Global Warming Insanity Thread

More interested in iPhone insanity. Thanks anyway.

I am a straight male who lives happily alone. I write poetry and have released 1 CD combining the music of Gavin Stephens with my poetry. The CD is called " I Can't Belive I'm Not Buddha". If you would like one please ask, they are free. You can hear some of the tracks here:

www.myspace.com/limbopoet

That's the most appropriate reply I've seen yet.

Yup.

Just like clockwork, every two months (on average) you know who starts another thread about what it believes (sans the facts as presented in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature).

I'm going back to sleep now because I believe the thread topic starter is, quite frankly, boorish.

Zzzzz, Zzzzz, Zzzzz, ...

What can I tell ya? He's bored and wants to fight.

Told ya he just wants to pick a fight.

Why wouldn't "peer reviewed science literature" be the best answer to matters of science? Are you suggesting we should rely on non-peer reviewed, non-science literature?

Oh wait, you are.

I just "peer reviewed" myself and it's f@cking HOT outside.

Too.... funny,
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/


Only a fucktard could explain the purpose behind this mysterious artifact of fucktardation.

Or to correct your spelling!

,,, you bet your ass it is.

#1. Have SDW in charge of global warming policy.

D'oh!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Hey, we can all speak casually here. I prefer to type the way I pronounce.

Let me try that:

sjaldki;u wlkjupwoieu wdfoipuwds ;dsqwu3y7d081x7 qkuihja sd;kjn !!!

No doubt, it's been over 95 all week, and >100 for the last three days straight here, and it's only early June!

I've had bad luck linking to Canadian papers in the past, but here goes. Via /. this morning...

In Praise of CO2

If anything this article confirms AGW is real (e. g. longer growing seasons predominantly in the polar regions and general increased CO2 production in the tropical ecosystems) and unavoidable (IMHO given the current global political climate ). That the biota are doing their best to balance the CO2 budget, but that CO2 released from humans burning fossil fuels is much greater then the increased rates in biomass. In other words CO2 will continue to increase faster then the biosphere can remove it as long as we burn fossil fuels at current and ever increasing rates for the foreseeable future.

In other words, Planet Earth will get very hot, the Greenland Ice Cap will most assuredly melt completely over the next several hundred years, that most mountain glaciers will also melt completely in a much shorter timeframe and that vast amounts of methane (another GHG) will be released from the Arctic tundra (or permafrost) as these areas warm to a greater extent then the planet as a whole.

Let's get this straight once and for all, carbon deposits in the form of fossil fuels, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, that the sun was the dominant energy source for biomass creation, and as the biomass dies it eventually is turned into fossil fuels through geological processes. And that we humans are currently burning those energy sources at a rate somewhere between O(5) to O(6) times faster (5-6 orders of magnitude faster) than those fossil fuels took to be created in the first place.

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Can't wait to go sailing at the North Pole during the winter solstice though.

No way! Thank you, Captian Obvious!


No trend reaches its logical conclusion.


Also, slightly off-topic -- we know for a fact, that since the time Captain Cook sailed around what is now Kenai Fjords National park in 1778, that those glaciers have been steadily retreating; I think what Muir saw in Southeast Alaska bears this out too. What is the stock answer for that from the "sea levels will rise 30 feet by 2100" crowd?

Ah, yes. I get my scientific data from all the best 18th century explorers.

Well it's not turning a pig's tooth into Nebraska Man, but it's gonna have to do.

I'm still not sure why the concept of Global Warming sends conservatives into epileptic fits.

Present an evidentiary quantitative link as I think you are just making this stuff up now. Oh and how do I know your lying, well for one no photographic evidence since 1778 predates it's invention, and no land surveying (e. g. benchmarks) existed in that area in 1778.

It's not listed here;

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]

And remember that I have taken all the names of the "usual suspects."

Here's a spanish map circa 1790;

[CENTER]
Spanish map of Cook Inlet and Kenai Coast region, 1790.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1826;

[CENTER]
Sarychev atlas, c. 1826, showing Outer Kenai Coast.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1849;

[CENTER]
Teben'kov Chart #5 showing Outer Kenai Coast, 1849.[/CENTER]

Another circa 1902;

[CENTER]
George Davidson's map of Outer Kenai Coast, 1902.[/CENTER]

And finally a (what I'll assume circa 1998) modern day map;

[CENTER]
from A Stern and Rock-Bound Coast (1998)


Planet Earth says: "I'm melting."[/CENTER]

Yes, I sit at my desk and dream this stuff up, I'm not really curious.

Like I said, John Muir and Glacier bay:
http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/p/x/32.htm

And like I said, from the time of Cook and Vancouver, they've been retreating:
http://www.nps.gov/akso/akarc/cr_glba.htm

I don't have the time chase down the stuff on the Kenai peninsula, but here are a couple of links:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1b.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archive/kefj/hrs/hrs1a.htm






Less bile and belligerence, franksargent -- it's not necessary! A simple explanation of this historic retreat would have sufficed.

Your first link about John Muir in 1879 falls within the post-1850 time period that I linked to in my previous post about glacial retreats since 1850.

Your second link;

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve


No direct reference in that link, but it does have a BIBLIOGRAPHY but no direct objective evidence for the above quote. In other words where in the Bibliography list will I find quantitative data for the above quote. Standard peer review places either reference numbers or author name(s) and year with this list of references placed at the end of the text. Therefore the quality of this paper is suspect from a strict scientific presentation in a peer reviewed journal, or thesis dissertation. or for that matter any other well written works.

