how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.

But climate change isn't the real issue. *I doubt that you could find anyone who would argue that the climate is changing. *It was warming..then the warming stalled...and now there is a growing concern that we may be in for a period of cooling which if true, we all should be worried about...far more than the result of a degree or two of warming.

The issue is whether or not man is causing the global climate to change. *It is easy to prove that the climate changes...look at the seasons and see the climate change. *It is another matter entirely to try and make the case that there is a human fingerprint on the global climate. *To date, there has been no such fingerprint found and the changes we see are well within the bounds of natural variability.

So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.

Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.

 

[itfitzme]

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at. Which one is your favorite?

The one you have from reading on your back porch.

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *

Fire is a natural and necessary part of the ecology of those forests. It is so much a part of the ecology that the trees evolved to require fire to release the seeds from the pine cones. When we, with all our good intentions, deny that necessary part of the ecosystem, we cause problems that we can never forsee till they start getting out of hand.

Yep, it's natural.

 

[SSDD]

So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.

Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.

One only need look at the past to see that increases in CO2 are the result of natural variability. Do you know how exceedingly small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is? Here, take a look at a good graphic representation of what our CO2 looks like in the grand scheme. We don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variability from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at. Which one is your favorite?

The one you have from reading on your back porch.

The one on my back porch says that the temperature here is well within the bounds of natural variability. My bet is that the one on your back porch says the same.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *

Fire is a natural and necessary part of the ecology of those forests. It is so much a part of the ecology that the trees evolved to require fire to release the seeds from the pine cones. When we, with all our good intentions, deny that necessary part of the ecosystem, we cause problems that we can never forsee till they start getting out of hand.

Yep, it's natural.

You think trees actually evolved to need fire to release the seeds from their pine cones if fire weren't a natural and intergal part of the eco system? How might that work?

 

[itfitzme]

Fire is a natural and necessary part of the ecology of those forests. *It is so much a part of the ecology that the trees evolved to require fire to release the seeds from the pine cones. *When we, with all our good intentions, deny that necessary part of the ecosystem, we cause problems that we can never forsee till they start getting out of hand.

Yep, it's natural.

You think trees actually evolved to need fire to release the seeds from their pine cones if fire weren't a natural and intergal part of the eco system? *How might that work?

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

I didn't say that I don't think that there has been some warming. I think that there has and now I think that we are going to start to see some cooling...and yes, the temperature record has been falsified...and I don't think so, I know so. The evidence that the temperature record has been tampered with, and is corrupted with the heat island effect is overwhelming.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

Have you looked at what the forest services from both the US and Canada say? They say the beetle problem is due to management practices...and oh, by the way...global warming to. No evidence to support that claim but tossing global warming into the mix is sure to bring in some extra funding.

 

[itfitzme]

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

I didn't say that I don't think that there has been some warming. *I think that there has and now I think that we are going to start to see some cooling...and yes, the temperature record has been falsified...and I don't think so, I know so. *The evidence that the temperature record has been tampered with, and is corrupted with the heat island effect is overwhelming.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

Have you looked at what the forest services from both the US and Canada say? *They say the beetle problem is due to management practices...and oh, by the way...global warming to. *No evidence to support that claim but tossing global warming into the mix is sure to bring in some extra funding.

Bull shit. *

You said, "That would depend on which altered*surface temperature record you look at."

You have posted on and on and on. *And all of it was disingenuous because beneath it is a more fundamental axiom that the temp record is false. *Ergo, no warming.

You didn't say, "not as extreme because...."

Rather, you simply omit what you know is you underlying premise. No argument that may be presented matters because none addresses you unstated axiom.

See omission is also lying. *It's called lying by ommission.

And there is the root of it. *In your world view, everyone is lying. *You know they are, after all, you are. And, of course you should, because everyone else does.

You said, "That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at."

And it all builds from there.

 

[westwall]

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.

Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.

Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.

Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming

Why do you guys invariably try to inject religion into the issue...I mean, other than your own envirowacko religion.

And as to the evidence for global warming link...the issue isn't whether warming is happening...that happens regularly...the issue is whether there is evidnce that man is the cause. *On that issue, there is no proof or anything like it.

Those regression lines, the straight ones that are the form y=a+bx, those are what they call "models". *They would be simple models. You can do them in Excel. *As simple models go, they predict a continued increase in the four dependent variables based on the continued increase in the independent variable. *He didn't say what the p-value is, so it's hard to say what the confidence level is. *Being he's a PhD, my guess is that the confidence level is like 95%.

