Evidence of climate change irrefutable
Harry Hope
From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
Evidence of climate change irrefutable
BY ALAM I. LESHNER
In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
-- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
denials, this time about global climate change.
.............................................................................................................
Climate-change science is clear:
The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from
the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation --
stands at 389 parts per million (ppm).
We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
years.
Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
of this century.
Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
reaches 450 ppm.
We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
level, devastating events.
U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
262 affiliated societies.
Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
it will be the warmest one on record.
None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
levels rise.
The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
or the integrity of individual scientists.
We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
investigations.
But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
evidence based on thousands of studies.
.........................................................................................................
The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
product per year.
In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
percent of GDP.
China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
technologies.
Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
__________________________________________________
Harry
Claudius Denk
> From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
> In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change.
>
>
> The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> product per year.
>
> In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> percent of GDP.
>
> China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> technologies.
>
> Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Harry
As indicated omission in this article, evidence that CO2 does or can
cause atmospheric warming is extremely sketchy. And this is the
reason they always mention cigarettes. They just want to pretend that
there is some big conspriacy to hide the evidence that links CO2 to
warming. The fact is there is nothing to hide. CO2 caused global
warming is an enviro-whacko pipedream. Tobacco lawyers saw big
tobacco as their ticket to manipulate the system to become
millionaires. Al Gore sees AGW as his ticket to become a
billionaire.
There is no scientific basis to the notion that CO2 causes atmospheric
warming.
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:23:09 -0800 (PST), Claudius Dorkus
>
> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >As indicated omission in this article, evidence that CO2 does or can
> >cause atmospheric warming is extremely sketchy.
>
>
> No, you stupid motherfucker, it most certainly is not "sketchy." In point of
> fact, you stupid motherfucker, the FACT that CO2 absorbs heat is one of the
> most sound, most fundamental, most rigorously tested FACTS in all of
> science, and has been for MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FUCKING YEARS,
> thanks to the COUNTLESS experiments that all show the exact same result, as
> I've already told you're lying stupid denier ass.
>
> Witness, witless...
>
> Missed the last TWO FUCKING CENTURIES of scientific progress, did you,
> denier maroon? And yet you still think your ignorant uninformed personal
> opinion about that of which you know not shit to somehow be of some value to
> anyone? There's a word for that: STUPID.
>
> FYI, you stupid motherfucker, it has been a widely known, often measured
> scientific FACT that CO2 traps heat since the early 19th century. Do at
> least try to keep up with the LAST FEW CENTURIES of knowledge, you stupid
> motherfucker...
One of the nice things about science is that it allows us to quantify
effects like greenhouse warming. Would you care to show us what the
predicted increase in temp due to the added CO2 is?
Didn't think so.
> ------http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
>
> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is
> attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established
> by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 – 1891) and the effect was
> calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927).
> -------
>
> Now, is this clear enough for you, you stupid motherfucker, or shall we
> tattoo it all backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
>
> ---
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
serebel
> >
> One of the nice things about science is that it allows us to quantify
> effects like greenhouse warming. Would you care to show us what the
> predicted increase in temp due to the added CO2 is?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
You won't get a cogent answer from "petey boy". She just spews
the party line in her usual foul mouthed way. She's not smart in any
way.
serebel
Bret Cahill
> From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
> In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change.
>
>
> The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> product per year.
>
> In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> percent of GDP.
>
> China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> technologies.
>
> Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
_still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
certificate . . .
They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
Bret Cahill
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:31:55 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
> increase?
No, I don't feel like playing with your straw man. I will agree that
there is a predicted increase, but you have no clue what it might be.
Prove me wrong by showing the math.
> Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore.
>
> >Didn't think so.
>
> Didn't have to think, I KNOW that even your ignorant denier ass isn't stupid
> enough to posit such absurd nonsense.
>
> Then again...
>
> ---
> Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> ------
> Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> Department of Psychology
> Cornell University
>
> ABSTRACT:
> ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shrikeback
Yes, examine the record o climate change over the last
400,000 years, and you'll see, it is irrefutable:
Greenolas: always wanting people to wet theselves
over the insignificant.
> They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
That's what I've been trying to tell you.
Jared
[...]
> Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
> _still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
> certificate . . .
>
> They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
>
> Bret Cahill
If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
1Z
B is roughly zero since there is no irradiative forcing as prompted
the
natural warmings of the distant past.
Patricia Aldoraz
> If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
> change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
> is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
With some difficulty because it is complicated! What exactly does
"with humans" and without humans" mean and over what period of time?
And are we talking where humans used to exist before the example test
period or not?
Put a man in one room, and no man in another identical room. Watch the
temperature. The difference is due to the man being there and doing or
not doing whatever he is or is not doing.
Climate Realist
.> If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
.> change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B =
C
.> is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
IF:
A is the human caused change in global temperature,
B is the change in temperature that would happen without humans,
(note: this is an estimate, unless we move all humans to another
planet)
C is the actual change we observe,
D is the estimation error in B,
E is the measurement error in C
Now:
D > B
E > C
So:
A + B +/- D = C +/- E
Rearranging
A = C - B +/- E +/- D
Since D > B and E > C, the error terms dominate, and A can not be
calculated with any reasonable accuracy.
Note that the formula from Jared, is a climate pseudo-scientist's
dream. By taking the actual change observed (C), and subtracting the
amount they WANT human caused warming to be (A), they can then
calculate the estimate of warming without humans (B).
e.g. you think they will use A = C - B
but they really use B = C - A
this way they can claim any amount of human caused warming that they
want.
tg
All the ice and snow on the planet---including Greenland and
Antarctica, and the sea ice, and the glaciers and snowpacks in the
mountains, could melt, with zero change in temperature.
-tg
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Of course, in about 200,000 years,
but more by sublimation than melting.
tg
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:51:53 -0800 (PST), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
Nonsense.
-tg
Andy F.
