Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

[RandomGuy]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.

Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme."

"Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.

In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50 percent, Reilly said.

"We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us."

http://news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-ever-seen-global-warming-gases-183955211.html

------------------------------------------------------------

(edit) At his rate, the amount of emissions will double in 12 years, and in the next 20 years we will have emitted more CO2 than have in hour entire history to date.

Whatever effect you think this has on our climate will therefore double.

[DarrinS]

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and humans account for 4% of that. I'm underwhelmed.

wYLmLW4k4aI

[RandomGuy]

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and humans account for 4% of that. I'm underwhelmed.

wYLmLW4k4aI

Well shit, a youtube video, then it's settled.
Why didn't the PhD's studying the atmosphere just realize this decades ago?

Mmm. I like to listen to at least one spurious demonstration posted by a politcal hack before breakfast.

Please provide data or analysis showing that humans are responsible for 4% of the current CO2 concentration.

If such low concentrations are always harmless, then please drink a water solution composed of 99.99961% water and .039% plutonium.

[DarrinS]

Please provide data or analysis showing that humans are responsible for 4% of the current CO2 concentration.


Google is your friend.



If such low concentrations are always harmless, then please drink a water solution composed of 99.99961% water and .039% plutonium.


Spare me with that bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and humans account for 4% of that. I'm underwhelmed.

Wow, DarrinS of twenty minutes ago, that is some interesting logic. Let's see if it is valid and not spurious.


CO2 (X) is .039% (small percentage) of the atmosphere (Y), therefore the CO2 (X) in the atmosphere (Y) is harmless.

X is a small percentage of Y, therefore the amount of X in Y is harmless.

Plutonium (X) is .039% (small percentage) of this glass of water (Y), therefore the amount of plutonium (X) in the glass of water (Y) is harmless.



Spare me with that bullshit.

Gee, DarrinS of ten minutes ago, I agree.

DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is trying to bullshit us. I'm sure you agree with me that DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is an idiot if he really believes that, or a liar if he doesn't.

Darrin of ten minutes ago, what do you think? Idiot or liar?

[DarrinS]

And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

[RandomGuy]

And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

:sleep

Another graph that amounts to data interpretation from a guy with an obvious bias. You are just as free to drink the coolaid.

Another decade of data and observation of our test tube will get us a better picture, no doubt.

I hope your assertion that all this is harmless is correct. Placing our civilization on that spot in the roulette wheel is a bit more reckless than I care for, though.

I would prefer we take some moderate steps in limiting our emissions and mitigating the risk, because that is the conservative approach. Liberally taking risks based on unclear science doesn't seem like a wise choice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Google is your friend.




Spare me with that bullshit.

His bullshit? You made the claim; go prove your own assertion, fuckface.

[Drachen]

Wow, DarrinS of twenty minutes ago, that is some interesting logic. Let's see if it is valid and not spurious.


CO2 (X) is .039% (small percentage) of the atmosphere (Y), therefore the CO2 (X) in the atmosphere (Y) is harmless.

X is a small percentage of Y, therefore the amount of X in Y is harmless.

Plutonium (X) is .039% (small percentage) of this glass of water (Y), therefore the amount of plutonium (X) in the glass of water (Y) is harmless.



Gee, DarrinS of ten minutes ago, I agree.

DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is trying to bullshit us. I'm sure you agree with me that DarrinS of twenty minutes ago is an idiot if he really believes that, or a liar if he doesn't.

Darrin of ten minutes ago, what do you think? Idiot or liar?

LOL!!! I don't know why, but this just got me. Freakin hilarious.


You could even take it further and say that Plutonium (X) in water (Y) dilutes even further in body (Z). Completely harmless according to DarrinS-sub1, but RG, DarrinS-sub2, and I disagree with him.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.

Here is NASA's

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Here is the explanation of their methodology.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

[DarrinS]

Please explain the source of the second graph and how it was plotted as the values do not correspnd to the same data points.


The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F

[MannyIsGod]

Global warming reversed last night. It got much colder overnight.

[ChumpDumper]

Global warming reversed last night. It got much colder overnight.:lol I've been waiting for that one, especially after this summer's noticeable dearth of weather anecdotes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The source of both graphs is Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They do not correspond to the same data points because the aren't. The second graph is the last ten years. And you call other people dumb?F

You gave unlinked charts, dickhead. The only stupidity was that.

Now that i know the source I feel that more explanation is in order. Which study is that chart from? The reason is clear as for example http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf this study only analyzes urban surfaces and not the aggregate. Note how the GIS chart clearly labels land/ocean.

You gave us some random chart, dickhead. What do the temperature points actually reflect?

[MannyIsGod]

The charts told me a lot. Told me the maker had an agenda.

[TeyshaBlue]

(edit) At his rate, the amount of emissions will double in 12 years, and in the next 20 years we will have emitted more CO2 than have in hour entire history to date.

Whatever effect you think this has on our climate will therefore double.

I was unaware of a 1:1 relationship between co2 and the "effects" on our climate. Does it really stand to reason that 2x output = 2x results?

Serious question tbh.

[Winehole23]

His bullshit? You made the claim; go prove your own assertion....Don't hold your breath. Throwing stuff on the wall, ducking/deflecting all questions and running away is all very typical.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And holy fuck Darrin, do you even know what relative to average means? It looks like on your chart there are 8-10 data points for each year for 80 to 100 total. Of those only two are less than zero that means that over 95% of the data points represent hotter than average. If its always hotter than average, what does it means temperatures are doing?

You are a disgusting piece of sophist shit.

[Winehole23]

Inability to read and understand his own source material is also typically DarrinS. Thus the high ratio of self-ownage.

[Drachen]

And holy fuck Darrin, do you even know what relative to average means? It looks like on your chart there are 8-10 data points for each year for 80 to 100 total. Of those only two are less than zero that means that over 95% of the data points represent hotter than average. If its always hotter than average, what does it means temperatures are doing?

You are a disgusting piece of sophist shit.

Just noticed that.. LOL!

[ChumpDumper]

Inability to read and understand his own source material is also typically DarrinS. Thus the high ratio of self-ownage.A blog told him it was gold!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Inability to read and understand his own source material is also typically DarrinS. Thus the high ratio of self-ownage.

Its just a complete lack of accountability or responsibility. I realize that this is the internet so who gives a fuck but whether or not we can do anything about their behavior I think it speaks very strongly of character.

Darrin and WC are unscrupulous fuckheads.

[ChumpDumper]

Its just a complete lack of accountability or responsibility. I realize that this is the internet so who gives a fuck but whether or not we can do anything about their behavior I think it speaks very strongly of character.

Darrin and WC are unscrupulous fuckheads.Pointing and laughing works pretty well with them. They get upset when exposed as being not as intelligent as each thinks he is.

[DarrinS]

Inability to read and understand his own source material is also typically DarrinS. Thus the high ratio of self-ownage.

Really? What TREND do you see in the last ten years of data?

[Winehole23]

lol extrapolating geographical trends from ten years worth of data

[Winehole23]

Supposing your graph represents what you think it does, it's like saying a one day cold snap represents a reversal of trend.

[Drachen]

Really? What TREND do you see in the last ten years of data?

Look at your graph, it shows an increase in average temperature every year for the whole period shown.

[Drachen]

lol extrapolating geographical trends from ten years worth of data

He is also understanding the graph wrong. He posted proof to the contrary of his argument.

[Winehole23]

Darrin still doesn't seem to get that, so I made it simpler. Even if his interpretation were correct, his position would still be absurd.

[DarrinS]

Supposing your graph represents what you think it does, it's like saying a one day cold snap represents a reversal of trend.

Really? A decade is only as significant as a single cold spell? I disagree.

[Winehole23]

ok.

[DarrinS]

Look at your graph, it shows an increase in average temperature every year for the whole period shown.

That's not even true for the first graph. Temps were declining for 30 years from the mid 1940s to 1970s.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not even true for the first graph. Temps were declining for 30 years from the mid 1940s to 1970s.:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was unaware of a 1:1 relationship between co2 and the "effects" on our climate. Does it really stand to reason that 2x output = 2x results?

Serious question tbh.

Each electron has a probability to absorb a photon. The structure of an atom effects that probability. If you have more then it makes sense that they would additive, the problem is they cannot quantify what the effects really are. We don't know for certain what the 'effect' is.

[DarrinS]

:lol

:lol :lol :lol

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s...

[ChumpDumper]

:lol :lol :lol

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling:lol

[DarrinS]

Each electron has a probability to absorb a photon. The structure of an atom effects that probability. If you have more then it makes sense that they would additive, the problem is they cannot quantify what the effects really are. We don't know for certain what the 'effect' is.

Really? I thought it was all settled.

[Drachen]

And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

I was talking about the second graph. You know, the one that purports that warming has stopped. The first graph shows a pretty solid upward trend that even you should be able to see.

[DarrinS]

I was talking about the second graph. You know, the one that purports that warming has stopped. The first graph shows a pretty solid upward trend that even you should be able to see.

Yes, the second graph shows no upward trend. I agree that the first one does.

[DarrinS]

He is also understanding the graph wrong. He posted proof to the contrary of his argument.

Apparently, you don't understand what the graph means.

[Drachen]

:lol :lol :lol

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

what was the percentage of human produced carbon in the atmosphere at the time Darrin. I will wait.

