Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#226
#226
MG1968 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html

cliff notes version:

man allegedly creates global warming via increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to somewhat more than trace levels. (a stretch in an of itself)

sea ice melts, creating more water vapor in the atmosphere

that water vapor results in incredible amounts of snow in Siberia (really? snow in Siberia?)

sunlight reflects solar radiation back out into space

planet cools

essentially, what he's said is that the earth achieves equilibrium through natural means and that man's rather feeble presence here is barely more than a mosquito bite on an elephant's behind
Click to expand...

The ozone hole disagrees with this.

The Gulf of Mexico disagrees with this.

The lead burden in all modern humans disagrees with this.

Chernobyl disagrees with this.

The ancient forests disagree with this.

The rainforests disagree with this.

The extinct large mammals of North America disagree with this. ETC.

I'm more curious about your comments regarding CO2. Do you actually NOT believe CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Or do you believe CO2 doesn't radiate heat energy from the earth in all directions?
 
#227
#227
utgibbs said:
I thought the answer was self-evident - he should read the article.

Plus, it doesn't take too much effort to work out why the world's largest reinsurer would be discussing earthquakes in 2010. It's part of their service, as well.



Munich Re listed the Russian heatwave and the Pakistan floods in their five "great natural catastrophes" of 2010. The other three were the major earthquakes.

But, it's obvious why Ras elected NOT to read the link. It would have shot him down by Paragraph 1.
Click to expand...

Looking at the past 10 years or 20 years of weather patterns on a planet that is 4 billion years old is not enough time to show trends one way or the other. It would be tantamount to looking at Albert Pujols first at bat... no check that, first pitch on opening day and determining what his batting average will be in July. You don't have enough data...
 
#229
#229
Rasputin_Vol said:
Essentially, warmer waters create more powerful and more frequent hurricanes. No one is arguing that.

The argument is based on what is causing the waters to warm. Is it human activity or just a natural cycle of warming and cooling.
Click to expand...

Then why the angst and laughing Jackson over the highlighted sections about hurricanes? If you accept that increased global temperatures means more and stronger hurricanes, then your problem is with attribution of observed climate change. Why bring tropical weather into it?

FWIW...I think that the link isn't as strong as you make it. While warmer waters gives a storm more strength, it doesn't necessarily mean more hurricanes. Also, is it possible that climate change could induce increased wind shear or change the nature of storms in West Africa that lead to the nucleation of tropical systems heading west. While I can see that warm water means more energy for the storms, it also seems that there are other factors to consider.
 
Last edited:
#231
#231
Ras, start me at the beginning. Why is there no climate change? You've been all over the map from "there isn't enough data" to "it's actually getting colder" (contradictory) to bringing out statements from Danny Glover as an expert witness, etc. Lay it out there. What is your case.
 
#232
#232
Ras, what natural cycle are you referring to? Or are you just making **** up? People who actually study climate would love to hear about your discovery.
 
#233
#233
IPorange said:
Ras, what natural cycle are you referring to? Or are you just making **** up? People who actually study climate would love to hear about your discovery.
Click to expand...

Lunar effects or solar effects are just two that can be cyclical. Then you have your random events. Random variances in ocean currents. The fluid motion of our atmosphere. There are many things that could be causing "climate change".
 
#234
#234
Yes, I know all about various oceanic oscillations. Some operate on decadal scales. Tell me specifically: how are they causing climate change.
 
#235
#235
I'd just like to know which oceanic oscillation correlates to a warming trend. It isn't the PDO, and that's the largest one.


Also, tell me more of these Lunar effects on climate. Would love to hear it.
 
#236
#236
IPorange said:
Ras, start me at the beginning. Why is there no climate change? You've been all over the map from "there isn't enough data" to "it's actually getting colder" (contradictory) to bringing out statements from Danny Glover as an expert witness, etc. Lay it out there. What is your case.
Click to expand...

I don't have a case one way or the other.

