Well that's only true if you take a insignificant portion of data, present it as significant, and commit SCIENCE FRAUD by cherry picking data. BEST also notes:
quote
Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.
I guess 15 is too short, so the story ran with 16 years to validate the idea. Again, SCIENCE FRAUD.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: BTW, CO2 is created as a result of increase temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth, not the cause.
This is very basic elementary school science. Plants do not create CO2 in any way shape or form. Plants create O2 that animals breathe. Plants use the carbon to build themselves. The majority of material that makes up a plant comes out of the air not the ground or water. Therefore, the amount of CO2 available is directly proportional to plant growth.
The notion that plants create CO2 discredits anything you could possibly say about science. You cannot possibly understand anything you have mentioned in this thread if you do not understand the basic elementary science of biology, chemistry, and physics that make life on Earth possible. You should retract this statement immediately. Inability to do so will confirm the Dunning-Kruger effect you suffer from.
"the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year". CO2 has lots of sources. Volcanoes, wild fires, etc and plants use CO2. Agreed.
You've kind of missed the point. It puts me in mind of the Sicilian in "the Princess Bride". You have to watch the movie to get the point.
Al Gore produced "the Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. In that epic bit of Hollywood fluff, he made some outrageous claims of occurrences that would come about within a decade. In that year, the Global Temperature was .5 degrees above the stated average. In 2012 it is also .5 above the average, just as it was in 1997.
The temperature oscillates and has varied .1 to .9 degrees above the stated average. You'll notice I use the phrase "stated average" because the average has only been scientifically documented since 1850. This means that we have a relatively short window to make the "average". It does not include the mini-ice ages, like the Maunder Minimum for instance. So if you accept the modern "average" to be the measure on which to rely, then you can accept that we are currently about .5 degrees above average.
This is wildly off the predictions of the Global Warming alarmists. If you take the El Nino of 1997 there was a hot and dry summer. There was plenty of fuel for the alarmists.
However, Oceans have not risen as the Alarmists predicted. The story that Polar Bears were drowning and starving was a FRAUD. Sure the Arctic Sea has been going through a warm spell, but the Antarctica ice fields are thickening and they just had a record winter. There are no changes for low lying islands, contrary to Mr. Gore. Notwithstanding Sandy, and Irene, there has not been record hurricane activity. There are numerous glaciers growing. And, we cannot yet call Greenland a farming mecca
Arn
In short, the "Global Warming" alarmists have been proven to be dead wrong.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Your interpretation of that graph has already been debunked. But I guess you missed it and will probably miss it again.
INTERPRETATION? Debunked? By whom?
There is not "interpretation", it IS part of the "official" data. The data is from the Hadley Center, one of the organizations that BELIEVES in AGW. It is the HadCrut4 data set. It shows NO WARMING for 16 years. How do you figure that one of the main warmist datasets has been debunked?
likely true BUT lying doesn't cost alot and the nut-con's donot do research or ever collect the data they just spin and lie about it
It costs plenty to program computer models to come up with a predetermined conclusion. It takes money to cover up that falsified data, and sell it to the public in a non-stop propaganda campaign, including scaring the s*** out of little children and making them think they will die from global warming.
From your posts I get the impression that you think climate chain is 100% a fraud. Do you think that there is maybe a 1% chance that our co2 emmisions have any influence on climate at all?
Originally posted by dratts: From your posts I get the impression that you think climate chain is 100% a fraud. Do you think that there is maybe a 1% chance that our co2 emmisions have any influence on climate at all?
I think alot of it is fraud. but alot is not. I dont subscribe to the greenhouse gasses idea one bit. but, I do know there is a correlation between CO2 levels, and general global temps. the earths originals atmosphere was very CO2 rich. and uninhabitable. at least to "life as we know it" plant life slowly terraformed the earth to the point "life as we know it" could evolve & thrive. and, now, we are reversing that very process. at exponential rates.
where I live could use some warming. and I'd LOVE to see the middle east become uninhabitable. as we are slowly seeing some other regions becoming just that.
but - the sucky part is - after every VERY SHORT global warming event - we get the LOOOONG Ice Age......but, I suppose me & mine will be well gone by then, and that'll be up to the great grand descendants. unfortunately, current human static living quarter model doesnt do well with large scale migration.
(For informational purposes: this reply to you should be read with increased volume. The post should have been written in all caps, but was not for other reader's sake)
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: "the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year".
Irony abound.
In a post where I demonstrated you cherry pick data and draw wrong, scientifically fraudulent conclusions- In your reply you cherry pick data and draw wrong, scientifically fraudulent conclusions. If this weren't such a serious topic and you being serious about it, it would be highly humorous.
The quoted portion of your reply is directly stolen from Wikipedia and is incomplete. You purposefully left off the rest of the sentence and the sentence after it. Why is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...es_of_carbon_dioxide
quote
Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year. Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29,000 megatons).
