or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › seems global warming has stubbed its toe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

seems global warming has stubbed its toe - Page 3

post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post

From the original link:
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

Berenson believes that man-made global warming fears
have no objective scientific basis. “Earth is in the final stages of a typical 10,000 year
plus interglacial when both atmospheric temperature and CO2 content tend to increase
long term from natural causes..."

"Now, if Earth was suffering under an
accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2..."

-------------------------

Please people, post the link, the URL, the http://*.*.*.*/*.*.*.htm, or whatever.

It does no good to post an image and/or quotes without the link.

Where are the link(s)?

TYVM
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #82 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Suffice it to say that this n00b, Dr. Lindzen, is old skool, as in very old, not an active climate scientist, as reflected in the current well respected peer reviewed climate and science literature.

In fact this n00b has not changed his basic position in over 30 years.

This n00b needs to be put out to pasture and shot, with heavy doses of heroin and other hallucinatory drugs for the remainder of his ever shortening lifespan.


Translation:
He has credentials and disagrees with me so I better call him names.

How old are you?
post #83 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by progmac View Post

From the original link

I couldn't find Barenson in the article, but I don't think that your response was a good one for this guy:

http://japancast.net/2008/07/22/prof...kes-things-up/

He is not denying CO2 rise or the greenhouse effect, he just thinks that those factors are insignificant in comparison to the sun cycles.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


This graph CLEARLY shows variations slowing down.
post #85 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This graph CLEARLY shows variations slowing down.

And your point is?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This graph CLEARLY shows variations slowing down.

This shows that CLEARLY you cannot read a graph
post #87 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

This shows that CLEARLY you cannot read a graph

You think the variations are becoming larger? Looks like the variations are becoming smaller to me.
post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

You think the variations are becoming larger? Looks like the variations are becoming smaller to me.

I'll just quote this for posperity!
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Translation:
He has credentials and disagrees with me so I better call him names.

How old are you?

Older and much wiser and much, much, much smarter/brighter/intelligent than ...

But back to the good doctor.

He hasn't published hardly anything lately in the well respected peer reviewed climate and science literature.

He has published extensively on the op-ed pages though, which, you know, isn't exactly considered climate and/or science literature.

He really isn't currently active in the field of climate science wrt all things related to global warming/climate change.

He has steadfastly maintained his original opinion for over 30 years now, despite the 30 years of climate science work that has subsequently been undertaken since he formed his original opinion.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

I'll just quote this for posperity!

Being chart illiterate is not a virtue, all of the rightwinextremenutjobs would appear to be chart illiterate.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

50 parts per million in the last 250 years...

Actually it's more like 100 parts per million in the past ~100 years, from ~285 ppmv to ~385 ppmv today. And at current and ever increasing rates will pass ~600 ppmv sometime before 2100AD.

You really don't understand the subject matter, that much is all too apparant and blatantly obvious.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #92 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I couldn't find Barenson in the article, but I don't think that your response was a good one for this guy:

http://japancast.net/2008/07/22/prof...kes-things-up/

He is not denying CO2 rise or the greenhouse effect, he just thinks that those factors are insignificant in comparison to the sun cycles.

Again what link?

This one, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

EDIT: OK, I get it, I'm a little slow today, the original link that started this thread, nevermind.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #93 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This graph CLEARLY shows variations slowing down.

Look at the time scale again, it goes the opposite way you think it does.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #94 of 121
What a bizarre graph. Everyone knows that time flows from left to right!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

What a bizarre graph. Everyone knows that time flows from left to right!

Really. Franksargent, is there a reason for that? I don't remember ever seeing a graph with now at the left and a long time ago to the right, but then again I'm not a graph maven, by any means.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #96 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Really. Franksargent, is there a reason for that? I don't remember ever seeing a graph with now at the left and a long time ago to the right, but then again I'm not a graph maven, by any means.

For me, it makes no difference as long as the graph is labeled properly.

YBP, where the baseline date is usually 1950, or 1958 (the original International Geophysical Year, the start of the CO2 instrumental record at Mauna Loa, HI), or 2000 (used more recently for obvious reasons). The ascii or spreadsheet data sets will usually start off with a text description of the data and a definition of the time scale base year. Or there will be a separate header file with this information.

Anyway, it's usually YBP so present (zero) is on the left and the past moves toward the right.

But I've also seen the CO2 and temperature data graphed with real calendar dates and also YBP on the right with negative (or positive as long as its YBP dated) numbers for all past dates. That would be more along the lines you are thinking of, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm playing with some Greenland ice core data sets now. It keeps my mind entertained, or sharp, or busy, or whatever.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 121
Quite frankly I can't believe people are still in denial about this. There's so much evidence.

