Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1485889 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 20:07:41 UTC - in response to Message 1485881.  

Same place, but I did roam around a bit.....

Ahh ok. I didn't realise we went to the same college. Small world eh?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1485889 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1485912 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 20:47:06 UTC - in response to Message 1485850.  

..

This is why I call B.S. anytime someone mentions the supposed 97% 'scientific consensus' on CO2 emissions causing climate change.

ok. I see a bit better where you are coming from. I believe charts have been posted here about where the greenhouse gases are coming from. The way we produce our food is one of the big problems. Seeing as how upset people are when I suggest that we need to cut CO2 emissions (Which ARE a significant factor) can you imagine how upset they are going to be when I suggest that you all need to give up eating meat? Or at least cut down dramatically, because that is what you are going to have to think about doing.

Lets see how much everyone freaks out over that observation.


No argument from me on that one. People in the 'West', especially those in the USA *DO* tend to eat way too much meat, but then I am coming from a health standpoint and not an environmentalist one when I say that. It just isn't healthy; way too much fat in the meat. But, what are you gonna do? People in the West (esp. the USA) are just too fond of the stuff. To get them to stop eating so much of it, you are going to have to rob them of a good chunk of their freedom. Just like what will be necessary if CO2 DOES turn out to be the major problem many have been led to believe it is, it is NOT going to be popular.
ID: 1485912 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1485937 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 21:50:41 UTC
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 22:31:19 UTC

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The skeptic argument ...

The skeptic say there's no empirical evidence such as the following ...

The skeptic say there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. That computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence.



What the science says ...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.





The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.






The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.



Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).



Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."



Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat

When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.



Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.



Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

For more evidence that humans are causing global warming, check out The human fingerprint in global warming.
ID: 1485937 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1485943 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 22:12:07 UTC
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 22:59:09 UTC

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
ID: 1485943 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1485963 - Posted: 7 Mar 2014, 23:19:37 UTC - in response to Message 1485842.  
Last modified: 7 Mar 2014, 23:21:00 UTC

@ Мишель
What you seem to have trouble accepting and understanding is that the same thing is happening on the Warmist side of things.

Alright, prove it. There have been academic studies into who pays for the climate skeptical studies. I'm sure there should be academic studies into who pays the proponents of man made global warming. So it should be fairly easy to prove that warmists have a major industry backing them. In fact, theirs should be bigger, given that they got more scientists on their side.
ID: 1485963 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486026 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 2:48:46 UTC - in response to Message 1485943.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2014, 2:53:29 UTC

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



Fantastic. Byron, may I be so bold as to do the feet thing once more?
ID: 1486026 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20425
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1486172 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 13:23:15 UTC - in response to Message 1485943.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2014, 13:24:08 UTC

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Wow! That really is a comprehensive list exposing the 'questions' and 'skepticism' of the professional FUD propaganda and the blind hopes of the Deniers.


That looks like a very good list to use to methodically work at to 'debunk' the 'supposed Warmists claims'. Any takers able to provide reputable links/examples to show how really nothing untoward is happening?


Thanks Byron for a very good link that nicely covers our last few years of Climate threads.

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1486172 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486241 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 16:17:07 UTC

THEY'RE HERE!!!
Thank you Byron! You're a star. GREAT graphs! Clyde will be so pleased to have something to look at instead of having to listen to me wittering on. :)
All the best!


can you imagine how upset they are going to be when I suggest that you all need to give up eating meat? Or at least cut down dramatically, because that is what you are going to have to think about doing.


Hi Es99!
Like KWSN MajorKong, I won't be upset either! As long as we don't kill them all off. Sort of thing we're capable of.

It's the cow shed explosions...and the burning of forests for grazing land...and the freezing... and the transporting it all over the planet so that it can be put into toxic packaging, go past its “use by” date in the fridge, and then get thrown in the bin.

Please note I am very fond of cows. Long may they continue not as shoes. But I (hypocrite alert) do occasionally put a bit of one on a plate when we have visitors.. I am not proud of it... And crying over the chicken I prepare for them when I discover it has two broken legs, does not make up for any of the subsequent gnawing on it once it is cooked. But nowadays... I am mostly not a flesh eater :) All the best!


