quote Originally posted by newf: Neither country has committed to a reduction of their total emissions by 2020.

That's contrary to what I've read. China has goals by 2020 to reduce emissions by 40%. More sourced below.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Right, few people deny the concept of climate change, but the rational ones deny human influence on it beyond a slight local influence ( like smog and acid rain )

Humans have a local influence but these local influences across the entire planet have no aggregate effect? Yeah, that sounds really rational.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Or the ones that don't buy into the nonsense about us harming the environment.. It really has nothing to do with being selfish. The selfish are the ones that believe and try to control to stunt growth.. The rest of us want everyone to advance and grow.

You share the same perspective yeast do as they gorge themselves on sugar with no consideration for the looming future of choking to death their by product of consumption, alcohol.

It's my fear we share the same situation. Most humans would consider themselves more intelligent than fungi like yeast, so I have hope.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Edit: Now while i don't buy it for a moment there is always the chance that we could be wrong, but don't confuse being wrong with intent.

Understood, and likewise.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: I humbly apologize they have been active since 1970 . They have been protecting the environment for 40 years. After 40 years and trillions of dollars, I think after 4 decades it safe to say they are a waist of time and resources.

You can't just make stuff up if you want to be taken seriously.

Trillions of dollars? Do you really believe the EPA spent trillions of dollars over 40 years?

According to Wikipedia, their budget for 2011 was $8.6 billion. That's their annual budget after 40 years. Even if they had gotten $8.6 billion for 40 years, it would only be $344 billion. Trillions isn't even close to reality!
Source.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: Why would we or China for that fact be stupid enough to look back on 40 years of EPA (an American Agency) failures, Agree to run into the same wall expecting better results?

Actually China is doing a lot to improve on their emissions. They've realized they're killing their greatest natural resource, their people, with industrial fueled pollution.

China has pledged to:
Lower their emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (that's HUGE!)
Increase alternative energy (green energy) consumption by 15% by 2020
Increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares by 2020

China's 5 year plan (2011-2015):
Increase proportion of alternative energy (green energy) consumption by 11.4% by 2015
Reduce energy per unit of GDP by 16% by 2015
Reduce CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS per unit of GDP by 17% by 2015.
Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: That is not what the articles says.

It's not an article. It's a published scientific paper.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: It is talking about ice shelfs which stretch out into the ocean.

Again you incorrectly interpret what you read.

"Ice shelves occur when ice sheets extend over the sea and float on the water" "Ice sheets are enormous continental masses of GLACIAL ICE and snow"
Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: In the fall of 2010 Antarctica had the 3rd highest sea ice area on record.

The scientific paper says:
"Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion."

Again, melting glaciers are contributing to sea ice expansion.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Polar bears aren't encroaching on human settlements because they can't find food. They are encroaching because they are over populated. There are more polar bears now than 20 years ago. The bears are territorial. When the biggest baddest bear drives them off, they go looking for easier pickings like dumps.

None of this disproves the evidence posted that indicates polar bears are looking longer and harder for food because of thinning Arctic sea ice. We have clear evidence the Arctic sea ice is fading fast. The latter evidence bolsters the former evidence.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The chuncks breaking off the Greenland glaciers are due to growth, not melting.

You post zero evidence to backup this claim.

Multiple measurement techniques confirm that Greenland is losing ice and the loss accelerating at a rapid pace.

Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You are quoting the online library, wikipedia, and various lobby groups and apologists for the global warming movement.

When you actually post some sources to backup your claims you are free to question the legitimacy of mine. You have nothing to compare my sources to because you have no sources.

What you just said is like a Nazi complaining Wikipedia is biased about the historical outcome of World War II.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is today's scan of the Arctic Ice Field http://myfiero.com/uploads/33045_.jpg Notice the comparison to 2010 http://myfiero.com/uploads/33046_.jpg I'm not seeing a shipping lane in either during July. If one opens for a month in September, that is not viable for commerce.

What you said was "You cannot navigate the Northwest Passage" as some sort of "proof" global warming wasn't happening. I listed several years where you could navigate the Northwest Passage which was only recently possible.

Consider yourself debunked and move on.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Why pump out the usual propoganda?

Water skiing!

I'm doing my best to lay out a case in 50 to 100 years that people actually tried to do something before it was too late. This forum will probably give a future psychology student a PhD.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: It isn't true. It isn't even real science.

Then disprove it. You just don't know what real science looks like.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The only propaganda taking place in global warming is to support the crap science that allegedly supports global warming (human caused, that is). This I a CLASSIC case of propaganda. Endless news stories about bad weather, dying polar bears, and the need to take immediate action or we will all die.

The problem is recursive as Doug85Gt pointed out. How do you fight propaganda? The OP video clearly shows truthful parallels between cigarette companies and the anti-global warming crowd.

Even to this day some people doubt cigarettes are harmful despite clear evidence to the contrary. Some people still smoke cigarettes with full knowledge that it's probably going to give them cancer and kill them in the future- that little bit of immediate pleasure is worth more. The exact same mentality is at work against the scientific community again for global warming. It's undeniable at this point.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The solution - more taxes and regulations.

A revenue neutral solution is the solution. Not more taxes.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Given that most of your posts on this forum are on this particular subject, I'd bet you are a shill for the propagandists.

Your hat must be be a tin foil sombrero by now.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How do we quantify how much is the man made portion?

With scientific research.

"There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years."
Source.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You're offering observations. Fine. Now, how are you arriving at the conclusion that the cause of these events is AGW?

Yes.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It says the first time in "human history" not the first time in history. Did it happen before? What was the driver then?

Possibly.

"The Northwest passage may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 1000 and 1300 AD. A better candidate for the last previous opening was the period 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present."
Source.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Is that driver in effect today?

Heat during the Medieval Warm Period may have opened it. However we're currently above Medieval Warm Period temperatures:
"the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980."
Source.

Orbital variations happen over longer periods of time. We've warmed almost 1*C in 50 years alone. Source. This takes a lot of the natural climate change causes out of the picture due to their cyclical nature and time of the cycle.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: First, we know that urination releases liquid into the ocean that causes sea levels to rise. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that urine levels in the ocean have been steadily climbing as more people go to the beach. Yes, it's a silly argument. It is; however, just as scientifically valid.

For someone who is supposed to be smart, what you just said I can say nothing nice about. The fact that you believe it, given you've posted it multiple times now, really worries me.

