Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[JTrainDavis]

He's as blind as he can be/
Just sees what he wants to see/
Nowhere man, can you see me at all?

 

[gsvol]

You really don't even know what you're looking at, do you?

You wanted to see pom poms, there you go.

What's the gripe now??

Real Climate, (as we all knew) reveals itself to be nothing more that a marxist mouthpiece, touting it's pseudoscientific screed:

RealClimate supports complete drivel: Trevors and Saier (2011) ClimateQuotes.com

In their synopsis of TS11 RealClimate claims that the editorial is "describing the numerous societal problems caused when those with the limited perspective and biases born of a narrow economic outlook on the world, get control." They don't bother to explain who those are with a limited perspective, or what a "narrow economic outlook" means. Let me clue you in: it means capitalism.

TS11 is just an anti-capitalist tract. Don't take my word for it, read it. It's only three pages, but those pages are filled with malice and spite towards free markets and nothing but admiration for government planning and direction. Let me give you some quotes, and feel free to read the article to ensure I'm not taking them out of context.

The author then goes into breaking down the marxist rhetoric of this sham science.

Always rememer this about 'environmentalists'; GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE, RED IN THE MIDDLE!

One example of an excerpt from the real climate article:

The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth. It seems incredible that the richest nation on Earth is the only developed country not to have signed the Kyoto Accord and to be unwilling to provide health care for its citizenry.

I didn't think Russia signed it??? I know that China and India didn't.

Who has noticed that capitalist societies have a far better record than statist socialist societies that use government central planners to determine policy when it comes to the environment??

Bottom line:

Alright let's break down this penultimate paragraph. The authors want:

1. Population control to reduce pollution

2. Elimination of "inferior ideas and thoughts in ignorant human minds"

3. Replacing those ideas with "Superior ideas resulting from a sound education"

If you value liberty in any sense of the word these goals should frighten you. Who decides what "inferior ideas and thoughts" are, and how are they eliminated? How do we achieve population control? What is a sound education and who provides it?

These answers must involve a system where the select few whose thoughts are superior and who are not ignorant control the education of the masses. I don't trust that system. The authors clearly do.
-----------------------------------------

Does RealClimate actually want to dismantle the capitalist system in order to instill superior thoughts into the ignorant masses? If not, I don't understand the support of the editorial. Maybe they didn't read it.

More from another distinguished scientist:

physicist calls global warming - biggest pseudoscience scam

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Harold indicates that scientific debate was stifled and those promoting global warming at universities are
doing it for the money but without any scientific facts.

 

[IPorange]

 

[gsvol]

Your endorcement of Karl??

 

[wounded mullet]

 

[DinkinFlicka]

So environmentalists are communists now.

Anyone else care to "endorce" that?

 

[IPorange]

If you don't think whales should be owned and herded as private commodity, you're a communist nanny-state lover.

 

[gsvol]

Deep-sea volcanoes don't just produce lava flows, they also explode!

Between 75 and 80 per cent of all volcanic activity on Earth takes place at deep-sea, mid-ocean ridges.
Their work also shows that the release of CO2 from the deeper mantle to the Earth's atmosphere, at least in certain parts of mid-ocean ridges, is much higher than had previously been imagined.

Given that mid-ocean ridges constitute the largest volcanic system on Earth, this discovery has important implications for the global carbon cycle which have yet to be explored.

Over 120 ships stranded in heavy ice in Gulf of Finland | Russia | RIA Novosti

More than 120 vessels have become stranded in ice in the Gulf of Finland, with their number growing by 20 ships every day, the St. Petersburg seaport administration said on Monday.

The Gulf of Finland has been iced over for more than a month, with dozens of ships waiting for assistance because they are unable to ply their way through the heavy one-meter-thick ice floes.

Global warming my kazoo!!!

 

[IPorange]

Yet the excess carbon are the isotopes of fossil fuel carbon. Huh. Guess they're hydrocarbon volcanoes.

 

[milohimself]

And they must be stopped.

I went back and read through this... And hardly learned a damn thing.

But I suppose I can't rely on professional scientific analysis either, because some scientists lie to me.

We're screwed.

 

[gsvol]

Yet the excess carbon are the isotopes of fossil fuel carbon. Huh. Guess they're hydrocarbon volcanoes.

How do you know they are 'excess?'