Spent most of my adult life as an NYPD Detective (Major Case - Joint NYPD/FBI Task Force, etc.).

Therefore I tend to, make that almost always, Interrogate All People's and Idea's. It is just a Technique. But sometimes it comes over as "You are lying". When all I mean is "PROVE IT".



Hi Clyde.
I think if I'd known all that beforehand I may have only been brave enough to ask for directions to the nearest exit :) Just think what stimulating chats we would have missed out on!

Thank you for pointing out any misconceptions I may have had with regards your technique. They are duly noted. and won't be laboured under again I promise :) On matters of policing I have clearly found the right person to ask as to where the burden of proof lies. :)

If I may, could I clarify just one more point before wishing you a very happy weekend... would you agree that it would be good policing policy to limit the risk our “suspect” (the CO2 that ML1 is referring to) might pose now it's been set free, by putting it under a restraining order and keeping it under surveillance? :) I mean, we know it's already made bail – the stampede of vested interest groups falling over each other to post it has made sure of that. :) Best wishes from me for a happy weekend :)


Hi Мишель!
Well! Just when I thought I had an assignment to do I found out you'd done it for me. Thank you! I do hope you don't mind if I verify it independently though? We really should all be doing that after all. :)

..........................................I will mostly be as long as I am.

Well I'm back! Ten out of ten. Really NICE work. :) All the best from Anniet!

HOPE EVERYONE HAS A LOVELY WEEKEND!!!!

ps - I asked the moderators to delete my previous posting of the above message. They very kindly did so. It has allowed me to edit out a brief (no snorting please) moment of insanity. Long may it not happen again. :)

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1486241 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1486251 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 16:42:05 UTC - in response to Message 1485943.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2014, 16:51:13 UTC

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Hmm
I do not have the time to rebutt this list one by one but I will mention a few.

#4) The old 97% of climate scientists agree (blah, blah) line.

Still sounds like the old "9 out 10 dentists recommend Brand X tootpaste" advertising script to me. This goes along with very common "scientific tests have shown" crap

Sceptical Science makes this claim based on the number of published papers not on the actual number of scientists. It very conveniently ignores multiple papers from the same team and that these days, if you are scientist, disputing "Climate Change" is a quick way to lose your tenure and grant money.

I will believe this claim when I see a roll call of climatologists and which way they actually vote on the matter.

#12) The answer is meaningless and while agreeing that CO2 did not end the last Ice Age. I can find no reference that it "amplified the warming"

#16) Neglects to mention that temperatures were higher higher 2000 years ago and up to 2 deg C than the 1934-1960 and in the north, up to 4 deg C higher during the Medieval Warm Period

#25) Yes sea levels have risen in the last 100 years, by around 20cm and a monstrous rise of a whole 8mm over the last 20 years. Which is hardly the catastrophic levels predicted.

#36) Is there any actual evidence that polar bear numbers are decreasing

#39) What areas of the planet got colder when Greenland was actually green ?

#42) Is a non-answer

#62) Another non-answer, "Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail." Most definitely, it's obvious we can predict the climate simply pulling numbers out thin air (pun intended).

#135) Blatantly wrong, the CO2 content of exhaled air is much higher than inthe inhaled air. This is a very minor point but the fact that they can't get this right casts doubt on the other answers.

These are just some of the holes I found with minimal research and checking. I did not have the time and patience to go through all 176 points. Plus my head was starting to ache. I also noted that the links in the article only went to other Skeptical Science pages (that site always gives me a headache).

For further reading, may I suggest http://www.junkscience.com and http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

As I have said before. I have no doubt the climate is changing. The Earth's climate has always been a dynamic system. It's the anthropogenic CO2 I have trouble with.

I totally agreed with MajorKong when he wrote
Notice what they directly said. First, 'are very likely due to'. Weasel words. Also: 'human activities'. They did NOT say ' are due to human large-scale emission of CO2', which is what a lot of uninformed people are going to assume when they read it. But 'human activities'.