It's not scientifically valid. It's just like saying breathing contributes to CO2 emissions. It works if you understand only half the story. You're trying to compare results of a cycle to a linear action. Taking oil out of the ground, burning it to add emissions directly to the atmosphere is a linear action. Eventually we run out of oil to burn. There is no natural cycle to sustain that.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: the planet goes threw cycles, heating and cooling, we had the ice age and then it melted, how are we going to stop the planets normal cycles is beyond me, we can't control the weather in one local area what makes anyone think we could control the entire planet?

The goal is not to control the entire planet.

The goal is to prevent humans from changing the planet through emissions faster than life can adapt and survive.

We are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in a VERY thin atmosphere that surrounds our planet. Picture a normal classroom globe. The vast majority of our atmosphere is about as thin as the lacquer on that globe.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore:

Is that by volume or by mass?

http://epa.gov/climatechang...sions/gases/ch4.html

quote Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

There may be more CO2, but methane is for worse as far as global warming is concerned. There's not quite 10x as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere (by your chart), and since the EPA says methane has 20x the impact, it would be over twice as damaging as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That point wasn't mentioned, and without that information you would be lead to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 is the largest driver of climate change.
That's my biggest problem with the various arguments. Data left out leads to bad conclusions.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: Thank you for your work..... My comments were not a slam on the EPA. It was a contrast to what was being said about the effectiveness of our efforts to improve the environment. For 40 years we've been hearing that the environment is bad. There is a lot of truth behind that claim that is irrefutable. But after 40 years, we should be level minded enough to acknowledge the gains we have made. My assertion was that emissions from automobiles have improved (greatly) with the introduction of catalytic converters and the removal of lead from gasoline. In addition to that, the mpg improvements from 8-12 mpg to 18-35 mpg (achieved before hybrids) are themselves great improvements. other emission control devices and leaner fuel mixtures have also contributed to huge reductions in emissions. No doubt we could do more. But it's getting a bit absurd when the narrative would have us believe it's worse today than 40 years ago.

Climate Change is a GLOBAL issue that has many factors. Your assertion that the EPA have successfully reduced carbon and other emissions seems too narrow. Ex...Are there the same number of vehicles on earth in the last 40 years?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: For someone who is supposed to be smart, what you just said I can say nothing nice about. The fact that you believe it, given you've posted it multiple times now, really worries me. It's not scientifically valid. It's just like saying breathing contributes to CO2 emissions. It works if you understand only half the story. You're trying to compare results of a cycle to a linear action. Taking oil out of the ground, burning it to add emissions directly to the atmosphere is a linear action. Eventually we run out of oil to burn. There is no natural cycle to sustain that.

The CO2 released when that oil is burned came from where?
There's no natural cycle to oil? So that oil in the earth was just born there?
I don't think you need to worry about me.

Again, ignoring the info you don't want and only talking about what you think suports your claim.

FYI, the peeing in the ocean is absurd hyperbole to illustrate a point. Either you don't get that, or you're just trying to use it as a personal attack.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That sounds a lot like the carbon cycle for trees. They consume CO2 when growing, and when they die, whether they burn or decay, release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. That's considered a carbon neutral cycle.

That works for trees, but not for fossil fuels. Using fossil fuels in the current way releases carbon that has been sequestered underground for hundreds of million years. Put that together with the continual increase in atmospheric CO₂ since the advent of the industrial age, and with the evidence from the observed ratios of carbon isotopes (measures the percentage of airborne CO₂ that has been generated from fossil fuels as opposed to other natural sources) and it is convincing (to me, at least) that the CO₂ from fossil fuels is not being absorbed by any natural processes anywhere near as rapidly as it is being generated. That's why atmospheric CO₂ (ppm) keeps going up.

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: You can't just make stuff up if you want to be taken seriously. Trillions of dollars? Do you really believe the EPA spent trillions of dollars over 40 years? According to Wikipedia, their budget for 2011 was $8.6 billion. That's their annual budget after 40 years. Even if they had gotten $8.6 billion for 40 years, it would only be $344 billion. Trillions isn't even close to reality!

Oh no-
You don't get to limit the cost to there budget alone, I certainly didn't.
Your source doesn't account for the moneys spent in fines and implementation cost paid by the private sector through the enforcement of those policies. To say trillions is being quit fair....

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: That works for trees, but not for fossil fuels. Using fossil fuels in the current way releases carbon that has been sequestered underground for hundreds of million years. Put that together with the continual increase in atmospheric CO2 since the advent of the industrial age, and with the evidence from the observed ratios of carbon isotopes (measures the percentage of airborne CO2 that has been generated from fossil fuels as opposed to other natural sources) and it is convincing (to me, at least) that the CO2 from fossil fuels is not being absorbed by any natural processes anywhere near as rapidly as it is being generated. That's why atmospheric CO2 (ppm) keeps going up.

It does work, but the question is how long the cycle is. The concern is that carbon that was sequestered over a period of thousands or millions of years is released in a much shorter period of centuries. If that's your argument, you may have a point.

You mention the CO2 from the burning of fossile fuels, and then the CO2 from the industrial age. Are those separate sources, or did the CO2 from the industrial age come from burnging fossile fuels?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It does work, but the question is how long the cycle is. The concern is that carbon that was sequestered over a period of thousands or millions of years is released in a much shorter period of centuries. If that's your argument, you may have a point. You mention the CO2 from the burning of fossile fuels, and then the CO2 from the industrial age. Are those separate sources, or did the CO2 from the industrial age come from burnging fossile fuels?

Roughly the same. That's what I meant. Of course, people burned a lot of brush and wood in earlier times, before the advent of fossil fuels, but that didn't upset the carbon cycle in the same way as fossil fuels, because all of the carbon in that wood and brush was already removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, by the same brush and trees that were used as fuel.

quote Originally posted by newf: Climate Change is a GLOBAL issue that has many factors. Your assertion that the EPA have successfully reduced carbon and other emissions seems too narrow. Ex...Are there the same number of vehicles on earth in the last 40 years?

Of course not but then again won't that always be the problem...
I'm not certain which is worse the environment, a drive getting 15 mpg or 40 mpg.
I understand a gallon of gas is just that a gallon, but is there a different between the quantity being burned and the duration of the burn.

However it seems reasonable to me that as fuel mileage improves, more people are able
to drive (quantity) at the same time and for longer periods (duration) of time. So I have to wonder if fuel standards are making any real gains at all. (genuine question because I don't know) So is it possible that our fuel standards and automotive emissions policies have had some unintended consequences that result in more emissions and high concentrations ? (again ? )

One concern I have with the "Climate Change" religion is it's treated much like a religion. They're interested more in pennance (carbon taxes, etc.) than elimating sin (stopping the source of emissions).

