| Author |
 Topic  |
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
 Posted - 12/17/2009 : 15:03:49
|
| Our lizard masters will decide. |
 |
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 15:12:16
|
Bastards! |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 15:31:48
|
Did you know they run the UN and the World Bank? Obama will reveal himself as one them during his second term.
They also foraged Obama's birth certificate, pumped low C02 levels into the ice cores, and backed the public option health care (they'll get it passed). And you know the Japanese Emperor Obama bowed to? The Lizard King.
|
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 15:59:50
|
Back off Akihito! |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 16:13:09
|
| hehhahehhe |
|
|
|
treetime
- FB Fan -
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 17:17:56
|
| I am not sure if Venus has been mentioned in this debate on this forum yet, but Venus is an example, to the extreme, of what can happen to a planet if carbon dioxide dominates it's atmosphere, serving as a warning to us earthlings. The first two pages of this article illustrate this point: http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global_warming_venus_and_sunspots |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 20:11:25
|
Oh no, not the venus argument again.
quote:
The atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide, 96.5% by volume.
Oooooh I hope we never reach levels of co2 like Venus.....
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 20:44:48
|
| But people have been trying to answer your questions; you're just ignoring them! |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2009 : 23:11:07
|
Bollocks. No-one has even attempted to answer them, people just post links.
Questions like this. No-one seems to ask this, what I think is a rather obvious question to ask when they are claiming that the miniscule rise in CO2 levels in our atmosphere is going to cause global warming on a catastrophic never before seen in the history of mankind scale.
I would assume that some scientists somewhere in a laboratory have measured the ability of our atmosphere to retain heat versus CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It's a pretty standard scientific procedure. You measure something over a single variable while all others remain constant... and it tells you something about the thing you are trying to understand!
Can't be that difficult to do, and I would hazard a guess that someone somewhere has done this at some point. So where are the results?
All you need is some air, a radiation source and a sensor to detect how much has been absorbed by the air for each concentration of CO2. Do it several times for different pressures perhaps and voila!
I find it interesting that no-one on any forum anywhere has been able to answer this straightforward query, nor have I seen anything in the literature which purports to make these doomsday claims about the future of our climate.
I would like to speculate that it is perhaps because the difference in heat retention of air between levels of CO2 previously measured in ice cores, or 50 years ago and now is so small that it would not support their theories, so it doesn't get mentioned. It gets swept under the carpet like all the other evidence that suggests the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere ARE NOT THREATENING.
Then there is the fact that the upper atmosphere is not heating up as it should, if indeed CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the current trend in global heating (assuming of course that the current cooling trend of the last ten years does not carry on)
I saw nothing of that in the newscientists myth busting page that was posted.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/17/2009 23:51:11 |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 00:03:51
|
Nice to see that old Michael Mann is up to his old sexy tricks again.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 01:29:01
|
Still no-one willing to volunteer an answer...
Interestingly, here is a clip of someone trying to get some answers at the Copenhagen summit, and yet again no-one seems willing to discuss the matter. For them, anthropogenic climate change is a done deal, no need to ask any further questions because the science is advanced enough to be able to predict without any uncertainty that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, even though for the past decade the world has been cooling down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKTWi7G18U
This clip is hilarious at the end. Note the actions of the people inside the summit at the end. They attack the guy with fruit or something, on live television. His comments in return to it are pretty amusing. |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 03:13:21
|
| the LHC people must be thrilled, all the climate talk worldwide leaving them free to butcher protons |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 09:07:20
|
Good link Champ. I'm only a third of the way through, but it seems to be a very honest and comprenhesive review of the climate, in the context of the the full history of the earths climate, not just the bit's that fit in so perfectly with the AGW agenda.
I think I have been quite foolish to believe in all this shit. I've not bought all of it, but some of the fundamental tenets of the church of impending climate change disaster, and now that I am looking into the science I see little that support what the IPCC are claiming.
I think we should be concerned about climate change. It's a very foolish race that concerns itself with money and taxes, and polarised junk science, when what we really need to do is bang or heads together and work out how we can make life bearable and perhaps even enjoyable for as many people as possiblem whilst preparing ourselves for any future climatic change.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 09:23:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
'The relationship between CO2 and the climate is hardly measurable'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2QaGqzYBA
Do also agree with Sen. Inhofe's beliefs about abortion and evolution? |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 09:38:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Do also agree with Sen. Inhofe's beliefs about abortion and evolution?
Is that a question to me? If so I don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 10:33:51
|
pot, I'm not sure it's exactly what you're looking for, but look up Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potential and even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
It's actually pretty difficult to find some of the original scientific papers and frustrating that you have to pay to look at them. Whilst the experiment you describe seems simple it's pretty difficult to make it meaningful and directly applicable to the earth's climate due to the various feedbacks and variables at play.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 11:05:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
pot, I'm not sure it's exactly what you're looking for, but look up Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potential and even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
It's actually pretty difficult to find some of the original scientific papers and frustrating that you have to pay to look at them. Whilst the experiment you describe seems simple it's pretty difficult to make it meaningful and directly applicable to the earth's climate due to the various feedbacks and variables at play.
this petition[/url]
I'm sure it is, but you'd think that it would at least get a mention. In any case, I don't think you can take the computer models as a very reliable source either, for the same reasons you say. It's a very complex issue, and there is no way anyone can say anything about the way the climate is going to turn in the next hundred years with any certainty.