Ah, that's why. Decay of organic material and forest fires release 439 gigatonnes of CO2, as you said. But the rest of the sentence states 450 gigatonnes is absorbed! You just stopped reading once you found something that fit your argument. How scientific and thoughtful of you.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: CO2 has lots of sources. Volcanoes, wild fires, etc and plants use CO2. Agreed.
You've flip flopped, proving you don't really know what you're talking about at all. Further proof you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to know what you're talking about, from the paragraph you quoted it states current volcano emissions account for 1% of all human activity.
"etc" was your only original thought in this post.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Science fraud? Cherry picking?
As you demonstrated on your own you commit science fraud by cherry picking data. There's no question about it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You've kind of missed the point. It puts me in mind of the Sicilian in "the Princess Bride". You have to watch the movie to get the point.
I haven't seen "Inconvenient Truth" and I haven't seen "the Princess Bride." I don't watch Hollywood trash and I haven't had a TV in well over 10 years. So lets get serious.
(For informational purposes: CAPS stop)
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Al Gore produced "the Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. In that epic bit of Hollywood fluff, he made some outrageous claims of occurrences that would come about within a decade. In that year, the Global Temperature was .5 degrees above the stated average. In 2012 it is also .5 above the average, just as it was in 1997.
Why do you go off on a rant about Al Gore? Did you have too many beers at dinner? Who was talking about Al Gore? I had a hunch who was talking about Al Gore. Since you like graphs and TV so much, rather than opening my mouth without valid data to prove the point, I gathered some data.
Method: I searched all 51 pages of this thread for the name "Al Gore" This post was not counted. I did not search for "Gore" "Al Bore" or any other possible mentions. I did spot check and do not believe it seriously impacts results at all, only furthers them. You're welcome to do your own digging. For every occurrence of the name "Al Gore" the forum member got one point. Forum members who quoted another forum member's post containing "Al Gore" were counted but calculated separately. If the forum member posted an article containing "Al Gore" it counted against the forum member. (Contrast to above) Each forum member was put in one of three groups: Denier, Non-denier, Unknown. The only time contextual usage of the name "Al Gore" was taken into account was to put the poster into a group. If it was not completely obvious which group the user wanted to be in they went to "Unknown"
Conclusions: No one is talking about Al Gore but the denier group, accounting for over 77% of all "Al Gore" mentions. fierobear is responsible for 55% of all Denier "Al Gore" mentions and 42% of all mentions. Arns85GT, the next largest, is responsible for 22% of all Denier "Al Gore" mentions and 17% of all mentions. avengador1, the next largest, is responsible for 13% of all Denier "Al Gore mentions and 10% of all mentions. fierobear, Arns85GT, and avengador1 alone are responsible for 90% of all Denier "Al Gore" mentions and 69% of all mentions. The Non-Denier group is responsible for only 2.32% of all "Al Gore" mentions. The Unknown group is responsible for only a little over 8% of all Al Gore mentions. "Al Gore" is the most common argument used against the Non-denier group The Non-denier group does not rely on "Al Gore" for any of its argument. It took 26 pages for the first Non-denier to say the name "Al Gore" The second and third usage of the name by the Non-denier group occurred on page 31. Only 8 pages of 51 pages contained ZERO "Al Gore" - roughly 15%. The denier group needs to move on to something else. Like BEST.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In short, the "Global Warming" alarmists have been proven to be dead wrong.
Only to those suffering from Dunning-Krueger. You should really take the time to educate yourself about this topic without tuning out valid information you don't want to hear. As it stands, I believe you thought plants emitted CO2. I can see you being that wrong about science.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: INTERPRETATION? Debunked? By whom?
There is not "interpretation", it IS part of the "official" data. The data is from the Hadley Center, one of the organizations that BELIEVES in AGW. It is the HadCrut4 data set. It shows NO WARMING for 16 years. How do you figure that one of the main warmist datasets has been debunked?
Do you know what interpretation means? You're looking at 16 years of data and interpreting it as global warming has stopped. 16 years is too short and meaningless!
BEST didn't debunk the data, BEST debunked taking short period like 16 years and trying to draw meaningful conclusions from it. Re-read what I posted. If you did the same thing from the 1980's to mid 90's you falsely conclude global warming stopped back then too so keep dreamin' kiddo.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Was this before or after the BEST research?
By Burt Rutan's own admission in the article Formula88 posted he hasn't paid attention to any new research in the last two years. Therefore his 'research' was before the BEST research started.
quote
Originally posted by lurker: it's sort of interesting to read the links. some of them say there's global warming, but that human causation is minimal. some of them say there's global warming, and no human causation. some of them say there's no global warming at all lots of them really, really hate al gore.
makes me wonder what would they would say if al changed sides.