But I do know this, for anyone to take a 5 or 10 or 20 year snap shot of earth's climate and try to extrapolate from that data that there is AGW is comical. We have weather periods over this planets history that lasted several thousands of years in most cases. To pull out 20 data points out of a 10,000 year sample size would be comical in a manufacturing environment, not to mention as a basis for scientific theory.
 
#237
#237
Weather patterns over 30 years is the definition of climate.

We know more than you think about Earth's climate history. That's what I do for a living. We aren't pulling 20 data points from a 10,000 year sample size.

We have data points going back over 400,000 years, and some data going back even further. We have a fairly good picture of Earth's climate through the quaternary. That's longer than many species have been around on this planet. The misconception is that scientists are claiming CO2 controls climate. It isn't nearly so simple. There are hundreds or more factors that control climate, with different ones being more prominent at different times. What is going on now is unprecedented, however, in that carbon stored in the lithosphere has never been pumped out and oxidized on a large scale. This is new.

The scientific theory is sound. Try me. Show me where it isn't.
 
#238
#238
#239
#239
Your post, as usual, is completely ignorant gsvol.

1. In another thread, we did the math of CO2 released from volcanoes annually versus human activities. The figures paled.

2. The increased CO2 in the air is proven to be of human origin by it's isotopic properties.

Your post is the one that's full of idiocy.
 
#240
#240
Except that you have no data on the amount of co2 released by undersea volcanoes.

The link above shows that previously unexpected volcanic emissions in huge amounts of co2 under the Arctic Ocean were only discovered in 2008.

Likewise liquid co2 emissions in the Mariana Trench 5,500 meters beneath the ocean surface have only been discovered.

As a matter of fact the vast majority of volcanic eruptions are beneath the oceans and have not been studied much at all.

Your claim seems ludicrous in that you havn't the slightest ability to calculate those amounts of co2 released.

Tree huggers and government research grant recipients also claim the polar ice caps are melting when the opposite is ture.

Core measurements and satellite data show that the polar ice caps (arctic and antarctic) are expanding, not shrinking. The Australian recently published an article on the fact that the antarctic ice cap is growing:

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. . . .

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ("Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away," http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html)

I don't see how you can project stupidity on those who don't agree with you claiming speudo science etc when you brodcast, if not outright lies, then very misleading statements.

And plese don't jump on any typos that may appear, I'm babysitting and don't have the time to proof read everything.
 
#241
#241
Estimates count more than what we know on land, an estimate of what's coming and going from the seas (we don't have to know where or how much is volcanic, what comes up from the surface is measurable either way) and that doesn't change the damning isotope data.

Liquid CO2 emissions, again, don't account for the known quantities of CO2 (identified by their isotopic values and confirmed by looking at our own activities) that are originated from human activities. Also, it's possible those liquid CO2 emissions are part of a positive feedback of increasing CO2, increasing ocean temperatures, and thus lowering the ocean's capacity as a CO2 sink. So BS.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351

BS on your ice caps (arctic and antarctic) crap:

YouTube - Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Changes, 2003-2009 [HD]

Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif


Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE


SKS2.png


The Copenhagen Diagnosis

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

You're throwing up isolated, cherry-picked point data in the face of consolidated areal data to refute global phenomena. It's really stupid on your part.

The expansion of sea ice around Antarctica is due to local conditions involving the oceanic circulation patterns there, and is partly aided by the loss of ice mass on the Antarctic continent, which pushes neighboring ice shelves further out during the winter.

You're the one spreading outright lies by speaking on a topic you clearly know nothing more about than what you read on your kooky conspiracy blogs. There is nothing misleading about what I say. Anyone can crack open the literature and see where I am getting my information from. There is a large and vocal group of cretins in this world who think they can step in with their political science degrees or community college associate's degrees and point out any outlying datum and hold it up as proving the whole data set erroneous. That's not science, that's Dark Ages style ignorance.
 
Last edited:
#242
#242
IPorange said:
Weather patterns over 30 years is the definition of climate.

We know more than you think about Earth's climate history. That's what I do for a living. We aren't pulling 20 data points from a 10,000 year sample size.

