Something which Chapman, Nguyun and Halem just demonstrated.

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262)


The last 15 years have seen flat temps with large increases of CO2.
A fact which doesn't disprove that the additional CO2 is causing higher temperatures. If CO2 was still at 280 ppm, we would likely be a full 1 °C cooler than we are today.

[Peter1469]

Something which Chapman, Nguyun and Halem just demonstrated.

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262)


A fact which doesn't disprove that the additional CO2 is causing higher temperatures. If CO2 was still at 280 ppm, we would likely be a full 1 °C cooler than we are today.

And other scientists come to a different conclusion.

Your 1 C cooler statement is speculation.

[ptif219]

Something which Chapman, Nguyun and Halem just demonstrated.

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262)


A fact which doesn't disprove that the additional CO2 is causing higher temperatures. If CO2 was still at 280 ppm, we would likely be a full 1 °C cooler than we are today.

Likely? Sounds like more opinions and assumptions

[Contrails]

And other scientists come to a different conclusion.
Conclusions in science are useless if they cannot tell us something we don't already know. Have any of these scientists produced a climate model more accurate than those used by the IPCC?


Your 1 C cooler statement is speculation.

All science is probability, but some is more probable than others.

[The Sage of Main Street]

By Michael Graham Richard

The longer we wait to act, the more painful it'll be

Ocean acidification doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It's negative effects on our planet and its ecosystems are potentially so vast that I wish someone would make the equivalent of Inconvenient Truth (http://www.treehugger.com/culture/an-inconvenient-truth-oscar-winner.html) about it to explain what's going on to the average person. But while we wait for that film to be made, the Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html)has a great feature-length piece that you should definitely read.
“I used to think it was kind of hard to make things in the ocean go extinct,” said James Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. “But this change we’re seeing is happening so fast it’s almost instantaneous. I think it might be so important that we see large levels, high rates, of extinction.”
Globally, we can arrest much of the damage if we bring down CO2 soon. But if we do not, the bad news won’t stop. And the longer we wait, the more permanent the change gets.
“There’s a train wreck coming and we are in a position to slow that down and make it not so bad,” said Stephen Palumbi, a professor of evolutionary and marine biology at Stanford University. “But if we don’t start now the wreck will be enormous.”
____

There are some great videos if you go to these links:

A closer look at the horrors of ocean acidification : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-conservation/closer-look-horrors-ocean-acidification.html)

Pacific Ocean takes perilous turn | Sea Change: Ocean acidification | The Seattle Times (http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/)

3985


Most species are useless or even harmful to us, so we should get rid of them. Trust fundie Treehuggers are set for life, so they don't care about how many jobs they destroy. They are toxic mutants and should be endangered themselves.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think it is all part of man's turn towards atheism, as much as pollution. When we stop seeing all life as sacred and as our environment as a distant kinsmen then our sole reason for protecting it rests with "what it does for us".

I don't mean this to say that atheists can't be moral people, or to propose a "religion", necessarily, but without a spiritual earth-view then our depth of caring only goes so deep.

Thank you for raising awareness and hopefully you will find someone to connect with on this issue.

Atheist? The Bible gives us Dominion, and not as caretakers either. It also says that man is the only species created in God's image. Maybe you are thinking of primitive animist religions. Those who would follow a self-hating creed like that went extinct themselves because of their passive and reverent attitude towards vermin and vegetation.

[The Sage of Main Street]

This may be another Doom and gloom BS scam just like Global warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130415100903.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/

We either enslave Nature or enslave Man. For certain people, enslaving their own kind is a lot more fun.

[The Sage of Main Street]

When one sees themselves as a part of nature, http://prq.sagepub.com/content/66/2/267.abstract


So the expression, "Your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower" is actually a compliment?

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't. I listen to the scientists. You should try it some time.Calling these agenda-driven degenerates "scientists" is like calling pedophile priests "Men of God." Climatology is a minor science for minor leaguers. Resentful of their inferiority and jealous of creative scientists, they have to save their egos by imagining themselves superheroes out to save the planet.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Like the fake "hockey stick?"

