|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Jan 28, 2012 12:45:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 30, 2012 13:47:17 GMT -5
You posted a link to an article you support or that supports your ideas. From what I recall you are one of the reasonable conservative leaning posters. Since this is your topic, are you willing to discuss this? I would like to know why you are convinced that climate change is all about taxing and controlling behaviors. Just a heads up, this article is not that solid and almost everything in it can be refuted. Just as an example let’s look at the 16 signers. 13 of those are not climate scientists, but are engineers, and specialists in other fields. Answer this, would you hire a climatologist to build a bridge? Then why would you accept an engineer’s opinion about climate? When you boil the list down only 3 of these have ever published to a peer reviewed article concerning the climate. Only 2 of those 3 have published in the last 30 years. Not to mention that a good portion of them are, or have been, funded by the fossil fuel industry. While they may have a list of signers anyone here may as well have signed it considering the credentials of most of the authors related to the subject. This link I’m giving does a good job at rebutting most of the article, but if you feel it does not address the important ones or the majority let me know which ones they missed, and I will be glad to discuss any part of either article. Here is a portion of the article about the authors. But i suggest reading the entire rebuttal. skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html The signatories of this newest letter are also worth noting for their lack of noteworthiness. Although the climate denialist blogs have labeled them "luminaries" and "prominent scientists", the list is actually quite underwhelming. In fact, it only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades. Nearly half of the list (at least 7 of 16) have received fossil fuel industry funding, and the list also includes an economist, a physician, a chemist, an aerospace engineer, and an astronaut/politician. These are apparently the best and brightest the climate denialists can come up with these days? • Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris • J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; • Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; • Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; • Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; • William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; • Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; • William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; • Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; • James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; • Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; • Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; • Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; • Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; • Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; • Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. red - no climate science publications, member of at least one climate denialist group - GWPF (advisory board), George C. Marshall Institute (board of directors or roundtable speakers), Australian Climate Science Coalition (advisory panel), Heartland Institute (board of directors), and/or ExxonMobil blue - published climate science research orange - both a member of a climate denialist group and has published climate science research black - no climate science publications or climate denialist group membership Shaviv has published some research on galactic cosmic rays, and Kininmonth and Tennekes published a couple of climate-related papers in the 1970s (although most of Tennekes' research as been in aeronautics). Lindzen is the only climate scientist of note on the entire list, and is mainly noteworthy for his history of being wrong on climate issues. The lack of expertise and numerous conflicts of interest aside, let's evaluate their arguments on their own merits (or more accurately, lack thereof). |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Jan 30, 2012 18:42:32 GMT -5
lol...just a little history before you guys go at it on GLOBAL WARMING..from a not so reasonable conservitive leaning poster...lol
Climatism.... the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, is a remarkably flexible ideology.... Calling it "global warming" ...for many years, advocates then renamed the crisis "climate change" after the unexpected cooling of global surface temperatures from 2002-2009. Just over a year ago, John Holdren(aka: Obama's Adviser, aka: lacky, aka, dumb-ass), Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy... urged everyone to start using the term "global climate disruption." What's next -- "catastrophic climate calamity"? ...what fucking idiots!
The thread/post does says global warmimg?
...so why do people(bo862) immediately change the name you may ask?
...well I'm glad you asked, because climate change oops global warming has happened before on this planet...and human beings were not even around.
...I have to go now, I think I left the light on upstair...oh wait, its ok! ...its an overly expensive light bulb that the gorvernment is making companies sell to me at high prices....Thank you GE(Government Electric) ...you bring the money making hoax to light! ...catchy jingle...