This is an interesting post from page 1.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: BWAHAHAHA!
Did Al Gore really say that? What a bone head? Mercury cooler than Venus? I guess the fact that Mercury has almost no atmosphere to retain heat didn't occur to him.
What a moron!
He is the best spokesman for the growing non-global warming voice. I say we be quiet and let him shove his foot so far down his throat he can't pull it out again.
BTW, Mars has more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Venus and has an average temp of 88 below zero. Talk to me Al! BWAHAHAHAHA
Do you not think an object's distance from a heat source plays an important factor in the temperature of the object? You know, an object closer to the sun should be hotter than an object further away?
Well nevermind that, from your post it's obvious it didn't occur to you at all. Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus yet Venus has a hotter surface temperature because of it's atmosphere. That's the main point. Atmosphere plays an important role in conservation of heat. The more atmosphere you have the more heat you conserve. Any attempt to refute this is to say the number of thick blankets piled on top of you in the winter has zero effect on your temperature. That is of course false. Blankets make you warmer as does an atmosphere. Therefore atmospheric density is absolutely relevant. Taking CO2 out of the ground and adding it to the atmosphere increases the density and fundamentally increases the atmosphere's potential to conserve heat, like Venus. That's part of the main point you missed.
If Mars and Venus were the same distance from the sun you would have a point about Mars, but they're not. Venus is about 65,070,000 miles from the sun. Mars is about 140,000,000 miles from the sun. That's more than twice the distance from the heat source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-01-2012).]
Its quite possible that Mercury was orignially the hotest planet billions of years ago, back when it still had its crust. But Mercury is actually the left over core of a planet, it lost its crust and mantel from a hugh impact that essentially sheared it off, leaving the core.. Its mostly rock and metal, and reflects a large amount of heat back into space. Also, it takes one full year for mercury to rotate once on in axis, which means for most of the time, 50% to 60% of the planet is in constant darkness, which brings temps down.
Venus is another story.. Its very thick atmosphere, heat cannot escape, therfore the temp goes up.. Proximity too the sun has some effect, but in venus's case, even if it was further away than it is, it would still be hot, it would have just heated up slower is all. Billions of years ago, Venus is more like earth. Thinner atmosphere, and possibly surface water.. But Venus is a very active planet geologically. Lots and lots of volcanos, thermal vents, ect.. For millions of years the eruptions pumped trillions of tons of soot and CO2 into the Venus atmosphere.. The thicker it got, the more heat got trapped in, and you have a run-away green house effect. That could happen here on earth, and it wouldent take a whole lot to do it. Our planet goes through volcanic cycles, and we are overdue by about 10,000 years.. The super volcano in yellow stone alone, if it erupted, could cause an ice age, and block out the sun for years. Then as the earths atmosphere thickened up over time, heat would get trapped, and viola, you have venus..
Do i believe this will happen? Of course it will, its only a matter of time..
Do i think it will happen in my lifetime? Nope..
Do i think it will happen in my great grand kids lifetimes? Nope..
Do i think humans have an effect on global temps? Of course they do..
Do i think humans are the cause of climat shift? No its natural.. Naturally we do have an effect of some kind, but its too hard to say how much..
There are different ways of looking at the issue.. From what iv read in this thread (sorry i didnt read all 50+ pages) there seems to be two camps here..
1) those who say its totally false, and 2) those who think its real, and humans are a large factor.. So you bicker back and fourth on whos right, and whos wrong.. But in all honestly does that really even matter? Wouldent it be good, not nessarily for the earth, but for humans in general to reduce our CO2 emmissions? So if we find out that one day, the earth wont melt and turn into venus because of humans, does that give humans the "ok" to just go ahead and dump billions of CO2 crap into the atmosphere? Id rather we start doing some thing about it now, that way our grandchildren, who might still have a earth to call home because it didnt melt.. But they are gonna want clean air to breath too.. I would want my future generations to live in a cleaner world without so much pollution, and clean air to breath.. Regardless of weather global warming is real or not..
I mean if you want too be the guy who hears a tornado is nearby, but isnt sure if its coming is way, and decides to just sit there and wait to see what happens.. Go ahead, but im going down into my storm cellar until the all clear is given.
So if you keep arguing that its all fake, lets just do buisness as usual, then your stupid..
If you think humans are the main cause, well, your stupid..
If you think neither issue matters, and that cleaning up CO2 emmissions would just be a healthy benifit to ourselves, and our future generations, your a pretty smart person..
This issue seems to be seen by only extremes on either side.. The right says its all a fake, and we shouldent change anything, the far left thinks its real, and think we should change the way we do everything.. Both sides are pretty much wrong.. How about finding common issues that both sides can agree with.. The left says shut down coal power, the right says keep it going.. How about finding a way to do cleaner coal? Which should at least start happening now, but there is so much more we could do. Compromise! Ah who am i kidding that will never happen.
