Global Warming...

Page 7 of 8  


due to coby's well reasoned but far less amusing post, I am going to have to come off my previous statement regarding volcanism overwhelming anthropogenic co2. what can I say, I was wrong. as far as the "the ecosystem is used to it" bit, that's really what it amounts to. the combined emissions of co2 from the oceans, volcanism, and all what have you were balanced out by the co2 fixing systems in place. systems in balance do not take kindly to tampering in the margins.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry to be such a bore and all ;) I didn't expect you to pull the usenet wool over your own eyes...
But speaking of boring, you're just going to admit a mistake like that...? no back peddle, no name calling, no I never said that...?

I understood that. I *think* owl was just caught up in the moment...
Now, back to the regularly scheduled bickering.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, we do. "We" meaning scientists.

Arctic ice cores, for one thing.

Miniscule compared with human CO2 generation.

You're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be making such comments. So why not read what scientists say instead of opening foot and inserting mouth?

You are either misinformed or lying. There is a consensus. Among scientists.

You're a liar.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p 5#more-175
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

scientists.
As I said, among scientists. Try reading what they say. Start with IPCC.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

scientists.
Consensus- An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
Since there are plenty of scientists that do not subscribe to the G.W. cult view, there is no consensus......3D is not the one blatantly lying.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No there are not. As I said, check out the scientific literature. GW is as established as the existence of atoms, evolution, relativity, or quantum theory.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:05:13 -0500, 3D Peruna

'A day without digging up MBH98 is like a day without humidity.'
You just quoted some guys who managed to create a global cooling graph for the late 20th century by misinterpretting 'no-data' as 'temperature=0'
Life's too short to keep re-bashing this. Go batch it yourself:-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p 1
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up
The net of it is that reconstructions since MBH98 show more recognition of swings and still support human-related global warming. M&M just keep taking swing after swing at a graph that was current seven years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
owl wrote:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p '5#more-275
...this, without the personal attacks, is how it goes...one guy finds an error in another guy's work and keep slugging it out until it comes out. Yet, you still can't accept the idea that nobody really knows... they're still working it out! And we're supposed to make public policy on this?
The reason for digging up MBH98 is because so much of the other stuff is based on it...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

scientists.
We keep referring you to scientific reports and you keep citing right-wing blogs.

Which is why you should give credence to what's been published in scientific journals and not what yahoos post on their web pages. You seem unable to differentiate.

You can't accept the idea that we do, and you're too close-minded to see it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lloyd Parker wrote:

I don't see much in the way politics on the site...only an effort to learn what's really happening.
Let me guess...you're a left wing socialist who'd like communal property and centralized planning? There should be no rich, no poor...everyone sharing in misery equally?
Let's make sure we know what horse you have in this race...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, sure. Blind as well as dumb.

Let me guess -- you're a Nazi.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

So typical of an arrogant elitist. LOL

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

right-wing
What else would you expect from someone that hide is the academic world.......sheltered from reality.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:37:11 -0500, 3D Peruna

Or it's big game hunters who kept reloading and returning until the old concrete library lion was pock-marked into submission.

You've gone right back to the fallacy - 'if there's more variation in the graph, then we don't have to do anything about GW.' That's incorrect. Von Storch and Moburg have both done newer reconstructions that support GW. They've used more datasets, and produced graphs with more wiggle.
The net of it is - they do know far more than you've indicated, and we're in a period when the uncertainty demands precautionary remediation, not 'further study' alone.
It's hard to believe that someone claiming to 'get it' with regards to a global pollution problems finds an error in a graph and throws out the whole bathroom. It makes very little sense from here.

That's untrue. Dunno who told you that, but they're fabricators of an untrue reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is based on it?
In case by some amazing chance 3D Peruna doesn't actually answer this, here is a serious look at this very question: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p 4
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3D Peruna wrote:

We're still discovering that Newton was wrong, F does not really equal MA; and yet, when somebody heaves a bowling ball at me, my policy is to get out of the way.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wow, you hit the trifecta.
3D Peruna wrote:

Yes we do KNOW CO2 is a green house gas. Is there any serious doubt? It's a physical property. CO2 passes shortwave IR and reflects longwave IR. You might as well argue that pure glass is not transparent at visible wavelengths.

Yes we do KNOW it. In 1958 when Charles Keeling started the interest in atmospheric CO2 and started measuring it directly, it was 315. In 2000, it was 367. Ancient air is trapped in bubbles in the glaciers and we can measure it directly. It is remarkably stable in bubbles formed before the industrial age, before the 1800s, at 275-280 parts per million. This has been pushed back to measurements between 180-300 ppm, back to 420,000 years in deep ice cores. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0_fs.html Before that we have more indirect measurements; they seem to agree that more than 50-60 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were higher. The low preindustrial levels appear about 10-20 million years ago. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5429/876?rbfvrToken a9dc814d1e44e916607b5a8b75e30f4eede048>

Yes we KNOW. We KNOW how much humans emit, 6,975 million metric tons per year currently. <http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm We KNOW what volcanos emit; 130-230 million metric tons per year.

Just like we think we know what the speed of light is in a vacuum? Or just like we think we know the specific gravity of ethanol? If you have contrary evidence to any of the above, feel free to enlighten us.

How could I have missed it; all the papers last week were full of the news explaining how previous tropospheric temperature measurements were subject to systematic errors caused by incorrect correction factors for sunlight heating of baloon-based measurements and orbital decay of satellite based measurements. Their final estimate of the global lower tropospheric trend through 2004 is +0.19 deg. In case you missed it.

Because, as seen above, what YOU really don't know is irrelevant to what "we" as humanity know.

Well, please provide a study by a reputable source that disproves 1) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause temperature to rise if other factors remain the same 2) that CO2 concentrations have not risen by at least 20% since the several thousand years pre-industrial age 3) that this industrial age rise is not the result of burning millions of years of deposited carbon as well as deforestation. Just one of them. That's all you have to do to derail the anthropogenic climate change train. Until then, the syllogism "Human activity is raising the CO2 concentration; raised CO2 concentration traps more solar heat; therefore human activity is trapping more solar heat" survives another day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snail-mail.net says...

Utter tosh. CO2 levels of the Quaternary period are as low as they have ever been.
The Mesozoic didn't see levels below 1000ppm and pre-Devonian was never less than 3000ppm and as high as 6000-7000ppm.
--
Alan LeHun

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan LeHun wrote:

They like to forget earth history, don't they... (of course, someone will present some idea why the earth's past doesn't matter this time, or the sun's current cycle is irrelevant, or some other way of making sure that they're comfortable with their position)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.