KSUFans Archives
Fan Life => The Endzone Dive => Topic started by: jeffy on January 22, 2008, 03:59:20 PM
-
(http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/morewarming%20005.jpg)
-
Lord knows Baltimore would be the first place the Ozone would pick to start deteriorating.
-
Remember, in summer its "global warming". In winter its "climate change". Useful idiots who stand to be manipulated by those profitting from the emerging "green" market.
-
In all honesty, I don't care about global warming. Sure, I want to be clean and stuff. My main concern is not depending on foreign fuels.
-
In all honesty, I don't care about global warming. Sure, I want to be clean and stuff. My main concern is not depending on foreign fuels.
bingo
-
I stopped worrying about global warming when it snowed on me in the Yukon in July. :blank:
-
you can worry about it/care as you like. but thinking it doesn't exist means you're stupid, be it willfully or naturally.
-
The global climate changes over time. To believe that SUVs, coal-fired power plants, CAFE, single-family detached housing, or other human activity has a significant impact on these global climate trends is both the height of arrogance and the height of stupidity.
-
Human activity is the only good explanation for the change. Personally, I don't mind if half the species that exist today are extinct not long after I die. And I'm cool with all of the other stuff, too.
-
I'm sure this is good for our health.
(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/LA-smog-2.jpg)
-
I'm sure this is good for our health.
(http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/LA-smog-2.jpg)
It isn't, but has nothing to do with Global Warming.
-
To debate global warming is irrelevant really. If we really need a reason to NOT live cleaner and continue foreign fuel dependancy, then we're &@#%ed already.
I personally believe Gore's only interest in global warming is to stuff some extra coin in his pocket. Inconveniant truth was fun fiction. Almost as enjoyable as Super Size Me.
-
Global warming is occurring.
It happens completely in natural cycles.
Pollution is a separate issue as is dependence on oil and foreign energy sources.
People who believe that global warming is man made, or that mankind is contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
-
What scientific revolution? You guys are scary.
-
Global warming is occurring.
It happens completely in natural cycles.
Pollution is a separate issue as is dependence on oil and foreign energy sources.
People who believe that global warming is man made, or that mankind is contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
Sometimes you really do know what you are talking about.
-
I for one cannot understand how you environmentalists believe that somehow burning 146,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year could possibly have any effect on the climate? Haven't you ever heard of Sunspots, or the Global Cooling Crisis of the 70s? These are proof that global warming is nonsense. I stopped believing in global warming when the ice caps melted.
-
I for one cannot understand how you environmentalists believe that somehow burning 146,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year could possibly have any effect on the climate? Haven't you ever heard of Sunspots, or the Global Cooling Crisis of the 70s? These are proof that global warming is nonsense. I stopped believing in global warming when the ice caps melted.
Many people don't disagree that the globe is warming. They disagree with the cause of it. Don't misinterpret the arguments.
-
Water vapor is much more effective as a greenhouse gas than is CO2.
-
ksu; proving once again that we have the lowest
bbiq fans on the internet.
-
ksu; proving once again that we have the lowest bbiq fans on the internet.
This thread certainly adds some perspective to much of the widespread cognitive ineptitude displayed in the sports forums. And also to the heated and timely creationism/evolution debate in Kansas.
-
It could also be said...
People who believe that global warming is not man made, or that mankind is not contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
-
The global climate changes over time. To believe that SUVs, coal-fired power plants, CAFE, single-family detached housing, or other human activity has a significant impact on these global climate trends is both the height of arrogance and the height of stupidity.
Would it be arrogant to think that human activity could result in "acid rain"? Would it be arrogant to think that human activity could create arid landscapes? Would it be arrogant to think we could send man to the moon?
Just want to know what the limits there are on us modest human beings.
-
This thread made me put Inconvenient(?) truth on my que up next.
Did you know that in past periods of recorded history when the earth has had warm periods have also been some of the highest points of human achievement and civilization?
Height of the Roman Empire and The Rennaisance.
-
It could also be said...
People who believe that global warming is not man made, or that mankind is not contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
True, but then again science isn't about saying "Well we believe it to be true even though we have no proof."
As one British scientist put it in his paper "We can find no reason for the current situation, so it must be man made." Couldn't find any reason within the parameters of the research, so just said "Well, I can't seem to figure it out so I'll blame man."