Would you call it "Situation Normal, All Pucked Up"? Or does being smothered by Warmies make us "Pucked Up Beyond All Recognition"?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why do you keep confusing local phenomenon with global patterns and short-term variability with long-term trends?

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger-hurricanes-worldwide-16204

Why should we listen to someone so poorly educated that he thinks phenomenon is plural?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Global warming is political and not about science

It also has to do with the misfit and Death Wish personalities of those stuck in this cult. They'll squeak "Ad Hominem!" as if their creepy gurus were disembodied spirits immune to human weaknesses.

[The Sage of Main Street]

What limited resources are you referring to? We already have regulations dealing with water quality and waste disposal. Why not have regulations limiting CO2 emissions as well?

Why not vastly increase the already bloated profit margins of the energy corporations? The high prices will force people to decrease their energy use.

[Contrails]

Why should we listen to someone so poorly educated that he thinks phenomenon is plural?

As opposed to one who cannot discern when someone else is speaking in the singular?

[Contrails]

Why not vastly increase the already bloated profit margins of the energy corporations? The high prices will force people to decrease their energy use.

And you're accusing environmentalists of having unreasonable ideas?

[Contrails]

Calling these agenda-driven degenerates "scientists" is like calling pedophile priests "Men of God." Climatology is a minor science for minor leaguers. Resentful of their inferiority and jealous of creative scientists, they have to save their egos by imagining themselves superheroes out to save the planet.

What happens when a global warming skeptic takes an honest look at the evidence?

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Admiral David Titley, US Navy Chief Oceanographer – “I used to be a climate skeptic”
(http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/05/admiral-david-titley-us-navy-chief-oceanographer-i-used-to-be-a-climate-skeptic/)
Stu Ostro – The Weather Channel’s Former Skeptic (http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/03/stu-ostro-the-weather-channels-former-skeptic/)

[ptif219]

And you're accusing environmentalists of having unreasonable ideas?

Don't worry Obama will make energy unaffordable through executive orders and the EPA

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/189754-obama-grasps-for-climate-legacy-as-second-term-agenda-crumbles

[Contrails]

Don't worry Obama will make energy unaffordable through executive orders and the EPA

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/189754-obama-grasps-for-climate-legacy-as-second-term-agenda-crumbles

Your link does nothing to explain how the EPA's proposed regulations will raise energy prices, much less make them unaffordable.

[ptif219]

Your link does nothing to explain how the EPA's proposed regulations will raise energy prices, much less make them unaffordable.

You can't shut down all the coal plants without causing economic damage
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/04/05/epa-will-increase-gasoline-prices-and-reduce-fuel-economy-in-bid-to-further-reduce-sulfur-in-gasoline/

http://www.bipps.org/epas-coal-chill-will-be-felt-worldwide/

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/epas-proposed-coal-plant-regulations-could-be-devastating-b99136671z1-230915891.html

[Contrails]

You can't shut down all the coal plants without causing economic damage
So we're just supposed to ignore coal plants that violate a 20 year-old law to reduce the emissions of mercury, arsenic and metals? Do you care about what's in the air you breath?

http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/pollution-consent-judgments-east-kentucky-30420322

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/basic.html

[The Sage of Main Street]

As opposed to one who cannot discern when someone else is speaking in the singular?

Dead wrong. I have to listen to the same stubborn refusal to go against their ignorant media grammar gurus when I try to explain that the conformists are using oxymoron and clueless wrong. Using event as a synonym for phenomenon, your sentence reads: "Why do you keep confusing local event with global patterns..."

If I have to explain why that sentence is wrong, you are hopelessly locked into your worship of the professionals. I'm not blaming you for following your indoctrination by believing that the people in the media must speak better English than you do, but I don't have to believe anything you say is intelligent. The same goes even for PhDs who don't know educated English.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And you're accusing environmentalists of having unreasonable ideas?

Look at the title to my post. You're being played by the corporations who have been able to put across their "unreasonable" idea of creating a Guilt Tax and collecting it themselves. The preppy progressives only claim they hate the oil companies. Why believe spoiled-rotten trash?

[The Sage of Main Street]

What happens when a global warming skeptic takes an honest look at the evidence?