[Drachen]

Yes, the second graph shows no upward trend. I agree that the first one does.

Um, all of the data points on the second graph are above the average which indicates a rising temperature, If that is a rolling average it indicates an exponentially rising temperature.

[DarrinS]

what was the percentage of human produced carbon in the atmosphere at the time Darrin. I will wait.

Google Keeling curve. Happy reading.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's not even true for the first graph. Temps were declining for 30 years from the mid 1940s to 1970s.

No some months were hotter and some months were colder during that time period. You are pretty dumb. Its like a graph of velocity compared to a plot of displacement. If I speed up and slow down over an interval, i could end up anywhere along the displacement curve. You need more specific analysis.

What you can trend specifically is if ALL of the velocity plots are positive then you can say with certainty that the position vector will be positive.

You took physics right? Its very basic shit. No wonder you needed to learn JAVA.

[DarrinS]

Um, all of the data points on the second graph are above the average which indicates a rising temperature, If that is a rolling average it indicates an exponentially rising temperature.

:lmao

Will you believe you're wrong if RG and Manny correct you?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

[DarrinS]

No some months were hotter and some months were colder during that time period. You are pretty dumb. Its like a graph of velocity compared to a plot of displacement. If I speed up and slow down over an interval, i could end up anywhere along the displacement curve. You need more specific analysis.

What you can trend specifically is if ALL of the velocity plots are positive then you can say with certainty that the position vector will be positive.

You took physics right? Its very basic shit. No wonder you needed to learn JAVA.


:lmao

[DarrinS]

Let's see if he understands this time.

Not you too? All temps are relative to 1950-1980 average (which is pretty arbitrary). It just establishes a baseline. Yes, 2001-2011 are hotter than this baseline, but the are not increasing.

[Drachen]

:lmao

Will you believe you're wrong if RG and Manny correct you?

Neither of them need to correct me. I turned my head sideways and read the vertical words on the left. I will say that while temperatures are clearly above average, this graph shows that over the last ten years, they have indeed leveled off. (i.e., this is not a rolling average.)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

So we now know very well that you do not understand what relative to average means. I broke it down so everyone else could understand what I am saying. They all clearly understand what relative to average means.

You look like a fucking retard now. You have an engineering degree and you cannot figure out simple shit.

Give us more charts and youtubes. Continue to make a mockery of yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not you too? All temps are relative to 1950-1980 average (which is pretty arbitrary). It just establishes a baseline. Yes, 2001-2011 are hotter than this baseline, but the are not increasing.

You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.

[DarrinS]

So we now know very well that you do not understand what relative to average means. I broke it down so everyone else could understand what I am saying. They all clearly understand what relative to average means.

You look like a fucking retard now. You have an engineering degree and you cannot figure out simple shit.

Give us more charts and youtubes. Continue to make a mockery of yourself.



Loud noises

[ChumpDumper]

Loud noises:lol

[DarrinS]

You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.

Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Loud noises

Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So we can safely assume since Darrin bailed that he does not know the context of the graph. Mindlessly reposting blogs and emails is fun i guess.

[ChumpDumper]

So we can safely assume since Darrin bailed that he does not know the context of the graph. Mindlessly reposting blogs and emails is fun i guess.Nah, he was just done posting from work.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nah, he was just done posting from work.

Thats why I posted it at 5.

[boutons_deux]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/06/sunday-review/06COMICS/06COMICS-custom1.jpg

[DarrinS]

So we can safely assume since Darrin bailed that he does not know the context of the graph. Mindlessly reposting blogs and emails is fun i guess.

What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just to point out further how disingenuous you are. Here are three studies submitted for review done at Berkley over the past month. They all look at particular subsets and if you look inside of any of them they all have arbitrarily labeled graphs too.

http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

What is the context of that graph? You don't know do you?


What do you mean by the "context" of the graph?

Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.

HERE (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf) is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.

If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.

We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.

Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?

[scott]

Some of you really suck at reading graphs.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167493

[Wild Cobra]

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html)

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html)

So you get the same mailer. Now that we have clearly established that the source of the graph was not in fact from BEST that serves to underscore the need to determine what BEST study, news release, data set etc that the graph was actually taken from.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the second graph was not actually from BEST. Darrin is either stupid or a liar. The mailer clearly indicates that the information from the second graph was 'compiled' by The Global Warming Policy Foundation and not BEST.

http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases.html

That is a link to the The Global Warming Policy Foundation's press release page. Here are a few gems to show the extent of their 'objectivity.'

Global Warming Policy Foundation Calls On Government To Suspend Unilateral Climate Targets

Top Economist Warns Green Jobs 'Creation' Will Undermine Recovery

Former Cabinet Secretary Questions Blind Faith In Climate Alarmism

New Report: Shale Gas Shock Challenges Climate and Energy Policies

Did UK Government Keep Cold Winter Warning Secret In Run-Up To UN Climate Conference?


Now this is why I am such an asshole to Darrin. Darrin lied to us and told us his chart was from BEST. It wasn't but instead from an obvious fossil fuel industry interest group. He either knew or should have known and then acts glib. At least WC attempts to be honest.

Darrin you are scum.

[DarrinS]

Dumb noises. its not hard to figure out.

HERE (http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations.pdf) is an example study from BEST. It is looking at the SUBSET of variations within LAND surface tempurates. If you look in the link you will see similarly arbitrary labeled axes with the idea that if you know the study you have the appropriate CONTEXT of wht you are looking at.

If for example the data from the graphs was pulled from this study then it would obviously indicate that only about 25% of the Earth's surface is being discussed.

We have no context. We just have you giving vague directions as to where the data came from because you got your information from a mailer and lack critical thinking skills.

Where is the data from the graph from? Do I need to put it plainer so your dumb ass can figure it out?


Reading is hard. Bottom of graph clearly states "Graph drawn using BEST's own data...". As for the other point you thought you made about "context", do you know what the "S" in BEST stands for?

SURFACE, you stupid mother fucker.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.


Reading is hard. Bottom of graph clearly states "Graph drawn using BEST's own data...". As for the other point you thought you made about "context", do you know what the "S" in BEST stands for?

SURFACE, you stupid mother fucker.

Aww, your mad. Look dumbfuck.


Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature

The real source was an energy industry interest group named the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

Do you even know what BEST does? They take the aggregate data from other agencies. Its not like they are compiling raw data. They weight factors differently etc. From BEST's website:


Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data. The study has reviewed data from over 39,000 temperature measurement stations across the globe. This is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies to date.

So what numbers did the think tank pull? What study? What was the context you sophist piece of shit?

On a final note, the S = surface assertion was exceedingly stupid. What other category other than land is the surface of the Earth covered in? I cited their study on LAND data. Think about it , it might come to you though i doubt it.

[DarrinS]

Aww, your mad. Look dumbfuck.



The real source was an energy industry interest group named the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html



Do you even know what BEST does? They take the aggregate data from other agencies. Its not like they are compiling raw data. They weight factors differently etc. From BEST's website:



So what numbers did the think tank pull? What study? What was the context you sophist piece of shit?

On a final note, the S = surface assertion was exceedingly stupid. What other category other than land is the surface of the Earth covered in? I cited their study on LAND data. Think about it , it might come to you though i doubt it.

You are a fucking moron and not worthy of any further replies. Good bye.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are a fucking moron and not worthy of any further replies. Good bye.

Thats unfortunate because I was going to ask you why you did not link the mailer. BEST did not make that chart. We know that now despite your attempts to hide the actual source. Go ahead and fuck off you sophist piece of shit.

[Drachen]

Thats unfortunate because I was going to ask you why you did not link the mailer. BEST did not make that chart. We know that now despite your attempts to hide the actual source. Go ahead and fuck off you sophist piece of shit.

Thesaurus time, or is that your new favorite word? LOL

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thesaurus time, or is that your new favorite word? LOL

From my understanding, a sophist is a derivative of Sophocles who was a contemporary of Plato's and a head of a group of teachers/lawyers from Athens at that time.

In fairness they were competitors of Socrates and Plato and a grain of salt does need to be taken when they are analyzed historically.

Plato basically said that they argued with no concern for the truth.

From dictionary.com

soph·ist·ry
[sof-uh-stree]
noun, plural -ries.
1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.a false argument; sophism.

[Drachen]

Oh, I know what it means and its etymology, its just that I'll bet that it has been used on this board over the last week (by you) more than it has been used the rest of the time spurstalk has been in existence. Not attacking you, that was the source of my "thesaurus time" comment.

eh, just an observation.

[DarrinS]

Thesaurus time, or is that your new favorite word? LOL

He's so dumb, he'll probably post the definition (after he looks it up).

Edit>. See what I mean?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, I know what it means and its etymology, its just that I'll bet that it has been used on this board over the last week (by you) more than it has been used the rest of the time spurstalk has been in existence. Not attacking you, that was the source of my "thesaurus time" comment.

eh, just an observation.

It has a very important meaning to me. I love to argue --obviously-- but I argue with the idea that it will lead to the revealing of the truth for the betterment of all.

To me there is nothing worse for finding the truth than those that intentionally mislead. I term them sophists perhaps for lack of a better word. Sorry if I overuse it but to me it gets directly to the core of my contempt.

Darrin clearly can not be trusted.

[Ignignokt]

None of these graphs matter. Manny, Random, And Darrin are all using confirmation bias to prove their side.