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jan 30, 2012 21:16:16 GMT -5
Ah yes it cooled over a short period of time. How about this, it is cooler today than yesterday therefore it must be getting cooler, right? Because temperatures fluctuate over any period of time due to a wide range of reasons (tsi of the sun, El Nino, la Nino etc) you need to look at a statistically significant period of time. Scientists use 13 years minimum. “Skeptics” do not consider how long the time frame is, they just pick an arbitrary beginning and ending date that supports their purposes. Strange during this period of cooling you mention 2005 is tied (with 2010) as the hottest global average temperature on record. Also, the period from 2000-2010 is the hottest decade on record. Here is a graph of global average temperatures and shows time periods “skeptics” use compared to the long term trend. www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 |
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Jan 30, 2012 22:39:22 GMT -5
Bo862 I could go to websites and post everything from articles, peoples opinions to numerous incidents like climategate that would help me support my reason for my beliefs,but I and you know that no matter what you believe you can find info that supports whatever you want to believe.I just have a problem with the way the people and institutions are framing the discussion.By which I mean they want no discussion.They say the science is settled,That we must make drastic changes in our way of living.Many of the so called solutions like the Kyoto treaty essentially is just a enormous transfer of wealth.Another is the so called carbon credits,you are most likely familiar with this scheme so I will not go into explaining it here,but this is another transfer of wealth that actually does not cut emissions but taxes it.I'm sure you are also aware that in the early seventies many of the same scientist and Institutions that are pushing Global warming were warning us that there is global cooling,and we were heading into a new ice age.I'm just a little skeptical of people like Al Gore,who stands to benefit financially if these alarmist policies are instituted.The EPA wants to classify carbon dioxide, at the urging of President Obama, as a dangerous pollutant.Once again I'm sure That I do not need to point out to you, but that means if you truly believe what is being shoveled then you should stop breathing.I will close on something that many people will be familiar with,the warning of Eisenhower about the military industrial complex.What many people are not aware of he did not just warn about M.I.C he also warned us about science and the same kind of things that are similar to what going on in the scientific community of Global Warming alarmism today.
|
|
|
|
Post by rolltide on Jan 31, 2012 15:53:54 GMT -5
Het BO ,so if you look at the data and conclude the earth is not currently warming that makes you a denialist? So that disqualifies their opinon if it difers from yours.Should it not disqualify someone who believes in global warming if they belong to a group that is making a profit off it!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jan 31, 2012 18:15:22 GMT -5
The one thing every scientist agrees on is there has never been this many human beings on this planet before.
Myself I believe 7 billion+ and growing, has got to make some sort of difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 1, 2012 15:09:38 GMT -5
..banging my head against the wall, bo862...you bring a chart that shows 40 years of temperature change....I bring you a chart that shows 400,000 thousand years...this is the chart that the so called "skeptics" look at.... www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html....again this planet and yes believe it or not other planets go through the same shit(temperature changes).... .....Mars has increased in temperature over the same 40 years ...and virtually the same amount....you and ktpelec are not going to blame Martians are you? ...look I really don't care if Mars is going through global warming or not, who gives a shit lol.... All I'm saying is... If planet earth has gone through these temperature changes before....then it's not man made, right? |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 1, 2012 21:08:23 GMT -5
Finding opinions that agree with your view is different than information based on research and peer review – empirical data. Scientific issues that have empirical data to support it trumps opinion. If you believe that all science is junk then all we have left are opinions. In the scientific field the discussion has gone through the process of - is it happening, why, what are the consequences. They have thoroughly answered these questions and scientists have suggested that the consequences are severe enough that societal changes are needed to avert disaster. The discussion has been going on for over 30 years in scientific journals. If anyone has any type of research refuting the global warming science, where is it? Some are calling the science settled because the research has stood the test of peer review and has now migrated into the public realm. Where, unfortunately, the second most influential sector has a direct financial reason to turn this into a public/anti-policy persuasion campaign. The current framing of the discussion is due mostly to special interests that use mass media to influence people’s views. In this case, using any possible argument (opinion) to keep people from finding the real story (facts) on climate change. “I will close on something that many people will be familiar with,the warning of Eisenhower about the military industrial complex.What many people are not aware of he did not just warn about M.I.C he also warned us about science and the same kind of things that are similar to what going on in the scientific community of Global Warming alarmism today.” I agree with Eisenhower on this statement. Where we disagree on this part is that the energy sector is the controlling influence that has us by the throat. We are required to buy energy from fossil fuels. If not, then we will have to live in a cave, and pray that we can find enough food within walking distance to feed our families. Alternative energy gives us a little freedom. So while the denialists are warning us about the global warming monster over there, the energy monster has taken over our homes and means of transportation. You are correct about scientists producing papers that supported the idea of going into an Ice Age. Were they correct? No. While they understood the effect of CO2 in raising temperature, they understood and overestimated the effect of aerosols on reducing the amount of sunlight that would reach the surface. The difference between deniers and scientists is when presented with empirical evidence that does not support their theory; real scientists/skeptics are able to reconsider their position, or at least the errors in their experiments, instead of holding on to the claim come hell or high-water. In other words, they were ideal scientists - able to put forth a theory and yet able to suck it up when they are wrong and move on. This is an abstract to one of the 7 papers on a coming ice age during the 70’s. www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138 . “Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. “ The difference between the two scientists that wrote this paper and the authors of the opinion essay is that when presented with evidence that refutes their claims real scientists/skeptics will reconsider their position on an issue. Someone who is presented with overwhelming evidence and denies a portion of evidence because it does not fit within their belief system is a denier. Bulldog, if you want me to go through the entire article you posted, as an example of how it is opinion and myth based, I can find research that disproves almost every claim they make. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 1, 2012 21:40:59 GMT -5
...nice try
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 1, 2012 22:04:25 GMT -5
Jobs1st
“All I'm saying is... If planet earth has gone through these temperature changes before....then it's not man made, right?”