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Admiral David Titley, US Navy Chief Oceanographer – “I used to be a climate skeptic”
(http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/05/admiral-david-titley-us-navy-chief-oceanographer-i-used-to-be-a-climate-skeptic/)
Stu Ostro – The Weather Channel’s Former Skeptic (http://climatecrocks.com/2010/12/03/stu-ostro-the-weather-channels-former-skeptic/)

Again, he's so uneducated that he thinks data is singular. Second, "skeptic" doesn't mean "denier." For example, I'm skeptical whether the Rockets new superstar will be their Messiah after he choked against the Lakers. That doesn't mean I count him out.

So the first guy was willing to meet the Treehuggers half way. I am not. I'm sure some other climate realist will come up with data that refute your new converts.

[Contrails]

Dead wrong. I have to listen to the same stubborn refusal to go against their ignorant media grammar gurus when I try to explain that the conformists are using oxymoron and clueless wrong. Using event as a synonym for phenomenon, your sentence reads: "Why do you keep confusing local event with global patterns..."

If I have to explain why that sentence is wrong, you are hopelessly locked into your worship of the professionals. I'm not blaming you for following your indoctrination by believing that the people in the media must speak better English than you do, but I don't have to believe anything you say is intelligent. The same goes even for PhDs who don't know educated English.
Exactly how does a grammatically incorrect sentence disprove the theory that global warming over the last century is caused by human CO2 emissions?


Look at the title to my post. You're being played by the corporations who have been able to put across their "unreasonable" idea of creating a Guilt Tax and collecting it themselves. The preppy progressives only claim they hate the oil companies. Why believe spoiled-rotten trash?
Before you can have a conspiracy to deceive people, you first have to show that what they are claiming is false. Good luck with that one.


Again, he's so uneducated that he thinks data is singular. Second, "skeptic" doesn't mean "denier." For example, I'm skeptical whether the Rockets new superstar will be their Messiah after he choked against the Lakers. That doesn't mean I count him out.

So the first guy was willing to meet the Treehuggers half way. I am not. I'm sure some other climate realist will come up with data that refute your new converts.
I don't need a college degree to know that there can only be one mean global surface temperature, and that it (yes, that's singular) has increased over the last century because of human CO2 emissions.

[ptif219]

So we're just supposed to ignore coal plants that violate a 20 year-old law to reduce the emissions of mercury, arsenic and metals? Do you care about what's in the air you breath?

http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/pollution-consent-judgments-east-kentucky-30420322

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/basic.html

They have improved over the years. Obama will kill the middle class and make more of the country a poverty type of third world country.

It needs to be done slowly not all at once. We have a weak economy that does not need more finanicial burdens. Not to mention the loss of jobs

[Contrails]

They have improved over the years. Obama will kill the middle class and make more of the country a poverty type of third world country.

It needs to be done slowly not all at once. We have a weak economy that does not need more finanicial burdens. Not to mention the loss of jobs

The standards the EPA is proposing only apply to new power plants built in the future. How will that raise energy prices, much less kill the middle class?

[ptif219]

The standards the EPA is proposing only apply to new power plants built in the future. How will that raise energy prices, much less kill the middle class?

That is wrong. Old power plants have to meet certain standards or put million into them. Obama wants to destroy the coal industry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/17/gop-blames-epa-regulations-for-layoff-of-525-coal-miners/

[Dangermouse]

Again, he's so uneducated that he thinks data is singular. Second, "skeptic" doesn't mean "denier." For example, I'm skeptical whether the Rockets new superstar will be their Messiah after he choked against the Lakers. That doesn't mean I count him out.

So the first guy was willing to meet the Treehuggers half way. I am not. I'm sure some other climate realist will come up with data that refute your new converts.

"Skeptics" went away when the Koch-funded meta-study of a couple of years back supported the AGW position. The remaining rump of dissent are indeed deniers.

[Contrails]

That is wrong. Old power plants have to meet certain standards or put million into them. Obama wants to destroy the coal industry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/17/gop-blames-epa-regulations-for-layoff-of-525-coal-miners/

I link to an actual court record about the plant closing and the new EPA regulation summary and your primary source that I'm wrong is statements by the GOP? You'll have to do better than that. In case you didn't read the court record closely, the Big Sandy Power Plant’s shutdown your earlier link offered as evidence of Obama's intentions was agreed to back in 2007, two years before Obama took office. You'll have a hard time pinning that on the current administration, much less the recently proposed EPA regulations.