Sounds like a Hockey Stick to me.
-
The global climate changes over time. To believe that SUVs, coal-fired power plants, CAFE, single-family detached housing, or other human activity has a significant impact on these global climate trends is both the height of arrogance and the height of stupidity.
Would it be arrogant to think that human activity could result in "acid rain"? Would it be arrogant to think that human activity could create arid landscapes? Would it be arrogant to think we could send man to the moon?
Just want to know what the limits there are on us modest human beings.
Since when is pollution and global climate the same thing?
-
It could also be said...
People who believe that global warming is not man made, or that mankind is not contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
True, but then again science isn't about saying "Well we believe it to be true even though we have no proof."
As one British scientist put it in his paper "We can find no reason for the current situation, so it must be man made." Couldn't find any reason within the parameters of the research, so just said "Well, I can't seem to figure it out so I'll blame man."
Sounds like a Hockey Stick to me.
This is entirely untrue. We KNOW what's causing it, and it's Carbon Dioxide. We can measure it. Scientists can go to the Antarctic and drill ice cores and come to scientific conclusions about what is causing the current warming trend. It's not just supposition and guess work. NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research know why it is happening. The truth is that our beloved president and his cronies are working very hard to confuse the American public about the issue. They take climate reports, and vet them for anything that could be construed as pointing a finger at fossil fuels. The anti-global warming propaganda is funded by $Billion companies.
-
It could also be said...
People who believe that global warming is not man made, or that mankind is not contributing significantly to the current warming, have no basis NOR PROOF to support such a claim.
True, but then again science isn't about saying "Well we believe it to be true even though we have no proof."
As one British scientist put it in his paper "We can find no reason for the current situation, so it must be man made." Couldn't find any reason within the parameters of the research, so just said "Well, I can't seem to figure it out so I'll blame man."
Sounds like a Hockey Stick to me.
This is entirely untrue. We KNOW what's causing it, and it's Carbon Dioxide. We can measure it. Scientists can go to the Antarctic and drill ice cores and come to scientific conclusions about what is causing the current warming trend. It's not just supposition and guess work. NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research know why it is happening. The truth is that our beloved president and his cronies are working very hard to confuse the American public about the issue. They take climate reports, and vet them for anything that could be construed as pointing a finger at fossil fuels. The anti-global warming propaganda is funded by $Billion companies.
Let me help you here, since you seem intent on repeating Al Gore talking points.
CO2 is 3% of all the GHG by volume in the atmosphere.
CO2 is .001% of ALL gases by volume in the atmosphere.
The oceans are estimated to cycle some 1500 gigatons of CO2 in a year as part of the natural cycle. Land areas cycle some 500 gigatons of CO2 per year in natural sinks.
Mankind produces on average per year.. some 12 Gigatons of CO2 PER YEAR.
That's less than 1% of all the cycled CO2 in the atmosphere.
So how does so little CO2 account for such unprecedented warming and why do people insist on blaming Global Warming on Bush when in the 1930's it was just as warm as it is right now?
-
It's not the fact the earth is warming, it's the speed over the last several decades.
-
It's not the fact the earth is warming, it's the speed over the last several decades.
Speed compared to what?
-
It's not the fact the earth is warming, it's the speed over the last several decades.
Speed compared to what?
avg temp increase over time. Apparently or I guess the "say" they can tell this over thousands of years.
-
The Earth is a closed system. Our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has added up over time. Remember we pulled all of this carbon out of the ground and burned it so it now resides in the atmosphere. It's not going back in the ground by itself. The shrinking amount of plant life on the Earth is not automatically capable of dealing with the extra carbon. Eventually the system may figure a way to even things out, but it will cause great upheaval to human life in the meantime. There's too many people anyway, so maybe this is just a "market correction."
-
It's not the fact the earth is warming, it's the speed over the last several decades.
Speed compared to what?
avg temp increase over time. Apparently or I guess the "say" they can tell this over thousands of years.
Seriously? Who says that?
-
The Earth is a closed system. Our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has added up over time. Remember we pulled all of this carbon out of the ground and burned it so it now resides in the atmosphere. It's not going back in the ground by itself. The shrinking amount of plant life on the Earth is not automatically capable of dealing with the extra carbon. Eventually the system may figure a way to even things out, but it will cause great upheaval to human life in the meantime. There's too many people anyway, so maybe this is just a "market correction."