In the end, even the IPCC has stated that human beings only accomplish 4 percent of total green house gases.

So as part of the Ole ST bag of tricks.

4 Percent FAGGOTS!!!!

[Drachen]

It has a very important meaning to me. I love to argue --obviously-- but I argue with the idea that it will lead to the revealing of the truth for the betterment of all.

To me there is nothing worse for finding the truth than those that intentionally mislead. I term them sophists perhaps for lack of a better word. Sorry if I overuse it but to me it gets directly to the core of my contempt.

Darrin clearly can not be trusted.

That is cool. I guess it's just not one of those words you hear every day and so when someone uses it with some regularity it seems out of the ordinary. Anyway back to the thread.... I think i am going to respond to Igniotgnt's (sp?) post by stealing from a post that RG posted. Watch.

[Drachen]

None of these graphs matter. Manny, Random, And Darrin are all using confirmation bias to prove their side.

In the end, even the IPCC has stated that human beings only accomplish 4 percent of total green house gases.

So as part of the Ole ST bag of tricks.

4 Percent FAGGOTS!!!!

So then if I gave you a glass of water which contained ONLY 3.9% plutonium, then you would have no problem drinking it since it seems your argument is that this amount could have no way of being harmful.

[DarrinS]

So then if I gave you a glass of water which contained ONLY 3.9% plutonium, then you would have no problem drinking it since it seems your argument is that this amount could have no way of being harmful.

You really going with that comparison again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You really going with that comparison again?

It only takes one exeption to disprove which the comparison does very clearly.

I do not think the 4% number is worth very much without context but even without that 4 out of 100 can have a very profound effect on a system. Think back to controls.

[DarrinS]

First video I posted in this thread puts things in perspective.

[DarrinS]

You guys can continue to be afraid of plant food. I remain unimpressed.

[ChumpDumper]

Light bulb.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First video I posted in this thread puts things in perspective.

If you're stupid and easily misled by those with no interest in the truth then I suppose that would be the case. You know your sources are so shitty that you lie about them.

That should be enough to tell any reasonable person what your thoughts on the matter are worth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You ever going to link the study that you pulled the graph from? This may come as s surprise to you but no one other than WC takes you at your word here. So you can circle jerk with him or justify a single thing you say.


Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.


Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

Thanks Darrin for showing us all the extent --or lack thereof-- of your character.

[DarrinS]

I have downloaded BEST's data and source code and I can replicate that graph.

[Ignignokt]

So then if I gave you a glass of water which contained ONLY 3.9% plutonium, then you would have no problem drinking it since it seems your argument is that this amount could have no way of being harmful.

That would be different.

It's more like, you think you're the enligthened one because you think drinking the Koolaid with 4 percent less cyanide is prudent.

[DarrinS]

Light bulb.

Penis pump

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have downloaded BEST's data and source code and I can replicate that graph.

Excuse me if i don't hold my breath.

[ChumpDumper]

Penis pumpWhat does that mean?

[Drachen]

That would be different.

It's more like, you think you're the enligthened one because you think drinking the Koolaid with 4 percent less cyanide is prudent.

Well, that is, unless you have spent the last year building up an immunity to a glass of water with say 4% cyanide. Then tomorrow someone hands you a glass with 8% cyanide and says drink this for the jobs. It is obvious that since you have drank water with cyanide that you can drink it with more and cause NO ILL EFFECTS.

[Ignignokt]

Well, that is, unless you have spent the last year building up an immunity to a glass of water with say 4% cyanide. Then tomorrow someone hands you a glass with 8% cyanide and says drink this for the jobs. It is obvious that since you have drank water with cyanide that you can drink it with more and cause NO ILL EFFECTS.

wow!!! lol!!!

lets say i'm a level 60 wizard and i have special sheilds that deem me immortal!! :rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[DarrinS]

Are people still equating CO2 to plutonium and cyanide?


Your movement needs a better sales pitch. People have pretty good bullshit detectors. Well, some people do.

[Ignignokt]

Are people still equating CO2 to plutonium and cyanide?


Your movement needs a better sales pitch. People have pretty good bullshit detectors. Well, some people do.

Don't kill my mojo, go fuck your opponents with more graphs.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are people still equating CO2 to plutonium and cyanide?


Your movement needs a better sales pitch. People have pretty good bullshit detectors. Well, some people do.


Berkeley


Earth


Surface


Temperature


If you weren't so busy having tantrums, you'd notice the answers to several of your questions were easily gleaned from info on the graphs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html


But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

You should shut the fuck up about other peoples bullshit when you are a big fucking liar. Go compile the BEST data like the think tank you lied to us about did and hope it matches up.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

You should shut the fuck up about other peoples bullshit when you are a big fucking liar. Go compile the BEST data like the think tank you lied to us about did and hope it matches up.

lol chart wars

[Ignignokt]

Youtube trump card >>>>> chart wars

Let it be known.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol chart wars

I have no competing chart. He told us he got it from BEST when in reality he got it from a mailer that got it from a think tank who will not reveal its contributors but has a clear agenda in its press releases.

[DarrinS]

Don't kill my mojo, go fuck your opponents with more graphs.

Lol. I actually was on that side until they went all apocalyptic on me. Shitty "hockey stick" graphs based on sparse, proxies didn't help matters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol. I actually was on that side until they went all apocalyptic on me. Shitty "hockey stick" graphs based on sparse, proxies didn't help matters.

Thats far better than lying about where a graph comes from to try and give it credence it doesn't deserve.

[Wild Cobra]

Look at BESTs graph Fuzzy:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/BEST001fig001ed.jpg

See where I circled it? The Berkley Earth trend is actually negative starting near the end of the 90's.

[greyforest]

^^^^^
This graph is much, much better.



And yet

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

These graphs do not correlate with each other. Good grounds to point out that someone is manipulating data.

[Wild Cobra]

^^^^^
This graph is much, much better.




These graphs do not correlate with each other. Good grounds to point out that someone is manipulating data.
They look like they could. I wonder what data points were used. The two do mesh together, but not perfectly. Now remember that the X axis are not the same scale.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll make this short and sweet. Anyone trying to use 11 years of data to prove AGW has stopped has a very bad grasp of AGW and climate science in general or is at the least making a very large fundamental mistake. Proceed as you will.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll make this short and sweet. Anyone trying to use 11 years of data to prove AGW has stopped has a very bad grasp of AGW and climate science in general or is at the least making a very large fundamental mistake. Proceed as you will.
Correct.

We agree short term is meaningless. Interesting however how they decide what is and isn't important. Any time those us us, who use proper scientific skepticism... we are called deniers, as in a dirty word. No matter what time frame you guys use, it's OK. When we use any similar time frame, you somehow deem it meaningless. I also find it so comical that you AGW alarmists say how today's warming in unprecedented when we have proxy records that show the earth has been warmer... If I recall right... four times in the last 12,000 years.

Four times in the past, warmer than these greenhouse gasses are suppose to make it in these lase few decades.

[DarrinS]

I'll make this short and sweet. Anyone trying to use 11 years of data to prove AGW has stopped has a very bad grasp of AGW and climate science in general or is at the least making a very large fundamental mistake. Proceed as you will.

I don't think 10 years of data proves anything either. Serious question: how many consecutive years of "stable" or downward trending temps would be needed to "falsify" AGW theory?

[MannyIsGod]

A 30 year trend is considered the threshold. So, in order for AGW to be considered stopped, a 30 year trend that is either neutral or downward would be needed to be seen. However, considering the volume of GHG entering the atmosphere, you need to see a 30 year trend that is significantly warm in order to continue with the current theories as well.

This is of course, all things being equal. For example, if the next 2 decades see a dramatic increase in pollution and volcanic activity and the SO2 content of the stratosphere increases to a point that it cancels out AGW heating, then that doesn't mean AGW is wrong. (I don't deem this likely in the least but thats not the point)

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and the trend line for the last 11 years is not neutral or negative. It is positive. I think the underlying point that 11 years of data is insufficient to make a case for or against AGW is more important, however.

[Wild Cobra]

A 30 year trend is considered the threshold. So, in order for AGW to be considered stopped, a 30 year trend that is either neutral or downward would be needed to be seen. However, considering the volume of GHG entering the atmosphere, you need to see a 30 year trend that is significantly warm in order to continue with the current theories as well.

This is of course, all things being equal. For example, if the next 2 decades see a dramatic increase in pollution and volcanic activity and the SO2 content of the stratosphere increases to a point that it cancels out AGW heating, then that doesn't mean AGW is wrong. (I don't deem this likely in the least but thats not the point)
Like I said.

Always an excuse. Like when I pointed out in the past, about how in the 70's we started cleaning up pollution, allowing solar warming that started around 1900 and ended around 1950 to show it's full effect when the skies cleared.

We have a notable increase in solar energy during that approximate 50 years, yet you alarmists deny it.

[boutons_deux]

discussing global warming with darrin is as useful as discussing creationism with maus.

[Wild Cobra]

discussing global warming with darrin is as useful as discussing creationism with maus.
Or trying to discuss almost anything with you.

[DarrinS]

discussing global warming with darrin is as useful as discussing creationism with maus.

By "discussing", do you mean posting ridiculous comic strips?

[Agloco]

None of these graphs matter. Manny, Random, And Darrin are all using confirmation bias to prove their side.