Your 3rd link covers the post 1850's time period I cited in my previous post. We also need to remember that coal was the primary fossil fuel during those time periods, and that coal soot into the atmosphere may have traveled long distances and settled on these glaciers causing their retreats prior to 1850,

Ditto for your 4th link, the time periods are all post-1850 per my link above in a previous post.

As to your first graphic, the 1800AD demarcation lines are shown with question marks, in other words, these positions may have been assumed due to their topography and bathymetry characteristics, leading to those questionable 1800 interpretations.

And your last graphic is from a high school contest in 2005, nothing wrong with doing that, but these kids have been in no way schooled as glaciologists and trained/experienced in the survey methods used to measure Glacier mass balance.

The paper was titled;

Global Climate Change and its Effect on Our Coastal Community with the following disclaimer;

[CENTER]

Glacial Retreat on the Kenai Peninsula, Edward Berg, ADF&G.[/CENTER]

The Burg reference reads;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

So unless Berg has actually published the data sets along with the various methodologies used to define them, I have to remain very skeptical of Berg's underlying data.

I can be critical of these "so called" glacial front maps since I have quite a bit of experience in land surveying methodologies, and realizing that glaciers are three dimensional, meaning that glaciers also have width and depth, see Glacier mass balance

600 million to 20 million years before man, actually. And your chart depicts 10 degree average global temperature shifts occurring over tens of millions of years.

I'll leave it for you to work out how that differs from what we're talking about.

[CENTER][/CENTER]


The PermianTriassic extinction event;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

So if this graph is accurate, in it's own "cartoonish" way then the above extinction event coincided with a 1 degree centigrade temperature rise. Oh, and the horizontal scale is ~1.000.000 years/pixel, meaning that the resolution is so course, that we could never obtain meaningful rates of temperature change, which is the subject de jour.

So for example, if we use the current estimate of 0.10 degrees centigrade per decade, which is a low estimate, then for 1,000,000 years, the global temperature will be 0,10 *1,000,000 / 10 = 10,000 degrees centigrade. OK, I'll admit that this won't happen, because well before then, man would become extinct.

So now lets look at a 10 degree centigrade temperature rise based on the range shown in this graph; 10 degrees centigrade / 0.01/year = 1,000 years (or one thousand years). Now that is most certainly doable given a highly industrialized society of ~ 10 billion people and the plentiful supply of fossil fuel in the form of coal.

Now go back to the "cartoon" graph. Do you see anywhere on that graph a rise (or fall) of 10 degrees centigrade occurring in just 0.001 pixels (i. e. 1,000 years)? Do you even see a 10 degree centigrade rise over just one full pixel (i, e, one million years)?

The answer is the same for both, no and no.

We are talking about climate change are we not? And we are not talking about climate stasis as shown by the 22 degree centigrade climate plateau's, correct?

So to sum it all up in three words it's all about the rate of change. It is not about what temperature regimes existed in the past, but how rapidly the temperature changes from one extreme to the other. In that regard this "cartoon" graph is virtually useless.

Please stop. I know we disagree on many things, but I don't dislike you and I hate to see you careening about like this.

Just, generally, it's a not a great idea to pick up a grab bag of "gotcha" talking points from the web and brandish them when you (I guess, it appears) don't know much about how those "arguments", such as they are, are being structured. It just looks foolish.

And no, this isn't breezy dismissal of forbidden thought in the way of those group think climate scientist robot black helicopter dupes.

Posting utterly irrelevant graphs because some web site proffered it up as yet another "HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS YOU CAN'T HA!" is foolish. Upon learning of this immediately falling back on "OK SO GLOBAL HOCKEY STICK HA!" is foolish.

Save yourself. The people disseminating this crap are not your friends, they have no intention of making good faith arguments and they are profoundly, deeply, cynical. You are being used, friend.

One world (coin), two sides...90% of Enviro Skeptic Books Have Think Tank Roots


Holy Kevin Bacon Batman!

IMO: Big business does not want to spend the money to retrofit its factories (anything that causes polution) so they put out misinformation to save them money. Simple as that.

BUT: Works that clarify links between sources of funding and the result of research are really important, regardless of the specific political agenda. Paid bias is a problem that can't be ignored. If we can't have unbiased research in health, environment and the rest of it, then we are completely screwed.

Honestly, franksargent. That's profoundly disappointing.

,,, I've demonstrated conclusively that that there is a net loss of glaciers globally and that this net loss has been accelerated over the past ~150 years and that this confirms AGW due to increases in GHG's of human origins.

Heck, disregard my comments on Berg's rather limited data (a couple dozen Alaskan glaciers when there are literally thousands of Alaskan glaciers). Even that rather limited data set clearly shows an accelerated trend line of glacial retreat over time.

I could even show glaciers that are advancing (albeit at slower rates then they once were). But the main point remains that there is an accelerating net loss of glaciers globally since 1850.

... rate of change as opposed to temperature plateaus, and that rate of change is what is important with respect to climate change, then and only then, will I bother to discuss further with you your gross misconceptions of what increasing GHG's of human origin and AGW actually means.

I honestly don't think you've ever dealt with derivatives, mathematically speaking.

So a simple question to you is: Do you even understand what rate of change means with respect to global warming, or what the rate of change of the rate of change means with respect to global warming (e. g. the second derivative of the CO2 curve from 50 years of objective empirical instrumental data is real and positive).

Can't we get SDW banned for this thread?
It is an impeachable offense?