This lecture that Champ posted mentioned a graph of the sorts I was asking about, however instead of showing an exponential relationship with it's ability to retain heat as I was expecting, it shows an inverse exponential relationship. According to this graph a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere leads to a rise in temperature of 1 degree, although I am not sure what the temperature of what it was exactly, the average world temperature or what... Anyway, after that it plateaus off, which kind of negates the 'well, look at venus' argument and suggests that Venus is in fact much hotter than the earth not so much because it's atmosphere is dominated by CO2, but because it's a lot closer to the sun and therefore receives more radiation, according to the inverse square law. |
Edited by - pot on 12/20/2009 11:07:58 |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 11:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
A good presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=player_embedded
if he wanted to check human caused global warming hypothesis as he said, he should've been interested in drawing the trend line over the period from the beginning of the industrial revolution, not all those irrelevant ones over thousands of years or 700 years or one decade. he's very emotional for a scientist, i'm not sure the two mix well.
someone once said: if you torture the data long enough, it will confess. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 12:20:13
|
| When you are trying to determine when the behaviour of a system is normal or abnormal, the best way to do this is to compare it's current behaviour with previous behaviour, don't you think? |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 12:34:14
|
| They are hardly irrelevant. His point was that the warming seen now is not unusual as it has been seen before in the past. He is just trying to get people to look at climate over a higher resolution than what is often presented. |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 12:48:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
When you are trying to determine when the behaviour of a system is normal or abnormal
no, that's not what he was trying to determine. (not that anyone could with just terms normal and abnormal). play again, he says he's checking the hypothesis of human co2 emission influence on global warming, not "i'm trying to determine whether the behaviour etc...". you set a hypothesis. you test *that* hypothesis. you don't stray or go generalizing instead (you might, just not instead). |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 12:53:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
They are hardly irrelevant. His point was that the warming seen now is not unusual as it has been seen before in the past. He is just trying to get people to look at climate over a higher resolution than what is often presented.
none of which serves to deny that humans contribute to climate change, so irrelevant (given that he was talking about linking humans and climate change, not climate change per se. stop me if i get repetitive.) |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 13:02:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
quote:
Originally posted by pot
When you are trying to determine when the behaviour of a system is normal or abnormal
no, that's not what he was trying to determine. (not that anyone could with just terms normal and abnormal). play again, he says he's checking the hypothesis of human co2 emission influence on global warming, not "i'm trying to determine whether the behaviour etc...". you set a hypothesis. you test *that* hypothesis. you don't stray or go generalizing instead (you might, just not instead).
Well let's just say that climate change induced by carbon emissions would be the abnormal bit, and climate changing of it's own accord is normal, ok? |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 13:06:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
They are hardly irrelevant. His point was that the warming seen now is not unusual as it has been seen before in the past. He is just trying to get people to look at climate over a higher resolution than what is often presented.
none of which serves to deny that humans contribute to climate change, so irrelevant (given that he was talking about linking humans and climate change, not climate change per se. stop me if i get repetitive.)
He should have mentioned in there that the upper atmosphere isn't warming as would be expected by rising CO2 levels, whereas the lower atmosphere temp readings are. This is an unexplained anomaly in the theory of AGW. Further, as he explained in the lecture the readings that IPCC are using to show this trend is based on flawed measurements that donot take into account added heat radiation from urbanisation. |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 13:15:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Well let's just say that climate change induced by carbon emissions would be the abnormal bit, and climate changing of it's own accord is normal, ok?
that would be ok if you had data for one and for the other, until you bump into people who say that the data you have for the last two centuries is the climate-changing-of-its-own-accord data. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 13:18:18
|
| Well, the onus is on the AWG hype to provide the evidence that shows it is man made. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 14:27:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Do also agree with Sen. Inhofe's beliefs about abortion and evolution?
Is that a question to me? If so I don't understand it.
If you're going to use Sen. Inhofe (the man in the video) as support for your position, then you should know what a jackass he is. Thus, do you agree with him that abortions should be illegal and evolution shouldn't be taught in schools? |
Edited by - darwin on 12/20/2009 14:30:27 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 18:03:52
|
What do you think Darwin?
Nick Griffin was the only UK politician I saw to utter a word of sense at the summit, so if I were to post a link about that would you also ask me if I was a holocaust denier?
Stop obfuscating the debate. You're acting like one the scientists from the IPCC. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 18:38:26
|
| You posted a video to support your position. The person talking in the video unfortunately is the Senator from my state. He is an anti-science individual who spews dangerous nonsense about science, abortion, and health care. You obviously thought that his words somehow supported your position (otherwise why would you post the video). I'm doubting you are anti-science. I'm thinking you had no idea that you were seeking support from such an unqualified individual (Senator Inhofe). Unfortunately, I think that most of the places you are finding "support" are also unqualified and ultimately funded by Exxon and other oil companies. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 22:04:08
|
| Oh sure, because the oil companies need a spokesperson like this guy to debunk the AGW myth, otherwise people might suddenly stop buying their product. |
|
|
|
tisasawath
= Cult of Ray =
Wallis and Futuna Islands
783 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2009 : 23:45:12
|
| trying hard to not get involved in predetermined discussions will be my new year's resolution. that or not starting smoking. |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 00:13:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
quote:
Originally posted by pot
When you are trying to determine when the behaviour of a system is normal or abnormal
no, that's not what he was trying to determine. (not that anyone could with just terms normal and abnormal). play again, he says he's checking the hypothesis of human co2 emission influence on global warming, not "i'm trying to determine whether the behaviour etc...". you set a hypothesis. you test *that* hypothesis. you don't stray or go generalizing instead (you might, just not instead).
No that is not what he was "testing"
He said "Human Co2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change."
He did not say "Co2 emissions from humans are not causing climate change." Sorry for the double negative.
They are very different. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 01:06:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by tisasawath
trying hard to not get involved in predetermined discussions will be my new year's resolution. that or not starting smoking.
In what way? |
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 01:08:48 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