In the end, even the IPCC has stated that human beings only accomplish 4 percent of total green house gases.

So as part of the Ole ST bag of tricks.

4 Percent FAGGOTS!!!!

Good thing that your assertion comes with absolutely zero context.

Statistics can prove anything. 4% of people know that.

[DarrinS]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577012014136900828.html





Why I Remain a Global-Warming Skeptic
Searching for scientific truth in the realm of climate..

By FRED SINGER

Last month the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project released the findings of its extensive study on global land temperatures over the past century. Physics professor Richard Muller, who led the study, heralded the findings with a number of controversial statements in the press, including an op-ed in this newspaper titled "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism." And yet Mr. Muller remains a true skeptic—a searcher for scientific truth. I congratulate Mr. Muller and his Berkeley Earth team for undertaking this difficult task in the realm of climate.

The Berkeley study reported a warming trend of about 1º Celsius since 1950, even greater than the warming reported by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I disagree with this result, which perhaps makes me a little more of a skeptic than Mr. Muller.

Mr. Muller has been brutally frank about the poor quality of the weather-station data, noting that 70% of U.S. stations involve uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius. One could interpret the Berkeley study's results as confirmation of earlier studies and of the IPCC's conclusions, despite the poor quality of the stations used. But perhaps the issue is that the Berkeley study and the ones that came before suffer from common errors. I suspect that the temperature records still are affected by the urban heat-island effect—a term given to any local warming, whatever its cause—despite efforts to correct for this. The urban heat-island effect could include heat produced not only in urban areas, but also due to changes in land use or poor station siting. Therefore, I suggest additional tests:

1. Disassemble the "global average" temperature to get a better picture of what's going on regionally. This could involve plotting both the IPCC's and the Berkeley study's data only for tropical regions, separating the northern and southern hemispheres and testing for seasonal variation and differences between day and night.

2. Better describe what we can think of as the demographics of weather stations, a major source of possible error. The IPCC used 6,000 stations in 1970 and only about 2,000 in 2000. Let's examine their latitude, altitude and possible urbanization, and see if there have been major changes in the stations sampled between 1970 and 2000. For example, it is very likely that airports were used as temperature stations in both 1970 and 2000, because airport stations are generally of high quality. But airports are likely warming rapidly because of increasing traffic and urbanization. So if the number of airport stations remained constant at, say, 1,200 over that 30-year interval, the warming observed there might have increased between 20% and 60% over the same period of time, thereby producing an artificial warming trend.

3. The Berkeley study used a total of 39,000 weather stations, an impressive number. But again, we need to know if that number changed significantly between 1970 and 2000, and how the demographics of the stations changed—both for stations that showed cooling and for those that showed warming.

But the main reason that I am skeptical about the IPCC, and now the Berkeley, findings, is that they disagree with most every other data source I can find. I confine this critique to the period between 1978 and 1997, thereby avoiding the Super El Niño of 1998 that had nothing to do with greenhouse gases or other human influences.

Contrary to both global-warming theory and climate models, data from weather satellites show no atmospheric temperature increase over this period, and neither do the entirely independent radiosondes carried in weather balloons. The Berkeley study confined its findings to land temperatures as recorded by weather stations. Yet oceans cover 71% of the earth's surface, and the marine atmosphere shows no warming trend. The absence of warming is in accord with the theory that climate is heavily impacted by solar variability, and agrees with the solar data presented in a 2007 paper by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Moreover, independent data using temperature proxies—various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, and so on—also support an absence of warming between 1978 and 1997. Coral data also show no pronounced warming trend of the sea surface, and there are good reasons to believe that reported sea-surface warming is an artifact of thermometer measurements.

The IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policy makers claims that "Most of the observed increase in global average [surface] temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90-99% sure] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." While Mr. Muller now seems to agree that there has been such global average warming since the mid-20th century, he nonetheless ended his op-ed by disclaiming that he knows the cause of any temperature increase. Moreover, the Berkeley team's research paper comments: "The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated." I commend Mr. Muller and his team for their honesty and skepticism.

Mr. Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, with specialties in atmospheric and space physics.

[Agloco]

Correct. We agree short term is meaningless.

Yet......




http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/BEST001fig001ed.jpg

See where I circled it? The Berkley Earth trend is actually negative starting near the end of the 90's.

:wtf

[Wild Cobra]

Yet......




:wtf
You don't understand why I pointed that out, do you?

Sorry, but I thought you were more observant. I'll try not to make that mistake again.


These graphs do not correlate with each other. Good grounds to point out that someone is manipulating data.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg

They look like they could. I wonder what data points were used. The two do mesh together, but not perfectly. Now remember that the X axis are not the same scale.

[MannyIsGod]

I really wish people that wrote op eds were more informed on the subjects they write op eds on. Harping about the urban heat island effect is a tell tale sign of someone who is not up to date on the research. And by up to date, I mean the past DECADE.

[MannyIsGod]

For one, I would like it explained to me how Satellite measurements would be affected by the urban heat island effect. Once that is done, perhaps someone can tell me if there is a different trend among rural weather stations which would go a long way in proving a bias in urban stations.

Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Darrin, you should never claim that there are not people who believe the earth is not warming and then post an op ed from one.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think 10 years of data proves anything either.

That didn't stop you from posting a graph that appeared to indicate it does.

[DarrinS]

For one, I would like it explained to me how Satellite measurements would be affected by the urban heat island effect.


They aren't, which is perhaps why Singer prefers them. They also give a more complete/uniform sampling of the entire globe. Unfortunately, they only go so far back in time.


EDIT> Also, why do you suppose the two principal scientists responsible for the satellite temp record are sceptics?

[DarrinS]

BTW, Darrin, you should never claim that there are not people who believe the earth is not warming and then post an op ed from one.


Actually, he disagreed with the rate of 1 deg. since 1950 and pointed out inconsistencies between datasets from 1970 to 1997. I don't think I read anywhere in the op ed that he thinks the Earth hasn't warmed at all.

[RandomGuy]

None of these graphs matter. Manny, Random, And Darrin are all using confirmation bias to prove their side.

In the end, even the IPCC has stated that human beings only accomplish 4 percent of total green house gases.

So as part of the Ole ST bag of tricks.

4 Percent FAGGOTS!!!!

This post points out the biggest failing of direct democracy.

Ignorant twats like you get the same vote as someone who bothers to take the time to learn about things. It is a sad thing that the ignorant twats vastly outnumber the conscientious informed.

Setting aside the fact that your post is a grammatical abomination, I can still get what you are trying to say.

Where your analogy fails is that you seem to equate both sides as having equal amounts of confirmation bias. They don't.

I am not saying I don't have confirmation bias. I do. Being aware of that, however, I can seek to mitigate it.

I do this primarily by admitting the weaknesses in my own argument, such as an amount of "groupthink" in climate science, and being honest about the stregths in Darrins arguments, such as we can't know for with high certainty how much we are really affecting our climate, and what those affects are.

When things that skeptics like to point out are posted, I genrally try to read and understand it.

The pseudoscientists of the denier movement almost never do either.

If one side actively tries to mislead, and the other appears to be trying to be as honest as possible, where do *you* assign credibility?

[MannyIsGod]

Moreover, independent data using temperature proxies—various non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, and so on—also support an absence of warming between 1978 and 1997.

As for why the two scientists who developed the satellite record are skeptics, I can't say. I'm not inside their heads. However, what I can say, is that Spencer's track record of research being proven wrong is fairly strong.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ I'm the one with a conformation bias here. I didn't even read that. So good.

[scott]

Does everyone here understand the difference between a change in acceleration versus a change in direction?

[scott]

In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???

Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.

[MannyIsGod]

They aren't, which is perhaps why Singer prefers them. They also give a more complete/uniform sampling of the entire globe. Unfortunately, they only go so far back in time.


EDIT> Also, why do you suppose the two principal scientists responsible for the satellite temp record are sceptics?

Then why ignore that the trend they show is the same trend shown in the other temperature records? Instead he goes to fucking tree rings? Makes no sense to me.

[RandomGuy]

In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???

Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.

I can almost hear WC's mental gears grinding...

[MannyIsGod]

In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???

Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.

Slowing down from 100 mph to 80 mph means you are accelerating in the negative direction, tbh. :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol :toast

[DarrinS]

In other words, if you slow down from 100 mph to 80 mph, that doesn't mean you are suddenly travelling backwards???

Seems like a dumb question, but an apparently important one to ask.


If you slowed down from some speed to almost zero, without taking your foot of the accelerator, I'd say there's something else going on with the car.

[MannyIsGod]

Then why ignore that the trend they show is the same trend shown in the other temperature records? Instead he goes to fucking tree rings? Makes no sense to me.

Darrin?

[MannyIsGod]

Also


An anomalous reduction in forest growth indices and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density
records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the
“divergence problem”, is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in
reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has potentially significant implications for large-scale patterns
of forest growth, the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests, and the global
carbon cycle. Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes
and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of
covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced
drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in
seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another
possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades,
to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the
dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, consistent with what has
been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include “end effects” and other methodological issues that can
emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling. Although limited
evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more
research is needed to confirm these observations.

http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf

Its a very difficult concept to get, but imagine that rising temps are affecting tree growth. Its a wonder scientist don't use proxies in place of actual instruments designed to measure.