Explain this graph:
(http://www.ksufans.com/img/image277.gif)
The blue line represents the average temperature of the earth over the last 600 million years. The black line represents CO2 concentrations.
Notice anything weird about it? Seems pretty concrete that CO2 concentrations apparently do not drive temperature.
If you consider that the average cycle of CO2 during any given year is approximately 2000 Gigatons, and we put in less than 1% of that amount, how long do you think it would take for us to reach the levels some 400 million years ago?
Here's the source of that graph..
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
You've been duped by people who know as much as you do about the climate.
I have no problems reducing CO2 emissions if it means reducing our dependence on oil. That's a valid concern for humanity in of itself. To suggest for a single moment that CO2 emissions are going to cause global catastrophe for humanity is ludicrous.
-
It's not the fact the earth is warming, it's the speed over the last several decades.
Speed compared to what?
avg temp increase over time. Apparently or I guess the "say" they can tell this over thousands of years.
Seriously? Who says that?
I read in a magazine, newsweek or us news that tried to dumb it down.
I've done absolutely no research on the topic so don't have much of an opinion but the article said essentially.
1. Earth is warming now and has also warmed and cooled in the past.
2. The warming of the last 100 years or essentially since the industrial revolution has occured at a faster rate than the other periods of warming in recorded history and in what has been observed studying things like Ice cores from antarctica.
3. The article I read made it sound miniscule like as in the avg temp has increased 1 degree in 100 years recently while in a warming period pre industrial revolution would take several hundred years, but that is where I am hazy on it.
-
so mj, do you work for conoco phillips or exxon mobil?
-
The Newsweek Magazine Article.
The Ice Core issue is a very controversial issue because some chemists have said that trying to extract CO2 information from them is not accurate at all, and in fact CO2 concentrations change over long periods of time within the ice itself. In either event, the data from the ice cores used in AIT was misleading. In actuality, CO2 has an 800 year lag after temperature rise based on the ice cores, meaning that CO2 does not drive temperature, but vice versa. This fact is cleverly covered up by Al Gore.
At the same time, at the end of the sequence, it shows a large jump in the last half of the 20th century after several hundred thousand years. The problem is, he spliced a temperature record onto a proxy record and the proxy record of just one set of ice cores. Other ice cores from around the world do not match and therefore its hard to understand why Gore chose the work of just one scientist.. and this particular scientist has gone on record and stated that Gore used the graph incorrectly.
The key point to remember about the issue of relativistic warming in recorded history is knowing what is recorded history. That recorded history is only 160 years old, and so while measuring 16 decades of warmth, the last three decades have the largest increase. That increase has been overall, .3 degrees C. Yet, there is substantial evidence that temperature increases in the climate may actually be due to urban expansion and ill placed temperature recording equipment. In fact, the temperature grid used is a set called the GISS system which is a compilation of recording stations throughout the world. In some of those locations, Brazil shows the largest increase in temperatures in South America, yet, Brazil only has six recorders in the entire country, five of them located inside urban locations. The only rural recorder shows no warming over the last four decades.
And then there is the issue of record completeness and viability. The United states had over 6000 recording stations during the 1940's through 1960's but that number has dropped to around 1200, yet the increase in temperature since 1960 is due to the fact that almost 70% of the recording equipment is located within urban settings. In 1998, NOAA spent money replacing bad thermometers that were installed back in the 1980's because they gave biases of almost 1 to 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit and since many were in urban settings, the temperature rise seemed dramatic. Rural locations have show little or no warming in their equipment.
In 2005, NASA released its top 10 warmest years showing that 2001 was the warmest on record and that 4 of the years after 1998 were in the top 10. When the data was reviewed by a statistician, it was shown that NASA made a math error and promptly entered a retraction. That retraction then showed that 1998 was no longer the warmest year, but 1934, and of the 10 warmest years, 6 were before 1950.
The point is really this simple. The climate is still not well understood and the processes that have been going on for millions of years are hard to explain. Observations have shown the link between CO2 and temperature are not well understood, and many in the climate community are becoming more vocal about the doomsday scenarios when in fact, it's just a lot of hot air.