Ok you can get back to your useless arguing now..
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 11-01-2012).]
Your post shows a real propensity for obsessive compulsive behavior. Creating color charts to show who refers to Gore? Really? That is hysterical. Al Gore received much acclaim and money for proposing that Anthropological Global Warming is real and a threat to the world. All his warnings have been proven to be wrong, fraudulent, and misguided. Of course people will talk about him.
You also shoot your own arguements down with regularity.
Examples,
quote
First, Ah, that's why. Decay of organic material and forest fires release 439 gigatonnes of CO2, as you said. But the rest of the sentence states 450 gigatonnes is absorbed!
Of course it is absorbed. That is at the basis of the whole CO2 issue. The more CO2 produced the more plants absorb and grow. CO2 is a direct contributor to the health of our crops and wild life.
The issue is whether people producing CO2 changes the weather, not whether plants absorb it, which they do. To argue the plants absorb it is in favour of the arguements raised by the "deniers".
quote
I haven't seen "Inconvenient Truth" and I haven't seen "the Princess Bride." I don't watch Hollywood trash and I haven't had a TV in well over 10 years. So lets get serious.
You haven't had a TV in 10 years, and haven't seen "an Inconvenient Truth" and have therefore not seen any other news releases and documentaries on the subject but still you can criticize others who have seen it and take issue with its content. You don't know about the 1987 movie which was released in theatres, and I realize it may well predate you so I'll let you have that one.
quote
Do you know what interpretation means? You're looking at 16 years of data and interpreting it as global warming has stopped. 16 years is too short and meaningless!
Fierobear is a very educated and knowledgable person. Your question is facetious. Moreover the 16 years of data is significant for this reason. It was during the same 16 years cited, that the Global Warming Alarmists predicted huge temperature fluctuations, islands being inundated, increased numbers of hurricanes, the extinction of polar bears (whose numbers have grown BTW), and glacier meltdowns. The whole Global Warming movement is only about that old. Moreover the famous "hockey stick" graph produced by East Anglia University and the IPCC has been shown to be fraudulent. The global temperature right now is only .34 degrees above average. This is well below the forecasted figure by the IPCC.
quote
By Burt Rutan's own admission in the article Formula88 posted he hasn't paid attention to any new research in the last two years. Therefore his 'research' was before the BEST research started.
The research done by East Anglia which started the Global Warming scare was conducted in the 90's. To identify the fallacy of it, you have to look at old data. The newer data disproves the initial theory.
How can you, who says you have not had a TV in 10 years, criticize someone who has not paid attention to the new research for the past 2 years?
As for quoting me, please get it right and in context.
quote
More irony. On page 37 you said volcanoes contributing to greenhouse gasses was "pure bunk".
What I actually said was in response to a posting by Rinselberg with whom I respectfully disagreed.
What I said was
quote
This is pure bunk. CO2 follows heat (as heat creates more plant life), and does not create it. It is the result of increased activity in nature, but please remember, human actiivity is a very small fraction of ocean generated CO2 in any case. If you look back a few pages in this thread it is all laid out. Humans contribute a mere fraction of total CO2 and it does not create Global Warming. That propaganda is a scam. It is a lie. It is pure bunk. It is a smoke screen for the uneducated and uninformed and people like Al Gore and the UN use the lie as a means to take your money.
I did not say that
quote
volcanoes contributing to greenhouse gasses was "pure bunk".
The "bunk" I was referring to was the statement
quote
So there is nothing in that statement (at the top) about volcanic gases that runs counter to the reality of AGW.
Of course volcanoes contribute to all sorts of discharged gases and particulate matter as well. They are a major player.
Well good! The sooner we get away from relying on coal for fuel the better. There is no such thing as clean coal.
We get a large part of our electricity from coal. Solar and wind can't make up the difference, and the enviroloonies oppose nuclear. Natural Gas is great, but they worry about the CO2 emissions. Power shortages, here we come, courtesy of the EPA, enviros and Democrats.
And, I assume, you have no problem with unelected bureaucrats passing regulations in a lame duck period?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-05-2012).]
Look at my province, Ontario. Our industry is under much stress. The governing Liberals closed down the remaining coal plants and replaced them with solar (hey we are pretty far north here for solar), and wind farms. The result is the most expensive electricity on the continent. Industry moving to escape the costly environment.
On the other hand, the coal industry now has technology to burn clean. Sure it emits CO2, but so what? We have enough agriculture here in Ontario, enough forests, and lots of lake life to absorb it.
The lefties are attempting to do to us, what has happened to Greece and Spain.