[boutons_deux]

rising temps are certainly permitting beetle to increase their infestion and destruction of white pines.

"who give shit about trees?" --- right-wing denier

[DarrinS]

Also



http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf

Its a very difficult concept to get, but imagine that rising temps are affecting tree growth. Its a wonder scientist don't use proxies in place of actual instruments designed to measure.

I think this part was pretty important


The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth.

[RandomGuy]

"The worst-case scenarios may be unlikely, but they're not negligibly unlikely, and we have to take measures to hedge against the possibility that the changes will be at the upper end of the distribution," Mann said. "So we could be having that worthy discussion about real uncertainty, and how it translates into risk assessment and vulnerability, but instead we're still stuck — at least in the public discourse — in this silly debate about the reality of the problem."

http://news.yahoo.com/sticking-mann-climate-science-sparks-protest-171407752.html

[boutons_deux]

"silly debate about the reality of the problem"

Kock Bros and similar scumbags obtain the fogging, confusion, and ignorance they pay for.

[MannyIsGod]

I think this part was pretty important

Exactly why the position in your posted op ed was piss poor.

[Drachen]

If you slowed down from some speed to almost zero, without taking your foot of the accelerator, I'd say there's something else going on with the car.

No the stuff that you are posting are not showing a slowdown to zero. They are showing a slowdown of acceleration. velocity != acceleration. Using the graphs YOU posted, acceleration over the last 10 years is near zero (not negative, 0). However we are still travelling at an above average velocity.

Try to keep the metaphors and YOUR posted graphs straight.

BTW, thank you scott, I thought that your metaphor would bring some clarity...apparently I was wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

To be fair, the acceleration is what matters in this debate. The slope of the graph is the important factor not how much we have warmed to date.

[DarrinS]

No the stuff that you are posting are not showing a slowdown to zero. They are showing a slowdown of acceleration. velocity != acceleration. Using the graphs YOU posted, acceleration over the last 10 years is near zero (not negative, 0). However we are still travelling at an above average velocity.


Dude, just stop.


:lmao

[Agloco]

You don't understand why I pointed that out, do you?

Sorry, but I thought you were more observant. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Count yourself fortunate. Apparently you have the time to sift through 4 pages of drivel.

[Agloco]

If you slowed down from some speed to almost zero, without taking your foot of the accelerator, I'd say there's something else going on with the car.

So you wouldn't say that you're decelerating? Do share with us what you think is going on in such an instance.

[DarrinS]

If you slowed down from some speed to almost zero, without taking your foot of the accelerator, I'd say there's something else going on with the car.



So you wouldn't say that you're decelerating? Do share with us what you think is going on in such an instance.


Yes, you are decelerating, but not for lack of hitting the gas.

By the way, I didn't start the terrible car analogies, someone else did.

My point is, CO2 has been increasing at an almost steady rate for the past 50 years (Keeling curve). If CO2 is what "fuels" temperature increases, why is the car slowing down?

[Agloco]

My point is, CO2 has been increasing at an almost steady rate for the past 50 years (Keeling curve). If CO2 is what "fuels" temperature increases, why is the car slowing down?

Is heating and CO2 concentration a linear relationship? Just musing here, I don't really know. Perhaps you've encountered a hill which gets steeper as you move along it? Provided that you have zero acceleration (as a linear Keeling curve implies), methinks your car would slow down no?

[DarrinS]

Is heating and CO2 concentration a linear relationship? Just musing here, I don't really know.


I doubt it's linear, but should be at least correlated, if one causes the other. I wouldn't expect to find thirty year periods (e.g. mid 1940's to mid 1970's) where CO2 is steadily increasing while temperature is going down.




Perhaps you've encountered a hill which gets steeper as you move along it? Provided that you have zero acceleration (as a linear Keeling curve implies), methinks your car would slow down no?

What's the hill in your scenario?

[Agloco]

What's the ever-steepening hill in your scenario?

This.....


I doubt it's linear, but should be at least correlated, if one causes the other.

The non-linear nature of the CO2-Temp relationship. If the Keeling Curve is truly linear, then you'll necessarily see a reduced automobile velocity (your warming slowdown).

That doesn't preclude the hypothesis that CO2 drives heating though. It doesn't mean that heating isn't occurring either. It only speaks to pace.

[DarrinS]

The non-linear nature of the CO2-Temp relationship. If the Keeling Curve is truly linear, then you'll necessarily see a reduced automobile velocity (your warming slowdown).




You're saying the slowdown is an expected outcome?

[Agloco]

You're saying the slowdown is an expected outcome?

Yes, only if we consider the CO2-Temp relationship in a vacuum though. Unfortunately, we don't have a vacuum here.

Translation: I don't know enough to say if it's expected or unexpected.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This.....



The non-linear nature of the CO2-Temp relationship. If the Keeling Curve is truly linear, then you'll necessarily see a reduced automobile velocity (your warming slowdown).

That doesn't preclude the hypothesis that CO2 drives heating though. It doesn't mean that heating isn't occurring either. It only speaks to pace.

As far as i know the probability that a particular electron will absorb a photon is proportional to the fine structure constant. Now obviously the structure of the valence shells and their interactions play a role as would the kinetics of the particles but i would not be so sure that its not linear especially on a guess from someone like Darrin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By "discussing", do you mean posting ridiculous comic strips?

Well I doubt hes talking about posting graphs from mining company think tanks like the Global Warming Policy Foundation and claiming they are from BEST like you did.

[DarrinS]

Well I doubt hes talking about posting graphs from mining company think tanks like the Global Warming Policy Foundation and claiming they are from BEST like you did.


This never happened.


From several pages back.



Reading is hard. Bottom of graph clearly states "Graph drawn using BEST's own data...".


Even if it said graph is produced by <insert name of evil "big oil" company here>, the DATA IS THE DATA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This never happened.


From several pages back.



Even if it said graph is produced by <insert name of evil "big oil" company here>, the DATA IS THE DATA.

its not even that remotely and quite frankly a conclusion like that should be made by the individual and not for us. I asked you where the study came from. The graph was compiled using some unknown method by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

BEST describes their data set as


The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 preexisting data archives.

WTF do you think I have been talking about when asking about subsets. Was it all of them? If it was all of them, were they weighted equally? Why or why not etc.

How on earth do we know that they did not cherry pick or use arbitrary coefficients?

At the end of the day, that study was not from BEST. Why did you not link the mailer that you got it from?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, he disagreed with the rate of 1 deg. since 1950 and pointed out inconsistencies between datasets from 1970 to 1997. I don't think I read anywhere in the op ed that he thinks the Earth hasn't warmed at all.
That's just Manny, misrepresenting things again.

[Wild Cobra]

As for why the two scientists who developed the satellite record are skeptics, I can't say. I'm not inside their heads. However, what I can say, is that Spencer's track record of research being proven wrong is fairly strong.
Proven, or claimed?

Peer reviewed disagreement IS NOT PROOF!

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, you are decelerating, but not for lack of hitting the gas.

By the way, I didn't start the terrible car analogies, someone else did.

My point is, CO2 has been increasing at an almost steady rate for the past 50 years (Keeling curve). If CO2 is what "fuels" temperature increases, why is the car slowing down?
Actually, CO2 could be said to be still accelerating, yet temperature isn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Thinking back to the OP.

Does this mean that starting to trade carbon credits created a demand for CO2?

Should I have used blue text, or could this be true?

[MannyIsGod]

You're saying the slowdown is an expected outcome?

Of course a slowdown is an expected outcome. The first doubling of CO2 has a greater affect than the 2nd doubling and so on. If its not linear either a slow down or an acceleration is expected.

[MannyIsGod]

Proven, or claimed?

Peer reviewed disagreement IS NOT PROOF!

I said I wouldn't respond to you but this is just too good. You posted one of the studies that was wrong which THEY THEMSELVES agreed to being incorrect so what do you think? I guess when they admit they were wrong its not proof either, is it?

Pretty god damn annoying having to read the posts of someone so ignorant they don't even know the shit they post themselves.

Continue as you were, dumbass.

[Agloco]

As far as i know the probability that a particular electron will absorb a photon is proportional to the fine structure constant. Now obviously the structure of the valence shells and their interactions play a role as would the kinetics of the particles but i would not be so sure that its not linear especially on a guess from someone like Darrin.

You're correct here. I was using a factoid from another one of these AGW threads. I cant remember which one offhand. I could have sworn that someone posted a link or graph which showed a non-linear relationship. In fact, I think it supposed a geometric progression. I'm not saying that's the case. I was simply using it as an example in an attempt to clarify the car analogy for Darrin.

For instance as Manny states:


Of course a slowdown is an expected outcome. The first doubling of CO2 has a greater affect than the 2nd doubling and so on. If its not linear either a slow down or an acceleration is expected.

[MannyIsGod]

The forcing from CO2 is not linear but the entire system with feed backs is different. IE CO2 forcing raisings the temps in the atmosphere by a X amount but then air with a higher temp is able to retain more water vapor which in turn traps IR radiation of its own and increasing the temp more. However, THAT aspect of the system is up for far more debate because modeling feedbacks is not nearly as sound as modeling CO2's trapping of energy.