Global warming is real and we're really a part of it.

Sorry if you don't like it because I don't like it either.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #98 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Look at the time scale again, it goes the opposite way you think it does.

Yep. My bad . It's backwards...
post #99 of 121
More cool info and shit...

Climate Change Alters Ocean Chemistry


Quote:
Researchers have discovered that the oceans chemical makeup is less stable and more greatly affected by climate change than previously believed. The researchers report in the December 12, 2008 issue of Science* that during a time of climate change 13 million years ago the chemical makeup of the oceans changed dramatically. The researchers warn that the chemical composition of the ocean today could be similarly affected by climate changes now underway with potentially far-reaching consequences for marine ecosystems.

"As CO2 increases and weather patterns shift, the chemical composition of our rivers will change, and this will affect the oceans," says co-author Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institutions Department of Global Ecology. "This will change the amount of calcium and other elements in ocean salts."

Global Warming is thawing out lakes in Siberia, where methane bubbles are trapped. Methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times stronger than CO2. This vicious cycle is a time bomb waiting to go off.

Cool.
post #100 of 121
Not a big issue - methane only lasts 8.4 years in the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane...greenhouse_gas

Now if the oceans heat up enough to increase the warm band from the top 3 feet to the top 1000 meters, massive quantities of methane get released all at once, which causes an extinction event, like what happened 55 million years ago (spike on graph):



We should be mining and burning the oceanic methane from the edge of the continental shelf, but undoubtedly some stupid greenie would try to ram the mining operation with their boat.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #101 of 121
Thread Starter 
If you are worried about CO2 heres something you can do
I'll bet the models don't include this.
post #102 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

If you are worried about CO2 heres something you can do
I'll bet the models don't include this.

Or this?


Quote:
Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska has melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.

Using new satellite technology that measures changes in mass in mountain glaciers and ice sheets, NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke concluded that the losses amounted to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.

"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing," said Luthcke, who will present his findings this week at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, California.

>>>snip<<<

In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.

"The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what's going on and how fast things are changing, there's a lot of uncertainty," he said.

There you go.... rebut that.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #103 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Or this?




There you go.... rebut that.

It rebuts itself...
making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.
best estimates
there's a lot of uncertainty
It's only accurate to within half of a trillion tons, out of 2 trillion? That's 25% !
post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

It rebuts itself...
making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.
best estimates
there's a lot of uncertainty
It's only accurate to within half of a trillion tons, out of 2 trillion? That's 25% !

Then why are you even arguing or supporting anything? Something has to be done. That is the final answer. Whether by laws, actions or personal responsibility.

No scientist or legislator may not convince you, but the future will.



Keep an eye on this. This is our future.

Quote:
As the Wilkins Ice Shelf is at risk of breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula, ESAs Envisat satellite is observing the area on a daily basis. The satellite acquisitions of the ice shelf are updated automatically on this website to monitor the developments immediately as they occur.

In late November, new rifts developed on the ice shelf that scientists warn could lead to the opening of the ice bridge that connects the ice shelf to the Charcot island. If the ice bridge were to open, it could put the entire ice shelf at risk of further disintegrating.
post #105 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

It rebuts itself...
making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.
best estimates
there's a lot of uncertainty
It's only accurate to within half of a trillion tons, out of 2 trillion? That's 25% !

Actually, it would be 1.75 +/- 0.25, or an accuracy of ~14%
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #106 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Then why are you even arguing or supporting anything? Something has to be done. That is the final answer. Whether by laws, actions or personal responsibility.

No scientist or legislator may not convince you, but the future will.



Keep an eye on this. This is our future.

I think we can look at this already in the past tense. Notice all the cracks already (and currently ever increasing) on the Wilkins Ice Shelf?

If this is anything like the Arctic, we can expect further losses through the remainder of the Antarctica spring (currently), and throughout the Antarctica summer (until ~ through to our northern spring equinox).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 121
Once again, I feel I have to ask:

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we do nothing, then what?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #108 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Once again, I feel I have to ask:

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we do nothing, then what?

Good point!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #109 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves

It isn't quite as simple as that, if global warming is wrong, and we still try to fix it, we could cause:

- equatorial heating & habitat damage, due to windmills slowing down the transfer of heat from the equator to the poles.