I see you stilll remain 'brainwasedly' convinced of Goreism.

And they must be stopped.

I went back and read through this... And hardly learned a damn thing.

But I suppose I can't rely on professional scientific analysis either, because some scientists lie to me.

We're screwed.

Why is no one surprised you didn't learn anything?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

(you still don't represent the general consensus)

 

[IPorange]

How do you know they are 'excess?'

the quantity above pre-industrial levels. The quantity over the norm for the last few million years (this is the part where you reference carbon levels 300 million years ago, ironically when done of these fossil fuels formed).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[NEO]

Gotta love a debate that takes place 300 million years ago.

We might as well be debating where all the smurfs came from.

 

[IPorange]

Gotta love a debate that takes place 300 million years ago.

We might as well be debating where all the smurfs came from.

Only if you think the rules of the natural world are not constant. That's the main assumption bring made.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Gotta love a debate that takes place 300 million years ago.

We might as well be debating where all the smurfs came from.

300 million years ago is nothing to the power of the human mind. Science knows and understands - in fact we have MAPPED it out in the last decade - the universe of 13.7 billion years ago.

I happened to watch Idiocracy recently. Very, very funny.

In truth, the IPCC and the climate change community in general has concretely failed to communicate the science to the non-scientific community. That is not to ridicule and excoriate the known liars and deceivers on this issue. I know the politics has demanded the excruciating reports, but, in truth, the science the general public needs to focus on is Chemistry 101:

1. The Keeling Curve - we know CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.
2. We know CO2 traps heat.
3. Burning fossil fuels produces atmospheric CO2.

That's it. If you don't want to learn anything else, the sceptics had better somehow explain their way out of this simple mass balance from Chemistry 101.

 

[MG1968]

There are more humans walking the planet than at any time in it's history. Along with more humans comes more animals, particularly domestic mammals and birds. We all exhale carbon dioxide and fart methane (assuming birds fart).

Has there been any serious study into the carbon impact of the natural respiration of 6+ billion humans, billions of cows and other livestock as well as any other naturally occurring source of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

 

[utgibbs]

There are more humans walking the planet than at any time in it's history. Along with more humans comes more animals, particularly domestic mammals and birds. We all exhale carbon dioxide and fart methane (assuming birds fart).

Has there been any serious study into the carbon impact of the natural respiration of 6+ billion humans, billions of cows and other livestock as well as any other naturally occurring source of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Rubbish. Life is, and has always been, part of the carbon cycle. If anything, Life is a carbon sink. There should be less carbon in the atmosphere if there is more biomass on the planet.

This has, actually, been studied too.

Regardless, we know the CO2 comes from fossil fuels because of the concentration of the carbon isotopes.

Why do you feel the need to invent possible scenarios as to why its not happening (and you've just invented a real doozy)?

 

[MG1968]

Not inventing anything, just asking a question.

Another question would be what is the total volume of the earth's atmosphere and what percentage of that volume do the so-called "greenhouse gases" take up?

I once heard (admittedly it was on Art Bell's program) that oceanic plankton produce far more oxygen than land based, photosynthetic plants. If this is true, could a decrease in the amount of plankton be responsible, in some part, for the increase in atmospheric CO2?

I figure iporange will be along shortly to belittle that fact that I drive a truck and shouldn't be asking questions that are beyond my intellectual capacity or, perhaps, he will merely call me a stooge for the big oil companies.

 

[utgibbs]

Not inventing anything, just asking a question.

That's cool. :hi: It's not so much as what they breathe in and out; it's how much carbon they lock into their bodies. However, I do believe you are correct on planktonic biomass being one of the biggest exchangers of O2 / CO2. If there was a considerable loss of planktonic biomass (I believe there has been) it would mean more CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the isotopic ratios would then lean towards Life, and not fossil fuels as they do now.

It doesn't really matter what the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere means. IP could probably tell you off the top of his head the mass of the atmosphere (I want to say 5 trillion tons or thereabouts).

This is where paleoclimate really comes into its own. Concentration of CO2 in the atmsophere today is ~ 380 ppm. The norm for the Holocene before 1750 was about 280 ppm, and certainly this is the highest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for at least a million years. And we know precisely how much CO2 was in the atmosphere back that far thanks to the EPICA ice core. In other words, this is a direct measurement.