[Wild Cobra]

The forcing from CO2 is not linear but the entire system with feed backs is different. IE CO2 forcing raisings the temps in the atmosphere by a X amount but then air with a higher temp is able to retain more water vapor which in turn traps IR radiation of its own and increasing the temp more. However, THAT aspect of the system is up for far more debate because modeling feedbacks is not nearly as sound as modeling CO2's trapping of energy.
I will agree with that feedback scenario somewhat, but can you apply reliable numbers? I think not.

Always the CO2, but the levels which the temperature/sensitivity claims, I will contend are inaccurate and far higher than they should be.

Show me a model that accurately allows for the direct and indirect forcing of solar changes and soot changes, and I'll start listening. The indirect solar forcing is being counted as changes in greenhouse gas forcing by the models I have seen. Tell me. What is left when you properly assign these vales of change.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will agree with that feedback scenario somewhat, but can you apply reliable numbers? I think not.

Always the CO2, but the levels which the temperature/sensitivity claims, I will contend are inaccurate and far higher than they should be.

Show me a model that accurately allows for the direct and indirect forcing of solar changes and soot changes, and I'll start listening. The indirect solar forcing is being counted as changes in greenhouse gas forcing by the models I have seen. Tell me. What is left when you properly assign these vales of change.

He just sais the reciprocity in the systems was a subject of debate....

You don't even understand the models you put out yourself. As if anything will short of your preacher telling you what to think is going to change your mind. You have decided who your authority figures are and you follow them like a good little minion.

[Agloco]

The forcing from CO2 is not linear but the entire system with feed backs is different. IE CO2 forcing raisings the temps in the atmosphere by a X amount but then air with a higher temp is able to retain more water vapor which in turn traps IR radiation of its own and increasing the temp more. However, THAT aspect of the system is up for far more debate because modeling feedbacks is not nearly as sound as modeling CO2's trapping of energy.


Ya.


You're saying the slowdown is an expected outcome?


Yes, only if we consider the CO2-Temp relationship in a vacuum though. Unfortunately, we don't have a vacuum here.

:tu

[DarrinS]

The forcing from CO2 is not linear but the entire system with feed backs is different. IE CO2 forcing raisings the temps in the atmosphere by a X amount but then air with a higher temp is able to retain more water vapor which in turn traps IR radiation of its own and increasing the temp more. However, THAT aspect of the system is up for far more debate because modeling feedbacks is not nearly as sound as modeling CO2's trapping of energy.


Hmmm. Sounds like a very complex system that is not completely understood.

[Winehole23]

duh

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm. Sounds like a very complex system that is not completely understood.


duh
LOL...

No shit.

Wouldn't it help, to understand it's warming effect with the process of elimination of other warming effects?

Why doesn't the AGW crowd ever consider real effects of the changing solar component?

[DarrinS]

duh

Then why don't we study it more before blasting our economy back into the stone age?

[Winehole23]

How do we get from here to de-industrialization? It seems to be intuitively clear to you, but is not to me. Can you flesh that out?

[Winehole23]

Just being petulant and glib?

[DarrinS]

How do we get from here to de-industrialization? It seems to be intuitively clear to you, but is not to me. Can you flesh that out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language

[Winehole23]

Thought so, thanks. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Hmmm. Sounds like a very complex system that is not completely understood.

Who ever said the system was completely understood? Have they stopped investigating and conducting scientific studies? If you're attempting to say that the inability to account for how the energy behaves perfectly in the system somehow discounts that increasing the entire energy of the system WILL raise the temp then LOL is all I have to say.

This is the most annoying part of discussing this subject with people such as yourself, Darrin. For one, people like you simply toss all kinds of shit against the wall to see what sticks. Its like a clusterbomb of failed logic all over the place. But whats more irritating, is that when I make a candid observation of the short comings of our knowledge, you try to manipulate what I've said to some type of justification for your complete lack of context and understanding.

Its impossible to completely model what the climate will do with so much energy added into the system to a very fine resolution. As has been noted before, we lack the computing power to even think about modeling clouds in the manner in which they actual form and behave. Many factors are like this. There are definite limitations into what we can predict.

Now, an honest person with an open mind at this point thinks, what do those limitations mean? They don't automatically judge that a limitation means what they want it to mean. We like to call that confirmation bias.

So then, what do the limitations mean? They surely don't mean that the energy will simply magically disappear. What they mean, is that we're limited in showing the effects in specific regions or times to a precise resolution. It also means that scientists can only give you an estimate of what the temperature is going to rise and that estimate will be a range of values. This is precisely what the IPCC has documented: a scientific range of scenarios (none of which talk about cooling) regarding the future increase in temperature on a global scale.

Furthermore, the talk of taking the economy back to the stone age is ridiculous. It most certainly misses the point that in the future there will be a cost associate with inaction. Instead of talking bout that, you use bullshit hyperbolic rhetoric. But what more should I expect out of your generation, Darrin? Much as you kick the bill for your time down the road to mine, you're not going to do a damn thing to prevent future economic burdens and simply let us deal with what may come. Its definitely the hallmark of your generation.

[DarrinS]

Manny,

I concede that I could be entirely wrong on the subject. I just don't think we know enough yet to say that CO2 is THE driver of the increased temps that have been observed. There have been numerous hotter and colder periods in the past and the industrial period conveniently begins after the little ice age. I also think the science has been too politicized and there are too many activists amongst their ranks. I think it is a field worthy of continued research, I just don't think our current state of knowledge justifies drastic action in terms of curbing emmissions. Just my opinion.

[MannyIsGod]

We definitely know enough to say CO2 is what is causing temps to rise. Its a known GHG and nothing else known can cause the warming. In order for it not to be CO2, then all that has to be done is to a) provide a different source for the increase in energy and b) explain why the energy that should be trapped by the known behaviors of CO2 is not being not being trapped.

The point that the science actually isn't very politicized at all. Politicians using climate change as a wedge issue =! the science. I've given up on the policy side of things. For now anyway. More and more studies are coming out that are showing we're crossing a threshold where climate change is a future issue to climate change being a current issue. 10-15 years from now I really look forward to how the denial of climate change is seen.

[Wild Cobra]

We definitely know enough to say CO2 is what is causing temps to rise.
Yes, it causes some temperature change.

Its a known GHG and nothing else known can cause the warming.
Bullshit.

Long term solar changes have an effect.

Soot changes the albedo of snow and ice, melting it faster.

The melting of arctic ice cause it to retreat more than normal and creates a large change in immediate area albedo.

In order for it not to be CO2, then all that has to be done is to a) provide a different source for the increase in energy and b) explain why the energy that should be trapped by the known behaviors of CO2 is not being not being trapped.

Been there, done that.


The point that the science actually isn't very politicized at all.

Yes, the classes still teach climatology wrong, placing the blame solely on CO2, when the geosciences are vast, and the total earth system plays a role in the global temperature.


Politicians using climate change as a wedge issue =! the science. I've given up on the policy side of things. For now anyway.

You mean like the IPCCC?

More and more studies are coming out that are showing we're crossing a threshold where climate change is a future issue to climate change being a current issue.

And very little we can do about natural warming. the anthropogenic portion is very small, and I'll bet mostly from soot.


10-15 years from now I really look forward to how the denial of climate change is seen.

There is no denial of climate change from most skeptics. Stop lying.

[DarrinS]

We definitely know enough to say CO2 is what is causing temps to rise. Its a known GHG and nothing else known can cause the warming. In order for it not to be CO2, then all that has to be done is to a) provide a different source for the increase in energy and b) explain why the energy that should be trapped by the known behaviors of CO2 is not being not being trapped.


Nothing else known can cause the warming? Really? How did we get the Medieval Warm Period?



The point that the science actually isn't very politicized at all. Politicians using climate change as a wedge issue =! the science. I've given up on the policy side of things. For now anyway. More and more studies are coming out that are showing we're crossing a threshold where climate change is a future issue to climate change being a current issue. 10-15 years from now I really look forward to how the denial of climate change is seen.


AGW "Godfather" James Hansen getting arrested for 3rd time.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6093669065_a3423161a6.jpg

[boutons_deux]

WMO: 2011 Is Warmest La Niña Year on Record and Science “Proves Unequivocally” It’s “Due to Human Activities”

Global temperatures in 2011 are currently the tenth highest on record and are higher than any previous year with a La Niña event, which has a relative cooling influence. The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The extent of Arctic sea ice in 2011 was the second lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest.

“Our role is to provide the scientific knowledge to inform action by decision makers,” said [World Meteorological Organization] Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Our science is solid and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities,” he said.

“Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new highs. They are very rapidly approaching levels consistent with a 2-2.4 degree Centigrade rise in average global temperatures which scientists believe could trigger far reaching and irreversible changes in our Earth, biosphere and oceans,” he said.

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/gcs_fig_1.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/03/381466/wmo-2011-is-warmest-la-nina-year-on-record-science-human-activities/

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Maybe they do and I just don't hear about it, but why does the Alex Jones tinfoil hat crowd obsess over stuff like fluoride but never say anything about global warming?

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing else known can cause the warming? Really? How did we get the Medieval Warm Period?



I didn't see this the first time, but you should learn how to fucking read. I didn't say anything else couldn't cause warming. I said you have to show that something else is causing the warming. So if its not the CO2, then what is it this time, Darrin? The sun's output is decreasing, so thats out. Its not the orbit. What is it?