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7311db20-1329-429f...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
******************************
Have you got any evidence that that's likely to happen, or are you just
spouting irrelevant crap like you usually do?
Shrikeback
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
That's beside the point. The point is that when Greenolas
claim say, "Look! Droughts! Look! Hurricanes! Look,
over here, a heat wave! Argh! The Arctic polar bear circus!
Omigod! KATRINA! Global warming will kill us all!" It's all
bullshit.
And here's a little graph of climate change to soath the
savege greenola breast:
T. Keating
Since mankind's CO2 emissions is one the primary factors in
determining eventual temp increase will be..
Can you supply the date when mankind's CO2 emissions reached natural
equilibrium with Earth's natural sequestration capabilities?? (I.E.
No more than a giga tonn of fossil fuel based CO2 added to the
atmosphere in any one year? (note: current rate 32GT per year))
And at what level will atmospheric CO2 ppm stabilize at??
Other unaccounted for contributing factors.. Variance in Stellar
output, in Volcano emissions, in an made Aerosol emissions, and other
natural feedbacks (mostly positive, very bad).
Predictions based on estimates can be found at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Tables 3.1 (page 23) , 3.6 (page 29). predictions by the end of the
century.
Mankind's current rate of rapidly increasing CO2 emissions has
exceeded the assumptions used to calculate the worse case A1FI
scenario.
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
"The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report"
"In a special report called �The Copenhagen Diagnosis�, the 26
researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports,
conclude that several important aspects of climate change are
occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a
few years ago."
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/
Note: Global Warming will continue for many centuries after man made
CO2 emissions have reached an atmospheric equilibrium with the
Biosphere.
My prediction.
Mankind will fail to mitigate and/or sequester enough of it's CO2
emissions. (I.E. Too many low IQ types to avoid self annihilation.)
The polar ice caps will melt, Greenland will shed it's ice cover.
Earth's positive feedbacks, (ten million plus years of accumulated
near surface Carbon deposits), will kick in, and release back into the
atmosphere, broiling mankind, (and nearly all plants/animals) into
extinction. The last human on earth, dies in the year 2435.
I.E. We never make it to the year 2525...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic
Fred Weiss
Don't forget the sinking Maldives.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
Charles Krauthammer had a good piece in the Jerusalem Post on this
subject.
"Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until
it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green.
The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for
socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same:
highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new
class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the
alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but
saving the planet. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260447430658&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ayn Rand, btw, identified this ideological shift back in the 1960's:
"The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution".
Fred Weiss
1Z
Fred Weiss
>
> Charles Krauthammer had a good piece in the Jerusalem Post on this
> subject.
>
> "Socialism
>
Oh, change the fucking record
Ouroboros Rex
> On Dec 15, 8:55 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, examine the record o climate change over the last
> 400,000 years, and you'll see, it is irrefutable:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9vln7m
Sorry, denialist lie site.
Ouroboros Rex
Stupid lies don't fly.
Ouroboros Rex
But it would take a hell of a lot of energy to do it.
Bret Cahill
> > > > spouting irrelevant crap like you usually do?
>
> > > That's beside the point. The point is that when Greenolas
> > > claim say, "Look! Droughts! Look! Hurricanes! Look,
> > > over here, a heat wave! Argh! The Arctic polar bear circus!
> > > Omigod! KATRINA! Global warming will kill us all!" It's all
> > > bullshit.
>
> > Don't forget the sinking Maldives.
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Charles Krauthammer
CK thought BushCo was interested in democracy in the mideast and you
think someone that stoopid politically wants to weigh in on science?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >>> _still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
> >>> certificate . . .
>
> >>> They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
>
> >>> Bret Cahill
>
> >> If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
> >> change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
> >> is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
>
> > All the ice and snow on the planet---including Greenland and
> > Antarctica, and the sea ice, and the glaciers and snowpacks in the
> > mountains, could melt, with zero change in temperature.
>
> > -tg
>
> But it would take a hell of a lot of energy to do it.
No more mechanical energy that what is already available.
Warm salt water currents don't float on cool brackish water like on
salt water of the same temp so there has been some speculation that it
could happen with the Gulf Stream if a lot of fresh water is released
in the N. Atlantic by melting Arctic ice.
Instead of warming Europe the GS sinks into the N. Atlantic, changes
course and melts what ice is left in the Arctic.
The original concern was Europe. Paris is farther N. than Quebec so
most of Europe would freeze w/o the GS.
Now it's time for a rightard to post:
"Yeehaa! Europe freezes! That means AGW is self correcting and we
don't have to do anything except drill baby drill!"
In fact, anything short of the rightard personally frying to death
this afternoon will elicit the same generic response:
"Yeehaa! That means there's no problem and we don't have to do
anything except drill baby drill!"
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
If it's annoying you that much, I must be hitting my mark.
So here it is again:
Charles Krauthammer had a good piece in the Jerusalem Post on this
subject.
"Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until
it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green.
The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for
socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same:
highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new
class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the
alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but
saving the planet. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260447430658&pagename=JPo...
tg
Yes, and as ice melts all over the planet, that energy *doesn't* go
into raising the 'average temperature'.
Huh!
-tg
Michael Gordge
> Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
Oh so ewe are in denial of the simple fact that non-smokers get the
exact same sicknesses / cancers / heart diseases that smokers get?
MG
I M @ good guy
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
>> >>> _still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
>> >>> certificate . . .
>>
>> >>> They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
>>
>> >>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> >> If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
>> >> change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
>> >> is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
>>
>> > All the ice and snow on the planet---including Greenland and
>> > Antarctica, and the sea ice, and the glaciers and snowpacks in the
>> > mountains, could melt, with zero change in temperature.
>>
>> > -tg
>>
>> But it would take a hell of a lot of energy to do it.
>
>No more mechanical energy that what is already available.