How much is everyone willing to sacrifice? Will you give up your Fiero? How many vehicles do you own? Would you be willing to have fuel rationed so regardless of what mileage your vehicle gets, you can only emit so much carbon? It's always about what they want the other guy to sacrifice. Look at Al Gore, he claims to be carbon neutral through his use of carbon credits. He uses an enormous amount of energy and flies jets all around talking about climate change, but says it's okay because he buys carbon credits. Carbon credits that are sold to him by a company he owns.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: One concern I have with the "Climate Change" religion is it's treated much like a religion. They're interested more in pennance (carbon taxes, etc.) than elimating sin (stopping the source of emissions). How much is everyone willing to sacrifice? Will you give up your Fiero? How many vehicles do you own? Would you be willing to have fuel rationed so regardless of what mileage your vehicle gets, you can only emit so much carbon? It's always about what they want the other guy to sacrifice. Look at Al Gore, he claims to be carbon neutral through his use of carbon credits. He uses an enormous amount of energy and flies jets all around talking about climate change, but says it's okay because he buys carbon credits. Carbon credits that are sold to him by a company he owns.

It is odd when you think about it. What if they rewarded people they thought did a good job, instead of penalized those they thought didnt. Who would they reward, and with what? Starving dying people in remote desert regions? Would they be rewarded with food? Would the food have been grown in America?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There may be more CO2, but methane is for worse as far as global warming is concerned. There's not quite 10x as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere (by your chart), and since the EPA says methane has 20x the impact, it would be over twice as damaging as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That point wasn't mentioned, and without that information you would be lead to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 is the largest driver of climate change. That's my biggest problem with the various arguments. Data left out leads to bad conclusions.

No conclusion at all , their website (erroneously?) identified it as the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity.

quote By the EPA : Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere,

quote Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period. N2O on warming the atmosphere is over 300 times that of 1 pound of carbon dioxide. Fluorinated gases are well-mixed in the atmosphere, spreading around the world after they're emitted. Fluorinated gases are removed from the atmosphere only when they are destroyed by sunlight in the far upper atmosphere. In general, fluorinated gases are the most potent and longest lasting

As the chart showed
co2 84%
methane 9%
n2o 5%
fluorinated gases 2%

But their information ties co2 methane and n2o together as far as human emitted gases are concerned. My opinion is that they focus more on co2 out of some belief that it will produce a reduction in methane and n2o coincidentally.

as far as environment impact their site claims fluorinated gases are by far the worst in terms of lifespan and impact. Despite that fact and that which you pointed out, the narrative is often aimed at automobiles and energy production. The changes that have been made this far have had an effect and more may need to be done. It's starting seem more like a power struggle for control over industries and markets than a true desire to fix the problem. We (the people down here at this level) really do care and want a clean environment. But it looks more and more like the people (make laws regulations and policy) want to make too expensive for anyone to run, operate or build power plant and automobiles unless you have a friend in government who can grant you a waiver. I don't think they (the upper levels of political power) want to change anything beyond who profits from it. If the Government owned all of the refineries , coal fired power plants and auto manufactures, they'd all be talking about how the beneficial impact far out ways the negatives.

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 07-11-2013).]

quote It's not an article. It's a published scientific paper.

So you misrepresented what the published scientific paper said. Your point?

quote "Ice shelves occur when ice sheets extend over the sea and float on the water" "Ice sheets are enormous continental masses of GLACIAL ICE and snow"

As the ice fields build up, the glacier flow increases causing bigger ice shelves which break off in bigger chuncks.
Antarctica has a very healthy build up of ice. This is causing increased glacial flow.

quote The scientific paper says: "Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion." Again, melting glaciers are contributing to sea ice expansion.

Again you misinterpret what is going on. The increased glacial flow caused by the increased ice load puts more ice in the water to form shelves which in turn melt. The melting at the ocean level is perhaps an issue. The large build up of ice inland is not indicative of Global Warming. It is in indicative of real cold weather down there

quote None of this disproves the evidence posted that indicates polar bears are looking longer and harder for food because of thinning Arctic sea ice. We have clear evidence the Arctic sea ice is fading fast. The latter evidence bolsters the former evidence.

Apparently you read but you just don't understand. The polar bear world population increased from about 5000 in the 1950s to over 25000 in 2005. It now is in excess of 26000 world wide. Bears are territorial animals. The weaker (ei. older and smaller) bears get driven off the territory of the dominant bears. They often look for easier diggings in places like dumps. If you knew anything at all about wildlife you would know this. The polar bears have to spread their range because of population growth. When this territorial war impacts on human settlements, the bears lose.

quote Multiple measurement techniques confirm that Greenland is losing ice and the loss accelerating at a rapid pace.

You keep quoting "Skeptical Science" But, who are they?

Doug Mackie a Global Warming extremist
Neal J. King a telecommunications consultant
Glen Tamblyn, an IT guy from the Solar industry
Michael Sweet, a high school chemistry teacher
Dikran Marsupial , a computer instructor at East Anglia University

Get the drift? not one of them is any more qualified to provide "scientific" information

quote What you just said is like a Nazi complaining Wikipedia is biased about the historical outcome of World War II.

The last refuge of somebody losing an arguement -- Lets refer to Nazi's if else fails.

If you post something in Wikipedia, it is not necessarily factual. Anyone can post something there. I use Wikipedia too, but I don't rely on it.

quote What you said was "You cannot navigate the Northwest Passage" as some sort of "proof" global warming wasn't happening. I listed several years where you could navigate the Northwest Passage which was only recently possible. Consider yourself debunked and move on.

I beg your pardon???? The whole point of the Global Warming initiative 10 years ago was to point out the Arctic Icecap was melting. I have posted current satellite images taken by a bonafida monitoring organization, which shows clearly that there is more ice this year than there was last year. daaa...... Come on now.

quote Water skiing! I'm doing my best to lay out a case in 50 to 100 years that people actually tried to do something before it was too late. This forum will probably give a future psychology student a PhD.

What delusion is this? You first logged on this forum to have at the thread on anthropological global warming started by Fierobear. You picked a fight with the folks who were talking about the evidence that did not support AGW and now you are claiming the high ground?

quote Then disprove it. You just don't know what real science looks like.

Both I and Fierobear have laid out hard scientific evidence in multiple threads which you discount or ignore when you are proven wrong.

You quote the likes of Mackie and repudiate scientists who are quoted here.

