Working to cope with climate change

[saveliberty]

Yes, the Vatican, bastion of true science through the ages.

 

[Trakar]

Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.

Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory. That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

I don't believe *you* are nuts (I reserve judgement on some of the others who you seem to agree with), I do believe you have been led astray in regards to the science by arguments that are based more in political associations than in the details and understandings of mainstream science. You appear to actually value and have some science understandings in regards to climate issues. I suggest that there may be value for both of us to openly and frankly discuss our understandings of mainstream climate science, even assuming that neither of us alters our current opinions and perspectives of this topic, at the least, we will both have a much more clear understanding of where we stand and why our individual understandings are different.

We can start anywhere you'd like, but it would probably help to define our understandings of the science and the most probable consequences of what the science portends before we can talk about resolution and adaptation and the scale and timeframes for such actions.
(it even sounds like a thread topical discussion!)

 

[Trakar]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

That continues to be your conspiracy theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.

Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory. That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

I don't believe *you* are nuts (I reserve judgement on some of the others who you seem to agree with), I do believe you have been led astray in regards to the science by arguments that are based more in political associations than in the details and understandings of mainstream science. You appear to actually value and have some science understandings in regards to climate issues. I suggest that there may be value for both of us to openly and frankly discuss our understandings of mainstream climate science, even assuming that neither of us alters our current opinions and perspectives of this topic, at the least, we will both have a much more clear understanding of where we stand and why our individual understandings are different.

We can start anywhere you'd like, but it would probably help to define our understandings of the science and the most probable consequences of what the science portends before we can talk about resolution and adaptation and the scale and timeframes for such actions.
(it even sounds like a thread topical discussion!)

Thanks for vote of confidence? The observation that I'm "not a nut" leaves some wiggle room don't it?

It's hard to get the politics out of it because I believe that the Global Warming "industry" is motivated by not so hidden desires to limit economic growth to a "sustainable" level and hobble the major economies in order to redistribute global wealth. If you DOUBT this, study how the last UN Climate conference degenerated into a begging contest of world proportions.

But trust me Trakar -- I TRY to ignore the political battle when I study the topic and it has NOTHING to do with how I assess the science on both sides. There are HUGE holes in the GreenHouse theory, MASSIVE leaps to judgement, and a HUMUNGEOUS effort to co-opt the science process and shut-down dissent.

I'd be glad to tell you why I've seen enough evidence to doubt that CO2 is the main driver of the warming.. Or why I doubt we can model the progression of the observed warming.

 

[Trakar]

The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

Before the industrial age, CO2 was at 275 ppm. How's that for a link, wingnutskis and wingnazis?

From your source:

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

I thought you said the carbon dioxide stayed in the oceans bobgnote.

The CEI economist is incorrect, that is why you don't go to a dentist when you need a second opinion about heart surgery.

• For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}

• Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}

Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 - Global temperature evolution 1979

A human-induced hothouse climate? (atmospheric residence time of AGW CO2) - http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/pdf/i1052-5173-22-2-4.pdf

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When you're ready to talk science instead of celebrity let me know.

When somebody posts a link to how Al Gore and politicians and regulations generate circle-jerk media, I'll put it right up. As for science, my links are all good. Go back and read some.

I'm glad you know how to user hyperlinks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.

There are no complete theories of anything.

That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

Holes such as?

 

[Trakar]

I don't believe *you* are nuts (I reserve judgement on some of the others who you seem to agree with), I do believe you have been led astray in regards to the science by arguments that are based more in political associations than in the details and understandings of mainstream science. You appear to actually value and have some science understandings in regards to climate issues. I suggest that there may be value for both of us to openly and frankly discuss our understandings of mainstream climate science, even assuming that neither of us alters our current opinions and perspectives of this topic, at the least, we will both have a much more clear understanding of where we stand and why our individual understandings are different.

We can start anywhere you'd like, but it would probably help to define our understandings of the science and the most probable consequences of what the science portends before we can talk about resolution and adaptation and the scale and timeframes for such actions.
(it even sounds like a thread topical discussion!)

Thanks for vote of confidence? The observation that I'm "not a nut" leaves some wiggle room don't it?