So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.

The next step would be to do scatter plots of the dependent variables against each other and look for correlation. *Obviously, time is not a causal factor, it is just a measure of the progression of periodic changes.

Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.

Still, temp doesn't increase by itself, so something causes it. *CO2 isn't spontaniously created, so it comes from someplace else (comets?). Temp increase causes ice to melt, not ice melting causes temp to increase, that's an easy one. *Hurricane frequency might be caused my melting ice, I suppose, in some chain of causality, seems kind of awkward.*

Of course, CO2 doesn't cause temp to increase. Thermal energy comes from the sun or is released from burning stuff.*

I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.

That's okay, though, because there is the natural negative feedback from*(II Peter 3:1-12).

You see, that's the problem you guys have. You rely on "SIMPLE MODELS", and as we have seen and am seeing ever more frequently...simple models are simply...USELESS.

Here's an analog for you, F1 (high speed auto raceing) use a specific computational modelling system called "Computational Fluid Dynamics". It is used to model airflow around the body of the car. They spend over 50 million dollars on teh cumputers and programs used to develop the racecars.

They are looking at ONE SINGLE THING, airflow. They have spent over 100 times more on their highly complex and sophisticated computer models, THAT LOOK AT ONE THING, Than ALL of the climate computer models combined.

And they still fail. Three years ago Virgin attempted to use CFD exclusively to design their racecar and it was an utter failure. They designed a car that didn't have a large enough fuel tank to finish a race at full speed.

Do you understand now, why we look at the climate models that are so simplistic that they can't even recreate that which we KNOW OCCURRED, and laugh when you think they are oh so powerful? They havn't made a single accurate prediction...EVER. That is a fact.

And yet you STILL fall all over yourselves posting the results of these fantasies as if they are meaningful. They aren't. They are an example of what happens when you let poor scientists loose into a scientific field. They DESTROY it.

 

[westwall]

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current. It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.

 

[westwall]

Yep, it's natural.

You think trees actually evolved to need fire to release the seeds from their pine cones if fire weren't a natural and intergal part of the eco system? *How might that work?

It doesn't matter. *It's already established that everything you have to say is pure bs. *You don't think there is any global warming because you think the temperature record is falsified.

So, for you, the real reason that global warming isn't driving beetles is because there isn't any warming. *It's got nothing to do with whether forest fires are natural or not

Forest fires ARE natural (and in the case of many western plants ESSENTIAL to their life cycle, that's how normal they are) and as has been pointed out to you the bark beetle problem is most certainly a man caused one, poor forest management, planting trees not native to the area, planting female trees instead of both sexes (keeps the pollen down don't you know) but warming isn't a problem because as we have seen and the warmists fully admit, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR AT LEAST 15 YEARS.....so it CLEARLY CAN'T BE THE PROXIMAL CAUSE OF THE BARK BEETLE, now can it....

 

[PMZ]

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

No, and no. They don't care about facts Foxfyre. They made that plain from the very beginning. I post that up for those who read these threads and actually wish to learn something. saggy is a very useful idiot in that he will parrot very basic talking points and then try and defend them to the death. He is a very good target and the skeptical side has won over at least five people from that interplay.

PMZ is simply a troll with no redeeming value at all so I pretty much ignore what it posts.

olfraud is in the same vein as saggy and I have won over many converts by demolishing his arguments. The same go's for trolling blunder and poopy. The more they repeat the party line over and over and over again the less people believe them because we have more and more recent information to present.

They are losing and losing big time. They know it, they're just not smart enough to figure out how to stop it.

Not lying about facts would be a step in the right direction, but they are incapable of that.

You mean we have quintuplets, not guadruplets here? Hmmm. . . .

Anyhow, for grins and giggles, I think the deflections are now up to five or more, so let's put it out there again and see what happens:

Did anybody on this thread watch the video Westfall posted? If so, you know that his comments on the presence of malaria bearing mosquitos was to illustrate that the 'scientific opinion' that global warming would increase malaria was just simply foolish on the face of it. But he was discussing that not to discuss malaria bearing mosquitos or bugs in general, but to address a much larger issue.

And then he went on to discuss a really serious issue with the IPCC formal report.

I just wondered what those who watched the video thought about the issue he raised and the point he was making?