That statement is virtually bullet-proof. There are a variety of things that humans do that can (and do) have effects on the climate. Two that stand out on that list are urbanization and deforestation. Urbanization in an area will make that area warmer. Deforestation in an area will disrupt rainfall patterns in a somewhat larger area. Both activities have been going on throughout human history, but have been VERY prevalent throughout the world over the 'last century' time-frame the statement mentions. Two key components of the climate, temperature and rainfall. So... human activity -> climate change. QED

The great majority of scientists (not just climate scientists), are going to agree with that statement. 97% sounds about right. There are always going to be a few kooks. And yet, the statement made NO mention whatsoever of CO2...

This is why I call B.S. anytime someone mentions the supposed 97% 'scientific consensus' on CO2 emissions causing climate change.

Then of course there is the elephant in the room of overpopulation, the subject no-one wants to discuss but what is probably the greatest looming threat to the planet of them all.

T.A.
ID: 1486251 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1486271 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 17:24:09 UTC

Another interesting site
http://www.co2science.com

I like their mission statement
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials. In this endeavor, the Center attempts to separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change. In addition, to help students and teachers gain greater insight into the biological aspects of this phenomenon, the Center maintains on-line instructions on how to conduct CO2 enrichment and depletion experiments in its Global Change Laboratory (located in its Education Center section), which allow interested parties to conduct similar studies in their own homes and classrooms.


T.A.
ID: 1486271 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1486325 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 19:18:45 UTC
Last modified: 8 Mar 2014, 19:44:34 UTC

Temperature and other aspects related to global warming - - - none of which is likely to enlighten skeptics ___ ;)
a one-page report on continued warming which includes an excellent 14-second 'movie' showing six decades of a warming earth, from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

Joint presentation by NASA and NOAA (PDF, slides, some with side-by-side comparisons of NASA AND NOAA findings):
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NOAA_NASA_2013_Global_Temperatures_Joint_Briefing.pdf
ID: 1486325 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486395 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 22:12:09 UTC - in response to Message 1486271.  

Another interesting site
http://www.co2science.com

I like their mission statement
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials. In this endeavor, the Center attempts to separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change. In addition, to help students and teachers gain greater insight into the biological aspects of this phenomenon, the Center maintains on-line instructions on how to conduct CO2 enrichment and depletion experiments in its Global Change Laboratory (located in its Education Center section), which allow interested parties to conduct similar studies in their own homes and classrooms.


T.A.


Hi there! Hope you're well. I'd actually be a little concerned about some of the reasons behind their promotion of escalating CO2 being a good thing re: growth of plants.

They appear to be suggesting that it could result in better crops and reducing risk of famine etc. They indeed report on the benefits of pea crops. I'm curious as to how many people eat tobacco though? I'm not aware of very many at all. And possibly those that do might need medical help more than they need peas.

I have only been looking into your most interesting post about two minutes. I may be back.:) In the meantime I hope you're having a nice weekend! Best wishes

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1486395 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486402 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 22:20:47 UTC - in response to Message 1486395.  
Last modified: 8 Mar 2014, 22:58:52 UTC

Ooh seem to be experiencing technical difficulties. :/ Sorry
ID: 1486402 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486407 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 22:33:40 UTC - in response to Message 1486395.  

Another interesting site
http://www.co2science.com

I like their mission statement
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials. In this endeavor, the Center attempts to separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change. In addition, to help students and teachers gain greater insight into the biological aspects of this phenomenon, the Center maintains on-line instructions on how to conduct CO2 enrichment and depletion experiments in its Global Change Laboratory (located in its Education Center section), which allow interested parties to conduct similar studies in their own homes and classrooms.


T.A.


Hi there! Hope you're well. I'd actually be a little concerned about some of the reasons behind their promotion of escalating CO2 being a good thing re: growth of plants.

They appear to be suggesting that it could result in better crops and reducing risk of famine etc. They indeed report on the benefits of pea crops. I'm curious as to how many people eat tobacco though? I'm not aware of very many at all. And possibly those that do might need medical help more than they need peas.

I have only been looking into your most interesting post about two minutes. I may be back.:) In the meantime I hope you're having a nice weekend! Best wishes



Oh dear. I might have to go away and put any other points in a longer message. I'm hoping this might be my last one though.