Do you guys really think that scientists out there have not thought to eliminate sources outside of GHG increases? You don't think that if there was research that proved it was anything else, someone wouldn't publish it? I mean what conspiracy theories are you swallowing to think that some scientist wouldn't step up and take the notoriety that would come with simply proving that it was something else outside of GHG?

We have an agent known to cause warming and we have the absence of any other agent capable of producing the warming so just what in the hell do you think it is???




AGW "Godfather" James Hansen getting arrested for 3rd time.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6093669065_a3423161a6.jpg

Thats great. I see once again you don't understand what I posted. THIS is why you got the votes you did in the "awards" thread.

[MannyIsGod]

I saw that graphic a while ago and my only wish is that they broke it up into a 3 catagories: La Nina, Neutral, and El Nino.

I think there is a very strong possibility (80%+) that the next moderate or greater El Nino will produce the hottest year on record across all major temperature records.

[Agloco]

Hmmm. Sounds like a very complex system that is not completely understood.

I'm glad we have you around to elucidate these things for us.

[boutons_deux]

Drop in CO2 Levels Led to Antarctic Ice Sheet, Study Finds

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/image/press_room/press_releases/2011/PIG-upwell.jpg

A drop in carbon dioxide appears to be the driving force that led to the Antarctic ice sheet’s formation, according to a recent study led by scientists at Yale and Purdue universities of molecules from ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples.The key role of the greenhouse gas in one of the biggest climate events in Earth’s history supports carbon dioxide’s importance in past climate change and implicates it as a significant force in present and future climate….

“The evidence falls in line with what we would expect if carbon dioxide is the main dial that governs global climate; if we crank it up or down there are dramatic changes,” [co-author Matthew} Huber said. "We went from a warm world without ice to a cooler world with an ice sheet overnight, in geologic terms, because of fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels."

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/04/381245/drop-in-co2-levels-antarctic-ice-sheet-study/

[Wild Cobra]

Drop in CO2 Levels Led to Antarctic Ice Sheet, Study Finds

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/image/press_room/press_releases/2011/PIG-upwell.jpg

A drop in carbon dioxide appears to be the driving force that led to the Antarctic ice sheet’s formation, according to a recent study led by scientists at Yale and Purdue universities of molecules from ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples.The key role of the greenhouse gas in one of the biggest climate events in Earth’s history supports carbon dioxide’s importance in past climate change and implicates it as a significant force in present and future climate….

“The evidence falls in line with what we would expect if carbon dioxide is the main dial that governs global climate; if we crank it up or down there are dramatic changes,” [co-author Matthew} Huber said. "We went from a warm world without ice to a cooler world with an ice sheet overnight, in geologic terms, because of fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels."

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/04/381245/drop-in-co2-levels-antarctic-ice-sheet-study/
LOL...

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

We are talking about ice sheets. If the surface water is at freezing or below (salinity reduces freezing point) ice can form and more CO2 is absorbed into the water out of the atmosphere.

I don't have access to the study, but I'll lay odds it doesn't eliminate the effect of the oceans absorbing more CO2 because the temperature decreases, rather than the temperature decreasing due to CO2 levels lowering.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

We are talking about ice sheets. If the surface water is at freezing or below (salinity reduces freezing point) ice can form and more CO2 is absorbed into the water out of the atmosphere.

I don't have access to the study, but I'll lay odds it doesn't eliminate the effect of the oceans absorbing more CO2 because the temperature decreases, rather than the temperature decreasing due to CO2 levels lowering.

One can get a pretty good idea, if increases in CO2 aways precede temperature increases.

Not conclusive, but certainly compelling.

Either way we are in the test tube. We will double our cumulative emissions in the next 25 years or less, with certain increases in CO2 concentration.

The evidence to what exactly CO2 does will become much more solid one way or the other.

The people who study it though allude to a certain amount of "inertia" to the process, so if it really is adverse, it will be much harder to stop it by then.

Bit of a penalty to pay for your hubris, don't you think?

[101A]

I'm thinking living through a time of extremely LOW C02 would suck FAR harder than what we are going through now.

I support AGW.

[RandomGuy]

I'm thinking living through a time of extremely LOW C02 would suck FAR harder than what we are going through now.

I support AGW.

ooooow.


That was a painfully stupid thing to have to read. A little warning next time, eh?

[Winehole23]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1212/1224308953966.html

[Wild Cobra]

One can get a pretty good idea, if increases in CO2 aways precede temperature increases.

Not conclusive, but certainly compelling.

I will remind you that ice core proxies show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes.


The people who study it though allude to a certain amount of "inertia" to the process, so if it really is adverse, it will be much harder to stop it by then.

I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm thinking living through a time of extremely LOW C02 would suck FAR harder than what we are going through now.

I support AGW.
I just wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1212/1224308953966.html

LOL....

How can you reference such a hack job?

Sure China and India have less per capita emissions. However, for the number of people they have served by industry, they have more emissions. remember, most their population is still living an agrarian style life. As these people come into the 20th century, then 21st century way of life... Nobody will pollute more than Asia.

I say there is no sense at all in agreeing to emission standards better than we have been working on since the EPA was formed, until other nations agree to meet or beat our existing standards.

[RandomGuy]

LOL....

How can you reference such a hack job?

Sure China and India have less per capita emissions. However, for the number of people they have served by industry, they have more emissions. remember, most their population is still living an agrarian style life. As these people come into the 20th century, then 21st century way of life... Nobody will pollute more than Asia.

I say there is no sense at all in agreeing to emission standards better than we have been working on since the EPA was formed, until other nations agree to meet or beat our existing standards.

The funny thing is that the overall economic costs for the developing countries is MUCH lower than our is.

We would have to abandon existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure, causing a lot of economic disruption as our economy shifts a bit.

They don't.

If we set the standards, they can simply plan ahead a bit and meet that, making their economies FAR less dependent on the price swings of rapidly depleting fossil fuels.

We will be locked into things for decades based on the decisions we make now.

I don't think we should base our decisions on what they decide. The thing is that they are the ones who will bear most of what is estimated to be the costs of the emissions, and they know that.

[RandomGuy]

I will remind you that ice core proxies show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes.

I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?[/QUOTE]

You can remind me of your layman's opinion about what the data shows all you want, and when it conflicts with that of people who study for a living, I will weigh it accordingly.

Your own arguments work against your proposed solution, i.e. the status quo.

"We don't know for certain what affect we are having, because the science isn't firm enough" isn't an argument for continuing to have a potential affect on something we don't understand, it is an argument for paring things back until we DO understand what we are doing.

Honestly this argument reminds me of a bad science fiction movie.


Open scene:
Two men stumble upon a crashed spacecraft. They enter through a functioning hatch to see a bewildering amount of controls and unknown technology.

One man starts pressing buttons.

"Dude, quit pressing buttons, we don't know what any of this shit does."

"We just don't understand this spacecraft or its systems, nothing has happened so far, and you can't know for certain what I am doing is actually going to DO anything, so I am going to keep pressing buttons, its fun."

:rolleyes

[Winehole23]

How can you reference such a hack job?topical relevance. not my own soap box, but posted to revive the conversation.

[Winehole23]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

[Wild Cobra]

I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?
[/QUOTE]
Here is one quick example I knew where to find.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/_res/CO2-14.jpg (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#III_E)

In the graph, the best fit data for this ice core sample is when the CO2 year sample is decreased by 1073 years for the best linear fit.


E. MEASURING AND MODELING THE LAG IN THE CO2 DATA

By convention, the Greek tau (t for time) stands for lag. The relation between correlation and tau is the correlation function. Auto–correlation is correlation of a record with itself, and cross–correlation is the correlation between two different records. Figure 10 contains the cross–correlation function of CO2 and temperature for the entire Vostok record of 400,000 years. (The graph is more dense on the left because of an intentional computational artifact. Sample intervals increase exponentially to simplify the computation load. The correlation method wraps the data on itself, analogous to a 420,000–year long tape loop.)

Zooming in by a factor of 100 shows the fine structure in the near term. This is Figure 11.

Three or four nearly equivalent peaks appear where carbon dioxide has the greatest correlation with temperature. The fact that the correlation is relatively poor at zero temperature offset emphasizes that the lag is real, and that any model should account for the lag. Subsequent analysis is offset to the nearest local peak in the correlation at 1073 years. As already stated, the correlation shift has no effect on the qualitative result, namely that CO2 is not responsible for but is a response to global temperature. Applying the lag to the model does improve the accuracy of the results by a few percent.

F. LAG–COMPENSATED CO2 RECORD

Offsetting the CO2 trace by 1073 years has the scientifically desirable effect of sharpening or flattening the constellation of data. This is an improvement in signal to noise ratio. It makes the curvature more apparent, as shown in Figure 12.

Again dropping the sample paths and representing the CO2 concentration in percentage produces the new constellation of ice core data, offset for maximum correlation, shown in Figure 13.

The best fit straight line through these points shows that the average variation of CO2 concentration is 3.49% per degree Centigrade, shown in Figure 14. The complementary, catastrophe straight line fit is 21.8ºC per 100% change in CO2 concentration, or 0.218ºC/%, included in Figure 15.

The offset for lag increased the slope from 3.42%/ºC to 3.49%/ºC with temperature as the independent variable, and the catastrophe slope from 0.216 ºC/% to 0.218 ºC/% CO2 with the greenhouse gas as the independent variable. The 1073 year offset slightly changes the operating point on the solubility curve. The product of the two slopes, r^2, is 0.7609, and r is thus increased from 0.860 to 0.872. (Computation of correlation by the straight line fit method does not involved data wrapping.)

