|
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years. I always love these statisticians. If the concentration of anything you can name that will dissolve in water rises from .10 parts per billion to ..13 parts per billion, then you tell them it rose 30%, in an effort to scare them. Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant application. All the funders need to know is it rose, unexpectedly, by 30% and they damned well let you find out why for $2.1B before it goes any higher! Larry -- |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change Temperature change, 1850-2000 Let's test it! Take away the sun for, say, a month. Then, if anyone survives, we'll write a report noting how much effect the sun has on climate change from April 1 to May 1, 2007.....unless, of course, it proves our alarm department is looney, then we'll bury the truth with the victims of the experiment. Larry -- Any fool can see that solar activity IS the driver of all climate on Earth....including climate changes. Even political fools can detect it! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Larry -- This I'm wrong? Compare 2006's hurricanes with the awful predictions that produced vast government support for the Hurricane Industry of Miami. Predictions or propaganda?? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
: The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution?? Solar activity Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon.During the period 1645–1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum. The precise link between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures has not been established, but the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age is suggestive of such a connection [22]. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period during the Little Ice Age. Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 [23]. The low solar activity is also well documented in astronomical records. Astronomers in both Europe and Asia documented a decrease in the number of visible solar spots during this time period. [edit] Volcanic activity Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Larry -- Man just can't stand it when HE is not in control of his environment.... He's not..... |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307
@newsfe03.lga: I don't have a link for the video, but if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry. Larry -- Youtube has it in its entirety....EVERYONE should watch it! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Cessna 310 wrote in
: Can't find the actual video, but I think the link you provided is related. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU Larry -- |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
: Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which is generated by natural processes. The other problem is we do NOT live in a plastic bubble or fish tank, sealed against external influences, like the solar wind. Environmentalists always treat Earth like some kind of dome city where the air comes from the government's own air recycling. It's just like the lakes. According to greenies, because of over 100 years of 2-stroke boat engines spewing Quaker State SAE30, carefully mixed at 15:1 until very recently, all lakes should be about 3" deep in partially burned motor oil that trails out behind the boats. What happened to all of it? It floats, which is why I don't find it in the mud squishing up between my toes with the blood suckers. It's not on the beach or rocks sticking up. Where'd it all go? I musta dumped a hundred gallons of it in that tank all those years. Why is it suddenly such a problem when it never showed up at all like Exxon Valdez? Answer - MONEY....Government funding. Larry -- |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Larry" wrote in message
... "KLC Lewis" wrote in : Wrong focus. Yes, the entire paper supports that the recent CO2 rise is due to human activity -- and that I do not dispute. It is clear that we are generating CO2 which would not otherwise be put into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the amount that we are generating does not approach that which is generated by natural processes. The other problem is we do NOT live in a plastic bubble or fish tank, sealed against external influences, like the solar wind. Environmentalists always treat Earth like some kind of dome city where the air comes from the government's own air recycling. It's just like the lakes. According to greenies, because of over 100 years of 2-stroke boat engines spewing Quaker State SAE30, carefully mixed at 15:1 until very recently, all lakes should be about 3" deep in partially burned motor oil that trails out behind the boats. What happened to all of it? It floats, which is why I don't find it in the mud squishing up between my toes with the blood suckers. It's not on the beach or rocks sticking up. Where'd it all go? I musta dumped a hundred gallons of it in that tank all those years. Why is it suddenly such a problem when it never showed up at all like Exxon Valdez? Answer - MONEY....Government funding. Larry -- I think this might answer the question... http://www.greatlakeswiki.org/index...._on,_Big_River -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Larry wrote, On 3/29/2007 8:08 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution?? As always, you're confused about the facts. The minimum for the "Little Ice Age" was about 1700, while the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was about 1760 or later. While the Industrial Revolution was a profound change in England in the first years, it took 100 years for it to spread around the world. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Larry wrote:
"OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution?? Solar activity Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon.During the period 1645–1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum. The precise link between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures has not been established, but the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age is suggestive of such a connection [22]. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period during the Little Ice Age. Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 [23]. The low solar activity is also well documented in astronomical records. Astronomers in both Europe and Asia documented a decrease in the number of visible solar spots during this time period. [edit] Volcanic activity Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe." While this is one discussion I don't want to be a part of, I do remember way-back when the newscasters used to report on solar sunspot activity (complete with pictures) on the evening news, and its current and projected influence on the weather. And as for the person who wrote something about not believing that these so-called climate researchers have a financial stake in pushing global warming, you really need an education about how government money works. The global warming issue is a huge money machine with a crapload of very greedy mouths to feed, and it is no different in that respect than our current medical system or any number of other corrupted groups out there looking to feed in the grant trough. Researchers who get grant money are clearly and easily influenced by money and whatever the grantor wants, they usually get. It is very rare when a *scientific* reseacher who gets grant money does pure uninfluenced research. And BTW, I have seen numerous programs on Discovery and other channels about Volcanos and there have been many references to their enormous and lasting influence on the earth's weather. Recently there was an announcement on the news about the ozone "hole" getting smaller due to the recent reduction of airborne gases from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) a few years ago. There is clearly much more going on in this world than most people can grasp, and most scientists are looking at their own little world through a microscope and reporting politics as *science*. Flame away, I am deleting the rest of this thread anyway. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:50:47 +0000, Larry wrote:
Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant application. Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem crap is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican? alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance? just some suggestions in the meantime, I'll be resetting the filter to "never expire" *plonk* |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
KLC Lewis wrote: "Keith Hughes" wrote in message ... KLC Lewis wrote: No, you're focusing on the wrong issue. Take a look at the article again. The whole point is the carbon *flux*. Without *our* input, the flux, on average, is balanced (i.e. natural emitters = natural sinks). Thus the *Increase* is due to man. The magnitude of the normal flux is irrelevant since without us it's balanced. There are normal oscillations in atmospheric carbon due to the many competing processes in operation(emitters & sinks), but with addition of anthropogenic processes those oscillations are now centered about an increasing trend line. It's the rise in the mean carbon concentration about which those processes oscillate that is the issue. Keith Hughes I understand what the article was about, as I'm the one who referenced it. Well, the latter is clear, the former seems quite doubtful. I'm not stating that Man has no effect on CO2 levels, as clearly we do. But the fact remains that the CO2 that WE generate is a mere fraction of the overall CO2 put into the atmosphere, and the paper in question documents that fact. What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is totally irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't just look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources have offsetting sinks. So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the position you seem to think it does. Keith Hughes |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"mr.b" wrote in message ... On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:50:47 +0000, Larry wrote: Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant application. Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem crap is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican? alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance? just some suggestions in the meantime, I'll be resetting the filter to "never expire" *plonk* So fess up, Bubbie -- you were just a research assistant on that paper, weren't you? You surely didn't have anything to do with writing it, based upon your contributions to this thread. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message ... What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is totally irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't just look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources have offsetting sinks. So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the position you seem to think it does. Keith Hughes And that is a conclusion that is open to healthy debate. CO2 levels fluctuate -- even those which are man-made. Our own contributions are also absorbed back into the carbon cycle. Perhaps it takes a bit longer -- and perhaps not. This statement from the paper I cited is in direct conflict with the claims made by Al Gore et al: "The terrestrial biosphere was probably roughly in balance during the late 1970s and the 1980s. Over this period, CO2 release from tropical land-use changes and the average CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere seem to have almost cancelled, in spite of year-to-year variations. From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was back to its usual pace." |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:00:19 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal said: Does the term Lysenkoism ring a bell? Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism Yes. But some of us didn't have to look it up. Very true.. Some of us lack the vision to see the the potential of a self-tuning, evolving system or in your case to see beyond your nose. I trust that some at least will recognize the irony in the ad hominem attack in the context above. It did not escape notice. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Larry wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307 @newsfe03.lga: I don't have a link for the video, but if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry. Larry Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they archived the video, the link went dead. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
KLC Lewis wrote:
"Keith Hughes" wrote in message ... What the article points out is that *ONLY* man is affecting the mean atmospheric CO2 levels. How much *other* CO2 is put in the air is totally irrelevant, since there are other mechanisms at work that sequester/recycle *all* of it (according to your article). You can't just look at all the other CO2 sources and say "See, our contribution is negligible", that totally ignores the fact that all those other sources have offsetting sinks. So, ALL the CO2 put into the atmosphere, that is NOT removed by natural processes, is due to Man. Clearly your article does not support the position you seem to think it does. Keith Hughes And that is a conclusion that is open to healthy debate. CO2 levels fluctuate -- even those which are man-made. Our own contributions are also absorbed back into the carbon cycle. Perhaps it takes a bit longer -- and perhaps not. This statement from the paper I cited is in direct conflict with the claims made by Al Gore et al: "The terrestrial biosphere was probably roughly in balance during the late 1970s and the 1980s. Over this period, CO2 release from tropical land-use changes and the average CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere seem to have almost cancelled, in spite of year-to-year variations. From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was back to its usual pace." That was his rationalization of the global cooling experiences for the 40 years after World War 2. A quick glance at the graphs of historical global warming cycles show that we're just in another one. The timing and rate are predictable and on schedule. At best, its a toss-up as to whether CO2 causes or is a product of global warming. But historical evidence corrected for outgasing would indicate that we need at least another magnitude or two of CO2 level to really impact global warming. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Jeff wrote:
* Larry wrote, On 3/29/2007 8:08 PM: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution?? As always, you're confused about the facts. The minimum for the "Little Ice Age" was about 1700, while the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was about 1760 or later. While the Industrial Revolution was a profound change in England in the first years, it took 100 years for it to spread around the world. How does that explain why the earth has been warming for 15,000 years? And why does the earth warm and cool like clockwork as evidenced by records extending back millions of years? And why is it man's fault that we're warming now at the same rate we did during the last warming cycle when it could NOT have been man's fault? And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:
How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa. Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory of global warming being true? Stephen |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:
mr.b wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa. and you are wrong as well Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory of global warming being true? your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:26 AM:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:13:06 -0400, "mr.b" said: Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant application. Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem crap is intellectually dishonest. So I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial interest at stake in the matter. Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican? alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance? Hey, I'm an agnostic on the issue. Seems to me that you're the religious fanatic here--the one trying to stifle discussion of other viewpoints. In other words, no one is paying you to take one side or the other. You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate financial reward. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Stephen Trapani wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:23 AM:
mr.b wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of trained observers from around the world. Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the less, a consensus. The CO2 level in the atmosphere follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa. Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory of global warming being true? No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates that? While there are certainly some that have made a career from global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded by some "global warming conspiracy." Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country, the government has not been very eager to support GW research. On the other hand, historically the skeptics have been funded to find flaws in the theory. This is changing however, as even the major oil companies are in agreement: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said: You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate financial reward. What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the question (to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring minds do. They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers. You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial interest at stake in the matter. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:54:09 +0000, Larry wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change Temperature change, 1850-2000 Let's test it! Take away the sun for, say, a month. Then, if anyone survives, we'll write a report noting how much effect the sun has on climate change from April 1 to May 1, 2007.....unless, of course, it proves our alarm department is looney, then we'll bury the truth with the victims of the experiment. You snipped the explanation. Naughty! Larry |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in m: Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week. And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated or not. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:08:51 +0000, Larry wrote:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution?? Solar activity Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon.During the period 1645–1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum. The precise link between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures has not been established, but the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age is suggestive of such a connection [22]. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period during the Little Ice Age. Other indicators of low solar activity during this period are levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 [23]. The low solar activity is also well documented in astronomical records. Astronomers in both Europe and Asia documented a decrease in the number of visible solar spots during this time period. Your source (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age provides a link below: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm [edit] Volcanic activity Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July in both New England and Northern Europe. Wikipedia is not very accurate here. The ash falls out in a few weeks, it is the SO2-caused sulphuric acid aerosol that lasts about two years that causes the bulk of the cooling. (based upon the last major eruptions being typical) http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/244...-2441-2004.pdf The effect of a volcano can be very large but a relatively short lived reduction in solar heating. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:59:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:16:50 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote: Larry wrote: Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307 @newsfe03.lga: I don't have a link for the video, but if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry. Larry Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they archived the video, the link went dead. It is difficult to take scientific claims seriously when those making them cannot even identify the channel which produced this video, after a number of tries. It only takes a google search on the title. It is British TV station Channel 4 which produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The google search will also find that it has already been discredited by some of those who appeared in it. But they are probably simply lying professional scientists out for grant money. Carry on, "climatologists." --Vic http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/couldn't+organize+a+****-up+in+a+brewery |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week. And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated or not. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf Fine but little dated now. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:16:50 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote: Larry wrote: Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307 @newsfe03.lga: I don't have a link for the video, but if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry. Larry Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they archived the video, the link went dead. It is difficult to take scientific claims seriously when those making them cannot even identify the channel which produced this video, after a number of tries. It only takes a google search on the title. It is British TV station Channel 4 which produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The google search will also find that it has already been discredited by some of those who appeared in it. But they are probably simply lying professional scientists out for grant money. Carry on, "climatologists." --Vic |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in m: Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week. And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated or not. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf Fine but little dated now. Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? There's no "fact" that we are responsible. That's a hotly debated conclusion made by a small team of researchers. Its hardly agreed upon globally. But it is a very nice rallying cry and a great reason for fund raising efforts. So who gets the money for all this fund raising? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:46 -0400, Jeff wrote:
* Stephen Trapani wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:23 AM: mr.b wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of trained observers from around the world. Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the less, a consensus. Consensus is general agreement of all members of a particular population. Usually obtained by compromise. Some members may not fully agree but as part of the consensus agreement will support the consensus opinion by not presenting an opposing opinion. That is not what we have here on either side of the argument. The CO2 level in the atmosphere follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa. Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory of global warming being true? No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates that? While there are certainly some that have made a career from global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded by some "global warming conspiracy." Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country, the government has not been very eager to support GW research. On the other hand, historically the skeptics have been funded to find flaws in the theory. This is changing however, as even the major oil companies are in agreement: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Frank Boettcher wrote:
That is not what we have here on either side of the argument. also sprach big-oil |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: mr.b wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote: How does that explain ...snip And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not man-make? Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend. The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world. What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above? Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa. and you are wrong as well Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs that depend on the theory of global warming being true? your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid. Hardly. It validates the very premise of scientific research - honest and questioning "skeptism". So open discussion and questioning of the measurements, methods, analysis and conclusions are part of the research process. People drawing final conclusions without questioning the results are shortcutting the process. Those questioning part of the process where it may impact the results have at least as much right to argue the results as those blindly accepting them without question. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Jeff wrote:
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said: You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate financial reward. What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the question (to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring minds do. They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers. You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial interest at stake in the matter. Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in : Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes directly over your position. I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner! Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week. Climate predictions are very long-range. The evidence you seem to point to is over much too short a period. It needs to be over tens of thousands or millions of years, not a few hundred. There is VERY SOLID evidence that global warming has been on-going in THIS cycle for 15,000 years. There's also historical evidence that this kind of warming / cooling cycle has been going on as long as there are ways to measure the changes. The current cycle is no different than previous cycles. And there is absolutely NO irrefutable proof that man has caused this warming. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Cessna 310 wrote:
Jeff wrote: You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial interest at stake in the matter. Right. Rather than remain on the topic of global warming and motivations, you're stooping to this level of personal attack? You've missed the point, again. Jeff is modelling the fallacy in the other guy's argument. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
KLC Lewis wrote:
Six years "out of date" means that the arguments are no longer valid? Especially considering that the original research on which all the global warming statements and subsequent research is built go back a lot more than six years. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com