This is re their section headed

Three Decades of Global Greening of Earth's Terrestrial Surfaces


I was wondering if you knew which parts of the planet they're seeing this? Could it be tobacco plantations? I'm only asking because I've seen the opposite. I did actually post a message about it earlier in this thread. If you would like me to find it (to save you looking for it) I will be happy to. :)Obviously I don't have access to the equipment they clearly do, being as I spend most of my time at ground level, so I could be wrong - or it could be that some areas have seen this phenomena, whilst others haven't. It should be something they cover on the site - so that we can do some simple maths and see whether the improvements they're reporting do in fact unbalance the weighing scales in the favour of plenty more co2. :)

Just one more point - and don't worry if you can't answer it... I'm just being lazy. Actually don't worry, I'll find the answer to that myself. :)

oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1486407 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1486451 - Posted: 8 Mar 2014, 23:47:40 UTC - in response to Message 1486251.  

For further reading, may I suggest http://www.junkscience.com and http://www.wattsupwiththat.com


Hi TA. How are you?
I just spotted the above in a previous posting of yours. It's funny you should mention them because I came across them by accident whilst I was playing a game I called “open-minding myself”. If you can spare um...many moments, I'd appreciate your opinion. I'm using colours to denote which side of the argument I'm on (green - obvious; blue - perched on the fence/unsure; black - chilled about more CO2; and red for extremely confused)

After typing "global warming" into a search engine, and two clicks of the mouse...

...I was able to say with real confidence that we can all stop panicking... we can set fire to more than a few trees, toast some marshmallows and burn dry a few oilfields, just because we can, because if nuclear bombs didn't do any damage, how can CO2!!? :)

I'm not above a little paranoia though (sorry) and there had been a sort of... clunking noise in my head like something had broken – so I dug a little bit more and discovered Steven Milloy, the highly respected biostatistician and author of lots of books (I'm not sure how to plot that bit on a graph, which is a shame because I know how much we all like them :)).

But I was genuinely struck by how obviously well-educated he was, because of the sheer range of topics he was able to write about! Coral reefs, judo, amazing. I must admit, I did have a bit of a problem finding out who published all of them... and I also have to admit that I had no idea what a biostatistician actually was – but was really impressed when I found out! Paranoia gone! :)

I was still lacking two things though – a publisher and a time frame for when his books first started hitting the shelves. I was particularly interested in how long Steven had been implementing his extremely impressive skills to Silencing Science, a book he co-authored with Michael Gough. It concerned me a little because whilst I had been finding out about what a biostatistician was... I came across the following...

Point 4 on how to become one.
Be aware that in order to become a biostatistician, you will need to demonstrate exceptional written and verbal communication skills.
.

Well he must be a brilliant one - all those books cant be wrong. But the two pieces of information coming one after the other like that made me a little uneasy...

Part of my uni degree included two years of maths and stats. In learning how to be responsible statisticians providing unbiased information we were taught everything that you must absolutely NOT do too. It's like getting two educations for the price of one! :) I would imagine in the bio sector of the field - which can affect lives rather than just bank balances, the tutoring in the risks of doing it WRONG would be of excellent quality indeed but would also have a higher ethical element of training built in... So overall, I reckon we can trust him on the nuclear thing above don't you? :)

I'm a bit like a dog with a bone when it comes to looking for something I can't find, so thought that I might be able to unearth some dates by heading over to his biography. I was a little bit taken aback to find out that whilst he might have trained as a biostatchiwhatdjermacallit – he was also a securities lawyer and a registered securities principal, investment fund manager, non-profit executive (ah, that's nice), and a print/web columnist on science and business issues (according to his website junkscience).

Not too bad I conceded to myself, but first I needed to brush up on what an earth a non-profit executive was.

...and here it is verbatim... enjoy :)

The executive director usually is the top executive at a
nonprofit, and directors report directly to the executive director.
The executive director at a nonprofit is like a chief
executive officer at a for-profit company, and the director is like a
vice president. The primary goal of nonprofit executives is to ensure
that the organization fulfills its mission, reaches its goals and is
able to balance its operating budget with fundraising revenue.