Apparently you consider a deflection to be any post against denier cult dogma, or any post other than yours, dealing with forum decorum.

 

[PMZ]

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current. It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.[/QUOTE


I thought that you would post some data as evidence that it's not energy invested temporarily into the latent heat of fusion of all the ice being melted.

 

[PMZ]

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

According to the warmists it has remained flat since 1998 and a few even say as early as 1996, I suggest you need to read a hell of a lot to get current. It appears you are at least a decade behind the curve.

I don't know who warmists are but according to the temperature recod you're wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=glo...F-8&hl=en-US&espv=1#biv=i|1;d|Um0fI12hEusDBM:

 

[mamooth]

On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.

Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
---
1) Crack down on carbon emissions from power plants. Regulations on new plants are already in the works. The next step is regs on existing power plants, which would gradually force coal-fired plants to start shutting down. Considering that electric power plants produce about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this is a big deal.

2) Boost renewable energy development on federal land.

3) Increase the energy efficiency of appliances, industrial equipment, and public and private buildings.

4) Prepare for the climate impacts we’re already seeing.
---

None of that has do with congress. So the GOP congress can do jack, except to sputter out their usual alarmist predictions that will fail just as hard as all their past predictions.

The kooks here will then parrot those hysterics verbatim. After all, they don't want to jeopardize their own perfect record of failure. They'll piss and moan about how the sky is falling and the economy is doomed, rant about "winning", and meanwhile the world simply moves on without them.

 

[PMZ]

So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.

Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.

One only need look at the past to see that increases in CO2 are the result of natural variability. Do you know how exceedingly small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is? Here, take a look at a good graphic representation of what our CO2 looks like in the grand scheme. We don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variability from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about your scientific disability, this video should remove it completely and unequivocally. To say that there is no AGW because atmospheric CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere is like claiming that viruses cannot create illnesses because they are too small.

 

[PMZ]

On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.

Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
---
1) Crack down on carbon emissions from power plants. Regulations on new plants are already in the works. The next step is regs on existing power plants, which would gradually force coal-fired plants to start shutting down. Considering that electric power plants produce about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this is a big deal.

2) Boost renewable energy development on federal land.

3) Increase the energy efficiency of appliances, industrial equipment, and public and private buildings.

4) Prepare for the climate impacts we’re already seeing.
---

None of that has do with congress. So the GOP congress can do jack, except to sputter out their usual alarmist predictions that will fail just as hard as all their past predictions.

The kooks here will then parrot those hysterics verbatim. After all, they don't want to jeopardize their own perfect record of failure. They'll piss and moan about how the sky is falling and the economy is doomed, rant about "winning", and meanwhile the world simply moves on without them.

I imagine it got noisy on earth while the dinosauers were going extinct too. Nobody can make more noise with less consequence than extreme conservative cult media.

 

[itfitzme]

On Tuesday, President Obama will be outlining administration steps to address global warming.

Obama climate plan finally coming, on Tuesday | Grist
---
1) Crack down on carbon emissions from power plants. Regulations on new plants are already in the works. The next step is regs on existing power plants, which would gradually force coal-fired plants to start shutting down. Considering that electric power plants produce about a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, this is a big deal.

2) Boost renewable energy development on federal land.

3) Increase the energy efficiency of appliances, industrial equipment, and public and private buildings.

4) Prepare for the climate impacts we’re already seeing.
---

Go nuclear. Distributed nuclear systems. Dig a hole, drop it in, and away we go. Won't melt down, just shuts down.

Phys.Org Mobile: Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update)

Gen4 Energy | Gen4 Energy

 

[itfitzme]

So this whole linear regression, R^2 values, mean trends, variability, modelling thing*isn't one of your strong suits then.

Basically, you just think the increases CO2 is all natural variability.

One only need look at the past to see that increases in CO2 are the result of natural variability. Do you know how exceedingly small the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is? Here, take a look at a good graphic representation of what our CO2 looks like in the grand scheme. We don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variability from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about your scientific disability, this video should remove it completely and unequivocally. To say that there is no AGW because atmospheric CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere is like claiming that viruses cannot create illnesses because they are too small.

A theraputic dose of warfrin, a bloodthinner, is 2mg. For a 70kg adult, that is one part per 35 million. At that dose, patients have their INR tested regularly. The maximum dose is one in 14 million. Beyond that, the patient is at risknof hemophelia.

It is amazing how biological systems respond to small amounts of things.