Although I absolutely do not believe that there is a thing such as clean coal, I can sympathize with your situation and I agree that solar might be premature in your location. I'm not advocating that we just drop coal immediately. The stress would be way too much. I do think that coal may have more value in the future as something other than a fuel. Alternative energy is the only way out in the future, but the transition won't be simple and doing it prematurely is not a good idea. I have never espoused the idea of just dropping all of our fossil fuel and doing an immediate transition to solar. I believe that we need to pursue a parallel path. Advancing renewable energy at the same time we are moving away from fossils in a prudent way, not moving away from fossils too fast and not implementing renewables before their time.
Although I absolutely do not believe that there is a thing such as clean coal, I can sympathize with your situation and I agree that solar might be premature in your location. I'm not advocating that we just drop coal immediately. The stress would be way too much. I do think that coal may have more value in the future as something other than a fuel. Alternative energy is the only way out in the future, but the transition won't be simple and doing it prematurely is not a good idea. I have never espoused the idea of just dropping all of our fossil fuel and doing an immediate transition to solar. I believe that we need to pursue a parallel path. Advancing renewable energy at the same time we are moving away from fossils in a prudent way, not moving away from fossils too fast and not implementing renewables before their time.
Gee, that's great that you can sympathize, that you think solar might be premature, and so on. But the EPA is attempting to shut down coal RIGHT NOW. So what are people going to do for power RIGHT NOW?
I'm not in favor of shutting down coal RIGHT NOW. I'm in favor of a gradual transition based on how fast technology advances and can be implemented without throwing our economy completely out if whack. I'm a realist, not a left wing nut like you seem to assume.
I'm not in favor of shutting down coal RIGHT NOW. I'm in favor of a gradual transition based on how fast technology advances and can be implemented without throwing our economy completely out if whack. I'm a realist, not a left wing nut like you seem to assume.
There are times when I think that maybe you don't respect or like me.
Hey - how did I become a non-denier? You need to defind the terms, as I deny that man has anything to do with this steaming pile a horse pucky.
However, I will not deny that is hasn't changed, yes, in my area alone it is much warmer outside now than it was last Monday.
It is a proven fact that the climate goes through cycles and what not - man is NOT to blame and there is nothing he can do about it anyways (just look at the 30's, for example, where many areas suffered from drought) - where was Al Gore and his stupid hocky stick then???
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-05-2012).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: It is a proven fact that the climate goes through cycles and what not - man is NOT to blame and there is nothing he can do about it anyways (just look at the 30's, for example, where many areas suffered from drought) - where was Al Gore and his stupid hocky stick then???
Science says otherwise.
I'm still chuckling at the ass-handing that FlyingFiero's laid on some folks here and the responses to it. Classic
Newf there was no ass handing. He made a colossal fool of himself. He displayed juvenile bravado and an behavioral extremeness most common to OCD people I have known.
Arn
Listen to the Moose. The Moose speaks truth
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-05-2012).]
Originally posted by Jonesy: Venus is another story.. Its very thick atmosphere, heat cannot escape, therfore the temp goes up.. Proximity too the sun has some effect, but in venus's case, even if it was further away than it is, it would still be hot, it would have just heated up slower is all.
You started off right but your post started sliding towards the opposite and eventually ends up there. Your post at face value leads someone to believe Venus would be just as hot if it were further away from the sun, it would only have taken longer to heat up. That is incorrect and I have a thought experiment to illustrate.
Proximity to the sun has a major effect, not just "some effect." Every bit of heat a planet gets comes from light from our sun. If you take Venus and move out to the orbit of Mars, which is twice the distance, four times less light hits Venus than originally did. So at a fundamental level you're starting off with 1/4 the heat the planet originally received.
Venus also loses heat by radiating it away into space. This value remains pretty constant regardless of where it orbits. The amount of heat Venus radiates away into space remains as it always has while the heat it gets from our sun is 1/4 less so the planet would cool down.
There is absolutely zero way Venus could be the same temperature it is now if you move it further from the sun.
quote
Originally posted by Jonesy: Ok you can get back to your useless arguing now..
Sorry about that. It is a good post for what its worth.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You don't make friends or influence people by misquoting and mocking. …. He made a colossal fool of himself. He displayed juvenile bravado and an behavioral extremeness most common to OCD people I have known.
Trying to make friends or shooting down your own argument? My intention is not to misquote or mock you. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again, I'm not here to pick apart your argument or change your mind. I only express my own views so that I may fully understand why I believe the way I do. I'm honestly surprised I haven't been speed banned yet for doing so.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: FlyinFieros,
Your post shows a real propensity for obsessive compulsive behavior. Creating color charts to show who refers to Gore? Really? That is hysterical.
Taking the time to gather data before making up my mind comes across as obsessive compulsive? In America we call it giving a crap.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Al Gore received much acclaim and money for proposing that Anthropological Global Warming is real and a threat to the world. All his warnings have been proven to be wrong, fraudulent, and misguided. Of course people will talk about him.