If the planet has been markedly warmer in the past, and life has flourished, then why won't MAN be able to adapt? It's not as easy as saying "We know CO2 holds heat" but to the person who refuses to actually understand science, you cannot rely on the doomsday scenarios in the newsweek article to boil down science into a quick two sentence explanation.
The primary reason for the hype is that environmentalists and their anti-capitalistic means are trying to scare people back into the stone age. This is a hot button issue that has no basis in fact. The policy makers have decided that there is an issue, but if you asked them to explain how they arrived at their conclusion, you'll see that they do not understand the issue either.
There is no doubt we need a national energy policy to eliminate our dependence on oil. We need a better way to develop dependable energy sources to support our voracious demand. However, until we do, we should not be threatened by ignorance of the media and politics of a few scientists. We really need more definitive answers before we start condemning man to a life of eternal hell.
-
so mj, do you work for conoco phillips or exxon mobil?
Neither.
-
Al Gore is to climate change what Al Gore is to the internet. WGAF.
Credible info about this stuff really isn't hard to find.
Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase during the next century unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease substantially from present levels. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth's average temperature, influence precipitation and some storm patterns as well as raise sea levels (IPCC, 2007). The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html)
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
-
Global warming? &@#% that crap.
-
Thank you for taking care of all my light work, mj. I was just about to put that chart up until I scrolled down and saw it.
But.... they are now talking about cow belches contributing to global warming. :rofl:
I will now put on my coveralls and return to the frigid out-of-doors.
-
I don't think anyone here has a good grasp of the science. (Or of the politics.) Given this, I'm not sure what would be more credible to more of us than a simple statement from our government.
-
Personally I'm more interested as to what is causing the rise in Autism.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
the geocraft.com site referenced above was put together by a guy who works for the West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety agency. COAL miners.
just sayin'
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
the geocraft.com site referenced above was put together by a guy who works for the West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety agency. COAL miners.
just sayin'
That graph may have come from that site, but it's hardly derived from that site. Scotese is a geology professor at UT Arlington. Berner is a professor of geology and geophysics at Yale.
-
So we're back on the cycle to 22 degrees Celsius.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
the geocraft.com site referenced above was put together by a guy who works for the West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety agency. COAL miners.
just sayin'
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for a coal company or a gas and oil company, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
-
Explain this graph:
(http://www.ksufans.com/img/image277.gif)
The blue line represents the average temperature of the earth over the last 600 million years. The black line represents CO2 concentrations.
Notice anything weird about it? Seems pretty concrete that CO2 concentrations apparently do not drive temperature.
"This means that over the long term there is
indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the
atmospheric greenhouse effect." - Conclusion from paper cited above
-
Explain this graph:
(http://www.ksufans.com/img/image277.gif)
The blue line represents the average temperature of the earth over the last 600 million years. The black line represents CO2 concentrations.
Notice anything weird about it? Seems pretty concrete that CO2 concentrations apparently do not drive temperature.
"This means that over the long term there is
indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the
atmospheric greenhouse effect." - Conclusion from paper cited above
In addition, because of the importance of plants to weathering, many more experimental studies under natural conditions are needed to determine how much different plants accelerate weathering and how the plants respond to change in atmospheric CO2. If nothing else, it is hoped that papers such as this one will act as a spur to more interaction between geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, biologists, and climatologists. The long term carbon cycle demands a multidisciplinary approach.
The paper also never tells us which is the driver, CO2 or temperature. That is the key to the AGW position, that CO2 is a driver of planet temperatures.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
the geocraft.com site referenced above was put together by a guy who works for the West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety agency. COAL miners.
just sayin'
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for a coal company or a gas and oil company, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
I love that little lie. Funny how pro-mmgw "scientists" never have their funding looked at. Often, their funding derives from nations, companies, foundations, and benefactors that have a vested interest in the green business. This is especially true of the ipcc "scientists". The ipcc report is a political document for those of you not smart enough to see right through it to its motivations.