Well, qualifications are a hallmark of a properly made scientific analysis... Seriously, its not a big thing, I just want to understand where our understandings overlap and where they differ."

It's hard to get the politics out of it because I believe that the Global Warming "industry" is motivated by not so hidden desires to limit economic growth to a "sustainable" level and hobble the major economies in order to redistribute global wealth.

I am sure that there are many economic interests in many aspects of public policy that results from the science findings. I believe that there is greater current financial interest in delaying and stalling any dramatic change from the status quo. The most important aspect of this for me is the science. If the science is as rigorous and deep as it appears then then the question really isn't whether we need to act, but rather what direction we need to go and how much of our GDP are we going to have to devote to addressing this issue. I'm sure there are individuals looking toward making a profit off of these investments, just as defense contractors have made out like bandits over the last decade (or five), but I wouldn't expect General Dynamics/Chrysler to not turn a profit on each M1A2. Ultimately, it isn't about the people who see personal advantage or disadvantage in the situation, it is about defining the problem so that we can make policy decisions based upon the best available information. And I see no compelling evidence that the science supporting AGW is being manipulated or controlled by the financial interests who think they might be able to take advantage of that situation (aside from some politicians).

But trust me Trakar -- I TRY to ignore the political battle when I study the topic and it has NOTHING to do with how I assess the science on both sides.

science doesn't have sides there is only compellingly supported and uncompellingly supported.

There are HUGE holes in the GreenHouse theory,

Greenhouse theory is basic radiation transfer physics that dates back to the 19th century, it is very rigorous and compellingly supported. What do you understand GreenHouse theory to be and what "HUGE holes" do you understand there to be in the GreenHouse theory?

Please also explain and define each of your following understandings:
"MASSIVE leaps to judgement,"
"a HUMUNGEOUS effort to co-opt the science process and shut-down dissent."

I'd be glad to tell you why I've seen enough evidence to doubt that CO2 is the main driver of the warming.. Or why I doubt we can model the progression of the observed warming.

Please do. I'd prefer to start with one item at a time so that we can explore each a bit and really try to fully understand where each of our understandings are similar and precisely where they are different.

 

[saveliberty]

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.

You're just an endless loop OR. We have discussed several times that the greedy climatologists took over the adminstration of the climate society and dictate who can get peer reviewed.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

That continues to be your conspiracy theory.

No theory. It was revealed in emails. Pretty obvious to all but the faithers.

 

[jack113]

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.

You're just an endless loop OR. We have discussed several times that the greedy climatologists took over the adminstration of the climate society and dictate who can get peer reviewed.

So I see you signed up to the Exxon reeducation school.

 

[saveliberty]

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.

You're just an endless loop OR. We have discussed several times that the greedy climatologists took over the adminstration of the climate society and dictate who can get peer reviewed.

So I see you signed up to the Exxon reeducation school.

Denial of the corrupt leadership doesn't bolster your case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're just an endless loop OR. We have discussed several times that the greedy climatologists took over the adminstration of the climate society and dictate who can get peer reviewed.

So I see you signed up to the Exxon reeducation school.

Denial of the corrupt leadership doesn't bolster your case.

The Decline Hiders determine who gets peer reviewed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

 

[bobgnote]

When you're ready to talk science instead of celebrity let me know.

When somebody posts a link to how Al Gore and politicians and regulations generate circle-jerk media, I'll put it right up. As for science, my links are all good. Go back and read some.

I'm glad you know how to user hyperlinks.

That's right, Pooplemeyer! I like to find an issue, get a current news item or scientific report, and apply those, to show why we need to re-green, in the case of climate change, AGW, acidification, or even other issues.