No. Each climate change has been because of different reasons. Some of the factors in changing/stabilizing the climate are; solar irradiance, tilt of the earth’s axis, distance from the sun and of course the dreaded CO2 levels. The reasons scientists are confident that this one is because of us, this time, is that the only factor to have changed amongst all of the potential causes - during the timeframe that we are witnessing temperature increases - is CO2. There are other lines of evidence that points toward human causes, but your question is comparing what is causing current temperature changes to previous ones. So no, you have to determine each change based on the facts that you can find for each one.
Look at it this way. Let’s assume that forest fires have been happening since vegetation has been on the planet - far longer than humans have been here (hopefully we can all agree on this). You would need to apply the same reason to that as well. Now let’s look at your statement.
If there were forest fires before humans… then humans could NOT cause forest fires, right?
About your statement of mars getting warmer makes an unstated assumption the sun is the cause of our current warming. The sun has been cooling I believe for at least the last 40ish years. I don’t have time to find the detail. Also you may want to look over the link you provided – it supports global warming theory. I will explain later.
Rolltide part of your answer is in the response to bulldog, but I will answer fully when I have more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Feb 2, 2012 3:41:02 GMT -5
bo862 I am not saying that earths atmosphere is not warming, I am not convinced that it is caused by human activity.I also firmly believe that alternative forms of energy should be pursued.The problem is that the people that is pushing hardest for massive changes are not scientist,but government bureaucrats,foreign leaders,and people who stand to make a lot of money.Many of the solutions that are being pushed will not make a huge difference,but will be another step in giving up freedoms of choice about how we choose to live and just letting the government make decisions about how we live.In California they are pushing to have thermostats linked via the Internet to the power company and letting the state government decide how high someone can set the temperature in their home.To many people this may seem like a good Idea,to me it is insanity.I believe that alternative forms of energy will emerge when it is truly needed.Necessity is the mother of invention.All of the predictions that are being made are based on computer models that could be 100% inaccurate.I recently read that The main hurricane researchers based at the University of Colorado came out and and admitted that they were wasting their time trying to predict hurricanes every year, that for the forty years they had been doing it they still can not accurately predict any given hurricane season.The main way they would try to predict what would happen was by using computer models.It seems a little on the crazy side to make decisions about the future of mankind on computers models that no one can even be reasonably sure if they are the least bit accurate.The truth is no one can accurately say what is going on ,why the earth is or not getting warmer.Like the researchers in Colorado they really don't know.On this we are supposed change everything to what a government or institution believes is best.I don't believe that the scientist wants to control us,l I believe that there are people who yearn to control people and their behavior and see this as a means to do just that.You addressed many of the concerns I raised,there was one that I did not see you address.That one is about carbon dioxide.I would like to hear your opinion about why the EPA wants to declare it has a dangerous pollutant.You pointed out that these scientist was wrong in the seventies and was able to admit that they were wrong,but then you say that makes them the perfect scientist.It seems by pointing this out you are making one of my points.They do not truly know, they only have formed an opinion based on what computer models tell them.They can not prove that the warming is man made.They can not say for sure that this warming trend will continue,or if it does how long it will last ,or what the actual result will be.I just can not accept that we must do as the politicians tells us based on what are truly best guesses by scientist.I also find that your quote by Albert Einstien to be a little Ironic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 2, 2012 9:00:22 GMT -5
...great post Bull....