You have no credibility. You are an anonymous troll who does not have the gonads to post his real identity or to admit when the evidence contradicts him.

Again, this year there is more ice in the Arctic than last year.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-11-2013).]

Several examples of the Northwest Passage being navigated before:
http://freestudents.blogspo...est-passage.html?m=1

quote Originally posted by fieroX: talking sense into liberals about their climate change bullsh1t is like trying to talk sense into your dog about not eating cat **** .

Me and my wife actually tried that. I like cats and she liked dogs so we were going to have both. She had a Standard Poodle about 4' tall. We were showing it my kittens and trying to instill into her to leave them alone. I held one kitten in my hand petting its head while it meowwed. The dog looked like he was getting it. Then he done a quick snap at the kitten and took its head off in my hands. The libs will never get it that there idea is full of BS no matter what you do. We got rid of the dog btw. The only thing going on with the earth is that its a/ core is slowly cooling, b/ sun is gradually burning out, c/ its rotation is gradually slowing down. Climate is a year by year thing and it will be different every year that goes by till it ends, just as its done since it began.

I already posted a link to a brief and easy to read summary of the reasons that many climate scientists believe in the reality of AGW (anthropogenic global warming)--a summary that to the best of my knowledge is as current today as it was when it was posted in November of 2009:

"How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle?"
http://www.climatecentral.o..._not_a_natural_cycle

That's the short of it.

The long of it has been posted and copyrighted by Spencer West and the American Institute of Physics. It's very current (February of 2013). It chronicles all the developments that have led to the current theoretical and empirical evidences for AGW, starting from scientific observations that go all the way back to the 1820s. It's supported by a bibliography that references more than 60 historical and scientific papers. It's here:

"The Discovery of Global Warming: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect"
http://www.aip.org/history/.../co2.htm

I was looking for something to explain how carbon isotope ratios could be used as signatures to differentiate the exact amount of atmospheric CO₂ from recent photosynthesis, vs. CO₂ from using fossil fuels, vs. CO₂ from volcanic activity--including undersea volcanoes and deep sea thermal vents. "Volcanic activity" has come up time and again on this forum, put forward as an explanation for current global warming. Here is one of the main evidences that supports the anthropogenic factor (combustion of fossil fuels) and eliminates the natural factor (volcanic activity) as a significant driver of current global warming:

Another marker of biological activity was the rare isotope carbon-13. Plants take less of it from the atmosphere than the lighter isotope carbon-12, so the latter is over-represented in coal and oil. The fraction of the lighter isotope in the air was increasing, proving (to a lingering band of skeptics) that the rise in CO₂ came from humanity's use of fossil fuel, not from a mineral source such as volcanoes.

Carbon-14 is also measured to arrive at these determinations. This is known as the Suess effect, in recognition of the chemist Hans Suess, not the more widely known Dr. Suess, who invented the Cat In The Hat. Maybe it was the Cat In The Hat that said this:

quote Talking sense to liberals [sic] about their climate change bullsh1t is like trying to talk sense to your dog about not eating cat ****

Here's the most recent statement (August, 2012) on Climate Change from the American Meteorological Society:
http://www.ametsoc.org/poli...12climatechange.html

An excerpt:

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO₂, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation . . .

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2013).]

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: As the chart showed co2 84% methane 9% n2o 5% fluorinated gases 2%

Yes, but is that by volume or mass?

One of the forecasts by the Global Warming alarmists is the rise in ocean levels.

This too is manipulated to state that the forecast is for a dangerous rise over a century.

This is nonsense.

The oceans undulate and ocean levels both rise and fall depending on your location on the planet

tides and ocean levels

This is the chart showing the historically documented net rise in ocean levels

http://tidesandcurrents.noa...rends/sltrends.shtml

From 1900 to 2000 it was about 160 mm which is 16 cm or about 6&1/4 inches. The ocean had actually dropped below it's mean average previously and is now up some. Is it dangerously increasing? No.

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-12-2013).]

It's obvious some entities (governments, companies, Al Gores of the world) profit from AGW and therefore are personally invested in it. That should not distract from the science of AGW. First off, Al Gore is a pathetic hypocrite and does a disservice for all scientists studying AGW.

I have yet to see any credible theories disproving AGW. AMO/PDO, ice sheets, solar irradiation, etc all have been disproved extensively and conclusively. AMO/PDO cycles, being a relatively short term cycle (~25 years or so), only can change temperatures in the short term and would not cause the long term warming trend we are having. However, AMO/PDO could easily cause the short term flat-lining of temperatures in the past 13 years that skeptics often use as "proof" that global temperatures are not rising.The converse is not true. The sharp increase in global temperatures in the recent century has no rational explaination other than CO2.

There are ways to reduce CO2 emissions without increasing taxes although I don't have great confidence our governing bodies will do so.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Yes, but is that by volume or mass?

I know the difference, but I don't know whether they used volume or mass
to reach those percentages. Hell, I've been trying to find out what % of
the atmosphere these gases occupy, since the chart doesn't.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The amount of CO2 emitted is directly related to the amount of fuel burned. So a vehicle that burns 1 gallon for a trip emits twice as much as one that burns 1/2 gallon of fuel. So what happens? As fuel economy rises, total fuel consumption drops, although mileage traveled rises too.

So it's the Quantity being burned, not the duration.
and 1/2 a gallon burning at idle is less damaging than a gallon
burned while driving. I'm I understanding it correctly...

LOL and everyone knows an idling car is the most polluting car.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: So it's the Quantity being burned, not the duration. and 1/2 a gallon burning at idle is less damaging than a gallon burned while driving. I'm I understanding it correctly...

For CO2 emissions, that's right.

So which one is close to reality?

(A)
http://www.engineeringtoolb...cle-sizes-d_934.html
1 co2 particle is 0.00065 micron.
this dot (.) is 615 micron.

According to the engineeringtoolbox it looks like this
(It would take 946,153 co2 particles to cover this (.) dot)


OR

(B)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...Earth%27s_atmosphere
In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere
was about 0.0387%,[9] or 387 parts per million (ppm).[1][10] At the scientific
recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm
for the first time in May 2013

400 ppm (parts per million)
400 - 1000000
4 - 10000 ( divided by 4 )
1 part per 2,500

co2 is red dot ( . )
according to this wikipedia article it would look like this
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
.................................................

http://www.epa.gov/climatec.../science/causes.html
also reports the parts per million at 400.......