For several reasons, the catastrophic fit can be put to rest. Carbon dioxide is dependent on temperature, and not the reverse. The reason is not just the fact that concentration lags temperature changes, but because it is a physical consequence of the ocean temperature distribution.

[Yonivore]

I would like to see more detain on that. Could they mean the average 800 year lag we see from the circulation of the oceans?
And, I'd like to see a completely separate and independent group of climate scientists reach the same "consensus" as those who informed the IPCC farcical findings.

What’s Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity (http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=2319)


While all of these e-mails paint a troubling betrayal of the scientific method, the last two are particularly troubling to me. The pursuit of knowledge through science can’t proceed if scientists refuse to share data and methods. In defense of their refusal to share data, suppress its release or even destroy it, climate scientists have claimed that because those asking for the data are skeptics, they will only use the data to try and undermine their results. So what? Either the data and methods stand up to scrutiny and the results are robust or they are not. Either way, the skeptics have done the world a service. If the skeptics’ attempts to recreate the results end up confirming the results, then the findings are on more solid ground and the public can lend the work greater credence. If, on the other hand, skeptics do find flaws in the data, methods or results, then from the point of view of knowledge, the world is still better off. Rather than continuing down a blind path, or worse, making policy based on flawed research, scientists can reassess where the original research went wrong and determine if it can be corrected or if an entirely new hypothesis, or research methodology, is called for.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
That's no surprise. The weight of ice keeps it compressed.

[Winehole23]

melting ice presumably accounts for the change in compression, what accounts for the melting of the ice?

[Wild Cobra]

melting ice presumably accounts for the change in compression, what accounts for the melting of the ice?
The lag of the movement of temperature. The oceans started absorbing more solar heat in the 1700's when the sun turned up it's heat. The sun is now about 0.18% hotter than it was 300 years ago. That may not seem like much, but is makes a difference. The ocean currents of the various oceans (my shaky memory) move at a rate of about 600 to 1400 years for a complete circulation. Heat is never lost, and the circulation takes this extra energy and moves it. When the warmer oceans from the past finally make it northward, there is more heat in the water to melt the ice.

[DarrinS]

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/000-0814194805-cowfarts.jpg

[Winehole23]

The lag of the movement of temperature. The oceans started absorbing more solar heat in the 1700's when the sun turned up it's heat. The sun is now about 0.18% hotter than it was 300 years ago. That may not seem like much, but is makes a difference. The ocean currents of the various oceans (my shaky memory) move at a rate of about 600 to 1400 years for a complete circulation. Heat is never lost, and the circulation takes this extra energy and moves it. When the warmer oceans from the past finally make it northward, there is more heat in the water to melt the ice.thanks doc, I feel much better

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1212/1224308953966.html

The US taking any meaningful action is a nonstarter. On the bright side, I'll have plenty to research in the coming decades.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, this thread still provides a great example of a large misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics.

[greyforest]

Well, this thread still provides a great example of a large misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics.

This forum is a mass demonstration of willful ignorance and cognitive bias. The amount of rampant anti-intellectualism here is among the worst I have ever encountered on any forums I visit.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, this thread still provides a great example of a large misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics.
OK Professor, where does that extra heat go that the oceans absorb? The land returns it out to space rather quickly, compared to the oceans. Light travels how deep in sea water?

[DarrinS]

Worth reading

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

[Wild Cobra]

Worth reading

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1
Good read, but the true believers like Manny will dismiss it.

[boutons_deux]

Sorry, Deniers, Study of “True Global Warming Signal” Finds “Remarkably Steady” Rate of Manmade Warming Since 1979

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/capital-weather-gang/201112/images/erl2.jpg?uuid=u-UvViTgEeG6UZmisn9jBQ

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure05.jpg?w=500&h=499

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/

[ALVAREZ6]

this fall and winter so far has been the warmest I can remember of life.












i know...not saying much.

[RandomGuy]

I just wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet.

AGW or not, our economy would be arguably better off if we take steps to limit our CO2 emissions.

At this point, curbing our use of fossil fuels is win/win.

Win because our economy is better off, and win because we mitigate the risk of monkeying with our climate in ways we don't fully understand.

[boutons_deux]

nobody's seriously talking about atmospheric engineering, only limiting the emission of CO2 (for now)

"wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet."

The planet was fine, with normal oscillations in atmospheric conditions, until 19th century when man started burning coal for heating and industry, and the population exploded. Until then, there was no need to "make a better planet" (what a strange phrase)

[RandomGuy]

nobody's seriously talking about atmospheric engineering, only limiting the emission of CO2 (for now)

"wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet."

The planet was fine, with normal oscillations in atmospheric conditions, until 19th century when man started burning coal for heating and industry, and the population exploded. Until then, there was no need to "make a better planet" (what a strange phrase)

Keep in mind that the nature of exponential growth means that the next 10-25 years will see as much CO2 emitted from burning fuels as from our entire history up to now.

If CO2 is really the driving force that climate scientists claim it probably is, the indications will only get stronger.

In that case, the denial will get harder and harder to maintain, like the cigarette companies' denial that their products are bad for you.

[boutons_deux]

Deniers don't care about about "indications". There are more than sufficient, and very convicing "indications" from different scientific disciplines from around the world going back decades.

The Repugs and the UCA corps with vested interest in denying don't respond to, admit "inconvenient" facts. They are irrational and anti-scientific. They have only ideologies, which are dictated and financed by the UCA's objective of maintaining and increasing its wealth.

We already saw with the dubya Repugs that up was down, black was white, war is peace, etc. They have realized they can tell any lies to create a false reality that panders to ignorant bubbas, "Christians", xenophobes, racists, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, Deniers, Study of “True Global Warming Signal” Finds “Remarkably Steady” Rate of Manmade Warming Since 1979

OK professor, just how do we distinguish that the warming is man made rather than natural?

Please... tell us how you eliminated all the natural components.

I didn't see how they eliminated the lag time of the oceans movement.

[Wild Cobra]

AGW or not, our economy would be arguably better off if we take steps to limit our CO2 emissions.

Why?

Relax your thoughts for a moment and consider the possibility that CO2 only has 10% to 20% the warming claimed. That other forced man made and natural are the bulk of the warming we see. Under this possibility, isn't the extra CO2 as a necessary plant growth nutrient a plus?

What if all the problems the true believers attribute to CO2 is actually from the increase in solar energy from 1700 to 1800, 1900 to 1950, and the soot put out by Asia falling on the northern ice cap and Greenland?

What if you are wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

this fall and winter so far has been the warmest I can remember of life.












i know...not saying much.
I don't know where you live, but where I live, it has so much to do with how the jet stream patterns change. i expected a colder than normal winter, but the jet stream has been coming out of Canada east of the Rockies rather than west.

[RandomGuy]

Why?

Relax your thoughts for a moment and consider the possibility that CO2 only has 10% to 20% the warming claimed. That other forced man made and natural are the bulk of the warming we see. Under this possibility, isn't the extra CO2 as a necessary plant growth nutrient a plus?

What if all the problems the true believers attribute to CO2 is actually from the increase in solar energy from 1700 to 1800, 1900 to 1950, and the soot put out by Asia falling on the northern ice cap and Greenland?

What if you are wrong?

Wrong about what exactly?

One would have to quantify the dollar value of increased crop yields per unit of CO2. Balanced out by the simple biological fact that any appreciable extra growth will require more water and fertilizer. My understanding is that the marginal benefit of extra CO2 is fairly tiny, if nothing else changes, so I would imagine the economic impact would be based on the biological one.

Feel free to quantify it, i.e. X amount of extra CO2 means Y amount of extra yield, all other things held equal.

Of course if we are using less oil for fuel fertilizer will get a tad cheaper, so it isn't all bad.

I don't see anything changing the underlying trend lines of cheaper renewables and more expensive fossil fuels.

Do you think I am wrong about technological innovation and economy of scale making renewables cheaper over time?

Do you think I am wrong about the mathmatical certainty of the exhaustion of oil supplies?

[Winehole23]

dzmTtusvjR4
You're soaking in it , Madge.

[Winehole23]

(waves at as yet undiscovered sources)

[Winehole23]

drill here, drill now!

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see anything changing the underlying trend lines of cheaper renewable and more expensive fossil fuels.

That is a probability, but we cannot accurately predict when, nor should we force the natural trend.


Do you think I am wrong about technological innovation and economy of scale making renewables cheaper over time?

Not at all. I have said as much myself. I just will not get caught up with the unnecessary panic over Global Warming. The only things we can make a difference with are not being addressed. Instead, agenda is driving the way.


Do you think I am wrong about the mathmatical certainty of the exhaustion of oil supplies?

Not at all. If you have actually kept up with my points over the years, I agree oil will become hard to extract at any reasonable price. Again, time is the uncertain factor. Not "IF," but "When!"

[MannyIsGod]

On one hand saying that we cant quantify and eliminate sources while claiming a specific source is some interesting logic.

[Wild Cobra]

On one hand saying that we cant quantify and eliminate sources while claiming a specific source is some interesting logic.
I've only seen you repeat what you are spoon-fed. I never see you explain GW in your own words which leads me to believe you don't understand the sciences behind it.