| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? |
| Yes |
|
43% |
[ 19 ] |
| No |
|
56% |
[ 25 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You want want to look up "sensor drift" and check the data again.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | I'd love to see how the human race will stop all volcanic eruptions and plant decay (CO2 levels that make a fleet of SUVs seem like windmills). |
We don't have to stop all CO2 from entering the atmosphere, we just have to ensure that the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere isn't artifically increased due (mostly) to fossil fuel emissions. Before we started burning fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration was at some equilibrium (sources equaled sinks). Since the human produced CO2 just adds to the natural release, the the sources now exceed the sinks, and CO2 concentration is rising. If we eliminate the human contribution, the concentration will still be high, but it won't be increasing like it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah right, first sunspots, then volcanoes, then ice growth, now sensor drift. Really?
Grasp much?
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Venus has a "runaway" greenhouse effect, its atmosphere is 97% CO2, on Earth the CO2 levels are around 0.035%. The entire "we're all going to freeze to death" of the 1970s (some of us remember the hysteria of that time as well) followed by the "We're all going to burn up" of the 90s and 00s is just hysteria.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We'll be dead long before temperatures reach burn levels. Read up on thermodynamics.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | Ah right, first sunspots, then volcanoes, then ice growth, now sensor drift. Really?
Grasp much? |
Ignoring natural cycles, cosmic radiation, and terrestrial phenomena because you you'd rather blame SUVs, Grasp much?
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the difference between the two camps, one has decided that humans are the cause and cure of the weather while the other side views that type of extreme leap in logic to be scientifically fallacious. There are so many variables within the climate that these GW extremists simply ignore. The picking and omitting of data to blindly fly towards one conclusion isn't science, it's religion.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Natural cycles would be more or less a straight line going up and down a bit between winter and summer, this is a steady decline.
Cosmic radiation is shielded by the Sun's EM field.
Terrestrial phenomena?.. Yeah, that'd be the Terrains.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | Here's the difference between the two camps, one has decided that humans are the cause and cure of the weather while the other side views that type of extreme leap in logic to be scientifically fallacious. There are so many variables within the climate that these GW extremists simply ignore. The picking and omitting of data to blindly fly towards one conclusion isn't science, it's religion. |
Except humans now account for >70% of atmospheric CO2 output, and the weather has been steadily degrading. Hardly a leap, much less an extreme one to put the two together.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: |
Except humans now account for >70% of atmospheric CO2 output, |
Utter and complete bullshit number.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hellbringer
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| richk449 wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
To generalize, we Americans have a proud history of questioning authority. |
You also have a proud history of questioning intelligence.
_________________
There is a lot of novelty and truth in what you say, but that which is true is not novel and that which is novel is not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hellbringer wrote: | | richk449 wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
To generalize, we Americans have a proud history of questioning authority. |
You also have a proud history of questioning intelligence. |
Like the Dark Ages? Yeah, really an American phenomena.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hellbringer wrote: | | richk449 wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
To generalize, we Americans have a proud history of questioning authority. |
You also have a proud history of questioning intelligence. |
It is tough to have one without the other. I would rather have a skeptical society that thinks for itself than a servile society that believes what the "elites" say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | Utter and complete bullshit number. |
More accurate than your 'cosmic radiation' stab-in-the-dark. In 2007 the US alone put out 6,000,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in burnt fossil fuels.
I guess this is a case of the pig not realising how much crap he's dumped in his sty.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you really want to eliminate CO2 output, just kill yourself. Anything less is hypocrisy 
Also, your number is ridiculous, 6 trillion? You might want to recheck your data 
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty
Last edited by Muso on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | Well, if you really want to eliminate CO2 output, just kill yourself. Anything less is hypocrisy |
Har har.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | Also, your number is ridiculous, 6 trillion? You might want to recheck your data |
Yes, the number *is* ridiculous, that's the problem.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Chopinzee wrote: | | Also, your number is ridiculous, 6 trillion? You might want to recheck your data |
Yes, the number *is* ridiculous, that's the problem. |
You're off by a factror of over 5 trillion... that's why it's ridiculous
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | Venus has a "runaway" greenhouse effect, its atmosphere is 97% CO2, on Earth the CO2 levels are around 0.035%. The entire "we're all going to freeze to death" of the 1970s (some of us remember the hysteria of that time as well) followed by the "We're all going to burn up" of the 90s and 00s is just hysteria. |
Answered and answered to death!
| Quote: | | Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived. |
And,
| Quote: | Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:
1. The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.
|
| Quote: | | Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now. |
Can we please put this one to rest? It was a few people speculating in the 70s, and it's practically the entire climate science community accepting the basic idea of global warming now. There's no real question of warming anymore. The only question that's relevant now is, whether this warming is anthropogenic or not.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Last edited by shash on Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shash wrote: | | There's no real question of warming anymore. The only question that's relevant now is, whether this warming is anthropogenic or not. |
Except that we've been cooling for the past 11 years.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stop confusing them with facts, try to give them something off fox news |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | AidanJT wrote: |
Except humans now account for >70% of atmospheric CO2 output, |
Utter and complete bullshit number. |
Bad quote by AidanJT - it should be ">70% of atmospheric CO2 flux". Though, I'm not sure of that number, myself. I'll have to research it. As I recall, the anthropgenic CO2 output is something between 50% and 100% of total flux.
Most of the CO2 emissions by natural processes are part fo the Carbon cycle. It's only our emissions that are mostly not. And what the models predict is basically to do with this flux.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | stop confusing them with facts, try to give them something off fox news |
Or manipulated findings that intentionally omitted data to push an agenda driven thesis. Exmaple A.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | We also know that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—have increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth’s atmosphere significantly over the same period. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases, which trap heat near the planet’s surface.
The vast majority of climate researchers agree with these overall findings. The scientific disagreements that do still exist primarily concern detailed aspects of the processes that make up these largely accepted general themes. |
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: | | shash wrote: | | There's no real question of warming anymore. The only question that's relevant now is, whether this warming is anthropogenic or not. |
Except that we've been cooling for the past 11 years. |
Hoo boy!
Hottest decade on record, if you average things out. Short-term cooling can occur, but it's the long-term effect we should be worried about.
As RC says,
| Quote: | | Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out. |
Take a look at the graph on the site also. It demonstrates this quite well.
Also from RC,
| Quote: | | It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing. |
The data they refer to is online. If you want to look at it, you can. I'm planning to, once I get a little time.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
