Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#26
#26
MG1968 said:
my only compensation is the eventual, and inevitable, vindication of my skepticism and the pure delight I will take in seeing the alarmists hoist on their own petards.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah mg, you have a vested interest, remember the words of Barack Hussein Obama that if he was able to enact c & t your energy bills would natually 'skyrocket.'

and that is just the beginning, everything you buy would have a skyrocketing price because the cost of energy for production, transportation and maintaining a retail outlet would also skyrocket.

As it stand now the dhimmis didn't have the votes to pass it so Barry is trying to bypass congress and use the EPA to destroy the American economy..
 
#27
#27
gsvol said:
During the 1600s when CO2 levels were as high as
they are now
Click to expand...

Law_dome_co2_levels_1000_AD_-_2000_AD.JPG
 
#28
#28
gsvol said:
If you really believe what you say, you are in
the market for a snow shovel because someone
has put one a hell of a snow job on you.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority
of scientists DO NOT subscribe to the AGW theory.

Seven hundred to a thousand years ago sea level
was 18" higher than it is today and Vikings farmed
on the island of Greenland, having vinyards and
raising cattle and sheep and producing enough
vegetables to be able to export them back to
Scandinavia and probably CO2 levels were lower
than they are now.

During the 1600s when CO2 levels were as high as
they are now a little ice age descended on Europe
that saw some glaciers extend down valleys for up
to ten miles.

All this had not one thing to do with human activity,
it most likely was dictated by solar activity and
possibly other factors that we do not clearly
understand.

The fact of the matter is that we can greatly
increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere and still
enter into a major ice age because CO2 isn't a
major driver of the mean temperature on our
planet.

As a matter of fact it is easily demonstrable
that CO2 levels have less than 1% effect on
atmospheric and surface temperatures.

Not only that but the drastic measures proposed
by Obama and his Obots such as yourself can't
determine in the most extreme case more than
1% of Earth's natural CO2 levels.

In other words if we were to shut down every coal
fired electricity producing plants on Earth and stopped
every gasoline burning engin on Earth then you are
still only talking about 1% of 1%!!!

And we aren't talking about shutting down coal use
in China or India or most anywhere other than in
America. Is there anything at all that tells you this
policy is stupid beyond words????

We do know that for millions of years CO2 levels
have lagged behind temperature by hundreds of
years, the theory that this is suddenly going to
chage is a bit far fetched to begin with and no
one who preaches AGW can explain why if CO2
levels are increasing, then why is the Earth
temperature falling.

The fact of the matter is that when global
temperature decreases over an extended period
the oceans absorbs CO2 and when it increases
over an extended period then the oceans release
CO2, it is sort of like the planet is breathing.

When the planet warms and CO2 is released this
is an excellent environment for increased plant
growth, when the opposite happens then plant
life decreases.

AGW is related to several other theories and
literally joined at the hip with marxism.

nightbeforechristmas.jpg



I post this in hopes that you are not now as
uninformed as you previously were. :loco:
Click to expand...

boom
 
#30
#30
fl0at said:
Really? You believe what he wrote? Disagreement with Climate change aside, the vast majority of the junk he wrote is... junk. Untruths, half truths and junk.
Click to expand...

if you believe its junk info.. then debate it.
 
#31
#31
fl0at said:
Really? You believe what he wrote? Disagreement with Climate change aside, the vast majority of the junk he wrote is... junk. Untruths, half truths and junk.
Click to expand...

What specifically is junk? We'll debate the post point by point.
 
#33
#33
We do know that for millions of years CO2 levels
have lagged behind temperature by hundreds of
years, the theory that this is suddenly going to
chage is a bit far fetched to begin with and no
one who preaches AGW can explain why if CO2
levels are increasing, then why is the Earth
temperature falling.
Click to expand...

I agree completely that historically, CO2 levels have lagged temperature changes. However, global warming theory doesn't suggest that this is suddenly going to change. In fact, it is included in modeling of climate response to changes in CO2 levels. It isn't like it's a magic phenomenon. It isn't like suggesting that increasing CO2 levels can increase temperature as well is an opposite kind of magic that must negate the first. The fact that CO2 has lagged temperature changes is the result a process based on underlying physical principles. No one is suggesting those will change. However, in a world with an unnatural source of CO2 (such as digging up previously buried carbon and burning it), CO2 levels are changing as a result of natural forces (such as the oceanic source) and unnatural (such as combustion of carbon). This new source of CO2 is leading to atmospheric concentrations that exceed those which we would expect at the current global average temperature. This leads to the potential of seeing new forcings on temperatures.

As for the last part of this quote...there are all kinds of reasons why temperatures could decrease in the face of rising CO2 levels, and none of those would necessarily be inconsistent with AGW theory. With that said, I'm not so sure you can really point to temperatures and say they are falling. Are you using the same incorrect point about temperatures "falling" for the last decade (from 1998-2008) as evidence of cooling temperatures, when the exact opposite could be said for other ten year rolling periods?

The fact of the matter is that when global
temperature decreases over an extended period
the oceans absorbs CO2 and when it increases
over an extended period then the oceans release
CO2, it is sort of like the planet is breathing.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. And this is a fact that in no way invalidates or places into question AGW.
 
#35
#35
droski said:
the world is getting warmer, the question is whether man is the reason, or even if man is the reason, if we can do anthing about it.
Click to expand...