Of course, often ignored is the list of proposed "solutions" to the "problem." They're really, really, really expensive and at best estimates will have a neglible result (what did I mention about those who have a vested interest in the green business?). That and they all seem to tear down the top economies--the ones, like the US, that the world economy relies on for prosperity--in favor of "sharing" with developing nations like china. Let's see now...where have I heard that before? Robin Hood, yeah. But more currently...oh yeah....marx, lenin, mao, clinton.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for an intergovermental team of hundreds of actual scientists, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
FYP
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for an intergovermental team of hundreds of actual scientists, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
FYP
Works both ways. Don't assume the IPCC is a scientific organization. The do not perform any scientific work.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for an intergovermental team of hundreds of actual scientists, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
FYP
Works both ways. Don't assume the IPCC is a scientific organization. The do not perform any scientific work.
Right, it isn't. I think it's an obviously bureaucratic group that try's to sift through the scientific data and build a consensus of what that data says.
The point is, the hundreds of scientist's who weighed in on what their data/models/theories say to the IPCC are much more relevant to this debate than the pair of amateur's (not a slam, just reality) who pick and choose the data to fit their own ideas.
-
Referencing the IPCC reports is tantamount to a tapout. LOL @ anyone who sees the IPCC report as a "scientific" document.
It's a specious argument to assume that because someone works for an intergovermental team of hundreds of actual scientists, or associated with one of those groups, that science is somehow different when doing climate reconstructions from geological study.
FYP
Works both ways. Don't assume the IPCC is a scientific organization. The do not perform any scientific work.
Right, it isn't. I think it's an obviously bureaucratic group that try's to sift through the scientific data and build a consensus of what that data says.
The point is, the hundreds of scientist's who weighed in on what their data/models/theories say to the IPCC are much more relevant to this debate than the pair of amateur's (not a slam, just reality) who pick and choose the data to fit their own ideas.
Amateurs?
Like who?
-
Originally spouted by all the duped:
shills for big oil
stupid
amateurs
Let's see if this one sticks
-
Amateurs?
Like who?
West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety employees.
I suppose you and the rectally fascinated sock are as well, as am I.
-
Amateurs?
Like who?
West Virginia Miner's Health and Safety employees.
I suppose you and the rectally fascinated sock are as well, as am I.
Did you miss the part of the guys credentials as a professor and researcher?
What person would you consider to be NOT an amateur in this debate that would be considered credible?
-
Must be tough for him to hold down his engineer position and be a professor.
You don't consider working for the oil/coal sector an automatic disqualifier for someone? Strange.
-
Must be tough for him to hold down his engineer position and be a professor.
You don't consider working for the oil/coal sector an automatic disqualifier for someone? Strange.
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
-
Must be tough for him to hold down his engineer position and be a professor.
You don't consider working for the oil/coal sector an automatic disqualifier for someone? Strange.
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
if he indeed is funded by the power industry, that tends to make conclusions biased so that the proverbial tit doesn't get popped out of his mouth.
But more currently...oh yeah....marx, lenin, mao, clinton.
a little socalism never hurt anyone!
:peek:
-
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
Are you talking about the same person? I'm talking of Monte Hieb, from the geocraft site. Hasn't published anything, to my knowledge.
If you're talking about the Bern (sp?) paper you also linked, its already been pointed out that author's conclusions were directly contradicting you: CO2 is linked to temperature.
-
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
Are you talking about the same person? I'm talking of Monte Hieb, from the geocraft site. Hasn't published anything, to my knowledge.
If you're talking about the Bern (sp?) paper you also linked, its already been pointed out that author's conclusions were directly contradicting you: CO2 is linked to temperature.
It just said it was a correlation, not a causal link and I never said there wasn't a correlation. Nothing in his paper even remotely suggested that temperature was driven by CO2.
-
Must be tough for him to hold down his engineer position and be a professor.
You don't consider working for the oil/coal sector an automatic disqualifier for someone? Strange.
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
if he indeed is funded by the power industry, that tends to make conclusions biased so that the proverbial tit doesn't get popped out of his mouth.
So you're saying corporate research is somehow biased, and non-corporate research isn't?
Is that what you're saying?
-
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
Are you talking about the same person? I'm talking of Monte Hieb, from the geocraft site. Hasn't published anything, to my knowledge.
If you're talking about the Bern (sp?) paper you also linked, its already been pointed out that author's conclusions were directly contradicting you: CO2 is linked to temperature.
It just said it was a correlation, not a causal link and I never said there wasn't a correlation. Nothing in his paper even remotely suggested that temperature was driven by CO2.