The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2012 7:49:24 GMT -5
Models After 30 years of increasing their knowledge of the climate and working with computer models they have developed fairly accurate projections. The way they can verify the accuracy is to look at conditions in the past and run the model from that date until now to see if it fairly represents the present climate conditions. This does not guarantee 100% accuracy, but they are not trying to predict temperatures for a given day or region.. The IPCC uses several different models in getting a decent projection of the potential temperature increase over a given period of time. The ipcc uses the lowest and highest as the potential ranges from the models with the most likely scenario in the middle. One important thing you need to realize, weather is different from global temperature averages. Many small changes can effect weather, and cause systems to react in ways that are hard for computers (or humans) to predict with accuracy. Global temperatures are based on larger time frames, and are not subject to short term variations in weather patterns. They are long term averages based on fairly consistent and well understood principles of science (thermodynamics, chemistry, climatology etc). Because they look at large timescales and consistent information they are better suited to determining global average temperatures with a projected range of variability over a large timeframe. They do not need to determine the exact temperature in 1 area or even the exact global average for a day. What they determine is long term trends. Compared to the short term volatility of weather the climate is much easier to model. Based on the tests of past time periods models have been shown to be fairly accurate. They are more accurate than you realize. Here is a link to an explanation of models by a modeler. skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html Certainty If you are looking for 100% certainty why the earth is getting warmer you will not find it. Scientists are confident enough to state global warming is happening, will continue without changes from us, and that humans are a factor at a certainty of 95%. An example that it is being caused by an insulating effect is that nights are warming faster than days, and the poles are warming faster than equatorial regions. If, for example, it was the sun then the equator and days would be warming faster, but this is not the case. This does not point directly to humans, but supports the statement that CO2 is the biggest factor in the current warming trend. (What has caused the co2 change in the last 200 years?) Does it matter if it is us or not? With the planet warming as fast as it is we are in for some drastic changes whether we like it or not. Scientists About scientists being wrong in the 70’s. The purpose of science is not to pick a theory and stick with it no matter what. They must make their theories, and allow the evidence they find, while researching it, to determine the conclusion. The important difference between denialists and skeptics is the ability to decide when the weight of evidence is against their theory, and be able to accept new evidence when it refutes it. Scientists create theories on a relevant issue. They make predictions based on the information they have at the time, and then do research to support their claim. When new information is discovered it MUST be taken into consideration. If a group of people are sitting around a table, and you give them an unclear problem to solve you will probably have different viewpoints on the situation. Not everyone can be correct if they have different theories. That is what happened in the 70’s. A few different theories and only one could be correct. Both sides of the discussion researched their theories, and CO2 proved to be the dominate forcing. BTW between 1965 and 1979 there were 7 articles with theories supporting a possible ice age, there were 42 with the view that CO2 would be a larger effect on the climate. I agree we should not just accept what politicians say, but in this case it is scientists informing politics, not politics informing science. Climate science began around 1859 with theory that CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect. I understand the public does not see the scientific literature, but that does not mean it does not exist. So much research has been done in this field that climate science is well understood, and their statements are being made with greater than 95% certainty. That is not a guess. It is a well informed decision. There are some politicians that have tried to influence politics concerning this, but those politicians are getting their information from scientists. This is probably an area that we do not agree on very well. The climate change “push” has had little success through the political system with plenty fighting against it. Also, the money to be made is by the current established industries. As we have seen in the previous decade’s renewable energy has had trouble competing against the government subsidized fossil fuel industry. “ I also find that your quote by Albert Einstien to be a little Ironic” I’m really having trouble seeing how you view scientific research as the enemy of truth when they rely on empirical evidence. I see my stance with climate scientists in contradiction to the government that has prevented any reasonable climate legislation from being passed based on an ideological viewpoint of certain groups and industries. Because the government says there is no need to worry about climate change does not mean we need to blindly trust them. My signature shows that, like Einstein, I believe truth outweighs ideology. Freedoms The EPA did not make the decision to enforce CO2 as a pollutant. They are following the order of a judge that determined that by the definition of pollutant they were required to regulate CO2. If a judge can define corporations as people, it does not seem like much of a stretch for them to define CO2 however they want. Looks like judges are cutting both ways. yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument “ In California they are pushing to have thermostats linked via the Internet to the power company and letting the state government decide how high someone can set the temperature in their home.To many people this may seem like a good Idea,to me it is insanity.” Allowing the government to control our thermostat sounds so absurd it sounds like an overblown attempt to turn people against actions to reduce CO2. I’m not calling you out on this one, but I would have to see the legislation or at least a credible source stating this is their intent. If you have a link to where you found it postt, I would like to see it. But please, do not link to a think tank or other political oriented group. I will likely not consider it as credible. I agree that this level of control is insanity. IF it is true, I cannot see agreeing with this. My comfort in my own home is my business. We give up some form of freedom on a regular basis. Every time you stop at a red light you are giving up some freedom, the freedom to come and go as you please. What about being required to stay in the solid yellow line? But what does giving up that few moments do for us? We allow the government to restrict some of our activity in order to prevent injuries and death so that 7 billion of us can live here and cause as few injury and deaths as possible. The difference between red lights and climate change is we can see how many accidents there were before lights were installed and compare that to the number afterwards. If the climate crashes we do not have a second one to make corrections. The freedoms that are needed to be given up are from industries. Instead of burning coal, use a mix of wind, solar and geothermal. Answer this; does it affect your level of freedom if the electricity supplying your house comes from renewable instead of coal? – As long as it does not cause an interruption of service. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2012 8:05:30 GMT -5
Jobs1st As the IPCC has stated they give a range of confidence. They have never stated the “science is settled.” “during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.” Co2 reductions coincided with an ice age. That is explained here. "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate." The full article is here www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm “Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!” Just to note a few inconsistencies on this site, look at the left side of the graphs. The temperature graph is pushed to the right to give the visual effect that CO2 always lags behind temperature. Not an earth shattering discovery, but dishonest. Their claim that CO2 lags temperature is refuted in the same graphs that they supply. We see a huge spike in CO2 around 2000 without a preceding one in temperature. All this article does is try to make the public think there is still a lot of doubt about the effect of CO2 on the climate with incorrect evidence. This is a completely misleading site. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2012 8:08:51 GMT -5
Rolltide
No, because you disagree with someone does not make you a denier. Seeing overwhelming evidence and refusing them under any circumstances does. Any climate scientist that does not agree with the current statement by the IPCC of 95% certainty needs to provide some type of research supporting their claim. They have had 30+ years to come up with it, but have not been able to produce any solid evidence to refute the basics of the current understandings on climate science.
The claim that a group out there is setting themselves up for major profits with renewable energy is kind of missing evidence. Almost all of them went bankrupt in the 70’s. We’re still seeing them go bankrupt today.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2012 8:20:23 GMT -5
About changing the name from global warming to climate change is false. They both have separate meanings and both are used in scientific papers all the way back to 1956. "The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term." For the full article and links to the ones in the above statement… www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 5, 2012 8:20:59 GMT -5
Did I miss anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 5, 2012 10:22:07 GMT -5
be honest bo862, do you really beleive all that BS you just copied/pasted/linked?
....maybe, your problem and for that matter all the global warming websites that use IPCC(The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to get information from..those fuckers have no credibilty.....oh, do I hate the UN!
Their most recent set of reports declares that:
“the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.” ...IPCC
...doesn't that sound like the science is settled? ...does that sound like a range of confidence?
....sounds like a range of BullShit to me!
"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making." - Al Gore,
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Feb 5, 2012 13:10:09 GMT -5
Hey bo862, the point of talking about co2 was, when the government decides that the result of my breathing is dangerous to the environment it just makes me a little nervous.I realize this is an over simplification of issue,but with this group that is in control of current administration we should all be nervous. Regarding my citing California thermostat control here is the proof from NYT, a source I am sure you will trust.You state that you think this would be insanity,Welcome to the Insane Asylum. www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html Here is another link about the kind of people Obama trust to make public policy decisions www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ I realize you may trust Federal government, but with some of the people that Obama associates himself with I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon of climate change or many of the other policies people like Cass Sunstein would like to see. Here is another of Obamas associates that should make us skeptical of listening to those that knows whats best for us. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZCoXyQ-vks Do I believe that President Obama and the Administration follows the beliefs of John Holdren,not necessarily,but the fact that he would appoint people like this and even consider him for appointment should give anybody pause when we are talking about what to do about climate change or anything that involves massive policy changes being implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 5, 2012 18:32:22 GMT -5
There used to be solid sheet of ice in Kentucky until it melted years and years ago before we humans.Must have been all the animal farts that melted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldsbdcjim on Feb 5, 2012 20:21:42 GMT -5
Man can't make it rain nor make it snow. He can't stop a tornado nor can he create a hurricane. He can't create an overcast sky. But somehow I can control the climate, globally. What is the average mean temperature anyway? Ice ages have come and gone. Droughts have come and gone. Weather is constantly changing. Back in the 1970's, Time magazine front cover said Global Cooling. Then it was Global Warning, this was a hoax, uncovered by emails. Now its global climate change.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Feb 7, 2012 12:20:12 GMT -5
In the history of the earth the climate has change many times. Reversal of poles, splitting of continents, the rise of mountains and creation of flat lands that evolved over hundreds or millions of years in the making. For anyone be it an autoworker, scientist or politician to REALLY believe that modern man and the total populous can impact the earths climate as we know it is pure arrogance and stupidity. Mother nature rules supreme and insects & bugs will be here long after all of us are gone.