So why don't you tell me, why do you reply, to my posts, in the useless, one-line way you did this twice, which suggests you do not subscribe to either my disgust with Al Gore's refusal to endorse specific re-greening or hemp, or to my disgust with his simultaneous profiteering, at global warming controversy, which has ripened into a real nuisance, while the CO2 has increased, to 400 ppm, in Arctic areas:

Arctic CO2 Hitting 400ppm - Greenland Sets New High Temperature Record for May : TreeHugger

I repeat: Al Gore refused to endorse legal hemp, his entire time, as Senator or Veep. Al Gore goes up as AGW-mogul, before Congress, and doofuses how he is 'emotional.' If you like Al, or you are having trouble understanding why his famous intransigence for the drug war swings against CO2-neutral hemp, for CO2 emitters, go ahead and make some specific post about this. Your one-liners merely suggest you don't think well, but you are afraid to comment, on the context of my posts, expressing disgust, with Gore.

I only suspect you have an issue, which you will not reveal, but here's a link:

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

Do YOU have a real comment, which would allow me, to reply to a question you have? Because you are commenting, without real information, I am inferring you have an issue, you refuse to reveal. But I am interested, in all this. Go ahead and spill it. Is it a girly thing, I don't get to know?

 

[bobgnote]

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Hey, Crosstard! Please post the link you hammered, to get all this shit. It is squiggly shit, concocted by limey skeptic-trash, isn't it. Or you would reference this, with a link.

Meanwhile, CO2 has migrated from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, currently, at Arctic and Greenland measuring locations. 350 ppm is the maximum safe level. So your limey 'estimates' are shit and more shit. Go get links, and I'll post mine, again. You aren't worth the effort, to copy and paste, given how you never link.

You and your bogus limeys forgot about the carbonic acid exchange, again. You know, the acid that is crapping up the food chain; oh, THAT acid.

Yeah, 'thanks,' you stupid, spamming narcissists! 'Cheers,' you are worse, than queers who won't do equality because they like to parade for cops, in every court in the USA.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Hey, Crosstard! Please post the link you hammered, to get all this shit. It is squiggly shit, concocted by limey skeptic-trash, isn't it. Or you would reference this, with a link.

Meanwhile, CO2 has migrated from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, currently, at Arctic and Greenland measuring locations. 350 ppm is the maximum safe level. So your limey 'estimates' are shit and more shit. Go get links, and I'll post mine, again. You aren't worth the effort, to copy and paste, given how you never link.

You and your bogus limeys forgot about the carbonic acid exchange, again. You know, the acid that is crapping up the food chain; oh, THAT acid.

Yeah, 'thanks,' you stupid, spamming narcissists!

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

 

[saveliberty]

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Hey, Crosstard! Please post the link you hammered, to get all this shit. It is squiggly shit, concocted by limey skeptic-trash, isn't it. Or you would reference this, with a link.

Meanwhile, CO2 has migrated from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, currently, at Arctic and Greenland measuring locations. 350 ppm is the maximum safe level. So your limey 'estimates' are shit and more shit. Go get links, and I'll post mine, again. You aren't worth the effort, to copy and paste, given how you never link.

You and your bogus limeys forgot about the carbonic acid exchange, again. You know, the acid that is crapping up the food chain; oh, THAT acid.

Yeah, 'thanks,' you stupid, spamming narcissists! 'Cheers,' you are worse, than queers who won't do equality because they like to parade for cops, in every court in the USA.

This isn't our first introduction to your fantasy bob. Surprised by the truth huh? Not to worry, we've found faithers to be throughly brainwashed.

 

[bobgnote]

Post some links, quit posting quote in quote in quote, and address any relevant point, at all.

That should be easy, for smarter retards:
1. CO2 is increasing, all the way to 400 ppm, past safe limit 350 ppm, posted already;
2. Methane is getting loose, from formerly frozen areas, posted a lot;
3. Warming and acidification are accelerating, posted a shitload;
4. Die-offs are happening, due to the acidification, posted some more;
5. You dipshit skeptics will do or say anything, to dodge a re-greening agenda, noted.

Fuck you, you refugees from St.Tardy's parochial academy for vacuous anal-compulsives.

 

[flacaltenn]

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.

There are no complete theories of anything.

[flacaltenn]

Then how come the AGW leadership is whining about "settled science" and trying to stifle dissent? Which is it Oopie? Settled or incomplete?? I really need you to tell me.

That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

Holes such as?

You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:

1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.

2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.

3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..

4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.

5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..

6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy. Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday. THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

Any one of my list items you want to set me straight on????