[ptif219]

The sun is the reason for climate change. Scientist are baffled by the suns lack of activity again


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498


Something is up with the sun.
Scientists say that solar activity is stranger than in a century or more, with the sun producing barely half the number of sunspots as expected and its magnetic poles oddly out of sync.
The sun generates immense magnetic fields as it spins. Sunspots—often broader in diameter than Earth—mark areas of intense magnetic force that brew disruptive solar storms. These storms may abruptly lash their charged particles across millions of miles of space toward Earth, where they can short-circuit satellites, smother cellular signals or damage electrical systems.
Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate 11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this peak is "a total punk," said Jonathan Cirtain, who works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as project scientist for the Japanese satellite Hinode, which maps solar magnetic fields.
Enlarge Image

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BY856_FLIP_D_20131110184816.jpg





"I would say it is the weakest in 200 years," said David Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
Researchers are puzzled. They can't tell if the lull is temporary or the onset of a decades-long decline, which might ease global warming a bit by altering the sun's brightness or the wavelengths of its light.
"There is no scientist alive who has seen a solar cycle as weak as this one," said Andrés Munoz-Jaramillo, who studies the solar-magnetic cycle at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
To complicate the riddle, the sun also is undergoing one of its oddest magnetic reversals on record.
Normally, the sun's magnetic north and south poles change polarity every 11 years or so. During a magnetic-field reversal, the sun's polar magnetic fields weaken, drop to zero, and then emerge again with the opposite polarity. As far as scientists know, the magnetic shift is notable only because it signals the peak of the solar maximum, said Douglas Biesecker at NASA's Space Environment Center.
But in this cycle, the sun's magnetic poles are out of sync, solar scientists said. The sun's north magnetic pole reversed polarity more than a year ago, so it has the same polarity as the south pole.
"The delay between the two reversals is unusually long," said solar physicist Karel Schrijver at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif.

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is wrong. Old power plants have to meet certain standards or put million into them. Obama wants to destroy the coal industry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/17/gop-blames-epa-regulations-for-layoff-of-525-coal-miners/

The oil industry wants to destroy its rival, the coal industry. It's been that way for decades and their stealth tactics have worked. Follow the money, not the media-generated illusions about who is on whose side.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The sun is the reason for climate change. Scientist are baffled by the suns lack of activity again


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498

Just more evidence that the minor-league scientists who go into these self-indulgent escapist fields like astronomy and climatology understand very little about what is really going on. Using the Low-IQ logic of these agenda-driven degenerates, maybe they can blame the automobile for what is happening to the sun.

Back around 1910, one of the ruling class's scribbling prostitutes warned his Masters that the automobile would cause the lower classes to feel strong. That would make them dangerous.
They still seek to put us back in our place, being stuffed into public transportation like sardines or twirling our legs on bicycles like prancing male dancers.

[ptif219]

The oil industry wants to destroy its rival, the coal industry. It's been that way for decades and their stealth tactics have worked. Follow the money, not the media-generated illusions about who is on whose side.

Obama does not like either so that is not what is happening

[Contrails]

The sun is the reason for climate change. Scientist are baffled by the suns lack of activity again
If the sun is the only variable affecting climate change, and solar activity is the weakest it has been in 200 years after peaking back in the 1950's, then shouldn't global mean temperatures also be about where they were 200 years ago?

[ptif219]

If the sun is the only variable affecting climate change, and solar activity is the weakest it has been in 200 years after peaking back in the 1950's, then shouldn't global mean temperatures also be about where they were 200 years ago?

Only in your Global Warming corrupt mind

[Contrails]

Only in your Global Warming corrupt mind

Come on now, this is how science works. You do understand the scientific method, don't you? If you think that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, all you have to do is produce a theory which explains global mean surface temperature without considering atmospheric CO2 levels. For someone who knows as much about the subject as you think you do, that shouldn't be too hard.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Obama does not like either so that is not what is happening

Lawn jockey Obama is himself a media-generated illusion.