>
>Warm salt water currents don't float on cool brackish water like on
>salt water of the same temp so there has been some speculation that it
>could happen with the Gulf Stream if a lot of fresh water is released
>in the N. Atlantic by melting Arctic ice.
>
>Instead of warming Europe the GS sinks into the N. Atlantic, changes
>course and melts what ice is left in the Arctic.
>[snip fiction]
>Bret Cahill
Why do you show your lack of education
in physics?
How would that be different than what
you claim is happening now?
Michael Gordge
>
> Sorry, denialist lie site.
Oh look its another dopey denier of the fact that man producing
0.0000001% less of the earth's total gas isn't going to make the globe
cold.
Why dont ewe site the science to support the leftist idea that man
producing 0.00000001% less of the earth's gas the globe will get cold.
Your mission, (keeping the total of earth's gas as the standard) state
the percetage of Co2 in earth's atmospher, the percentage of earth's
total gas which man produces as Co2, and then state the percentage of
that percentage which the scamsters claim will make the globe cold if
its not there.
MG
doctordave
while today a similar period is called the Current Climate
Catastrophy?
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:59:33 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 15, 11:46 pm, Peter Principle <petesfe...@SNIPITgmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:31:55 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> >> increase?
>
> >No, I don't feel like playing with your straw man. I will agree that
> >there is a predicted increase, but you have no clue what it might be.
> >Prove me wrong by showing the math.
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew! Now, that's some mightily
> entertaining STUPID you have there dim bulb...
>
> So, you don't like it when your own stupid asshole straw man is lit up in
> front of your own stupid ass, eh? Too fucking bad.
>
> FYI, maroon, one of the very most fundamental tests of a logical proposition
> is to see if it works when you invert it. Yours does not, primarily because
> you're an idiot sans the slightest fucking clue about the use of logic. You
> obviously couldn't reason your way out of toilet tissue trap.
>
> Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
>
> It is a FACT that CO2 absorbs heat, period, EOS, move the fuck on, ignorant
> denier buffoon. Heck, even an idiot like you can test the warmth absorbing
> properties of CO2 for himself.
>
> Fill a clear container with CO2. Seal it. Leave an identical container full
> of normal air. Seal it. Put both containers in the sun for 12 hours. Measure
> interior temps using calibrated digital thermometers capable of small
> gradation measurements.
And you have still failed to provide a calculation showing the
increase in global temp due to a rise in CO2 from one level to another.
Bruce Richmond
For the increase of CO2 from 250 ppm to 280 ppm show the calculation
for the resulting temperture increase due to the CO2 alone.
[snip diversionary tactics]
Last Post
•• Since ice isn't melting except where it is
supposed to how do you explain no raising
temperatures.
Peter Franks
> From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:
> http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
>
> In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change.
>
> .............................................................................................................
>
> Climate-change science is clear:
>
> The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from
> the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation --
> stands at 389 parts per million (ppm).
>
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
We don't "know" -- we /infer/.
Peter Franks
Please do not talk to me that way.
Jared
wrote:
> On Dec 16, 6:54 pm, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
> > change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
> > is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
>
> "with humans" and without humans" mean and over what period of time?
Without humans means in the absence of human use of fossil fuels.
Jared
> On 16 Dec, 07:54, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:55 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
> > > _still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
> > > certificate . . .
>
> > > They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
> > is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
>
> the
> natural warmings of the distant past.
How do we determine B to be zero based on observing C?
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:35:58 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
> straw man? well, sorry, booblet, but I sure ain't gonna fire it up for you.
> That little nugget of rock hard, super dense, singularity-type STUPID is all
> yours. Enjoy!
>
> You see,moron,it's FACT that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes said
> atmosphere to absorb more heat, period EOS, move the fuck on. Your idiotic
> fetish with the exact amount of added heat is, well, STUPID.
Sure it causes the atmosphere to absorb more heat. And its temp will
rise causing it to radiate that aditional heat. The question is, how
much does it rise for a given increase of CO2. If calculation or
experiment say that the temp should rise by .05 degrees while the
observed rise was .70 degrees, maybe we should be looking elsewhere
for the cause of the rise.
T. Keating
Bzzzt... For what reason should I answer spend large amounts of my
time & resources to answer your arbitrary question??
Any answer would still need to factor in in variables like the time
period of change and all the extra feedbacks.. Albedo changes,
volcanos, solar flux changes, ice mass melt/Glaciation (thermal mass),
biological activity, etc.. and there would still be no way to test
it. (in your simple/uneducated mind.).
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
(1959) 316ppm.. ---> (end of 2009) ~387ppm
>
>[snip diversionary tactics]
Mankind pushed Earth's atmosphere wayy past 280ppm.. 150 years ago.
now approaching 387 ppm.. increasing by almost 2ppm per year..
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Monkey Clumps
Flawed premise. There is no actual indication that mankind's
contribution to CO2 will have any significant impact. CO2 has always
lagged temperature for the past several hundred thousand years
according to the ice cores, indicating that atmospheric CO2
concentrations are determined by temperature and not visa-versa. Why
should we expect that to change now?
>
> Can you supply the date when mankind's CO2 emissions reached natural
> equilibrium with Earth's natural sequestration capabilities?? (I.E.
> No more than a giga tonn of fossil fuel based CO2 added to the
> atmosphere in any one year? (note: current rate 32GT per year))
>
> And at what level will atmospheric CO2 ppm stabilize at??
>
> Other unaccounted for contributing factors.. Variance in Stellar
> output, in Volcano emissions, in an made Aerosol emissions, and other
> natural feedbacks (mostly positive, very bad).
>
> Predictions based on estimates can be found at
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
> Tables 3.1 (page 23) , 3.6 (page 29). predictions by the end of the
> century.
>
> Mankind's current rate of rapidly increasing CO2 emissions has
> exceeded the assumptions used to calculate the worse case A1FI
> scenario.