Global warming was marketed and several people gained money and power from its followers and believers. Controlling pollution and having clean water is a serious discussion but the global warming / climate change is pure BS.
The same people that want you to believe in their expertise in climate cant predict with any consistency the short term weather let alone project a outcome years in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on Feb 7, 2012 14:50:56 GMT -5
The earth is Bi-Polar.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 7, 2012 18:08:04 GMT -5
cal50 Instead of looking at the significance of man look at the components involved. Carbon is the component under consideration. Scientists have known that CO2 causes an insulating type effect. Here is Mythbusters look at Co2 and temperature in case you are in doubt on this point. A short 3 minute video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I “This is an experiment first done (or a version of it) in the early 1800's by Fourier. This is very basic physics.” Rob Painting Now, humans are emitting around 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Atmospheric CO2 is rising by about 15 Gigatonnes per year. Here is a graph of CO2 levels for the last 400k years. www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=10 Unless you can show how scientists misunderstand the connection between CO2 and temperature, or how their measurements are wrong it comes down to determining what effect an additional 15 Gt of CO2 will have on global temperatures. If you say the effect is nothing you need to explain why. This study is from 2007 and the airborne fraction of CO2 has increased since these were published. This is the abstract – short version. www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.short This is the full report. I recommend reading at least the entire first page. www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yesYour belief in something is your business. But claiming that a group of people are wrong, just because of your belief, is not reasonable - show some type of evidence. One thing no single poster on here has been able to do is provide some type of evidence that the majority of scientists have got it wrong. For that matter no one here has been able to provide any evidence that this so called great money making scheme has been “marketed and several people gained money and power.” Has anyone followed the money or just repeating what supports their beliefs? “believe that modern man and the total populous can impact the earths climate as we know it is pure arrogance and stupidity.” In answer to your remark of stupidity about those that do not believe as you do – believing you can put a chemical into water or the atmosphere and believe the chemistry is not going to change is willful ignorance or blindness. The differences between weather and climate are huge. Predicting weather is an attempt to determine exactly what is going to happen with precipitation, wind, and temperature. Making projections of the climate for a region or a total global averages over a long period of time is done relatively easy compared to weather, since that is done through an understanding of physics and statistics. Predicting weather is like predicting a boxing match to the level of determining what order the punches will be thrown from each boxer, where they will land, exactly how long the match will last and who will win. The methods of predicting climate change would look at a boxing match in terms of each boxer’s record, physical strength, experience and speed to project a percentage of likelihood of who will be left standing. Which method would you use to place your bets? |
|
|
|
Post by rolltide on Feb 7, 2012 19:12:20 GMT -5
Bo really i mean it was bad enough when you were quoting from the Huffington post but my god now the Myth Busters(which I like the show) are now climate experts. Liberal's are Funny when there're out of power scary as hell when there're in power!
|
|
|
|
Post by lapwasktp on Feb 7, 2012 20:48:21 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something, But a guy who works for a Auto company is worried about Global Warming.. WTH... Ford Motor co. produces tons of pollutants in the making of a complete car... Really.. Have you ever visted the paint department at KTP or LAP.. We incenerate acetate and other harmeful chemicals on the property constantly to paint our vehicles... I believe that goes into the air... I think you might want to quit Ford and start working for the EPA so your conscious will feel better... Just saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Feb 7, 2012 21:23:51 GMT -5
Bo I see that you have taken the time to do some more research to support your beliefs, and try to convert us global warming deniers.
