Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: DENIAL (#4)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: DENIAL (#4)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 55 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30802
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1629113 - Posted: 17 Jan 2015, 21:57:27 UTC - in response to Message 1629069.  

Maybe it isn't [only] CO2 ....
http://www.dailynews.com/environment-and-nature/20150114/methane-a-greenhouse-gas-found-at-higher-concentrations-above-la-pasadena

Limiting the Causation of Future Global Warming, just to CO2. And not taking into account, many, many, many other possibilities:

May be a horrible, and fatal, mistake.

Indeed so.

The focus is on CO2 because that is by far the greatest pollution with the greatest subsequent effect.

Considering CH4 is the second most important GHG, the estimate is wrong by 60%, and per the article CH4 is 90-100 times more potent than CO2, the statement about CH4 being second may be wrong and CO2 is actually second with CH4 first. Consider that 90 times multiplier and 60%, to get a CO2 error of the same amount it would be .6 * 90 = 54 times! It also says a lot about the prognostication power of scientists to study human commerce to determine the amount of GHG's released. If the error of 60% in release rate were to apply to human production of CO2, the entire argument about AGW could be in question.
ID: 1629113 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1629160 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 0:57:04 UTC - in response to Message 1628587.  

Remember it's the Co2 that is raising temps and melting the north pole and more methane is being released now because of the permafrost melting than what cows and man has released .

Methane only has a life of approx 12 yrs in the Atmosphere so if all methane was stopped today in 12 yrs there would not be any methane in the air

I have posted here a chart that shows that methane releases are coming more often and are showing up in the charts

Higher Methane levels is a effect not a cause of higher Co2 and GW and at 20 times the effect we won't need as much as Co2 to cause problems

Are we now seeing the runaway green house effect that has been predicted ?
ID: 1629160 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30802
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1629190 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 2:51:30 UTC - in response to Message 1629160.  

Remember it's the Co2 that is raising temps and melting the north pole and more methane is being released now because of the permafrost melting than what cows and man has released .

Well, that was the theory anyway. The article is of measurements over the Los Angeles Basin, not exactly the North Pole. The way methane gets there is from man's activities. There isn't a lot of cattle farming in the megalopolis of Los Angeles anymore. That means things like trash dumps are putting out far more than predicted, there are a lot of those in a megalopolis. Of course there is also oil under Los Angeles, so that natural occurrence may be the local source. That is why this finding is so very important and must not be dismissed.
ID: 1629190 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1629204 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 3:31:46 UTC

Methane-Hot Lead Man said:
Are we now seeing the runaway green house effect that has been predicted ?


Dr. HOHUM Lookin' at 'it' Right Now. HuWoMan O Live. It's Running So Fast, Leaving BEAUTIFUL BLUE SKIES and BEAUTIFUL WHITE CLOUDS in its Tracks. Heeba Habba. Give Me dat Old Time Venus Religion(Ooopsie, Science), it's GOoD Enuf fO Me.

RunAway, RunAway. Hey Hey RunAway. Bang dat RunAway Beat. Oh Yeah.

Yep.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1629204 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19209
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1629349 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 15:32:22 UTC

I think this statement from ML1's link about 2014 being hottest year says everything about climate warming.

That means nobody born since 1976 has experienced a colder-than-average year.


because it says that for a period, longer than the normal 30 years climate scientists use, the average temperature has been higher than all other periods since the weather has been recorded in the late 17th century by Richard Towneley and others.
ID: 1629349 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629355 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 15:45:13 UTC - in response to Message 1629160.  

Remember it's the Co2 that is raising temps and melting the north pole and more methane is being released now because of the permafrost melting than what cows and man has released .

Methane only has a life of approx 12 yrs in the Atmosphere so if all methane was stopped today in 12 yrs there would not be any methane in the air

I have posted here a chart that shows that methane releases are coming more often and are showing up in the charts

Higher Methane levels is a effect not a cause of higher Co2 and GW and at 20 times the effect we won't need as much as Co2 to cause problems

Are we now seeing the runaway green house effect that has been predicted ?