[ptif219]

Come on now, this is how science works. You do understand the scientific method, don't you? If you think that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, all you have to do is produce a theory which explains global mean surface temperature without considering atmospheric CO2 levels. For someone who knows as much about the subject as you think you do, that shouldn't be too hard.

Yes I do. You can say any BS as long as you get other scientists to agree. Now the IPCC is updating data manipulation and ignoring the lack of warming for 17 years and contining the Doom and gloom and giving more false predictions that will not happen


http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-climate-change-20131112,0,6958165.story#axzz2kRAYHu21

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/u-n-climate-panel-corrects-carbon-numbers-influential-report-2D11577699

[ptif219]

Lawn jockey Obama is himself a media-generated illusion.

Thanks to his continued failed policy on ethanol he is helping to destroy our land and environment. The green programs the want to more harm than good


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

[Contrails]

Yes I do. You can say any BS as long as you get other scientists to agree. Now the IPCC is updating data manipulation and ignoring the lack of warming for 17 years and contining the Doom and gloom and giving more false predictions that will not happen

So, in your opinion ptif219, what is the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling? And please try to support your answer with something scientific.

[ptif219]

So, in your opinion ptif219, what is the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling? And please try to support your answer with something scientific.

So you ignore my links? Typical

[Contrails]

So you ignore my links? Typical

The ones claiming the ocean is not getting acidified? Or the ones that claim we're now cooling? It was a short list of links so I checked again and there is no estimate for CO2 climate sensitivity in any of them. The ones you posted about hurricanes or coal plant closings certainly don't give a number either. Now are you going to answer a simple, straight forward question or will you continue to avoid it and make up excuses about how you've already responded?

[ptif219]

The ones claiming the ocean is not getting acidified? Or the ones that claim we're now cooling? It was a short list of links so I checked again and there is no estimate for CO2 climate sensitivity in any of them. The ones you posted about hurricanes or coal plant closings certainly don't give a number either. Now are you going to answer a simple, straight forward question or will you continue to avoid it and make up excuses about how you've already responded?

CO2 keeps growing yet temp is not rising which means CO2 is not the cause

[Contrails]

CO2 keeps growing yet temp is not rising which means CO2 is not the cause

You keep repeating that but you cannot produce any science to back it up. I wonder why that is?

[ptif219]

You keep repeating that but you cannot produce any science to back it up. I wonder why that is?

What is to prove? We all know CO2 keeps increasing and we also know there has been no significant warming for 17 years

[Contrails]

What is to prove? We all know CO2 keeps increasing and we also know there has been no significant warming for 17 years

Actually, science has just dispelled that popular denier talking point. Global mean surface temperature has increased over the last 17 years at the same rate is has over the last 60 year.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract)

[ptif219]

Actually, science has just dispelled that popular denier talking point. Global mean surface temperature has increased over the last 17 years at the same rate is has over the last 60 year.

Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract)

So they found a way to manipulate the data. I am not surprised

[Contrails]

So they found a way to manipulate the data. I am not surprised
Do you reject all science, or only the science that reaches conclusions you don't agree with?

Are you ever going to explain how temperatures continued to increase after 1950 when solar intensity started to decline?

[Contrails]

The oil industry wants to destroy its rival, the coal industry. It's been that way for decades and their stealth tactics have worked. Follow the money, not the media-generated illusions about who is on whose side.

Using AGW to destroy coal would be self defeating for the oil industry since they are a very close second when it comes to CO2 emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

[Contrails]

And other scientists come to a different conclusion.

Your 1 C cooler statement is speculation.

Are you ever going to produce some science showing CO2 is not a major contributor to global mean surface temperature?

[ptif219]

Do you reject all science, or only the science that reaches conclusions you don't agree with?

Are you ever going to explain how temperatures continued to increase after 1950 when solar intensity started to decline?