>
> http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/
> "The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report"
>
> "In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, the 26
> researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports,
> conclude that several important aspects of climate change are
> occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a
> few years ago."
>
> http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/
>
> Note: Global Warming will continue for many centuries after man made
> CO2 emissions have reached an atmospheric equilibrium with the
> Biosphere.
>
> My prediction.
>
> Mankind will fail to mitigate and/or sequester enough of it's CO2
> emissions. (I.E. Too many low IQ types to avoid self annihilation.)
>
> The polar ice caps will melt, Greenland will shed it's ice cover.
> Earth's positive feedbacks, (ten million plus years of accumulated
> near surface Carbon deposits), will kick in, and release back into the
> atmosphere, broiling mankind, (and nearly all plants/animals) into
> extinction.
You call an increase of a few degrees broiling? What an alarmist
idiot.
> The last human on earth, dies in the year 2435.
>
> I.E. We never make it to the year 2525...
Let's hope your mentally deficient bloodline disappears well before
that.
T. Keating
Because the historical temperature verses CO2 record includes many
OTHER variables that influence the relationship. Time span, Rate of
change(1 ppm per millenia[1000 years]), Thermal mass, ice melt, albedo
changes, etc.).
The most important question one must ask is, where was this slowly
increasing amount of CO2 coming from??
Answer: Most of if came from increasing biological activity from
newly thawed out regions of the planet. Once CO2 was released into
the atmosphere it self re-enforces the warming cycle.
So yes, historical CO2 levels will appear to trail temperature
records. But these where very slow transitions occurring over many
tens of thousands of years and where mostly a function of biological
activity.
====
Fast forward to today.. Mankind has dumped over a TRILLION tonns of
CO2 into atmosphere over a very short period. Increasing atmospheric
CO2 levels by +110ppm in less than a century. Current rate of man
made increase is now ~2ppm per year..
This is NOT a function of NATURAL BIOLOGICAL activity. Worse yet
we're doing it during a warmer inter glacial period when most of the
moderating ICE MASS has already melted and CO2/biological activity had
reached a stable equilibrium.
Comparing these two separate facts. A graph of showing historical
change of 1ppm/1000 years (and claiming an 800 year lag) with
today's man made 2ppm/year (2000x difference) and drawing some silly
conclusions that the scientists are wrong about the GHG properties of
CO2 is just plain stupid, foolish, and irrational.
>
>>
>> �Can you supply the date when mankind's CO2 emissions reached natural
Looks like you wrote your own epitaph, because at some point in time
our society is going to access the US government wiretap data and
track your sorry denier ass down.
You will be considered lucky if you and descendants are burned at the
stake.
T. Keating
<last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:34:24 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
Notice how denialist ignores critiquing their own.
>>
>> Looks like you wrote your own epitaph, because at some point in time
>>our society is going to access the US government wiretap data and
>>track your sorry denier ass down.
>>
>> You will be considered lucky if you and your descendants are burned at the
>>stake.
>
>Funny how leftist asswipes almost always get around to saying they
>want anyone that doesn't think like they do killed.
Just a new form a Darwinism.. Getting rid of those destructive,
useless, societal elements who's goal is the destruction of humanity
and nearly every living thing on the planet.
JohnM
Your view that everything in science is quantifiable seems a somewhat
'rose-coloured spectacles' view. There are many important variables
used in science that have only nominal values e.g cloud-type plus
others that are clearly ordinal data such as rainy days per year for
major cities.
> Didn't think so.
Perhaps you are one of those who doesn't think, period. Should you
wish to change that state of affairs vis-a-vis measurement in science,
see:
ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html
> > ------http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
>
> > Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is
> > attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established
> > by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 – 1891) and the effect was
> > calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927).
> > -------
>
> > Now, is this clear enough for you, you stupid motherfucker, or shall we
> > tattoo it all backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
>
> > ---
> > Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
> > ------
> > Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
> >http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> > © 1999 by the American Psychological Association
> > December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
> > Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
> > Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
> > Justin Kruger and David Dunning
> > Department of Psychology
> > Cornell University
>
> > ABSTRACT:
> > ...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
> > on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
> > performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
> > 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
JohnM
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:48:34 -0600, First Post
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:34:24 -0500, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com>
The laws in most countries that have capital punishment do exclude its
use in cases of insanity. So I'm afraid you will need to raise a lynch
mob to deal with the deniers in such a manner. And on that score, I'm
sorry to have to tell you that I will be on their side of the
barricade.
pyjamarama
> From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
> In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change.
The intellectual dishonesty of this opening paragraph is nothing short
of breath-taking...
And it's a perfect example of how cynical and anti-science the Climate
Evangelicals really are.
You're actually surprised that most people now see this "cause" as
inherently fraudulent?
You shouldn't be,
>
> ........................................................................... ..................................
>
> Climate-change science is clear:
>
> The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from
> the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation --
> stands at 389 parts per million (ppm).
>
> We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> years.
>
> Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> of this century.
>
> Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> reaches 450 ppm.
>
> We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> level, devastating events.
>
> U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> 262 affiliated societies.
>
> Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> levels rise.
>
> The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
> Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
> suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
>
> To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> or the integrity of individual scientists.
>
> We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> investigations.
>
> But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> evidence based on thousands of studies.
>
> ........................................................................... ..............................
>
> The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> product per year.
>
> In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> percent of GDP.
>
> China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> technologies.
>
> Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Bruce Richmond
To see just how little the effects of the CO2 are. They are much too
small to account for the observed warming, so additional feedbacks
were included in models to get the desired results. With some of the
feedbacks it isn't even known if they are positive or negative, but
that doesn't stop some "scientists" from using them to produce a
desired result.
> Any answer would still need to factor in in variables like the time
> period of change and all the extra feedbacks.. Albedo changes,
> volcanos, solar flux changes, ice mass melt/Glaciation (thermal mass),
> biological activity, etc.. and there would still be no way to test
> it. (in your simple/uneducated mind.).