You are right Glenn.
Now there are more methan emissions due to a warmer climate.
Not only animal farms and warming permafrost.
The oceans also contains a lot of methane.
ID: 1629355 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629362 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 15:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 1629349.  

I think this statement from ML1's link about 2014 being hottest year says everything about climate warming.

That means nobody born since 1976 has experienced a colder-than-average year.


because it says that for a period, longer than the normal 30 years climate scientists use, the average temperature has been higher than all other periods since the weather has been recorded in the late 17th century by Richard Towneley and others.

Its so evident that the climate is warmer now.
I'm old enough to see it.
Now we have no snow at Winter. Flowers bloom even in Januari.
Birds are now tweeting like they did in March.
Many birds are not migrating like they used to do.

And it's a rapid change due to humans I Think.
ID: 1629362 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1629390 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 16:23:47 UTC - in response to Message 1629367.  

Why, or what caused, the Global Warming Hiatus, despite Scientific Predictions, over the past 18 years?

The answer to this is probably "We dont know"
Global Warming Hiatus has occured for milleniums.
The problem is now that hiatus periods are much warmer now.
ID: 1629390 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629405 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 17:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 1629367.  
Last modified: 18 Jan 2015, 17:15:24 UTC

Question: Why, or what caused, the Global Warming Hiatus ... over the past 18 years?

The oceans are a powerful influence in the movement of HEAT around the planet which has a great influence on temperature. With that, there are a number of natural oscillations for how the ocean heat flows vary around the world and in the way the ocean and atmosphere interact. All natural and the signature of that is seen throughout our temperature records.

What has been measured recently is that the deeper ocean has warmed appreciably. Also we have the ice loss of CUBIC MILES of ice. Melting the ice converts a lot of heat whilst keeping the temperature steady at 0 deg C (32 deg F) during the melt.

The excess heat being trapped by the Earth continues and is (naturally) being stored in various places. That means we see a temperature slowdown for the moment for some measures (only). That also means we next get an even sharper jolt when the natural Earthly oscillation naturally goes onto the uptick...


Measuring the excess heat, our human pollution global warming continues unabated. As directly measured.

For just one example, you can see that in how the oceans have been expanding much more quickly during the Denialist's claims that somehow "nothing is happening"...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

ps: The innuendo that somehow "science got it wrong again" is all a part of how the popularist press (and worse) hype up or even make up any sensationalism possible...
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1629405 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629412 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 17:33:17 UTC - in response to Message 1629345.  
Last modified: 18 Jan 2015, 17:36:24 UTC

All of no surprise at all, as expected and pretty much exactly as predicted by our mainstream science consistently since nearly 200 years ago:


2014 officially the hottest year on record

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues

Claiming 2014 is the “hottest year” on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

YES - There has been a Hiatus, of 18 years, in Global Warming...

And indeed so, we've had a steady string of hottest years for our recent years - ALL OF THEM.

Arguing over the last fraction of a degree and what the "official" calculation gives is a bit of a press game. The important aspect is that we are already outside of the sort of climate seen for the previous thousands of years that has allowed Mankind to flourish to then pollute ourselves to an early demise.


The quibbles over in the press is the usual sensationalism silliness.

And then there is outright Fossil Fuels sponsored propaganda with impossible absolutisms and deliberate befuddlement and out-of-context quibbles such as what your link shows...

Note the other connections and examples:


Sourcewatch: Climate Depot

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009...

... ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. ... received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes...



Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano

ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano has been called "the Matt Drudge of climate denial," the "king of the skeptics," and "a central cell of the climate-denial machine," and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a "con job"...

... These days Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com...

... Due to his history of smears and lies, Morano's media influence is usually confined to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. But in December, CNN invited him to "debate" Bill Nye on climate science, and in doing so elevated his marginal views to the mainstream press for the first time all year...



Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano's History of Bullying Scientists

If you've even heard of Marc Morano, you probably watched him angrily attacking a climate scientist, journalist or Al Gore on Fox News or on his blog Climate Depot, a project of the Donors Trust and oil industry-funded CFACT. Morano is so agitated in his climate denial that he once advocated that climate scientists be “publicly flogged.”...

... Morano has also worked for extreme right wing operatives Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich and Brent Bozell. Morano once quipped to a group of Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists that, “Inhofe is as far left as I'll go for an employer.”...




And here is where Morano loses the plot and descends into a filibuster shouting attack against Bill Nye:

Global Warming Skeptic Marc Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Climate Change

UPDATE: Links added to transcript to give readers background regarding scientific points made by Morano.

Global warming skeptic and founder of the website Climate Depot Marc Morano debated climate change with Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight Tuesday.

Video of the entire spirited discussion follows with full CNN transcript...



(Note the silly mistakes in the transcript! :-( )



So who would you believe?

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: 1629412 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629417 - Posted: 18 Jan 2015, 17:44:59 UTC - in response to Message 1629413.  
Last modified: 18 Jan 2015, 18:08:30 UTC

Question: Why, or what caused, the Global Warming Hiatus ... over the past 18 years?

The oceans are a powerful influence in the movement of HEAT around the planet which has a great influence on temperature....


ps: The innuendo that somehow "science got it wrong again" is all a part of how the popularist press (and worse) hype up or even make up any sensationalism possible...

ML1...

Until your last sentence: You made sense.

Your last sentence, incorrectly ascribing my thinking, does show why your insulting type, is....

By 'eck, you're a sensitive one!


So, your original question verbatim is:

Why, or what caused, the Global Warming Hiatus, despite Scientific Predictions, over the past 18 years?


That format is known as a "leading question". You tell us the expected answer in your question (in this case that something is supposedly wrong).

I merely split my answer into two parts: The first ignoring the included innuendo in that format of question; and the second noting where such innuendo is often proffered.

There is no comment about your thoughts in there.


Keep searchin!

All on our only one planet,
Martin

(Edited to try to remove ambiguity from the English used.)
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1629417 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629745 - Posted: 19 Jan 2015, 11:35:33 UTC - in response to Message 1629686.  
Last modified: 19 Jan 2015, 11:35:44 UTC

Still refused, or are afraid, to answer a simple question.

I rest my case about your Real Thinking.

You are now being silly or worse for the sake of making useless noise.

Please go back the few posts to find my answer.


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: 1629745 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629806 - Posted: 19 Jan 2015, 14:03:43 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jan 2015, 14:04:02 UTC

Meanwhile, to me this looks like at least one part of the Fossil Fuels industry has been pushing pollution and 'Marketing' lies for the sake of their own increased profits. Meanwhile, Canada, northern USA, and the rest of the world be damned:


Keystone, climate change and the US economy: the truth behind the myths

Six-plus years of robust debate has led to plenty of speculation about the perceived benefits of the pipeline – some of which are drastically overstated

... Keystone XL, which would transport tar sands crude oil from Canada to refineries on the US gulf coast. Over the past six-plus years, Keystone has become a stand-in for a broader debate about climate change. It’s also the subject of much myth-making about climate change and the economy...

... But even the State Department’s own analysis found found the pipeline, once operational, would cause the equivalent emissions of 300,000 cars a year... have found tar sands up to 20% more carbon intensive than the average barrel of crude...

... The State Department in its analysis found Keystone would create ... temporary construction jobs, and about 50 permanent jobs...

... Most of the 830,000 barrels of oil a day transported by Keystone will be exported...

... Keystone will have no effect on local prices at the pump because there is no direct link between gas prices and local oil production or availability...



Is that "equivalent emissions of 300,000 cars a year" just for pumping/running the pipeline itself?!...

All a game of how to ever more wastefully burn our planet?...


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: 1629806 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1629827 - Posted: 19 Jan 2015, 15:00:13 UTC - in response to Message 1629806.  
Last modified: 19 Jan 2015, 15:03:27 UTC

. Keystone will have no effect on local prices at the pump because there is no direct link between gas prices and local oil production or availability...