I'm asking if either of them (or which of them) are closer to reality.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: One of the forecasts by the Global Warming alarmists is the rise in ocean levels. This too is manipulated to state that the forecast is for a dangerous rise over a century. This is nonsense. The oceans undulate and ocean levels both rise and fall depending on your location on the planet: tides and ocean levels This is the chart showing the historically documented net rise in ocean levels: http://tidesandcurrents.noa...rends/sltrends.shtml From 1900 to 2000 it was about 160 mm which is 16 cm or about 6&1/4 inches. The ocean had actually dropped below it's mean average previously and is now up some. Is it dangerously increasing? No.

This starts with a reference to "forecasts" by "global warming alarmists" and then focuses on the period from 1900 to 2000. News flash: That's not a forecast. It's a retrospective. It's like someone driving on a highway, getting a radio message about a possibly dangerous situation just ahead of where they are and reacting by focusing all of their attention on the rear view mirror.

This is a plot of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, extracted from historical records of global fossil fuel consumption, year by year, from 1900 to 2000:



It started at about 2 gigatons (2 billion tons) in 1900, gradually increased to about 5 gigatons in 1950, and then sharply accelerated to about 25 gigatons by year 2000.

This is a plot of the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere that includes the period from 1900 to 2000:



It correlates pretty closely with the previous chart. Starting at about 300 ppm in 1900, it gradually increased to about 320 ppm in 1960 and then accelerates more rapidly to about 370 ppm by year 2000.

This is a plot from the IPCC that predicts the level of atmospheric CO₂, year by year, from 2000 to 2100 (of course, we are already at 2013), using 6 different socio-economic scenarios. Each scenario represents a different set of assumptions about the socio-economic drivers of human greenhouse gas emissions as time moves forward to 2100. So the IPCC was trying to cover all of its bets, as to how the rest of the current century will likely play out:



Even under the most optimistic scenario, the remainder of this century will see airborne CO₂ solidly above 400 ppm, year in and year out, reaching 500 ppm by 2100. So we are not looking at a replay of the last century, in terms of CO₂. We are already into a definitely higher CO₂ regime, something that the earth has not seen in the previous 800,000 years--an observation that is supported by direct measurements of CO₂ in "fossil air": Air bubbles trapped in prehistoric ice and retrieved by the technique of ice core drilling in Greenland and Antarctica.

Ice cores only take us back over the last 800,000 years, but another technique has been developed, using the ratio of boron to calcium in fossilized diatoms (single cell algae) as a proxy for airborne CO₂. The findings?

quote You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 [2009] in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today [400 ppm] — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, [and] there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Source: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/po...e-levels-111074.aspx

How does this tie into predicted sea levels? This was released by NOAA as recently as November, 2012:

quote We have [more than 90 percent confidence] that global mean sea level will rise at least 0.2 meters (8 inches) and no more than 2.0 meters (6.6 feet) by 2100.

That is from a NOAA report that I have not studied from end to end (it's 33 pages), but there are some global warming "wildcards" that I suspect are not considered--or at least not fully considered--in this report. These are climate feedbacks that could "turbocharge" global warming and move the sea level rise to the high end of the NOAA range, or even higher. To wit:


Polar Regions Losing Their Shine

quote One important reason for climate change acceleration is positive feedback loops. An example involves the albedo (reflectivity) effect of Arctic Ocean ice. Snow-covered ice reflects about 90 percent of solar energy back into space, while ocean water absorbs about 90 percent of solar energy. As atmospheric warming melts more ice, more of the ocean is exposed to the sun. This warms the ocean more, which in turn warms the atmosphere more, and so on in a continuously increasing or positive loop. Positive feedback loops often behave unpredictably, so their behaviors are difficult to express as mathematical formulas. Thus, climate scientists have omitted some loops from the climate models.

Source: http://www.registerguard.co...ops-methane.html.csp


Permafrost Meltdown

" ... the amount of carbon compounds such as methane and carbon dioxide that are trapped in the permafrost beneath the [Arctic] tundra is staggering--comparable to all of the greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago."

“As temperatures [continue to] warm, it’s thought that these organic materials could decompose more rapidly and give rise to gases such as carbon dioxide and methane...The anticipated release of carbon should accelerate climate change...I think the experts all agree that that’s the case. The question that we’re grappling with is how much carbon might be vulnerable to release, and how fast might it be released."

Source: http://www.nbclosangeles.co...rming-213926781.html


Deep Ocean Warming

According to a report just released this month, there are indications that heat is being sequestered in the ocean at greater depths than were previously anticipated. What will happen as this heat energy accumulates? Will it remain sequestered, or will it trigger changes in ocean circulation with climate impacts that go beyond what has already been predicted using computer modeling?


Methane Madness

quote A recently discovered positive feedback loop has scientists very worried. It involves the powerful greenhouse gas methane, in the form of methane clathrate, which is essentially methane trapped in ice. Huge amounts of methane clathrate are stored under the icy permafrost layer beneath the Arctic Ocean floor. As the Arctic Ocean warms, it is melting the permafrost layer and methane clathrate. This is causing methane to bubble up from the ocean floor and into the atmosphere where it will trap heat. View four international climate scientists expressing grave concerns about methane clathrate in “Arctic Methane: Why the Sea Ice Matters” at rgne.ws/12eNw5n .

Source: http://www.registerguard.co...ops-methane.html.csp


If global mean sea level rise were to reach the high end of the rather conservative--InMyHumbleOpinion--NOAA prediction, at just 2.0 meters, the topography of coastlines comes into play. Where the coastline is a high, rocky cliff, that would seem to be of little or no consequence. But wherever there are wide, sandy beaches with tidal zones that are almost flat, there will be more than just a 2.0 meter displacement of the coastline inland. It's called "horizontal transgression", and it is explained in this recent column from the Daily Kos.


I always think about how all this climate "stuff" will play out by year 2100. As you may well guess, I will never know. Some among us may get a reasonably close, first hand preview of what 2100 will be like.

Someone else here was just saying (perhaps on another thread) that if humans are unable to engineer or condition the weather at any specific location and time, then there is certainly no reason to expect that humans could ever engineer or condition the global climate in any effective manner. I think that's an inaccurate observation. I think that the harshest of the predictable global warming scenarios could be averted by shifting away from fossil fuels wherever and whenever viable and demonstrably better alternatives (from a CO₂ perspective) can be implemented.

I think that I am a global warming "subscriber"--not an alarmist.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-13-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Yes, but is that by volume or mass?