- massive famine in the 3rd world, due to their food crops being replaced by biofuel crops

- massive inefficiency in industry, reducing wealth creation and increasing poverty

- opportunity cost, instead of fighting global warming, we could have been investing R&D and infrastructure money in other things.

etc

I'm not saying that the planet is not warming, just that your reasoning is bad.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #110 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

your reasoning is bad.



Thanks.

You can enjoy my ignore list.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #111 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

You can enjoy my ignore list.

I wasn't questioning your ability to reason, just that particular argument you made. But ignore me all you like.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #112 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Once again, I feel I have to ask:

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we do nothing, then what?

IF we can cause global warming. Then we should be able to cause global cooling as well. I don't think we can do either. We don't have control of that much energy yet.
post #113 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Once again, I feel I have to ask:

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we do nothing, then what?

I don't think it really matters. What matters is saying things that piss off the libruls.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #114 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I think we can look at this already in the past tense. Notice all the cracks already (and currently ever increasing) on the Wilkins Ice Shelf?

If this is anything like the Arctic, we can expect further losses through the remainder of the Antarctica spring (currently), and throughout the Antarctica summer (until ~ through to our northern spring equinox).


"Ice flow, nowhere to go! Ice flow, nowhere to go!"
post #115 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Once again, I feel I have to ask:

If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we do nothing, then we just continue as we are.
If the theory of Global Warming is wrong and we try to clean up, we get a cleaner planet.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we try to clean up, we might actually save ourselves.
If the theory of Global Warming is right and we do nothing, then what?

How does cleaning up a non-pollutant get us a cleaner planet? Carbon dioxide alone does not naturally harm anything and is naturally occurring.

You say we might save ourselves. How long have we been victims of and shaking our fists at the weather? Can you honestly claim that global warming will wipe the human species off the planet and kill all six billion of us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Good point!

Not really..

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I don't think it really matters. What matters is saying things that piss off the libruls.

I'm pretty sure ShawnJ has killed Midwinter and has taken over his account.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #116 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How does cleaning up a non-pollutant get us a cleaner planet?

Duh? Because while you're cleaning up CO2, you're also cleaning up other pollutants.

And there is no consensus that CO2 doesn't harm anything, so don't state your opinions as facts.

Naturally occurring? So is arsenic. So is sulfuric acid. So is ricin, for fuck's sake.

Who is the one talking about logical fallacies and non-sequiturs?

Naturally occurring != you can spread it around as much as you like
post #117 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Duh? Because while you're cleaning up CO2, you're also cleaning up other pollutants.

And there is no consensus that CO2 doesn't harm anything, so don't state your opinions as facts.

Naturally occurring? So is arsenic. So is sulfuric acid. So is ricin, for fuck's sake.

Who is the one talking about logical fallacies and non-sequiturs?

Naturally occurring != you can spread it around as much as you like

Actually the assumption that cleaning up CO2 means you are cleaning up other pollutants is yours.

CO2 is part of respiration. Even with global warming/climate change the fact that the changes will cause only harm is put forward by those seeking power related to it. The planet has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Life adapts and so will we.

First pure sulfuric acid is not naturally occurring on earth. Second the fact that someone can be a pollutant doesn't mean that all things are pollutants. Just because lead was harmful in paint doesn't mean I am killing the kids with my second-hand carbon dioxide every time I breath out.

Do me a favor and stop personally producing carbon dioxide. Do it for the kids.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually the assumption that cleaning up CO2 means you are cleaning up other pollutants is yours.

CO2 is part of respiration. Even with global warming/climate change the fact that the changes will cause only harm is put forward by those seeking power related to it. The planet has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Life adapts and so will we.

First pure sulfuric acid is not naturally occurring on earth. Second the fact that someone can be a pollutant doesn't mean that all things are pollutants. Just because lead was harmful in paint doesn't mean I am killing the kids with my second-hand carbon dioxide every time I breath out.

Do me a favor and stop personally producing carbon dioxide. Do it for the kids.

Which is why a tend to believe the science of global warming.

Speaking for global warming: scientists. Who apparently "seek power" by doing science, but whatever.

Speaking for the skeptics: the above hash of sophistry, misdirection, red herrings and serene indifference to fact.

I've said it before in the thread, but: if the science of skepticism is compelling, why are its defenders so frequently given to nonsense?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #119 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Do me a favor and stop personally producing carbon dioxide. Do it for the kids.

We better kill all the cows too. Do it for the kids.



My head hurts.
post #120 of 121
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...as/7793779.stm

haha! should get the panties wedged in the crack.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › seems global warming has stubbed its toe