I have to give you credit, you firmly believe in what your preaching.
You have no intention of paying any attention to any thing that may challenge your beliefs.
The reason I say that when some one actually proves you wrong,you move right along to copying, pasting, and linking. Pushing the agenda above all else.
I will remind you of what you said about my saying that I read about government control of thermostats.
" Allowing the government to control our thermostat sounds so absurd it sounds like an overblown attempt to turn people against actions to reduce CO2. I’m not calling you out on this one, but I would have to see the legislation or at least a credible source stating this is their intent. If you have a link to where you found it postt, I would like to see it. But please, do not link to a think tank or other political oriented group. I will likely not consider it as credible. I agree that this level of control is insanity. IF it is true, I cannot see agreeing with this. My comfort in my own home is my business."
These are your words.I provided you with a link from the New York Times proving exactly what I said I had read.
You chose to totally Ignore this posting and went on provide more links to other members to help get their minds right and change their earth destroying ways.
You like to challenge sources,which is fine but then contend that your sources are pure and without an agenda.
You are starting to look like a mind-numbed robot espousing your programed propaganda.
If you took the time to read my response to you calling me out about thermostats,you will understand my next contention, that you may be working with Cass Sunstien and his Idea of infiltrating the web to help people understand that we should trust our government and not be so troublesome.
Good luck bo,you know what they say "if you can change one persons mind,then you have done some good.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 7, 2012 21:50:01 GMT -5
rolltide I should have known better than to link something that was not a mind numbing scientific report. Since you suddenly have such a high standard of using citations here is a list of peer reviewed papers concerning CO2. If the links in the text do not work go to this website for active links. Knock yourself out. agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/ Just a heads up, this is a copy paste for roltides entertainment. I recomend skipping to the next postPosted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009 This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative. UPDATE (February 6, 2010): Miller & Watts (1984) added. UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated. UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added. UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added. UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added. UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added. UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below). Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008) “A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…” Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text] Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al. (2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.” Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].” [Full text] Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004) “Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.” Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.” On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.” Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.” The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.” Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.” Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.” Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.” Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.” High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2 were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.” Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4•3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al. (1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.” Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.” Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.” Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.” Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.” The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.” Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page] Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900) Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) “Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page] On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881) Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”. The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall] |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 8, 2012 0:19:37 GMT -5
Bulldog
I hate that you took offense at not responding to your post first. I felt a reasonable response to yours would need a little more time and effort. In fact, I had planned on creating a second post because the video you linked is worthy of its own discussion.
That aside, your link to the thermostat article was from 2008. I could not get any info on whether this had passed or not. The subject did not turn up on a google search - other than this article. I am assuming that it did not pass, or we would have heard about it. If I’m wrong let me know. Making stupid proposals is going to happen, but preventing them from going into effect is what is important. It looks like reason may have infiltrated the California government and trumped on this issue. We are in agreement on this type of issues. Even when someone in the govt is trying to pass a bill that is pretending to try to help with an issue that I believe in does not mean I’m wiling to give up every freedom they may ask for.
The statement, “Idea of infiltrating the web to help people understand” is being used by about every special interest group in existence; not just the government. That topic deserves its own thread, if you want to take that and the video up on another thread we can.
“You like to challenge sources,which is fine but then contend that your sources are pure and without an agenda.”
Not sure where I made that claim. I do claim that when I link to a site that they will at least provide some form of respectable source for their statement. In the case of this issue scientific research is the core of my argument. And you are correct with all of the infiltration in public media by special interests peddling their ideologies it is important to challenge articles for author bias and content. I do not expect any less when I provide my links. If I’m looking at biased info, and missing it due to a preconceived opinion then, I need someone to point it out. I will do the same to you and anyone else posting on a subject that I feel is worth my time; I challenge you to find the unreasonable bias in my links.
“You are starting to look like a mind-numbed robot espousing your programed propaganda.”
That can be a double edged sword. And by some of the earlier posts (not yours btw) it sounds like several people own the conservative book of Climate Myths and Tactics to Delay Legislation and Confuse the Masses.
Regardless of your belief on climate change, I’m glad you see value in renewable energy. I wish everyone would get tired of renting their energy so that consumer demand would make them affordable for our income level; without using subsidies or any other form of government persuasion.
|
|