PPM = parts per million or molecule counts so no not volume or mass
just a bit count steady going up

quote Originally posted by ray b: PPM = parts per million or molecule counts so no not volume or mass just a bit count steady going up

Technically Its a mass ratio:

quote Parts per million - ppm - is commonly used as a measure of small levels of pollutants in air, water, body fluids, etc. Parts per million is the mass ratio between the pollutant component and the solution and ppm is defined as ppm = 1,000,000 mc / ms (1) where mc = mass of component (kg, lbm) ms = mass of solution (kg, lbm)

From Rusty's article about deep ocean heating:

“It's more than speculation and suggestion,” agrees climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “and it's probably right to a reasonable degree. The fact of the matter is we'll never be able to get data from below 400 meters in the middle of the Pacific Ocean” because there is not enough money invested in ocean sensors to cover such places. “So we have to use physics to fill in the gaps.”

In other words, they haven't measured the alleged deep ocean heating (the missing heat they keep chasing after like a unicorn), and it turns out they CAN'T. But this is global warming science, you don't have to provide data, you only need a theory and a f***ing computer model and it is settled science!!!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: But this is global warming science, you don't have to provide data, you only need a theory and a f***ing computer model and it is settled science!!!

A theory and physics model is more compelling evidence than skeptics can provide.

I still have yet to see any reasonable, plausible alternative to AGW CO2-based global warming.

The alleged sea level rise is turning out to be a bust

Sea Level Rise Rates Declining Since 1993
http://stevengoddard.wordpr...eclining-since-1993/

=========================

American Meteorological Society – Volume 26, Issue 13 (July 2013)
Abstract
Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?

………..The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The CO2 released when that oil is burned came from where? There's no natural cycle to oil? So that oil in the earth was just born there?

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you're completely missing mine. There are no other animals on Earth that are digging up the worlds oil and burning it. That's a human action. Yes you can say "nature" put the oil in the ground but humans, and only humans, are digging it up, purifying it, and burning it into the atmosphere.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Again, ignoring the info you don't want and only talking about what you think suports your claim.

Humorous you would say that after ignoring every single thing I said except what you could make an "absurd hyperbole" about.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: FYI, the peeing in the ocean is absurd hyperbole to illustrate a point. Either you don't get that, or you're just trying to use it as a personal attack.

Oh I get that it's absurd. But people take things you say seriously. You shouldn't be spreading nonsense like that because not everyone knows the difference. There are plenty of tangible and serious points to argue when it comes to the human role in climate change. There's no need for absurd hyperboles. It adds zero value to the debate.

quote Originally posted by jmclemore: Oh no- You don't get to limit the cost to there budget alone, I certainly didn't. Your source doesn't account for the moneys spent in fines and implementation cost paid by the private sector through the enforcement of those policies. To say trillions is being quit fair....

Then post YOUR sources. There is no way the EPA is making trillions of dollars through fines.

Their 2011 stats say they enforced the following amount in fines:
Clean Air: $75 million
Clean Water: $55 million
Waste and Chemical: $29 million

That's only $155 million.. Not even close to "trillions" in spending. Note that I don't consider their "fines" to be "spending" since it's not from their budget.
Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: So you misrepresented what the published scientific paper said. Your point?

My point is you can hardly read anything and get it right, this is a perfect example. There are numerous examples of you doing this. Not only that, but you never admit when you obviously misunderstood something. You play this childish little game of manipulation.

Since I do not like to make a claim without providing evidence. Here is one example of you reading something, getting it totally wrong, and never stepping up to set the record straight.
Here's your post.
Here's Marvin calling you out.
Here's myself calling you out.

Do you ever acknowledge this obvious error? Nope. You just move on to something else like it never happened. Science is about learning. Even if you got something wrong, you learned it was wrong, therefore learned something, and still won. When you insist you are right in the face of solid scientific evidence because your ego can't take the bruise, you lose.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: As the ice fields build up, the glacier flow increases causing bigger ice shelves which break off in bigger chuncks. Antarctica has a very healthy build up of ice. This is causing increased glacial flow.

The study says there's strong evidence melting glaciers are responsible for sea ice expansion in Antarctica:
"Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion."
Source.

An ice shelf occurs when glacial ice extends over the sea and float. This melting glacier ice, according to the study, is a "significant" contributor to sea ice expansion.

I know it's counter intuitive for you to accept that "global warming is causing more sea ice" but that's reality regardless of how counter intuitive it is.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The melting at the ocean level is perhaps an issue.

That's what the paper says. Melting ice shelves are causing sea ice expansion.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The large build up of ice inland is not indicative of Global Warming.

No one claimed it was indicative of global warming. You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to communicate to you.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Apparently you read but you just don't understand. The polar bear world population increased from about 5000 in the 1950s to over 25000 in 2005. It now is in excess of 26000 world wide. Bears are territorial animals. The weaker (ei. older and smaller) bears get driven off the territory of the dominant bears. They often look for easier diggings in places like dumps. If you knew anything at all about wildlife you would know this. The polar bears have to spread their range because of population growth. When this territorial war impacts on human settlements, the bears lose.

Polar bears growing in numbers are a sign that wildlife conservation efforts are working. In no way are growing polar bear numbers a "smoking gun" like you make them out to be. The paper says polar bears on Arctic Ice are looking longer and harder for food:
"Changes to the timing of migration have resulted in polar bears spending progressively longer periods of time on land without access to sea ice and their marine mammal prey."
Source.

How much Arctic human population growth has expanded to Arctic sea ice? None? Ok, your point about bears invading human settled areas doesn't even apply.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You keep quoting "Skeptical Science" But, who are they? Doug Mackie a Global Warming extremist

Source for your "extremist" claim?

Doug Mackie is a PhD in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Otago. Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Neal J. King a telecommunications consultant

Neal King has a masters in physics from Berkeley. He's a volunteer at Skeptical Science. Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Glen Tamblyn, an IT guy from the Solar industry

And he's a mechanical engineer. Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Michael Sweet, a high school chemistry teacher

He has a masters in organic chemistry and teaches AP chemistry at a high school. Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Dikran Marsupial , a computer instructor at East Anglia University

He's a senior computer science lecturer at a major climate focused university. He's also worked at Climatic Research Unit. He's also got a VERY long list of publicans here.

Source.
Source.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Get the drift?

The only drift I get is that you're describing these people with intention to insult them when in fact they are very knowledgeable and capable people. I also find it personally insulting you think it's a demeaning qualification for someone to be a high school teacher.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: not one of them is any more qualified to provide "scientific" information

I find it amusing you didn't mention that any of them had degrees yet don't consider them qualified.