Again, though - it really boils down to Chemistry 101. We know exactly how much CO2 we emit from burning fossil fuels. We know CO2 is increasing, and we know it traps heat. It really is a simple mass balance. I think the public can get distracted looking for sinks and sumps. If you are really interested, you should learn that part of the science too. But at the end of the day, it's just a simple mass balance anyone completing high school can perform.

In fact, it's amazing how accurate the simple physics of Fourier and Arrhenius were only taking into account CO2 and the laws of heat transfer.

 

[gsvol]

In truth, the IPCC and the climate change community in general has concretely failed to misrepresent the science to the non-scientific community.

That is not to ridicule and excoriate the known liars and deceivers on this issue. I know the politics has demanded the excruciating reports, but, in truth, the science the general public needs to focus on is Chemistry 101:

1. The Keeling Curve - we know CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.
2. We know CO2 traps heat.
3. Burning fossil fuels produces atmospheric CO2.

That's it. If you don't want to learn anything else, the sceptics had better somehow explain their way out of this simple mass balance from Chemistry 101.

FYP!

Your simplistic formula fails to note that the co2 increase has such a small effect that it is immaterial to the whole equation.

You also neatly sidestep the benefits of added co2 such as increased crop yields for a hungry world.

The Republican fluency with science | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

....... in fact Republicans are more scientifically literate across the issues than Democrats.

A lot of interesting data in the link above.

PS, all of the 'known liars' in this whole scenario are the ones who are promoting the global warming agenda.

 

[IPorange]

Gs, how is it immaterial? And how will the benefits occur when co2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

@gsvol,

The science has been done for CO2 and increasing crop yields. Whereas there is a modest increase in biomass in controlled field studies, the nutritional value of the food is lowered.

Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields, Study Says

This is to say absolutely nothing though of what havok the climatic effects themselves will have on yields. Note the Sahel for a most pertinent modern example where crop yields have failed thanks to the sustained drought now directly linked to global heating.

 

[gsvol]

@gsvol,

The science has been done for CO2 and increasing crop yields. Whereas there is a modest increase in biomass in controlled field studies, the nutritional value of the food is lowered.

Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields, Study Says

This is to say absolutely nothing though of what havok the climatic effects themselves will have on yields. Note the Sahel for a most pertinent modern example where crop yields have failed thanks to the sustained drought now directly linked to global heating.

Increased co2 levels augment all plant growth
not just crops and there is no evidence that
increased co2 levels cause harmful climate
change.

When increased co2 levels bring about increased
plant growth, the increased plant growth bring abut
increased co2 absorbsion, so there is a cushiong
effect in nature itself.

The following is typical of climate alarmist
ignorance:

Pajamas Media Senator Boxer: Dangerously Ignorant on CO2

The first thing Senator Boxer said on the floor,
immediately exposing her profound understanding
of scientific knowledge:

"There has been an amendment that was attached
to this bill on the very first day that would stop the
Environmental Protection Agency forever from
enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon
pollution. … It is essentially a repeal of the Clean
Air Act as it involves a particular pollutant, carbon,
which has been found to be an endangerment to
our people."

She is so very wrong, already. First, the amendment
is not a repeal of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act
is supposed to regulate pollution — this amendment
is intended to stop the EPA from regulating a harmless
and beneficial trace gas, carbon dioxide. Without
carbon dioxide in the air, all life on Earth would die.
It is essential for all plant life. Likely the senator
does not know she was exhaling copious amounts
of it during her rant.

Carbon dioxide is not dangerous to human health.
In the very hall she was speaking in, it is possible
and likely that carbon dioxide levels were three to
five times higher than the air outside. Servicemen
on submarines breathe air with up to 8,000 parts
per million of carbon dioxide with no harmful effects
— the Earth’s atmosphere currently contains only
390 parts per million.

Her further remarks are so full of errors, it’s hard
to know which ones are worth discussing:
virtually everything she said was not so.

And typical of radical environmentalists, she
makes up facts as she goes and typical of
that ilk, the facts are prefabricated lies or
at best half truths.

 

[IPorange]

When increased co2 levels bring about increased
plant growth, the increased plant growth bring abut
increased co2 absorbsion, so there is a cushiong
effect in nature itself.

Then why do we see rising levels at all?