Don't try to confuse the issue by adding unnecessary complexity.
Volcanos, solar flux changes and many other factors are not controlled
by CO2 so there is no need to consider them when determining the
posible change caused by CO2. And if the change in CO2 causes a .02
degree change, the use of feedbacks to produce a .98 degree change is
bullshit.
> ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
> (1959) 316ppm.. ---> (end of 2009) ~387ppm
>
>
>
> >[snip diversionary tactics]
>
> Mankind pushed Earth's atmosphere wayy past 280ppm.. 150 years ago.
> now approaching 387 ppm.. increasing by almost 2ppm per year..
>
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where did I say the current level was 280 ppm? All I did was pick two
numbers to represent a change. I could have just as easily picked 350
and 400, neither of which have any particular significance.
Bruce Richmond
Peter's simple gas in a bottle example should allow a specific
prediction of the temp increase due to a change in the concentration
in CO2. That prediction can be compared to actual observed results in
a lab to see how close they are. That could be used to provide a base
line for how much change the CO2 in the atmosphere causes without all
the feedbacks and other causes of change.
> > > 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:12:24 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> Well, then, jeen-yus, let's follow your toy train of logic to its inevitable
> flaming wreck...
>
> IOW, your point is if we know cigarettes cause some cancers, it's foolish to
> do anything to curtail smoking because there are many other cancer causing
> agents?
Wrong shit for brains. It is more along the lines of "while it is
possible to drown in a pool it is not to likely that we can drown you
with an eye dropper", much as we would like to try.
> Now, even your ignorant stupid denier ass should be able to see that such
> absurd logically fallacious arguments are nothing short of, ahem, STUPID.
>
> Logic: it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Last Post
> On Dec 17, 7:08 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:45:17 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> > <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >On Dec 16, 10:57 am, T. Keating <tkuse...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:31:55 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> > >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:23:09 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
>
> > >> >> <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >As indicated omission in this article, evidence that CO2 does or can
> > >> >> >cause atmospheric warming is extremely sketchy.
> > >> >One of the nice things about science is that it allows us to quantify
> > >> >effects like greenhouse warming. Would you care to show us what the
> > >> >predicted increase in temp due to the added CO2 is?
•• The answer is ZERO!
> > >> Since mankind's CO2 emissions is one the primary factors in
> > >> determining eventual temp increase will be..
•• 3.5% can hardly be any sort of factor
> > >For the increase of CO2 from 250 ppm to 280 ppm show the calculation
> > >for the resulting temperture increase due to the CO2 alone.
>
> > Bzzzt... For what reason should I answer spend large amounts of my
> > time & resources to answer your arbitrary question??
>
> To see just how little the effects of the CO2 are. They are much too
> small to account for the observed warming, so additional feedbacks
> were included in models to get the desired results. With some of the
> feedbacks it isn't even known if they are positive or negative, but
> that doesn't stop some "scientists" from using them to produce a
> desired result.
>
> Don't try to confuse the issue by adding unnecessary complexity.
> Volcanos, solar flux changes and many other factors are not controlled
> by CO2 so there is no need to consider them when determining the
> posible change caused by CO2. And if the change in CO2 causes a .02
> degree change, the use of feedbacks to produce a .98 degree change is
> bullshit.
>
> > Mankind pushed Earth's atmosphere wayy past 280ppm..
•• Total anthropogenic CO2 = 3.5%
That doesn't push very hard now
Does it Dekker
•• Then how come many 19th century years,
pre 1850 had CO2 levels exceeding 350
and a few exceeding 400 ppm
•• Then why did the warmist computer mavens
omit entirely the pre-1850 reading while
cherry picking the readings from 1850 to
1950 if they were not up to mischief.
•• Assuming the mauna loa figure is real [in which
I have zero confidence] the increase is less than
100 ppm in 150' years or 0.66666667 ppm pa
•• Sort of a snails pace wouldn't you think Bruce?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
John M.
Peter is pretty close to being right. No lab experiment that I have
seen described has come close to correctly scale-modelling the
atmosphere in order that the results can only be explained by GHG
behaviour in the gas under test. It is odd that no-one has done this.
It is obviously in the interests of science to do so.
Tyndall just established that CO2 was a potential GHG through finding
attenuation of a LWIR beam in a spectroscopy cell with rock salt
windows. IIUC Arrhenius took the findings and applied them
theoretically to the atmosphere.
> It i.e. totally neglects the physical radiation transports law and the amount
> and distribution of CO2 (imagine a cell from surface to troposphere).
> The volume of CO2 alone would fill a tube of several meters length.
> And don't forget the IR filter effect of the bottle material, the spectral
> composition of lamps vs. sunlight, the amount of insolation simulated by the
> lamps, and many, many more violations against physical laws.
> There is also a total lack of compliance with the requirements for such an
> experiment at all, i.e. leaving out water vapor, circulation effects, wind,
> and so on.
>
> Do the same experiment with another heavy gas, like Argon or Krypton.
> It gives the same results, even those are surely no GHG.
Where is this published? I would be interested to see it. If the rise
in temperature in the experimental container is due to differences in
gas conductivity, which is what a certain poster here has proposed,
then these two should not give the same result as one another.
Monkey Clumps
So you agree there is no historical precedent for CO2 levels to drive
global temps. Thanks.
>
> ====
>
> Fast forward to today.. Mankind has dumped over a TRILLION tonns of
> CO2 into atmosphere over a very short period. Increasing atmospheric
> CO2 levels by +110ppm in less than a century. Current rate of man
> made increase is now ~2ppm per year.
So what? We are dealing with a trace gas that is an extremely tiny
component of the atmosphere.
>
> This is NOT a function of NATURAL BIOLOGICAL activity. Worse yet
> we're doing it during a warmer inter glacial period when most of the
> moderating ICE MASS has already melted and CO2/biological activity had
> reached a stable equilibrium.