To be honest, at that point, I really wished I hadn't thought of asking the question :/
I trawled a bit more to see if I could find out what he was a (dizzy spell) of and up he popped... and I cannot say much more... Look him up on Sourcewatch....but not without carefully placing a peg on the end of your nose.

I unfortunately did not. The series of clunks were like a chain reaction. There was a dull boom and a most interesting SPLAT as what was left of my initially happy brain at the start of this little exercise liquefied emphatically against the inside of my skull.

Oh, and if you thought the "junk" in junkscience was an adjective – you could be in for a bit of a shock. Whether deserved or undeserved, it's being used as a verb. Oh and you know that bit up there where they said be aware... well I would say be very very aware.

Game over? No of course not. I now have to investigate sourcewatch - and the enormous number of websites out there
that trash it... but... do you mind if I don't do so today?

I did find a date... but I can't seem to retrieve it....it had... numbers. And I know there may be some holes in my findings... I am hoping they are not as big as the one in my head.

After what will hopefully be a brief recovery, I will I'm sure be able to do simple tasks. In the meantime, please point out the areas I can improve on and any detected bias and one day I hope I will be able to address them. :)


oh...and did we say we like humans too? Well we do :)
ID: 1486451 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1486595 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 9:13:04 UTC - in response to Message 1486271.  

Another interesting site
http://www.co2science.com

I like their mission statement
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. It meets this objective through weekly online publication of its CO2 Science magazine, which contains editorials on topics of current concern and mini-reviews of recently published peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, books, and other educational materials. In this endeavor, the Center attempts to separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change. In addition, to help students and teachers gain greater insight into the biological aspects of this phenomenon, the Center maintains on-line instructions on how to conduct CO2 enrichment and depletion experiments in its Global Change Laboratory (located in its Education Center section), which allow interested parties to conduct similar studies in their own homes and classrooms.


T.A.

That does sound nice doesn't it. And it is a perfect example of how climate change skeptics manipulate you. They sound so reasonable if you look at that mission statement. And that site, it looks professional. And they got nice graphs on that site as well. And look, they even help teachers with performing interesting experiments in class. How could those guys possibly be irrational people who deny science.

And then you look a little closer and it turns out that they are in part funded by the oil industry and other climate skeptic groups, that everyone who works there are all climate skeptics with ties corporate mega lobbies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is grade A manipulation. They appear to be reasonable, scientific, but in reality they are just a group employed by corporations to deny climate change and use that to prevent further environmental legislation by governments.
ID: 1486595 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1486673 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 13:42:33 UTC - in response to Message 1486595.  
Last modified: 9 Mar 2014, 13:44:50 UTC

That does sound nice doesn't it. And it is a perfect example of how climate change skeptics manipulate you. They sound so reasonable if you look at that mission statement. And that site, it looks professional. And they got nice graphs on that site as well. And look, they even help teachers with performing interesting experiments in class. How could those guys possibly be irrational people who deny science.

And then you look a little closer and it turns out that they are in part funded by the oil industry and other climate skeptic groups, that everyone who works there are all climate skeptics with ties corporate mega lobbies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is grade A manipulation. They appear to be reasonable, scientific, but in reality they are just a group employed by corporations to deny climate change and use that to prevent further environmental legislation by governments.

I don't think there is any way you could sound more bleeding sanctimonious.

Anyone who disagrees with the party line is decried by people like you as being funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever and therefore any statement they make is meaningless and worthless.

What a load of horse manure....

Do you honestly think that the Green lobby is socially and morally pure and pristine ?

As I drive around the country I see many "wind farms". The funny thing is that irrespective of the wind speed, most of the turbines are stationary. Despite this, the owners of these wind farms are being paid by the government just to have them sitting there. When they are turning, the government is paying the owners well above the going rate per kW hour for the "clean and green" energy they produce.

In other words, the owners of the wind farms and solar farms have as bigger vested interest in the debate as any other operator and therefore they will fund the more politically correct research and web sites in order to make sure their income is maintained.