Are we done talking about Hieb? Were we ever?
I just love pointless discussions, don't you?
-
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
Are you talking about the same person? I'm talking of Monte Hieb, from the geocraft site. Hasn't published anything, to my knowledge.
If you're talking about the Bern (sp?) paper you also linked, its already been pointed out that author's conclusions were directly contradicting you: CO2 is linked to temperature.
It just said it was a correlation, not a causal link and I never said there wasn't a correlation. Nothing in his paper even remotely suggested that temperature was driven by CO2.
Are we done talking about Hieb? Were we ever?
I just love pointless discussions, don't you?
Yeah, especially when you're making an issue of the website owners and I'm talking about the science and the published facts. It's pretty mindless that someone would post a published paper on their website and when it is, somehow, that paper is reduced in its prominence because it exists on website that are not the original authors.
I suppose if I couldn't offer anything of substance to the issue itself, I would argue about semantics such as who owns the website.
The point is very simple, so I'll type it slower for you.
The issue is about causality. The AGW mantra is that global warming is occuring, and that such warming is a direct result of fossil fuel emissions by mankind and that if continue to emit these gases, such a trend will lead to cataclysmic destruction of mankind, if not the planet.
As of yet, there is nothing to suggest that would even REMOTELY happen. The paper I linked demonstrates the planet was pretty good despite extremely high levels of CO2.
You can quibble over the website owners if you wish.
-
He published a scientific paper that was accepted by his peers. I guess if they don't have a problem with it, why would I?
Are you talking about the same person? I'm talking of Monte Hieb, from the geocraft site. Hasn't published anything, to my knowledge.
If you're talking about the Bern (sp?) paper you also linked, its already been pointed out that author's conclusions were directly contradicting you: CO2 is linked to temperature.
It just said it was a correlation, not a causal link and I never said there wasn't a correlation. Nothing in his paper even remotely suggested that temperature was driven by CO2.
Are we done talking about Hieb? Were we ever?
I just love pointless discussions, don't you?
Yeah, especially when you're making an issue of the website owners and I'm talking about the science and the published facts. It's pretty mindless that someone would post a published paper on their website and when it is, somehow, that paper is reduced in its prominence because it exists on website that are not the original authors.
I suppose if I couldn't offer anything of substance to the issue itself, I would argue about semantics such as who owns the website.
The point is very simple, so I'll type it slower for you.
The issue is about causality. The AGW mantra is that global warming is occuring, and that such warming is a direct result of fossil fuel emissions by mankind and that if continue to emit these gases, such a trend will lead to cataclysmic destruction of mankind, if not the planet.
As of yet, there is nothing to suggest that would even REMOTELY happen. The paper I linked demonstrates the planet was pretty good despite extremely high levels of CO2.
You can quibble over the website owners if you wish.
Better type slower yet since you've outpaced your own ability to reason.
Using website's that are biased completely ruins your credibility, hope that helps.
But what the hell, I'll give you my shot: Your paper shows the temp/CO2 correlation. Even you understand this. Did CO2 cause ancient temp increases: probably not since there is no reason for CO2 to suddenly appear. Therefore, not surprisingly, CO2 increases lag temp increase because of organic matter decay, ocean releases, etc. But, CO2 as a greenhouse gas with known greenhouse properties, magnified and lengthened these known warming periods. Get it? No one (I think, I'm sure you'll find dozens who do, they are wrong) says CO2 caused it in the past.
All recent data now show a sharp avg. global temp increase. This is also mirrored in glacial retreat, ice cap melting, etc. Even you understand this as well. CO2 concentrations, again not surprisingly, have shown a remarkable correlation to this rapid increase. Coincidence or not? Given that CO2 is correlated with temperature, and has known properties that directly affect temperature only blind fools believe not.
What will the future bring? I have no fracking idea. But it has been repeatedly said we are in the middle of a grand experiment on our home. Doing nothing strikes me as unbelievably stupid. But you have it all figured out, don't you?
-
You don't consider working for the oil/coal sector an automatic disqualifier for someone? Strange.
No but anyone who's ever accepted any sort of grant or held any sort of academic position must be disqualified and disregarded due to their inherent conflicts of interest.
-
Did you know that in past periods of recorded history when the earth has had warm periods have also been some of the highest points of human achievement and civilization?