>
> Comparing these two separate facts. A graph of showing historical
> change of 1ppm/1000 years (and claiming an 800 year lag) with
> today's man made 2ppm/year (2000x difference) and drawing some silly
> conclusions that the scientists are wrong about the GHG properties of
> CO2 is just plain stupid, foolish, and irrational.
Everyone knows that serious temperature increase scenarios being
peddled by warmists require significant positive feedbacks to kick in,
as the GHG properties of CO2 alone do not account for much of an
increase. The models and assumed feedbacks are speculative and highly
suspect. Many say the impact of increased cloud cover would be a
strong negative feedback and is not properly accounted for in current
models. Basically, no one really knows what is going to happen. If
past history is an indicator, not much.
Spending trillions to vainly fight a non-problem is plain stupid,
foolish and irrational.
Umm, sorry to disappoint you comrade, but being a skeptic is not
illegal in this country. If the first amendment bothers you, please
feel free to move to a more authoritarian locale. I hear North Korea
is beautiful this time of year.
>
> You will be considered lucky if you and descendants are burned at the
> stake.
Keep dreaming, fuckwad.
T. Keating
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the attribute Monkey shit claimed..
>> >according to the ice cores, indicating that atmospheric CO2
>> >concentrations are determined by temperature and not visa-versa. �Why
>> >should we expect that to change now?
>>
>> Because the historical temperature verses CO2 record includes many
>> OTHER variables that influence the relationship. �Time span, Rate of
>> change(1 ppm per millenia[1000 years]), Thermal mass, ice melt, albedo
>> changes, etc.). �
>>
>> The most important question one must ask is, where was this slowly
>> increasing amount of CO2 coming from?? �
>>
>> �Answer: � Most of if came from increasing biological activity from
>> newly thawed out regions of the planet. �Once CO2 was released into
>> the atmosphere it self re-enforces the warming cycle.
>>
>> So yes, historical CO2 levels will appear to trail temperature
>> records. �But these where very slow transitions occurring over �many
>> tens of thousands of years and where mostly a function of biological
>> activity. �
>
>So you agree there is no historical precedent for CO2 levels to drive
>global temps. Thanks.
Wrong..
1. I merely explained the apparent CO2 lag in ice core data.
The amount of CO2 was constrained, carbon frozen beneath glaciers..
When one variable is constrained by another factor, it's easy to
observe weird data patterns..
2. The Permian Triassic Extinction is closer to what mankind is
doing to the earth.. Back then, it was volcano's emitting huge
amounts of CO2.. This time around it's mankind emitting 100-200x more
CO2 than current volcanic emissions.
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Fast forward to today.. Mankind has dumped over a TRILLION tonns of
>> CO2 into atmosphere over a very short period. Increasing atmospheric
>> CO2 levels by +110ppm in less than a century. � Current rate of man
>> made increase is now ~2ppm per year.
>
>So what? We are dealing with a trace gas that is an extremely tiny
>component of the atmosphere.
A few drops of dye can turn a gallon of water black..
Similar principle,. CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of IR
energy.
>>
>> �This is NOT a function of NATURAL BIOLOGICAL activity. � Worse yet
I wouldn't bet on having a US constitution around to protect your
sorry lame ass.
Mankind is going to have to make some very difficult decisions in the
near future as most of the world's population starves to death. Who
lives.. who dies. (Worthless deniers, convicted criminals, and low
IQ types will definitely be placed the disposable category.)
>>
>> �You will be considered lucky if you and descendants are burned at the
>> stake.
>
>Keep dreaming, fuckwad.
Bill Ward
> You can do it yourself, just like the example with the CO2 bottle. Argon
> can be bought cheap from welding supply sales. Eventually it costs
> nothing, when you want to fill only one PET bottle and you're gently to
> the store clerk.
IIRC, Tom Bolger ("chemist") did just that a few months ago, but certain
other people ridiculed his results.
> The whole clue of the experiment is simply about motion speed of heavy
> gas molecules, their capability of storing heat, their collision rate
> with smaller molecules and the resulting exchange frequency with the
> hull of the bottle. It has nothing to do with GHG.
I'm always amazed at the number of "experts" in the group that couldn't
figure that out on their own. There was quite a discussion a while back
on the subject of bogus "experiments" being used to indoctrinate school
children to AGW.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:53:17 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
Glad you posted that, I had a misconception
that you were just looking at the data wrong, now
I get the impression you are stark raving mad, and
a liberal leftist atheist animal without a conscience.
Rice will be in short supply, not because of
Global Warming, but because so many rice farmers
are leaving the paddies and going to work in
factories.
Plant potatoes, plant potatoes.
Bruce Richmond
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> Argon can be bought cheap from welding supply sales. Eventually it costs
> nothing, when you want to fill only one PET bottle and you're gently to the
> store clerk.
>
> molecules, their capability of storing heat, their collision rate with smaller
> molecules and the resulting exchange frequency with the hull of the bottle.
> It has nothing to do with GHG.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You seem to be overlooking that the experiment would be to look at
just the change produced by the introduction of additional CO2. So
long as we keep the ratios of gasses near real world levels I suspect
it would be difficult to detect any change in temp.
JohnM
> Argon can be bought cheap from welding supply sales. Eventually it costs
> nothing, when you want to fill only one PET bottle and you're gently to the
> store clerk.
What about Krypton, where do I get a bottle full of that for anything
less than 100 Euros?
> The whole clue of the experiment is simply about motion speed of heavy gas
> molecules, their capability of storing heat, their collision rate with smaller
> molecules and the resulting exchange frequency with the hull of the bottle.
You missed the point/question in my post. I asked about your statement
that Argon and Krypton give an identical result. Gas thermal
conductivity is inversely proportional to atomic mass, so they should
NOT give the same result. Actual experimental values are 17.8 and 9.5
mW m^-1 K^-1. CO2 lies in between at 14.6
If they do, it shows the experimental result is due to something other
than T.C. In any case, the experiment cannot be said to be anywhere
close to approximating a planetary atmosphere, as this latter is a
spherical shell and is not contained.