What you seem to confuse is Al Gore and "Global Warming" to be the same thing, that somehow because Al Gore is wrong all of "Global Warming" is wrong. That is why I illustrated the Al Gore mention. Deniers cannot talk about Global Warming without talking about Al Gore as if he is somehow relevant. Even in dratts' "East Coast Climate Change Opinions" thread Al Gore is still brought up by Deniers. He's not relevant, he's a politician not a scientist. When it comes to science, no one should care that a politician is wrong for saying short sighted things politicians often say for political reasons.
The only reason Al Gore is brought up by Denier's is to shoot fish in a barrel. It's not hard to make Al Gore look like a moron, everyone gets that. It's time for you guys to move out of politics and into science if you want to take part in a scientific discussion.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You also shoot your own arguements down with regularity.
Ironic for you of all people to say that.
You still haven't explained what you meant by this:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: BTW, CO2 is created as a result of increase temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth, not the cause.
When I read that sentence, I read "CO2 is created as a result of temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth". I also read "CO2 is not the cause of temperatures increasing plankton and plant growth."
You responded to my interpretation by stealing half a sentence from Wikipedia that generally stated that compost and wild fires produce CO2. Compost and wild fires are not plants and plankton. They are not even "sources" of CO2 as you stated because ultimately it's a net loss on CO2. Bringing up the net loss on natural CO2 emission was the point of finishing the sentence you didn't finish on your own. Natural decay is not a 'source' at all and your reply to me questioning you about where you think CO2 comes from flirts with irrelevant nonsense.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The issue is whether people producing CO2 changes the weather, not whether plants absorb it, which they do.
No, the issue right now is to prove the planet is getting warmer and that CO2 emissions from people is the cause which the BEST study has done. To start talking about the weather is to jump ahead of yourself like Al Gore.
The ultimate issue is to determine its effect on our future weather, but the science hasn't gotten that far. It's only this year that a definitive study on climate research focusing on global temperatures that took all denier arguments of previous studies into account was completed.
From my position to call Hurricane Sandy an "Act of Global Warming" is to jump ahead of the science. We shall not say things about what we have not measured (hence the spirit of the Al Gore mention). The only people who are brave enough to do so believe they will be retroactively verified sometime in the future. I prefer to just follow the science as it progresses because we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we want nature to be. We should just be trying to learn more about it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: To argue the plants absorb it is in favour of the arguements raised by the "deniers".
It's just a fact plants absorb CO2, it's not in favor of anyone.
Trying to pass off the planet absorbing CO2 as a benefit to the "Denier" argument is very short sighted of you. What's not in favor of the "denier's" is that our oceans have absorbed half of all human emissions causing the oceans to be more acidic, and among other related factors it's killing our reefs.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You haven't had a TV in 10 years, and haven't seen "an Inconvenient Truth" and have therefore not seen any other news releases and documentaries on the subject but still you can criticize others who have seen it and take issue with its content. You don't know about the 1987 movie which was released in theatres, and I realize it may well predate you so I'll let you have that one.
I like how you conclude that since I don't have a TV I must have been living alone in a cave in the woods for these last 10 to 15 years. I don't want a TV crew to narrate butchered and politically warped science to me. I'll go to the source and make up my own mind because that's what someone who is truly interested in science does.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Fierobear is a very educated and knowledgable person. Your question is facetious. Moreover the 16 years of data is significant for this reason. It was during the same 16 years cited, that the Global Warming Alarmists predicted huge temperature fluctuations, islands being inundated, increased numbers of hurricanes, the extinction of polar bears (whose numbers have grown BTW), and glacier meltdowns. The whole Global Warming movement is only about that old. Moreover the famous "hockey stick" graph produced by East Anglia University and the IPCC has been shown to be fraudulent. The global temperature right now is only .34 degrees above average. This is well below the forecasted figure by the IPCC.
fierobear can speak for himself. Just because someone agrees with you politically it doesn't mean they're very educated and knowledgeable. In the thread discussing the manslaughter charges brought against Italian scientists for failing to predict an earthquake, fierobear's only objection was that the ruling didn't happen in the United States and to Climate Scientists. This speaks volumes about fierobear's mindset.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: How can you, who says you have not had a TV in 10 years, criticize someone who has not paid attention to the new research for the past 2 years?
Why do you think TV is valuable? To me TV is a complete waste of life. Again, because I haven't had a TV in years it doesn't mean I've been living under a rock. In fact from my perspective people who spend their life in front of a TV are living under a rock.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: As for quoting me, please get it right and in context. What I actually said was in response to a posting by Rinselberg with whom I respectfully disagreed.