Anyone who thinks this debate is about saving the planet is deluding themselves !!

It is now an issue of politics and commerce. Governments have to be seen as being "Clean and Green" and Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Green are all out to protect their own vested interests. Afterall Goldman Sachs has already established their "Carbon Trading" division and once the "Vampire Squid" gets involved you know morality and truth has gone out the window.

Once again, the interests of the planet are playing second fiddle to commercial and political interests.

I post on this thread because my bullsh*t filter overloads with the holier than thou posts from the "warmists", especially when their statements do not agree with what I see in my day to day life and my own research.

So please, let's stop making an issue of who is funding which research or web site, research is not necessarily invalidated by who is paying for it. Let's accept the fact that one side is as corrupt as the other and the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle.

T.A.
ID: 1486673 · Report as offensive
ihenderson

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 00
Posts: 50
Credit: 1,100,259
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1486699 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 15:27:38 UTC - in response to Message 1483798.  

It IS all about the money!!!

YEP!!!!

BOTH sides.

Very sad.

Oh by the way. How do you explain the graphs?

What exactly are your proposing your data about the English climate shows?


What do you think it shows ?

The slope over 400 yrs is + .25 Deg C per hundred years. The data looks scattered around the linear fit.

It looks scattered around a linear fit until about 1950, then it looks to me like it starts to curve sharply upwards. I wouldn't agree with you line of best fit there.

Here are the met office graphs: Central England and global surface temperature


The fit is least mean square from the graphing program, and is not manipulated.

The temp rise from 1950 on is no different than from other time periods, 1900 to 1950 or 1650 to 1700
There was a good article in the telegraph that was referenced previously that examined this data.
ID: 1486699 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20425
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1486702 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 15:43:28 UTC - in response to Message 1486673.  
Last modified: 9 Mar 2014, 15:48:17 UTC

Another interesting site
http://www.co2science.com

I like their mission statement

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change was created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary...


That does sound nice doesn't it. And it is a perfect example of how climate change skeptics manipulate you. They sound so reasonable if you look at that mission statement. And that site, it looks professional. And they got nice graphs on that site as well. And look, they even help teachers with performing interesting experiments in class. How could those guys possibly be irrational people who deny science.

And then you look a little closer and it turns out that they are in part funded by the oil industry and other climate skeptic groups, that everyone who works there are all climate skeptics with ties corporate mega lobbies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is grade A manipulation. They appear to be reasonable, scientific, but in reality they are just a group employed by corporations to deny climate change and use that to prevent further environmental legislation by governments.

I don't think there is any way you could sound more bleeding sanctimonious.

Anyone who disagrees with the party line is decried by people like you as being funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever and therefore any statement they make is meaningless and worthless.

Try me...?

I've just looked at that site and to my mind it is enough to make any honest scientist puke in disgust. Utterly fraudulent. From what I see there, that really is Grade AAA Marketing at it's worst to constructively and deliberately junk all meaningful comment about pollution, climate, and our world. Total propaganda without meaning.


What a load of horse manure....

I think that is a good description of that site, yes.

The scary thing is, in a world where many people are 'not sure' that our earth really is round as opposed to flat, and have no idea as to whether we orbit the sun or if the sun goes around us, that sort of propaganda site is far too effective.

For example, really, has that site really suckered you in?!


Do you honestly think that the Green lobby is socially and morally pure and pristine ?

Can you show us ANY examples as rank and deceitful as that pro-Burning Fossils Industry and Ultra-Liberal-Free-Markets with No-Morals-All-Cost example?


Once again, the interests of the planet are playing second fiddle to commercial and political interests.

At least we can agree on that point.


So how can we save our planet and ourselves from the very recklessly greedy few?

All an inconvenient truth?

All on our only one planet,
Martin


All just my humble view as always...
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1486702 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1486710 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 16:25:55 UTC - in response to Message 1486702.  

So how can we save our planet and ourselves from the very recklessly greedy few?

All an inconvenient truth?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

All just my humble view as always...

Martin ... excellent post and thank you for those Links.

Also just my humble opinion,

Byron :)
ID: 1486710 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


 
©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.