> It has nothing to do with GHG.
Correct. But that does not mean that an experiment cannot be devised
that does mimic GHG behaviour in a planetary atmosphere, and it is
surprising that not a single sceptic has opted to do so. I can
understand why deniers would not wish to do so, however.
> [irrelevant rest snipped]
ScottW2
> On Dec 15, 7:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> > Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> > BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
> > In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> > addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> > -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> > evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> > Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> > denials, this time about global climate change.
>
> The intellectual dishonesty of this opening paragraph is nothing short
> of breath-taking...
>
> And it's a perfect example of how cynical and anti-science the Climate
> Evangelicals really are.
>
> You're actually surprised that most people now see this "cause" as
> inherently fraudulent?
>
> You shouldn't be,
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjRkMjExYmMzMGI0NDJhZDFjZjQxMGE3NDE3ZTA4NmE=
"In fact, Mann wrote to Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that they clearly
thought they should have oversight over whatever both Climate Research
and Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) published: “It’s one thing to
lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose GRL.”
Talk about chutzpah! In other e-mails, they suspected that one of the
editors, James Saiers, was a — God forbid this in science — skeptic,
and that if he were found to be one, that “we [Wigley and Mann] could
go through official#...#channels to get him ousted.” Later, Mann wrote
that “the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial
leadership there.”
Then there was various and sundry crabbing about the atmospheric
science journals from the Royal Meteorological Society because they
instituted new requirements for authors to provide their data and
programming language. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU (who has
temporarily stepped down until the local whitewash is completed next
year), said, as a result of these policies, “I will not submit any
further papers to RMS journals.”
Speaking of which, Penn State and East Anglia have initiated
“investigations” into Mann’s and Jones’s activities. Will Penn State
request all of Mann’s e-mails from University of Virginia, where he
was for the most of Climategate? Will the school comply? Will East
Anglia clean out its massively politicized house?
Don’t hold your breath. Penn State gets over $750 million in federal-
taxpayer dollars, and Jones alone received $22 million since the turn
of the century. Because universities charge 50 to 125 percent
“overhead” on research dollars, climate change is supporting a lot of
humanities departments around the world.
So, the tragedy of Climategate is that we simply don’t know how many
papers were rejected or simply not submitted because skeptics found it
very difficult to publish in this climate. Does anyone seriously think
Penn State and East Anglia are going to starve their English
departments because of the activities of a few climate scientists?
Curiously, none of this — the attempts to rig the peer-reviewed
literature, or the massive amounts of money that likely to influence
any university investigations — were discussed in Mann’s Washington
Post apologia."
ScottW
JohnM
It seems the question is whether there is any such thing as GHGs. So
any experiment must have a good resemblance to planetary atmosphere.
Your advance declaration of the result of a novel experiment marks you
out as a non-scientist, like Nigel Lawson and Lord Haw-Haw.
Last Post
>
> > You seem to be overlooking that the experiment would be to look at
> > just the change produced by the introduction of additional CO2. So
> > long as we keep the ratios of gasses near real world levels I suspect
> > it would be difficult to detect any change in temp.
• Atmopheric CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere
for more than a few days, when it meets a cold one it
rains and all the CO2, NO2 and CO2 become
fertilizer.
>
> It seems the question is whether there is any such thing as GHGs. So
> any experiment must have a good resemblance to planetary atmosphere.
>
• NOT worth the effort.
Monkey Clumps
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Funny how CO2 went up at the end of the Triassic, but temperature
didn't. In fact, I see no correlation between CO2 and temperature
anywhere. Like I said before, there is no historical precedent for
CO2 levels to drive temperature.
>
>
>
> >> ====
>
> >> Fast forward to today.. Mankind has dumped over a TRILLION tonns of
> >> CO2 into atmosphere over a very short period. Increasing atmospheric
> >> CO2 levels by +110ppm in less than a century. Current rate of man
> >> made increase is now ~2ppm per year.
>
> >So what? We are dealing with a trace gas that is an extremely tiny
> >component of the atmosphere.
>
> A few drops of dye can turn a gallon of water black..
> Similar principle,. CO2 is opaque to certain wavelengths of IR
> energy.
False analogy. CO2 is not a dye. Furthermore the historical data
indicates that CO2 does not have significant impact on climate. The
graph I linked should make that clear. Increasing CO2 levels do not
drive temperatures, period. Also, current CO2 level are very low when
you look at a geologic time scale.
I'll take that bet, kook.
>
> Mankind is going to have to make some very difficult decisions in the
> near future as most of the world's population starves to death. Who
> lives.. who dies. (Worthless deniers, convicted criminals, and low
> IQ types will definitely be placed the disposable category.)
Well with your room temperature IQ, you should probably be concerned.
JohnM
> > Your advance declaration of the result of a novel experiment
> > marks you out as a non-scientist, like Nigel Lawson and Lord
> > Haw-Haw.
> • Atmopheric CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere
> for more than a few days, when it meets a cold one it
> rains and all the CO2, NO2 and CO2 become
> fertilizer.
>
> > It seems the question is whether there is any such thing as GHGs. So
> > any experiment must have a good resemblance to planetary atmosphere.
>
> • NOT worth the effort.
Your declaration marks you out as a non-scientist, like Nigel Lawson
and Lord Haw-Haw Monckton.
*us*
aren't based on any data or facts at all.
Bruce Richmond
I don't think anybody here has expressed doubts about the existance of
GHGs, just the extent of their effects when dealing with small changes
in what is a trace gas to begin with.
> Your advance declaration of the result of a novel experiment marks you
> out as a non-scientist, like Nigel Lawson and Lord Haw-Haw.