You wrote this long post without referencing a SINGLE source. Not ONE. At least I have sources for my information. You make all of your information up as you go along.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: If you post something in Wikipedia, it is not necessarily factual. Anyone can post something there.

Nothing is factual through the act of "posting" it anywhere. Facts have to be backed up with evidence to be "facts." Therefore you can find factual information anywhere. Wikipedia does a damn good job of being factual. The volunteers who spend their hours being knowledge philanthropists so an encyclopedia can be free of charge are honorable people.

But if it's so wrong, disprove it with evidence! At least when I tell you a source is shoddy, or more frequently your interpretation of that source, I do so with evidence. You simply refuse to acknowledge it as possibly correct to take the lazy way out.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I use Wikipedia too, but I don't rely on it.

It's interesting that someone who believes the bible predicted World War II doesn't trust Wikipedia. Go figure.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I beg your pardon???? The whole point of the Global Warming initiative 10 years ago was to point out the Arctic Icecap was melting. I have posted current satellite images taken by a bonafida monitoring organization, which shows clearly that there is more ice this year than there was last year. daaa...... Come on now.

You don't understand your own data. First off, 'more' ice this year than last year is too small a time scale. Go back 10 years, what's the result?

Second, your data does NOT say there is 'more' ice this year than last year. Your data covers Sea Ice EXTENT. Which is only a two dimensional measurement. It does NOT measure ice thickness, the third dimension. Therefore your conclusion that there's "more ice" is obviously wrong. Thick arctic ice is in rapid decline.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: What delusion is this? You first logged on this forum to have at the thread on anthropological global warming started by Fierobear. You picked a fight with the folks who were talking about the evidence that did not support AGW and now you are claiming the high ground?

I didn't pick a fight. I merely sounded off the science on the issue. The religious and political conservatives take issue with the science.

When your ignorance reaches the level of being malicious, I have the moral high ground to do the right thing.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Both I and Fierobear have laid out hard scientific evidence in multiple threads which you discount or ignore when you are proven wrong.

Provide proof!

I spend a great deal of time to directly address and debunk the nonsense you guys post. Just about everything you guys post about is manipulated arguments and half truths. I have exposed you guys for your lack of understanding several times. I have done so again in this post.

For example, you think a two dimensional measurement is satisfactory- not for a second have you paused to ask how THICK is the ice.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You quote the likes of Mackie and repudiate scientists who are quoted here. You have no credibility. You are an anonymous troll who does not have the gonads to post his real identity or to admit when the evidence contradicts him.

Stay classy.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Again, this year there is more ice in the Arctic than last year.

This is completely debunked.

Just to make sure you understand me here I want you to do the following:
Go into your kitchen, fill up a glass of water all the way to the top. Now measure the diameter of the glass and record it. Now take the glass of water and dump it on the floor. Measure the diameter of the spill. Your logic states that because the diameter of the spill is greater than that of the glass, there's 'more water.' You don't take volume into account at all.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Several examples of the Northwest Passage being navigated before: http://freestudents.blogspo...est-passage.html?m=1

Being navigated successfully does not necessarily mean the waters were wide open. The examples from your link demonstrate this well.

From your link:
"The historically impassable route has been passed through numerous times for over a century now. Here is a photo of the St. Roch. It’s a wooden ship, not some massive, metallic icebreaker."

From Wikipedia on the St. Roch and Northwest Passage:
"More than once on this trip, it was unknown whether the St. Roch a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner would survive the ravages of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered "if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice.""
Source.

From your link:
"According to the Vancouver Maritime Museum web site, this 104 foot wooden ship sailed through the Northwest Passage from 1940 to 1942, that was from west to east."

It took them 24 months to sail the passage! That's not a sign of the passage being "ice free." From the Wiki link, Later expeditions, first paragraph, states a dog sled only took 16 months.

From your link:
"In 1944 it did it again from from east to west."
I wonder if that's because he knew exactly what route through the ice to navigate.

From your link:
"Remember that police patrol boat that went through the Passage on the other “first” time in 2000? It was actually named the St. Roch II. It sailed the same route as the first St. Roch as a fund raiser to help preserve the original ship. They were re-enacting the previous voyage from 60 years earlier."

From Wiki on the Roch II:
"To make the voyage possible, she [St. Roch II] was escorted and supported by the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Simon Fraser."
Source.

Escorted through the ice by the coast guard's icebreaker ship. What a reenactment!

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-26-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: One concern I have with the "Climate Change" religion is it's treated much like a religion. They're interested more in pennance (carbon taxes, etc.) than elimating sin (stopping the source of emissions). How much is everyone willing to sacrifice? Will you give up your Fiero? How many vehicles do you own? Would you be willing to have fuel rationed so regardless of what mileage your vehicle gets, you can only emit so much carbon? It's always about what they want the other guy to sacrifice. Look at Al Gore, he claims to be carbon neutral through his use of carbon credits. He uses an enormous amount of energy and flies jets all around talking about climate change, but says it's okay because he buys carbon credits. Carbon credits that are sold to him by a company he owns.

. Sorry for taking this so far back, but I want to address the how many vehicles do you own issue. I have enough that I don't bother to keep tract of how many. I only drive them one at a time though and I always choose the most fuel efficient one for the job, so I'm doing way better than a person who only has one vehicle which is a big one and has to use it for every transportation need, ie comuting to work with one person in a six person vehicle instead of using something far more fuel efficient. I would be doing this regardless of climate change anyway because it just makes sense, if you have the room to store the vehicles. Sense to me anyway!

I'll repeat. Skeptical Science is unqualified to give a scientifically sound arguement

You keep quoting "Skeptical Science" But, who are they?

Doug Mackie a Global Warming extremist
Neal J. King a telecommunications consultant
Glen Tamblyn, an IT guy from the Solar industry
Michael Sweet, a high school chemistry teacher
Dikran Marsupial , a computer instructor at East Anglia University

None of them is an oceanographer, climatologist, meteorologist, or geologist.

If you are going to quote somebody, quote somebody who is qualified.

The Arctic icefield has been in flux ever since that last ice age. It has been reducing since the last ice age. In the summer much melts, and in the winter it all freezes. It has nothing to do with anthropological influence.

Arn

Gee, imagine that, not one single climate scientist on the BLOG (which flyinfieros has criticized others for quoting) "skeptical science". A misnamed and intentionally misleading name given that there is not one ounce of skepticism there. They are completely in the tank for alleged human caused warming.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I'll repeat.