We have data points going back over 400,000 years, and some data going back even further. We have a fairly good picture of Earth's climate through the quaternary. That's longer than many species have been around on this planet. The misconception is that scientists are claiming CO2 controls climate. It isn't nearly so simple. There are hundreds or more factors that control climate, with different ones being more prominent at different times. What is going on now is unprecedented, however, in that carbon stored in the lithosphere has never been pumped out and oxidized on a large scale. This is new.

The scientific theory is sound. Try me. Show me where it isn't.
Click to expand...

Paleoclimate makes me squeal like a school-girl with delight! Impressed you're in the biz.

I see you defer to Vostok. Has EPICA just not been around the block enough? As far as I'm aware, EPICA hasn't added anything new (except years) to the Vostok record, but I thought with the EPICA record it was standard to go back 1MA.

I'd love a PM when you get the chance describing your work, and which proxy or time frame you study.
 
#243
#243
Rasputin_Vol said:
Looking at the past 10 years or 20 years of weather patterns on a planet that is 4 billion years old is not enough time to show trends one way or the other. It would be tantamount to looking at Albert Pujols first at bat... no check that, first pitch on opening day and determining what his batting average will be in July. You don't have enough data...
Click to expand...

Great call on the age of the Earth. :thumbsup: (It's 4.5 billion, but I'm not trying to be a smartass. It's refreshing to see 4bn vice 10,000).

The paleoclimate record is exceedingly strong over the last 400,000 years. The ice core data contains a staggering amount of direct and indirect information, and there is a core going back 1 million years (IP, feel free to shoot me down here).

The point: there is a lot of data. Moreover, there is a lot of data from different sources and methodologies which confirm the same story.
 
#245
#245
This seems to all be a epic battle between two groups of scientists who believe the exact opposite of each other. It all falls into the category of what group you believe. That's why I love science! Just pick a side!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#246
#246
Oldvol75 said:
This seems to all be a epic battle between two groups of scientists who believe the exact opposite of each other. It all falls into the category of what group you believe. That's why I love science! Just pick a side!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Show me this other group of scientists. Seriously. Dentists, pediatricians and Exxon employees? 80 year olds who time has passed them by?

Science is not about "belief," it's about evidence and facts. Those are overwhelmingly on one side of this equation. The probability of humans not at least being a significant factor in the current changes that ARE being observed (notice how often skeptics jump back and forth on whether there is a change, and then whether humans are causing it- that isn't science, that's tailoring one's argument for political reasons) are at the point of being statistically irrelevant.
 
#247
#247
tim said:
Serious question. If there is So Much data, why all the funny business?
Click to expand...

There are people who believe vaccines cause autism. Many people aren't rational, or don't know what they are talking about. They think if it's ever cold outside anywhere, that it is evidence against global climate change. It's just ignorance.
 
#248
#248
tim said:
Serious question. If there is So Much data, why all the funny business?
Click to expand...

Serious answer (and I just learned this today).

The "Enlightenment Model" of human decision making is very incomplete. People, actually, resist strongly any factual information not confirming their social values. Emotion, social identity, and values play critical roles far above the real world outside the back door in human decision making.

That is why you see the United States - with a culture of inequality, happy motoring, hyper-individualism - strongly resisting the twin towers of global heating and single-payer health care despite massive amounts of data from the real world. However, these things are taken for granted in most parts of the world. We are a super-powerful superminority.
 
#249
#249
IP you know as well as I do that there are opposing groups. Those scientists that are blasted because they go against the rest. Not all believe as you do. I do wish I could link things from this phone.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#250
#250
I just stumbled upon the "Enlightment Model" of human decision making. It is, evidently, coming under a lot of scrutiny, and it seems very incomplete.

A brief summary from what I've learned: people tend to RESIST factual information not conforming to their social and personal identity values. The "Enlightment Model" is wrong in large measure. Thus, Americans - a happy motoring, hyper-individualist culture which fully rationalizes inequality - resist both global heating and single payer health care strongly despite all the evidence from the real world outside the back door.

I can't believe this is the first time I've heard of the "Enlightenment Model." It's been fascinating reading.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top