The warming already done is irreversible. Anyone honest would admit that. The thing is, that is the sort of message that makes even the educated public throw their hands up and say "screw it."
 
#36
#36
TSwafford said:
if you believe its junk info.. then debate it.
Click to expand...

What, like the other 13 threads on global warming? I started at post 27, we can play it from there if you like.

If the info is solid, then obviously CO2 levels in the 1600s are where they are today.

If the info is junk, then CO2 levels are not, as depicted in #27.
 
#37
#37
TT, he's been told why his crackpot pseudo-scientific analysis is inaccurate before. He just throws up cartoons and calls people names.
 
#39
#39
IPorange said:
TT, he's been told why his crackpot pseudo-scientific analysis is inaccurate before. He just throws up cartoons and calls people names.
Click to expand...

I know...and I've pretty much stopped bothering...but I felt the thread was due for at least a bit of it....
 
#43
#43
Somebody needs to find some story that Muslims are behind global warming, then lets see what stance he will take..
 
#46
#46
Tucker Carlson just illustrated my point perfectly a minute ago, when he shifted from "it's cold and there's snow in the East, so there is no global warming" to "does it even matter if there is?" since it isn't reversible. It also shows that the main resistance to GCC theory is economic and political.
 
#47
#47
TennTradition said:
I agree completely that historically, CO2 levels have lagged temperature changes. However, global warming theory doesn't suggest that this is suddenly going to change. In fact, it is included in modeling of climate response to changes in CO2 levels. It isn't like it's a magic phenomenon. It isn't like suggesting that increasing CO2 levels can increase temperature as well is an opposite kind of magic that must negate the first. The fact that CO2 has lagged temperature changes is the result a process based on underlying physical principles. No one is suggesting those will change. However, in a world with an unnatural source of CO2 (such as digging up previously buried carbon and burning it), CO2 levels are changing as a result of natural forces (such as the oceanic source) and unnatural (such as combustion of carbon). This new source of CO2 is leading to atmospheric concentrations that exceed those which we would expect at the current global average temperature. This leads to the potential of seeing new forcings on temperatures.

As for the last part of this quote...there are all kinds of reasons why temperatures could decrease in the face of rising CO2 levels, and none of those would necessarily be inconsistent with AGW theory. With that said, I'm not so sure you can really point to temperatures and say they are falling. Are you using the same incorrect point about temperatures "falling" for the last decade (from 1998-2008) as evidence of cooling temperatures, when the exact opposite could be said for other ten year rolling periods?



I completely agree. And this is a fact that in no way invalidates or places into question AGW.
Click to expand...

Stupid in, stupid out, if you tell the computer that CO2 is a major driver of planet temperature then the computer will spit out data that confirms your theoty.

The simple fact is that CO2 isn't a very significant indicator of what you can predict, not in the sense of what future solar activity may be and you can't predict that and you can rest assured that it will certainly overide co2 levels by far. That is a factoid that you can't deny.

You say AGW theory isn't in question??

Previously I gave you more credence than that, in the future I will not.



fl0at said:
See post 27, we can start there.
Click to expand...

Reitterat #27 and we are good to go.

Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified “Siple curve”, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the “hockey curve” of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion “climatic” dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
Click to expand...



IPorange said:
The warming already done is irreversible. Anyone honest would admit that. The thing is, that is the sort of message that makes even the educated public throw their hands up and say "screw it."
Click to expand...

So you say we are headed to Armageddon?

The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel. Evidence for lacking evaluation of methods results from the finding that as accurate selected results show systematic errors in the order of at least 20 ppm. Most authors and sources have summarised the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality results.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis seems to rest on the fact that radiation from the sun is constant and that simply isn't true. :crazy:
 
#48
#48
gsvol said:
You say AGW theory isn't in question??

Previously I gave you more credence than that, in the future I will not.
Click to expand...

:crazy:

GS - do you read others' posts or look for key words instead? Where did I say that AGW theory is not in question? I didn't say anything of the sort.

In many cases (but certainly not all cases), I think the questions being asked are silly or are motivated more out of political/financial fear than actual scientific basis - but it is obviously being questioned.
 
#50
#50
gsvol said:
Reitterat #27 and we are good to go.

Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C
Click to expand...

I read this, and found it amusing. Did you take a look at Figure 2? Besides the fact he is arguing point and not mean, I'll play his game, for you.

His baseline is 300, in Figure 2. (All those little circles).

The baseline in the core sample is 280 ppm. An increase of 20 ppm, and his Figure shows higher ppm in the 1800s than law dome.

He doesn't actually argue the increase, so instead he argues the depth.

Well, that is a bit of a flaw, as well. (This is a test, we'll see if you pass it.) Read on.

As to your reference of his, and since you like to include others work, I shall too:

This is one of the few new arguments — that is, not just warmed over from the 1992 paper — made in this statement. Unfortunately for Jaworowski, it is bogus. In fact, studies of stomatal response to CO2 concentration across several species have shown “Without evolutionary changes, SI and SD may not respond to atmospheric [CO2] in the field and are unlikely to decrease in a future high CO2 world.” In other words, stomatal frequency does not change quickly enough to reveal the rapid changes Jaworowski claims occurred.
Click to expand...

Some are Boojums Blog Archive The Golden Horseshoe Award: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top