REALLY ??

Where did this guy study economics ?

If there is more supply than demand then the price will drop. I think that I will name this remarkable discovery "DADDIO's Law of supply and demand", what do you all think.
ID: 1629827 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629831 - Posted: 19 Jan 2015, 15:05:42 UTC - in response to Message 1629827.  
Last modified: 19 Jan 2015, 15:05:57 UTC

. Keystone will have no effect on local prices at the pump because there is no direct link between gas prices and local oil production or availability...

REALLY ??

Where did this guy study economics ?

Where did you learn to not read?

Read again:

. Keystone will have no effect on local prices at the pump because there is no direct link between gas prices and local oil production or availability...



I'm sure you don't get your gasoline from the local refinery down the road. And even if you do, the price they give is whatever is dictated by the world market exchange.

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: 1629831 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20611
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1629910 - Posted: 19 Jan 2015, 18:22:50 UTC - in response to Message 1629837.  
Last modified: 19 Jan 2015, 18:23:15 UTC

[... Clyde's misquote for FUD ignored ...]

Earths Oscillation may/does have a significant impact.

See: (Mother Nature Network) Everything you need to know about Earth's orbit and climate change

... orbital phases occur over tens of thousands of years, so the only climate trends that orbital patterns might help explain are long-term ones.

Even so, looking at Earth's orbital cycles can still offer some invaluable perspective on what is happening in the short term. Most notably, you might be surprised to learn that Earth's current warming trend is happening in spite of a relatively cool orbital phase. It's therefore possible to better appreciate the high degree that anthropogenic warming must be taking place in contrast...



Note especially that the great changes we are seeing are over the span of just decades. Other than the yearly seasons, other orbital effects take place gradually over the span of thousands of years.

What we see now is far far too fast to be explained away by thousands-years long orbital effects. Indeed, we should be cooling very slightly due to the present phase of our celestial mechanics. And yet instead we are heating up very quickly. We are polluting with CO2 ever more quickly also...



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: 1629910 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30802
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1630158 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015, 6:13:25 UTC - in response to Message 1629806.  

Is that "equivalent emissions of 300,000 cars a year" just for pumping/running the pipeline itself?!...

To answer your your question, NO. After you dig into the footnotes, the figure is calculated by assuming if the pipeline isn't built the oil won't be extracted (clearly false) and they include the extraction energy, refining energy, burning of extracted oil in addition to the amount needed to pump the oil in the total, but as they assume that the oil won't be extracted and shipped by some other method (it will), they don't have to offset for the other method using even more energy to transport than the pipeline and can include all the other energy use as additional. A classic case of lying with statistics and obviously directed politically from a very high position in the White House. Unfortunately, nearly identical slight of hand pervades almost all green project reports.

Honest persons at least footnote those the reports as bias, but agenda journalists put on their blinders.
ID: 1630158 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1630259 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015, 11:55:31 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jan 2015, 11:56:54 UTC

Over 56 percent of Republicans in the 114th Congress deny or question the science behind human-caused climate change, according to an analysis by CAP Action.
While 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is occurring and is driven by human activity, several new members of the 114th Congress assert the opposite.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/08/3608427/climate-denier-caucus-114th-congress/
Dont politicians believe in science?
ID: 1630259 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30802
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1630300 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015, 14:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 1630259.  

While 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is occurring and is driven by human activity

IIRC wasn't that 97% number debunked?
ID: 1630300 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1630302 - Posted: 20 Jan 2015, 15:06:17 UTC - in response to Message 1630300.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2015, 15:07:18 UTC

While 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is occurring and is driven by human activity

IIRC wasn't that 97% number debunked?

Was it? Anyway they are so many that ignoring them that the planet is heating up are ridicoulus. I dont think scientist has ruled out natural causes but there are so many more evidences that the climate are now human-driven.
ID: 1630302 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 . . . 55 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: DENIAL (#4)


 
©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.