Exactly. The left wants to reinstate the Dark Ages but to save human civilization we all need to buy a 2nd (or 3rd) Hummer. :goodevil:
-
Explain this graph:
(http://www.ksufans.com/img/image277.gif)
:runaway:
-
Better type slower yet since you've outpaced your own ability to reason.
Using website's that are biased completely ruins your credibility, hope that helps.
LOL.
As if there are websites without bias. Please try a better argument. That one is completely meaningless.
But what the hell, I'll give you my shot: Your paper shows the temp/CO2 correlation. Even you understand this. Did CO2 cause ancient temp increases: probably not since there is no reason for CO2 to suddenly appear. Therefore, not surprisingly, CO2 increases lag temp increase because of organic matter decay, ocean releases, etc. But, CO2 as a greenhouse gas with known greenhouse properties, magnified and lengthened these known warming periods. Get it? No one (I think, I'm sure you'll find dozens who do, they are wrong) says CO2 caused it in the past.
Actually, you don't get it. The CO2 properties are well known, in a laboratory. However, the are not well known in a complex non-linear climate system. You might find this article about correlations more interesting..
Temperature and Climate factors (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf)
All recent data now show a sharp avg. global temp increase. This is also mirrored in glacial retreat, ice cap melting, etc. Even you understand this as well. CO2 concentrations, again not surprisingly, have shown a remarkable correlation to this rapid increase. Coincidence or not? Given that CO2 is correlated with temperature, and has known properties that directly affect temperature only blind fools believe not.
Yet, no scientific paper has ever been written to show how CO2 is a driver of temperature, or even climate, other than those who publish papers based on Global Climate Models, which use CO2 as a primary forcing despite the many uncertainties of the climate (See The Myth of Dangerous Human caused Climate Change (http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf)) That is the basis for all AGW cataclysmic scenarios.. mankind is emitting CO2 at very high levels (which is less than .1% of the total carbon cycle of the planet) and it will cause a global catastrophy within the next century.
What will the future bring? I have no fracking idea. But it has been repeatedly said we are in the middle of a grand experiment on our home. Doing nothing strikes me as unbelievably stupid. But you have it all figured out, don't you?
The people who are stating it have agenda's. Don't think for a moment that Al Gore doesn't have a vested interest in promoting man made global climate change.
-
I'm somewhere in the middle on this whole thing, but if you look into that graph you'll notice that the CO2 data appears on the up and up, but the temperature line is an absolute joke. If you're using that graph as to disprove a correlation between CO2 and temperature you're a little too anxious to do so.
I would also like to add, sorry for the lack of big words, that it takes a grain of salt to tip the scales of a precisely balanced scale, no matter the weight. It doesn't take more than .1% change to drastically alter anything requiring balance.
-
I'm somewhere in the middle on this whole thing, but if you look into that graph you'll notice that the CO2 data appears on the up and up, but the temperature line is an absolute joke. If you're using that graph as to disprove a correlation between CO2 and temperature you're a little too anxious to do so.
I would also like to add, sorry for the lack of big words, that it takes a grain of salt to tip the scales of a precisely balanced scale, no matter the weight. It doesn't take more than .1% change to drastically alter anything requiring balance.
It shows a correlation, but it doesn't show it driving temperature. That's the entire point. Those who purport to believe the idea of catastrophic man made global warming must first accept the premise the CO2 is a driver a temperature and any increase in CO2 must cause temperatures to increase. There may be a relationship to some extent, but the real driver of temperature for the planet is more likely the Sun and it's effect on the oceans. We still have very limited understanding of the climate but the way you hear it from some scientists are that we know the answers already despite the fact that observations have not agreed with predictions of the AGW crowd over the last 20 years.
-
So I guess humans are causing Mars to warm up also????
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
-
As if there are websites without bias. Please try a better argument. That one is completely meaningless.
The people who are stating it have agenda's. Don't think for a moment that Al Gore doesn't have a vested interest in promoting man made global climate change.
You've convieniently placed yourself on both sides of the point in the same post. Congrats.