I disagree with the hypocrite that hurt the environment and justify it for the Gloabal warming lies

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/12/Oops-Solar-Energy-Plants-are-Killing-Rare-birds

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/09/Wind-turbines-blamed-in-death-of-estimated-600-000-bats-in-2012

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/green-energy-producer-seeks-permit-kill-eagles

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/363742/how-corn-ethanol-destroying-environment-greg-pollowitz

The warming may not be the problem. Plus if it starts cooling it may be worse than warming

[ptif219]

Using AGW to destroy coal would be self defeating for the oil industry since they are a very close second when it comes to CO2 emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Obama wants the coal industry destroyed he has been saying so since 2008


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tennessee-valley-authority-to-close-8-coal-fired-power-plants/2013/11/14/be1e4f1e-4d60-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_t witter_washingtonpost

[Contrails]

The warming may not be the problem. Plus if it starts cooling it may be worse than warming
What is the most likely amount of global cooling we could see by the end of the century?

[Contrails]

Obama wants the coal industry destroyed he has been saying so since 2008

Are you crediting Obama with reducing electricity demand in the Tennessee Valley by 10% since 2008?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Obama wants the coal industry destroyed he has been saying so since 2008


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tennessee-valley-authority-to-close-8-coal-fired-power-plants/2013/11/14/be1e4f1e-4d60-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_t witter_washingtonpost

This monopolistic strategy originated in Big Oil trying to eliminate its competition. The petrocrats' sons pretended to be Liberal and presented themselves as morally superior idealists concerned about the government. They were brought up with a Born to Rule attitude by their authoritarian fathers, so it was easy for them to intimidate fools into falling for their act. Obama is one of those fools.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Obama wants the coal industry destroyed he has been saying so since 2008


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tennessee-valley-authority-to-close-8-coal-fired-power-plants/2013/11/14/be1e4f1e-4d60-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_t witter_washingtonpost

This monopolistic strategy originated in Big Oil trying to eliminate its competition. The petrocrats' sons pretended to be Liberal and presented themselves as morally superior idealists concerned about the environment. These Heirheads were brought up with a Born to Rule attitude by their authoritarian fathers, so it was easy for them to intimidate fools into falling for their act. Obama is one of those fools.

[ptif219]

What is the most likely amount of global cooling we could see by the end of the century?

Who knows when Scientists are always wrong

[ptif219]

Are you crediting Obama with reducing electricity demand in the Tennessee Valley by 10% since 2008?

No just with trying to put coal out of business and destroying more jobs. The EPA is backing off om ethanol. Another environmentalist useless solution that does nothing besides lower fuel mieage

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/15/epa-scales-back-ethanol-mandate/

[Contrails]

Who knows when Scientists are always wrong

How can you know what the wrong answer is if you don't know what the right answer is?

[bobgnote]

Very sad @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)

Carbon trading won't help that. People would need to actually reduce carbon use, not cap it.

Government and corporate media around the globe tend to suppress carbon capture and recycling media.

DARPA has done a lot of research, into capturing and compressing CO2, to then grow algae, in closed chambers, such as boxcar-containers.

Any furnace should feature carbon scrubbing, if it burns coal or sundry media, or simple CO2 collection, if it is an O2-fired gas furnace.

Compress the CO2, to manufacture methanol and grow algae, on-site. Blend biodiesel, and CO2 is recycled.

Carbon in the ground need not be hurried, to harvast, with this scenario.

[ptif219]

How can you know what the wrong answer is if you don't know what the right answer is?

When they have to manipulate data and refuse to admit when they are wrong you know they can not be trusted

[ptif219]

Government and corporate media around the globe tend to suppress carbon capture and recycling media.

DARPA has done a lot of research, into capturing and compressing CO2, to then grow algae, in closed chambers, such as boxcar-containers.

Any furnace should feature carbon scrubbing, if it burns coal or sundry media, or simple CO2 collection, if it is an O2-fired gas furnace.

Compress the CO2, to manufacture methanol and grow algae, on-site. Blend biodiesel, and CO2 is recycled.

Carbon in the ground need not be hurried, to harvast, with this scenario.

What nothing about harp to go with the other conspiracy theories?

http://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/filipino-haarp-media/

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/11/shocking-proof-u-s-attacked-the-philipines-with-weather-warfare-includes-video-2455738.html

[bobgnote]

What nothing about harp to go with the other conspiracy theories?

