Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 27 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. 10 foot rise in sea level happened? |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. Rather than wild goose chase silly out of context glib silliness, can you get real? Can you look up thermal expansion of the oceans and sea level rise for yourself and then you critically tell us? With reliable references? Note that wild claims of "It ain't going to happen any time soon" is not a useful answer unless you really can tell the whole world of science otherwise. Meanwhile, ocean rise looks to be a distraction from the more immediate shifts in weather and climate that are getting to be ever more noticeable and disruptive... Any other diversionary tactics from you? Or are you just on a troll's game of words? Your lack of any substance is most noticeable. Or are you just too old to care? All on our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. Can you and the catastrophists get real? The model failed. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
How about an actual peer reviewed paper? PHEW! THAT is the first scientific paper that I've seen of that type! Unprecedented, for all aspects represented. Note that Science is a 'continuous argument' and the very nature of Science is that you can never completely know or agree on anything. You can even argue about our very existance and soon dive deep into great thinkers such as Plato and Socrates and so on... And now for the stunner: (ACC: anthropogenic climate change) ... Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. The only "climate deniers" are the paid shills? and Everything you need to know about climate change - interactive That's a good interactive to navigate through the huge amount of material that interest in our forced climate change is generating. Unfortunately, I suspect few people have the patience or interest to follow far through all that... Still a good compendium from that publisher. The same people that ran a huge campaign to confuse the issue on whether smoking is safe on behalf of the tobacco industry are at work here, this time working for the oil companies. All with the same unscrupulous callousness to kill people for their own profit. Not all is fair in business, and there are no excuses. All on our own world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
How about an actual peer reviewed paper? First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural influences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making Such a shock. Pro global warming publications publish lots of pro global warming articles. Therefor we conclude that man caused global warming is true. I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Man caused global warming may be true, but this isn't an argument for it. A stupid decision made by millions of scientists, is still a stupid decision. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
How about an actual peer reviewed paper? National Academy of Sciences? Really Gary? Are you going to pick and chose what science you believe in what you don't? Based on what criteria? If you get liver cancer would you believe what an oncologist tells you or a dermatologist? Those pesky oncologists with their bias, posting scientific journal articles about stuff they actually know about. I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore. Reality Internet Personality |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore. It isn't an argument. A good editor should have rejected this paper. The paper is better suited to a social science publication than a hard science publication. There is no discussion of how they know the "experts" they picked are "expert." Popular, yes, expert no. No discussion of possible biases in the data set, such as a requirement to profess a belief in ACC to even have a paper considered for publication in climate change journals. No discussion about how the 20 published papers requirement may skew their data set, if the editors believe in ACC themselves. It isn't good science; it comes closer to circular logic than science. Unfortunately it is what passes for science today. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore. ... according to you a "good editor" should have rewritten the science?! Change reality to fit your unreal dreams? Looks like you're a confirmed devout denier of the world around you. Either that or you are a paid shill here to troll and spread FUD. Please take your noise elsewhere. You're very welcome to start your own fantasy thread. Meanwhile, on the real world we still have industry adding to the CO2 pollution and all the consequences of that. Less FUD noise could well let our politics catch up with that sooner rather than later and for the better for all. Next step is better education to help all with the next pollution problem of too many people... But contrary to the Gary Charpentier world view, no nukes are needed for that. All on our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Why don't you try reading some ice cores taken at the poles and Greenland. They tell a story of CO2 going up and down. Sometimes with the water level and others without water levels moveing at all. Yet, the whole time---life went on. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Why don't you try reading some ice cores taken at the poles and Greenland. They tell a story of CO2 going up and down. Sometimes with the water level and others without water levels moveing at all. Yet, the whole time---life went on. Indeed so. Apart from one small detail you omit from your little bit of glib rote: The life that went on was a very different mix of life compared to what was living before each of those past climate changes... All on our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore. Can't even bring yourself to quote it. Not surprised at all. Looks like you're a confirmed devout denier of the world around you. I don't deny that it is getting warmer. What ever gave you that idea? Perhaps your closed mind about anyone who isn't in lockstep? A ditto head? Meanwhile, on the real world we still have industry adding to the CO2 pollution and all the consequences of that. CO2? How about CH4! See that CH4 level. It is going up faster than the CO2 level. CO2 almost doubled, CH4 more than quadrupled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane It has a high global warming potential: 72 times that of carbon dioxide So how are humans dumping that much CH4 into the atmosphere? Shouldn't that be our concern? |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Gary, the melting permafrost in the arctic regions is releasing lots of methane. That is a real concern. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... according to you a "good editor" should have rewritten the science?! Change reality to fit your unreal dreams? Sorry, just not worth the noise. Meanwhile, on the real world we still have industry adding to the CO2 pollution and all the consequences of that. I like how you are just randomly squirming and plucking at numbers... The rise in methane (CH4) is part of the consequences of our industrialization and our forced global warming. Note how on your chart the horizontal scale compresses the recent plot points to a near vertical line that is heading off scale. The forced warming is melting areas of the Arctic that have so far been frozen for many thousands of years and that in turn is releasing methane. So far, though CH4 is potent for warming the atmosphere in the short term, the concentration is about 200 times less than CO2. Note that CO2 is the more significant in that the concentration of CO2 is the driving factor for other atmospheric processes for global warming. Also, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time compared to methane. You do nicely highlight one aspect: We live in a global system and we need to look after and be sympathetic to the workings of all the global systems that keep us comfortably alive. Atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations are the most significant at the moment due to our excessive pollution most noticeably affecting those and everything else connected with that consequently. Your article leads onto that nicely for those who care to read further there. This is our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
And NOTE the methane rise every 11 years, sun spot cycle. And also NOTE just 650,000 years of data. The latest jump is also with a warming in the Alantic. Off our east coast billions of tons of frozen methane lay in a trench JUST off shore. THIS is a NATURAL cycle of things! |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
The forced warming is melting areas of the Arctic that have so far been frozen for many thousands of years and that in turn is releasing methane. So the melting ice is releasing the methane? So why isn't that methane in the ice cores? You are nothing if not predicable in your FUD. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20147 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
The forced warming is melting areas of the Arctic that have so far been frozen for many thousands of years and that in turn is releasing methane. It is, in small quantities from the past atmosphere for the ice cores taken from the thousands of years of snowfall in the Antarctic. Going back to what we were originally discussing about Arctic permafrost... That's different ice covering different frozen ground on the other side of the planet compared to the Antarctic ice cores that sample past fallen snow. The areas of Arctic permafrost cover vast old methane rich swamps... Frozen methane clathrates covers different areas again... And just to anticipate another hole in your random rants: Arctic sea ice is a part frozen sea water and part collected snowfall. Importantly, the freezing of the sea water expels the sea salt to then make the surrounding sea more saline and hence more dense. That little bit of physics drives the gulf stream right up into the Arctic. That helps to pull warmth from the equator, with the double benefit of cooling the equator and warming the higher latitudes for such as ourselves. Reduced Arctic ice, and no summertime Arctic ice, may well cause that beneficial process to falter... Sorry but you do act like a random troll just randomly stirring the pot. All on our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19014 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
The forced warming is melting areas of the Arctic that have so far been frozen for many thousands of years and that in turn is releasing methane. Try looking up alternative, older name for methane, then maybe you will understand the ice is melting and revealing thousands of square miles of marsh (hint) which is now thawing out. As ML1 gave away the answer I can now show this mural from Manchester Town Hall. John Dalton |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
It's the sunspots---baby! |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
That one was caused by a volcano eruption. Reality Internet Personality |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
|
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.