The CO2 properties are well known, in a laboratory. However, the are not well known in a complex non-linear climate system.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well known.
mankind is emitting CO2 at very high levels (which is less than .1% of the total carbon cycle of the planet)
I'm not sure of the .1% statistic, will have to look that up. Also not sure what you mean by bringing it up. But, I do know that the only a fraction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels shows up in the atmosphere as gaseous CO2. The rest is absorbed by the carbon cycle. Meaning the earth already is absorbing what it can and the cycle is out-of-whack. Causing the problem.
Your first link was hilarious. He describes the 0.21 degree increase from 1930's to now as "minor". Using the Dust Bowl 1930's as the benchmark condition we are already warmer than is comedy at its finest. The rest seems to prove the sun makes the earth warmer. I discover this everyday when the sun comes up, evidently that's news to him. Most sources say that average solar activity has increased somewhat during the last half century but that increase only accounts for 20% (more or less depending on the source and my memory) of observed warming.
It also follows if the Sun is in fact causing warming, then the coincidental CO2 increase will make the Sun caused warming worse! Now that is alarming.
The other link appears to be a paranoid "they don't want us to know the truth, darn them" link in a long list of similar sites. You're not one of those 9/11 conspiricists are you? Reading paranoid people does not make you informed, it makes you paranoid.
Believe it or not, I use the denier sites quite often as a starting point when learning about this. I've found them mostly amateurish and paranoid, rather than enlightening. I also don't much care for Al Gore and haven't seen Inconvenient Truth. I don't think scaring people is the way to build consensus, and in fact leads to reactionary people getting the upper hand.
-
Lies all lies...
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm)
-
But.... they are now talking about cow belches contributing to global warming. :rofl:
I will now put on my coveralls and return to the frigid out-of-doors.
QFT
the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
-
Don't know how I missed this.. but...
As if there are websites without bias. Please try a better argument. That one is completely meaningless.
The people who are stating it have agenda's. Don't think for a moment that Al Gore doesn't have a vested interest in promoting man made global climate change.
You've convieniently placed yourself on both sides of the point in the same post. Congrats.
Hardly. Go back and read it again. If you need time to ponder it, do so.
The CO2 properties are well known, in a laboratory. However, the are not well known in a complex non-linear climate system.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is well known.
Nice non-reply. See the second sentence you quoted from me. Then come back with something more meaningful.
mankind is emitting CO2 at very high levels (which is less than .1% of the total carbon cycle of the planet)
I'm not sure of the .1% statistic, will have to look that up. Also not sure what you mean by bringing it up. But, I do know that the only a fraction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels shows up in the atmosphere as gaseous CO2. The rest is absorbed by the carbon cycle. Meaning the earth already is absorbing what it can and the cycle is out-of-whack. Causing the problem.
No, it's not out of whack. There is no scientific evidence to show the system is out of whack because the Carbon Cycle is still not well understood. I challenge you to show scientific EVIDENCE the system is out of whack.
Your first link was hilarious. He describes the 0.21 degree increase from 1930's to now as "minor". Using the Dust Bowl 1930's as the benchmark condition we are already warmer than is comedy at its finest. The rest seems to prove the sun makes the earth warmer. I discover this everyday when the sun comes up, evidently that's news to him. Most sources say that average solar activity has increased somewhat during the last half century but that increase only accounts for 20% (more or less depending on the source and my memory) of observed warming.
Interesting that you seem to think the earth only existed for a short period time. The issue is about the variability of the climate. The temperature changes are not linear and predictable, but rather vary over time. The fact whether we are warmer or not since the 1930's is merely perception. The records indicate we're at least as warm, but not was warm from the 1000-1300's where it appears to have been even warmer.
It also follows if the Sun is in fact causing warming, then the coincidental CO2 increase will make the Sun caused warming worse! Now that is alarming.
Please indicate a specific scientific paper that shows that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 2.5C increase in temperatures. I'm pretty sure you can't.
The other link appears to be a paranoid "they don't want us to know the truth, darn them" link in a long list of similar sites. You're not one of those 9/11 conspiricists are you? Reading paranoid people does not make you informed, it makes you paranoid.
Believe it or not, I use the denier sites quite often as a starting point when learning about this. I've found them mostly amateurish and paranoid, rather than enlightening. I also don't much care for Al Gore and haven't seen Inconvenient Truth. I don't think scaring people is the way to build consensus, and in fact leads to reactionary people getting the upper hand.
Your research methods are sloppy. Perhaps you should spend more time understanding what the real issues are.