How can you be relied upon to interpret what others have written if you cannot even interpret what you have written yourself?
I quoted you correctly and in context. You can't even quote yourself correctly and in context so allow me to attempt to help you. If you actually read your own post:
quote
As you see, I quoted you correctly and in context. I cannot help you if you cannot quote yourself correctly and in context. I also cannot help if you are unable to recognize your own mistakes.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If you would like to educate yourself, look here
http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196 SIX THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE: 1.   The earth is cooling. 2.   The Sun causes climate change. 3.   Al Gore was wrong about CO2. 4.   Violent weather isn’t getting worse. 5.   It’s been hotter. 6.   Climate computer models are proven wrong.Â
1. The earth is not cooling. This has been confirmed by the BEST study which took temperature data from 16 different sources and found the data actually matched. The planet is 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years. 2. The Sun has the ability to effect the climate but the BEST study found no connection between sun activity and average temperature on Earth. 3. Jesus man Al freaking' Gore again? 4. Al Gore prediction 5. Irrelevant because of the change in the last 50 years. 6. Al Gore related?
Originally posted by fierobear: Solar and wind can't make up the difference, and the enviroloonies oppose nuclear.
I do not oppose nuclear energy. It is our only way out of this energy crisis. Chemical energy, in any form, will never be as 'good' as nuclear. I believe a lot of "enviorloonies" distrust nuclear energy because they distrust corporations and their ability to "do the right thing" when you factor in the consequences of "doing the wrong thing."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Hey - how did I become a non-denier? You need to defind the terms, as I deny that man has anything to do with this steaming pile a horse pucky.
Sorry about that. I should have looked at the context of your Al Gore references more closely.
If you would like to educate yourself, please read this very short 2 page summary of the largest climate study completed by neutral scientists and tell me what you think about it.
"250 Years of Global Warming - Berkely Earth Release New Analysis".
Gonna be -20 on Saturday. Thank goodness some warming is on the way.
Of course it's a good thing it's also happened in the past, otherwise we'd be living on a 2 mile thick ice sheet right now.
I'm still chuckling at the ass-handing that FlyingFiero's laid on some folks here and the responses to it. Classic
It was definately a LOL moment.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Newf there was no ass handing. He made a colossal fool of himself. He displayed juvenile bravado and an behavioral extremeness most common to OCD people I have known.
Arn
Listen to the Moose. The Moose speaks truth
Oh, there was an ass-handing... You're just denying that too.
[This message has been edited by KidO (edited 11-06-2012).]
I'm not in favor of shutting down coal RIGHT NOW. I'm in favor of a gradual transition based on how fast technology advances and can be implemented without throwing our economy completely out if whack. I'm a realist, not a left wing nut like you seem to assume.
You might not be a left wing nut, but if you support what Obama and the EPA are doing, you are supporting a left wing nut policy. And that policy WILL be shutting down coal NOW.
I don't believe man is changing the climate. It has fluctuated suddenly before we were industrialised and it has fluctuated before us, and will do so after us. Volcanoes have a HUGE impact on climate changes. Look at temperature changes worldwide after the major eruptions of the last 100 years.
John Mayer in his Waiting For The World To Change lyrics describes this argument best.
When they own the information, they can bend it all they want.
Like has been said over and over. CO2 does not contribute to Global Warming. It is a bi-product, not a causal ingredient.
As the earth is warmed by solar radiation, and directly influenced by the variations in the tilt of the axis for seasonal temperature swings, the oceans produce most CO2. Humans produce CO2 also, and animals produce CO2. As does industry.
The result? CO2 constitutes a total of 0.039% of the atmosphere. Water vapour actually causes greenhouse effect and the oceans and seas are responsible for most of this.
The number and duration of sun spots and solar storms is a direct and provable cause of temperature fluctuation on earth.
In short, the arguement that humans somehow cause Global Warming is totally without foundation and has been an arguement foisted on the gullible and promoted by the unscrupuloust for their own profit.
Actually, Global warming is a very old phenomenon as this chart will show
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Like has been said over and over.
That doesn't make it true. It just shows how blind you are to any conclusion but what you want the conclusion to be. Rejecting an experiment at it's conclusion is the denier prerogative.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: CO2 does not contribute to Global Warming.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses directly contribute to global warming. CO2 directly contributes to global warming. For you to say otherwise is ridiculous. Source
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: [CO2] is a bi-product, not a causal ingredient.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The result? CO2 constitutes a total of 0.039% of the atmosphere. Water vapour actually causes greenhouse effect and the oceans and seas are responsible for most of this.
Most of the atmosphere is made of up of Oxygen (22%) and Nitrogen (78%). CO2 only makes up .04%. It's a physical fact that some molecules are more sensitive to particular wavelengths of light than others. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb much light of any type which is why they are not a greenhouse gas. But it's been known for over 150 years that CO2 heavily absorbs the infrared spectrum, also known as heat. This physical fact makes CO2 a greenhouse gas and why CO2 directly contributes to global warming.
