LOL!!

[sam adams]

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.

[mjrod]

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.

[mjrod]

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?

[sam adams]

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?

[mjrod]

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.

[sam adams]

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?

[AzCat]

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.

[AzCat]

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.

[Butt Fugly]

Explain this graph:

 

[mjrod]

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

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)   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.

[CatsNChiefs]

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.

[mjrod]

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.

[Marshal Willie]

So I guess humans are causing Mars to warm up also?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[sam adams]

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.

[Trog]

Lies all lies...

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

[RonLongshaft]

But.... they are now talking about cow belches contributing to global warming.   

I will now put on my coveralls and return to the frigid out-of-doors.

QFT

the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!

[mjrod]

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.