Of course you will. You always avoid answering for your nonsense.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Skeptical Science is unqualified to give a scientifically sound arguement You keep quoting "Skeptical Science" But, who are they? Doug Mackie a Global Warming extremist Neal J. King a telecommunications consultant Glen Tamblyn, an IT guy from the Solar industry Michael Sweet, a high school chemistry teacher Dikran Marsupial , a computer instructor at East Anglia University None of them is an oceanographer, climatologist, meteorologist, or geologist. If you are going to quote somebody, quote somebody who is qualified.

You're attacking the volunteers because you cannot attack their content of peer reviewed and published studies. At least when I dismiss your interpretations I do so with evidence.

It's personally offensive you keep claiming being a high school teacher is a demeaning qualification.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Arctic icefield has been in flux ever since that last ice age. It has been reducing since the last ice age. In the summer much melts, and in the winter it all freezes. It has nothing to do with anthropological influence.

Nope. A comparison of past and present changes in the Arctic strongly suggest anthropological influence.

quote Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes, whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing. The Overpeck et al. results confirm results of earlier regional studies that suggest the Arctic is warming like never before. The authors also discuss the significant impacts of warming across the Arctic. These impacts include glacial melting, permafrost warming, lake and forest ecology changes, and the retreating of sea-ice.

Source.

The study.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Gee, imagine that, not one single climate scientist on the BLOG "skeptical science".

Figures you'd jump on the band wagon to personally attack the writers instead of following up with the nonsense I've exposed in your posts.

You're inconsistent in your idea of "qualifications.". You quote WUWT constantly yet Anthony Watts didn't even graduate college. At least they have degrees.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: (which flyinfieros has criticized others for quoting)

The difference between the blogs or websites I quote vs yours is that they don't hide information on purpose in order to deceive the reader. The blog you quoted to support your claims of the Northwest Passage was debunked by Wikipedia. Wikipedia had information that clearly showed how biased the blog was. Two hands is not enough to count how many times I have debunked your arguments with your own papers.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: A misnamed and intentionally misleading name given that there is not one ounce of skepticism there. They are completely in the tank for alleged human caused warming.

It's not wrong to be biased due to evidence. At least Skeptical Science has managed to get papers published in peer reviewed journals.

Anthony Watts couldn't get his paper peer reviewed or published in a journal because his results were not reproducible with his data. His 'results' were station citing played a major role in the warming record. It turns out it didn't make any meaningful difference at all. Anthony was also debunked by the BEST study.

Source.

Anthony only managed to get his erroneous paper 'published' by the Heartland Institute. An obviously biased conservative lobbyist organization with a history of questioning science for profit.

I just caught part of Dan Rathers "a crack in the ice". They were just measuring mud samples from the arctic when I tuned in. There were some observations made by a scientist about climate change both historically and AGW. Is Dan Rather regarded as a reliable source? I'll be trying to watch for a replay of the first part that I missed.

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Then post YOUR sources. There is no way the EPA is making trillions of dollars through fines. Their 2011 stats say they enforced the following amount in fines: Clean Air: $75 million Clean Water: $55 million Waste and Chemical: $29 million That's only $155 million.. Not even close to "trillions" in spending. Note that I don't consider their "fines" to be "spending" since it's not from their budget. Source.

Okay you are discussing the worldwide impact of global warming but on the issue
of cost you want the discussion narrowed to the budget of the EPA itself.

No.

It's nearly impossible to find A SOURCE that combines the national impact financially
spanning from the year they were instituted till the present. It is completely in the realm
of reasonable to suspect the cost of the EPA's budget + Fines paid + The cost companies
incurred through modification, training and new procedure development and implementation.
And that just considering the economic impact of just the United States as a whole.

I believe our disagreement came from my statement on the time and resources we've
expended. In which I still don't see how anyone can look purely at the whole picture
without asking "is that it" is that all we get for all of the money, time, energy, economic
restrains talent and in some cases lives. I mere suggested it's time (not to ditch environmental
responsibility, but) to reexamine and refine it to that which has a track record of WORKING.

There are too many layers between the Public, EPA and the Atmosphere to sanely assume
that money is not being wasted. The fact that we are talking about tax dollars being spent
by government agencies, waste is a given. The problem with these discussions are that people
you and I both care about the environment, but we don't agree on whether or not "the current plan" to
fix it works or has even worked. To which I am concerned about the fact that when people start
talking about how the climate changes, they don't bring any news of "progress". I have yet to hear
"it's working, we have made difference" , No instead All I get is "It's worse" we need to do more....

Obviously an oversimplification to make my point, but
If I pay a guy to cut my lawn, Don't care much about how slow he is, just as long
as the grass isn't same height or taller when he finishes......

I know many don't like the capitalist point of view but seriously I'd like to see some improvement
in the company's (environment intervention) reports and end product before increasing the level
of investment. Until then, as any responsible investor (or environmentally concerned individual)
I'm looking for an opportunity that presents a better return on the investment (ie your competitor).

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 07-27-2013).]

FLyinFieros, or whoever you are. The anonymous troll.

quote You're attacking the volunteers because you cannot attack their content of peer reviewed and published studies. At least when I dismiss your interpretations I do so with evidence.

Your so called "evidence" comes from bloggers who are not, repeat, not qualified in the slightest, or more so than anyone posting on this thread. They need to be attacked if they represent themselves to be the source of factual data.

quote It's personally offensive you keep claiming being a high school teacher is a demeaning qualification.

So you are a high school teacher? What subjects are you trained in? I didn't demean teachers or their profession. I simply maintain they are not qualified to set themselves up as a scientific authority to quote just because they teach teenagers.

Your "arctic temperature" graph shows a net increase of only about 1/4 of 1 degree since 1800. Yeah I'll buy that.

You Anthony Watts graphs show virtually "0" increase at the end of 3 decades. Ok.

quote At least they have degrees.

So let me get this straight. If I am a certified plumber (as example) this would qualify me for Electrical work? Not hardly. Their unrelated degrees mean squat.

I don't care a lick about what Anthony Watts posted or published either.
What I do care about is, there are no starving and drowning polar bears; islands are not being inundated; there is no increased record of hurricanes; the oceans continue to rise at their long term and usual rate, and....... the prognostications of the AGW advocates from up to 13 years ago, have uniformly not come to pass. In other words they were full of hot air.

quote It's not wrong to be biased due to evidence. At least Skeptical Science has managed to get papers published in peer reviewed journals.

Anybody can pay to publish a book, or sell it on a website.

Arn (my real name)