Now lets talk about water vapor. The amount of water vapor in the air has one major factor: TEMPERATURE. The higher the temperature the more water vapor the air can hold. If we are increasing the temperature of the atmosphere by releasing heat absorbing molecules like CO2, we are fundamentally increasing the atmosphere's potential to retain more water vapor and therefore more heat. So thank you for bringing up water vapor.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The number and duration of sun spots and solar storms is a direct and provable cause of temperature fluctuation on earth.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In short, the arguement that humans somehow cause Global Warming is totally without foundation…..
You have this backwards. The denier argument is without any foundation. You rely on sourceless charts and people who blog for a hobby as "evidence."
The BEST study took raw data from 15 independent sources, consisting of over 39,000 temperature stations around the world. The denier argument was taken into account. Here's the words of denier Anthony Watts on the BEST study before it kicked off:
quote
“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
The data from the 15 sources matched and showed a 1.5*C rise in the last 250 years and a 0.9*C rise in the last 50.
The denier's following their prerogative reject the BEST study at it's conclusion, not it's content. Anthony Watts after the study results were released:
quote
I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.
To say that we have no foundation for the "global warming" argument is completely false. The BEST study is our foundation. So please direct your attention to it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Actually, Global warming is a very old phenomenon as this chart will show
We're undisputedly 0.9*C warmer in the last 50 years. Where on this chart ranging from a period of 10,000 years ago to over 4,000,000,000 years ago will it accurately represent that change? The changes we have seen in the last 50 years normally happen over thousands or tens of thousands of years- not 50.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: I don't believe man is changing the climate. It has fluctuated suddenly before we were industrialised and it has fluctuated before us, and will do so after us.
The fluctuations you are talking about happen over very long time periods, not 50 years.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Volcanoes have a HUGE impact on climate changes. Look at temperature changes worldwide after the major eruptions of the last 100 years.
What sort of impact do you believe volcanos have?
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: John Mayer in his Waiting For The World To Change lyrics describes this argument best. When they own the information, they can bend it all they want.
"They" don't own the information. All BEST information, the data, and even the software is open for the public to scrutinize: http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-12-2012).]
Berkeleyearth data follows the IPCC data. It is still flawed in this regard. They include stations located in urban areas. It is entirely logical an urban area will greatly increase heat signature by the increased use of automobiles and increased industry. Sorry, no cigar from me. You cannot form the Global Warming basis by including cities in your data. You have to go to another source.
BTW, remember the predictions that have not come true.
There are no starving and drowning polar bears There are no inundated islands There is not increase storm activity (despite Sandy) The Oceans have not risen what was predicted
And yes, there is continual climate change just as there always has been
Berkeleyearth data follows the IPCC data. It is still flawed in this regard. They include stations located in urban areas. It is entirely logical an urban area will greatly increase heat signature by the increased use of automobiles and increased industry. Sorry, no cigar from me. You cannot form the Global Warming basis by including cities in your data. You have to go to another source.
BTW, remember the predictions that have not come true.
There are no starving and drowning polar bears There are no inundated islands There is not increase storm activity (despite Sandy) The Oceans have not risen what was predicted
And yes, there is continual climate change just as there always has been
Arn
Flying Fiero's keeps handing you your collective asses and you keep coming back for more. FYI he covered the Gore issue.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Berkeleyearth data follows the IPCC data. It is still flawed in this regard. They include stations located in urban areas. It is entirely logical an urban area will greatly increase heat signature by the increased use of automobiles and increased industry.
I've stated this a few times already, but you may not have read it: the BEST study took ALL denier arguments against global warming into account.
If you had taken the time to research the BEST study at all you would have realized your only concern, urban heat island effect, was specifically addressed.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Sorry, no cigar from me. You cannot form the Global Warming basis by including cities in your data. You have to go to another source.
The BEST study reproduced their results using rural data alone.
Cigar yet? It's-A-Boy's are my favorite.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: BTW, remember the predictions that have not come true.
There are no starving and drowning polar bears There are no inundated islands There is not increase storm activity (despite Sandy) The Oceans have not risen what was predicted
No one cares about Al Gore predictions. Stop getting your science from political sources. It's like trying to refute religion because Pat Robertson's 'predictions' are wrong.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And yes, there is continual climate change just as there always has been
Arn
This is the second time on this page you've made this statement. It comes across like you think climate change is all sunshine and rainbows because it's happened in the past.
Having said that, it is no coincidence the large swings in temperature on the graph you posted correlate with massive extinctions: Source
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives.
In other words, all the fraudulent material from East Anglia, and the errant material from IPCC who they quote extensively