My wording made it quite clear that I was speculating so it is hardly
a declaration. You seem to like name calling. How scientific ;)
While looking for the info needed to make a quick calculation of
expected results for the simple experiment I came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
"Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by
Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared
spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly
in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He
touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der
kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906),
German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation:
Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he
suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to
prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth
would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the
first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause
global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would
be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more
attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed
the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice
ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital
changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted
explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with
CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.
Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by
4 - 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature
rise of 5 - 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the
value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C).
Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate
sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C."
So from the very beginning this man over estimated the GHG effect, and
when corrected by someone that knew he had made errors refused to
admit the errors. Then later he for some reason he adjusted the value
downward. With his use of bluster he fits right in with the AGW
crowd.
I M @ good guy
>Of course, the fraudulent claims of the denier
>aren't based on any data or facts at all.
Who is the denier, LLLLooyydd?
*us*
aren't based on any data or facts at all.
The denier doesn't seem able to manage facts,
much less acquire/analyze any data.
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 15, 7:11 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Miami Herald, 12/14/09:http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1381851.html
>
> > Evidence of climate change irrefutable
>
> > BY ALAM I. LESHNER
>
> > In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the
> > addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking
> > -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the
> > evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
> > Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> > denials, this time about global climate change.
>
> The intellectual dishonesty of this opening paragraph is nothing short
> of breath-taking...
>
> And it's a perfect example of how cynical and anti-science the Climate
> Evangelicals really are.
>
> You're actually surprised that most people now see this "cause" as
> inherently fraudulent?
>
> You shouldn't be,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Climate-change science is clear:
>
> > The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from
> > the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation --
> > stands at 389 parts per million (ppm).
>
> > We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
> > concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
> > years.
>
> > Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is
> > rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
> > increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
>
> > Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
> > readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend.
>
> > The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting
> > glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
>
> > Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
> > worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
> > unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> > Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end
> > of this century.
>
> > Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as
> > much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
> > reaches 450 ppm.
>
> > We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that
> > level, devastating events.
>
> > U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities
> > might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
>
> > Doubters insist that the earth is not warming.
>
> > This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most
> > respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21
> > letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real.
>
> > Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
> > uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
> > overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly
> > non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of
> > Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
> > which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through
> > 262 affiliated societies.
>
> > Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the
> > warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while
> > ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like
> > it will be the warmest one on record.
>
> > None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
> > of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
> > levels rise.
>
> > The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private
> > e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain
> > irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change.
>
> > Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to
> > suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression.
>
> > To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are
> > raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process
> > or the integrity of individual scientists.
>
> > We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
> > investigations.
>
> > But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on
> > the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of
> > evidence based on thousands of studies.
>
> > ........................................................................... ..............................
>
> > The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost
> > us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic
> > product per year.
>
> > In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1
> > percent of GDP.
>
> > China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
> > technologies.
>
> > Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
> > avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
>
> > __________________________________________________
>
> > Harry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't waste your time replying to Harry Hope. Notice that he never
responds to any post, never engages in dialogue. He's living in his
own crazy little world- A. McIntire
Last Post
• ROTFLMAO
Since when is Shawn Smith able to manage facts,
much less acquire/analyze any data??
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
*us*
wrote:
>...living in his
>own crazy little world- A. McIntire
You sure are.
*us*
aren't based on any data or facts at all.
The denier doesn't seem able to manage facts,
much less acquire/analyze any data.
The denier has nothing but fallacy.
leona...@gmail.com
> Of course, the fraudulent claims of the denier
> aren't based on any data or facts at all.
• We all know that Shawn *US* Smith is a
fascist fool but now he has attempted to
associate Climate Sceptics with Nazi
Holocaust Deniers. Now we know what
he really is ...
> The denier doesn't seem able to manage facts,
> much less acquire/analyze any data.
• Shawn you have never posted any real facts in the
nearly 20 years you have been on line
alanm...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:02:14 -0800 (PST), "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...living in his
> >owncrazy littleworld- A.McIntire
>
> You sure are.
If you disagree, show me a thread where Harry Hope has actually
responded to anyone else- A. McIntire
*us*
wrote:
>...show me ...
You're unaware because you're indolent/incompetent.
You also have no evidence for your false beliefs, and
you're too ignorant to avoid mere fallacy.
Oh, and by the way, HH has replied to me and others.
*us*
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... a
> fascist fool ...
Of course you are, bushfilth.
You get exposed as such far more than you realize.
Meanwhile:
Of course, the fraudulent claims of the denier
aren't based on any data or facts at all.
The denier doesn't seem able to manage facts,
much less acquire/analyze any data.
The denier has nothing but fallacy.
Flammarion
> On Dec 16, 3:21 am,1Z<peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Dec, 07:54, Jared <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 11:55 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Many rightards are _still_ denying the health effects of tobacco,
> > > > _still_ denying evolution, _still_ denying Obama's birth
> > > > certificate . . .
>
> > > > They are all bat crap insane, every last one of them.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > If A is the human caused change in global temperature, and B is the
> > > change in temperature that would happen without humans, and A + B = C
> > > is the actual change we observe, how do we calculate A?
>
> > B is roughly zero since there is no irradiative forcing as prompted
> > the
> > natural warmings of the distant past.
>
> How do we determine B to be zero based on observing C?
It can be determined directly. the great
ice ages were caused by a regular deviation in the earth's orbit.
Flammarion
> Sure it causes the atmosphere to absorb more heat. And its temp will
> rise causing it to radiate that aditional heat. The question is, how
> much does it rise for a given increase of CO2. If calculation or
> experiment say that the temp should rise by .05 degrees while the
> observed rise was .70 degrees, maybe we should be looking elsewhere
> for the cause of the rise.
"maybe" ? this stuff was worked out years ago. Additional
heating releases CO2 from the oceans, methane for the tundra, etc.