1.

http://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/filipino-haarp-media/

2.

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/11/shocking-proof-u-s-attacked-the-philipines-with-weather-warfare-includes-video-2455738.html

1. Since you've linked, to a moronic, unscientific, conservaderp blogger, I guess maybe you like to do conspiracies, related to farting silently and then leaving the room, to evade blame.

2. Since you've linked, to a garbage website, I guess you are revelling, in having nothing valuable, to offer.

[bobgnote]

Meanwhile, the oceans are acidifying AND warming, so when cold water wells up, it can destroy, with acid, and when currents are warm, ice and methane clathrates melt, while fish die, and poisonous algae may bloom.

The box jellyfish will become the major ocean predator, which takeover is in progress.

Large areas of ocean are as dead as the heads, of climate change deniers.

[ptif219]

1. Since you've linked, to a moronic, unscientific, conservaderp blogger, I guess maybe you like to do conspiracies, related to farting silently and then leaving the room, to evade blame.

2. Since you've linked, to a garbage website, I guess you are revelling, in having nothing valuable, to offer.

Yet you believe the unscientific lies of the IPCC

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/19/climate-depot-special-report-on-typhoon-haiyan-presented-at-un-climate-summit-in-warsaw/



UN head Ban Ki-moon says Typhoon Haiyan due to climate change - 'We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth.'
Philippines lead negotiator Yeb Sano at UN climate summit in Warsaw 'announces he will not eat during the conference, until a meaningful agreement has been achieved’
Jeffrey Sachs Special Advisor to UN Sec.-General Ban Ki-moon, 'Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.'
Typhoon Fuels Call for Global Warming Compensation Funds At UN Climate Summit – Poor nations ‘blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere’
Scientific Reality Check:
As Scientists Reject Climate Link – Claim of ‘strongest storm ever’ refuted
Storm expert Brian McNoldy of U. of Miami: ‘We don’t get to pick and choose which storms are enhanced by a warmer climate and which ones aren’t’
Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue: 'Over past 1,000 years, Philippines have been hit by 10-20 thousand tropical cyclones. Don't be so arrogant to believe man caused Haiyan.'
Maue demolishes claims that Typhoon Haiyan was ‘strongest storm ever’ – ‘Fact: Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower from historical records’ -- Maue: '50 of 58 Super Typhoons with pressure of 900 mb or lower occurred from 1950-1987 -- only 8 in past 25 years'
Strongest storm ever? ‘Haiyan ranks at number 7 among the strongest storms ever to have hit the Philippines’
UN IPCC: 'There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration).' Its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report added in September 2013 there have been 'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century'.
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The scientific evidence does not presently support claims of attribution of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on tropical cyclone behavior with respect to century-long trends ‘much less the behavior of individual storms’ - "In practical terms, on timescales of decision making a signal that cannot be seen is indistinguishable from a signal that does not exist - 'I am not convinced that 3 mm/year of sea level rise is a big issue in the magnitude of disaster losses'
Gabe Vecchi, a research oceanographer with NOAA, said that if global warming altered Haiyan, it did not do so to a significant extent. 'I expect that the contribution of global warming to Haiyan's extreme intensity is likely to have been small, relative to other factors like weather fluctuations and climate variability.'
Pielke Jr.: 'Given this data, substantial research on it and a strong IPCC consensus does anyone really want to debate that typhoon disasters have become more common?'
Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Facts don’t support climate-change-caused-typhoon-Haiyan. Strong typhoons declining 1950-10.
Real Science website: ‘There have been 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people. Thirty-three occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. The deadliest one in 1970 was blamed on global cooling at the time’

[bobgnote]

Ah, the 5 surviving members of MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS are reuniting, for a stage show, in Summer 2014.

I understand the winds, of Typhoon Phaillin could be heard, to blast: "NO POOFTERS!!!!!"

As for Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, it was one of the strongest storms, ever, and it is a contender, for strongest storm, of the satellite era.

That list of derps in the previous post doesn't include one serious media practitioner, at all; poofters need not apply, for sciencey bits.

No poofters, por moi.:lipsrsealed: