Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Climate Change is Real... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Climate Change is Real...
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward, the ice age commencement may take decades or centuries or even millenia to reach the point of continents covered in glaciers when we think about what an "ice age" is.

While your waiting 100 years for AGW to cause a catastrophe, we only need two or three consecutive years of a gradually, inceasingly, colder and longer winters to destroy crops and crash our current food production system.

Or a single super volcanic eruption. Understand that when Krakatoa exploded, blocking out the sun and cooling the globe, humanity had a far different model of food production and distribution.

EDIT - Then there was Tambora...Year Without a Summer

[ February 08, 2011, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most of the indicators from scientists who's entire careers and funding depend upon bolstering the AGW narrative.
And who are you relying on? Primarily those who worry about losing careers and money if AWG countermeasures are implemented. Are they supposed to be more reliable than those whose professional reputations ride on telling the truth? And whose data all sides use as the most reliable? [Wink]

quote:
Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

No, no and no.

But you forgot the most important question: Do I think any of those catastrophies will occur in the next few hundred years.

And the answer to the last one is, no.

Do I think AGW will change the climate in the next 100 years?

Yes.

quote:
While your waiting 100 years for AGW to cause a catastrophe, we only need two or three consecutive years of a gradually, inceasingly, colder and longer winters to destroy crops and crash our current food production system.
And, once again, when will that occur? Next year? Ten years from now? A hundred? A thousand?

When will the next catastrophic volanic erruption occur? How long will its effects last? Just one summer?

You're still expecting a catastrophe to save you from the effects of AGW. What if it doesn't occur??

You've done your share of betting in your life. Should you completely ignore a sure-thing if there is a small chance that something else will come along and negate it? [Wink]

I mean, that would be like betting heavily if you have four aces in a poker game. Someone else will get a royal flush sooner or later. That will beat your hand, so why bother? Right?

Because that is what you are arguing here.

Posts: 8083 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
michaellve
Member
Member # 6206

 - posted      Profile for michaellve   Email michaellve       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma -
quote:
Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

We can't mitigate every possible outcome but we can do something, and as far as I can tell you are stating doing nothing. Why not try to control what we can control and hope that it will lead to the best possible outcome?

[ February 08, 2011, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: michaellve ]

Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma: Aside from the fact that you believe they are based on fallacious information, what are your objections to the various policies proposed and implemented in response to global warming?

Are you afraid of the economic repercussions of Cap & Trade? What are your concerns? I'm just curious.

Posts: 3452 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
It is progress that you recognize that climate events occurred without CO2 being the root cause. In fact, it is obvious from historical records that there is not even a correlation.
The current best evidence is that CO2 is a driver for historical climate change, it just isn't the most significant during all time frames. The fact that you believe otherwise suggests you have little or no acquaintance with the actual research.

quote:
Why do they no longer apply?
All drivers of climate change are relevant, most of them have time scales that are not relevant over the next 200 years or so. If you have any math background, think of sine waves with different wave lengths and amplitudes. When you add them together you get a compound function. Most of the drivers that have an enormous impact are extremely long waves with periods on the order of millions of years, that have such a gradual slope that their effect is imperceptible over the time period of interest. Others have such a short period that they are essentially noise. Others are like 'one shots' - ie a major volcanic erruption causes a temporary down swing due to aerosols. Or the impact of a major asteroid. One shots are essentially irrelevant to trends, but can have short term effects.

quote:
CO2 had nothing to do with prior events but now the literally minuscule amount generated from anthropogenic sources is the cause.
First CO2 clearly was related to previous warming it just isn't necessarily the most important factor for any particular time period, if you fail to acknowledge this, then you have either been misinformed or failed to understand the information you have encountered.

Also miniscule in what sense?

quote:
In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

quote:
What made CO2, this one time, suddenly the primary driver?
Over the time scale of interest the other factors are either stable enough to not be relevant, or of a short enough period that only their average impact is relevant, or of such a random nature and short duration that they are largely irrelevant from a policy and planning perspective.

quote:
Broader questions: why is the CO2 impoverished current state the "correct" one? Why is the current record low global cold the "correct" temperature as opposed to the much higher average? Why is the current rate of change that is strikingly similar to the that occurred at the start and end of the Little Ice Age different? (you can almost literally overlay the charts)
While I won't address your characterizations of historical climate, the current climate is one our species is well adapted to and the anticipated climate changes are likely to be extremely expensive to adapt to in terms of monetary but also potentially in terms of human life. It is also not the particular climate that is critical but the rate of adaptation that might be needed as well as other factors that hamper ours and other species ability to adapt to a rapidly changing climate - ie species that historically would adapt by a slow migration in their habitat that potential adaptation has essentially been eliminated due to our land usage practices; and other species have had their populations depleted such that the loses that would normally be sustainable as a perquisite for adaption might result in dooming of the species to extinction.

quote:

Do you believers actually think AGW is going to stop the next ice age cycle?

Some models that suggest that the next predicted ice age due to orbital changes in 10,000 or so years from now could be prevented by AGW

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/13/2418491.htm

quote:
Do you think it will negate the effects of the solar cycle?
CO2 works by retaining heat that would otherwise be lost, not sure what you might mean by 'negate' a solar cycle.

quote:

Do you think carbon emission controls, alternative energy conversions, de-industrialization...all the proposed solutions to deal with mitigating the myth of AGW...these things will somehow stop the climate from changing or preventing catastrophic events?

Do you think that openning your door to your to your house will cool your house? The correct answer is - it depends on the surrounding circumstances.

Your question can't be answered yes/no.

Reductions in CO2 and other AGW related changes can't 'stop climate change' but it can prevent the climate change expected to be be caused by AGW. Similarly it can't 'prevent catastrophic events' except those that are predicated upon changes induced by AGW.

Similarly the proposed solutions you list are not the only possible proposed solutions. Some proposed solutions that I prefer are externality taxes - ie if the cost of the US military to maintain middle east stability, which is primarily due to our interest in oil is shifted from income taxes to a tax on oil that could be entirely tax/revenue neutral, while encouraging a drastic reduction in oil consumption.

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those of you highly skeptical of the idea that a magnetic reversal of the poles could happen quickly and signal a rapid change in the climate (a new ice age) and geologic catastrophes (super volcanic eruptions and earthquakes), check these links out:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62947/title/Geomagnetic_field_flip-flops_in_a_flash

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727765.000-second-superfast-flip-of-earths-poles-found.html

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, the author of the study, Scott Bogue, is quoted in your linked article as saying
quote:
To geologists a polarity reversal is a nearly instantaneous thing that changes a global feature of the Earth — it’s really a spectacular phenomenon,” he says. “But if you were alive when it was happening, it probably wouldn’t be that big a deal.
So, no super volcanoes or super earthquakes.  No ice age.  This is NOT an article that supports your imminent cataclysm claims, Daruma. 

What else did the article say?
quote:
It is only the second report of such a speedy change in geomagnetic direction.

The first, described in 1995 based on rocks at Steens Mountain, Ore., has never gained widespread acceptance in the paleomagnetism community.

Also
quote:
“We’re trying to make the case that [the new work] is another record of a superfast magnetic change,” says lead author Scott Bogue, a geologist at Occidental College in Los Angeles.  
So what we have here is 2 studies over a 15-year span, scientific dispute and the acknowledgment of the author that they are trying to demonstrate that the subject of his study supports an instance of a fast reversal.

Why glom onto this preliminary report as some kind of convincing evidence when you so readily dismiss research with far more support but that does not mesh with your world view? People have been called "useful idiots" and "sheeple" for far less.

Posts: 10293 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, no super volcanoes or super earthquakes. No ice age. This is NOT an article that supports your imminent cataclysm claims, Daruma.

I didn't link to those articles to show that there is an imminent cataclysm...only to show that there does in fact exist evidence that magnetic shifts can occur rather rapidly...as most people believe they only occur over a long period of time. Aside from that, this guy is simply guessing that rapid magnetic reversals would have no ill effects on humanity. I think that while his article is useful in pointing out that magnetic pole reversals are not something entirely predictable and strictly limited to long term, slowly occurring events, they can also happen fairly rapidly. But what he's not taking into consideration is the evidence that magnetic reversals often expose the earth to solar radiation that the magnetosphere usually protects the planets surface.

I'm not claiming cataclysms are imminent...only that cataclysms are inevitable. The cycle of long ice ages and brief warming periods is historical fact. The history of supervolcanic eruptions and their effects on global climate is historical fact. Either of these events may be connected or not...but in any case, the effects of these inevitable events will render fears of AGW moot.

Why glom onto this preliminary report as some kind of convincing evidence when you so readily dismiss research with far more support but that does not mesh with your world view? People have been called "useful idiots" and "sheeple" for far less

I dismiss AGW "research" because it is largely based on predictive computer models.

Recognizing the cycle of magnetic pole reversals and ice ages is based on studying geological evidence like ice cores and lave flows.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look...a careful reading of this article will show that I'm not the only one who is thinking about the effects of dramatic climate change...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

quote:
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Right up until this last part I bolded, the report this article is discussing, is concerned with "climate change." It makes extensive quotations from the Pentagon report...but that last section was NOT quoted from the report. It is the article writer tying the Pentagon report on "Climate Change" to the AGW theory of rising sea levels and flooding. Note the statement "Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020."

Now does this Pentagon report really sound like it's concerned about "global warming?"

quote:
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

Bush did in fact later come out and say that he believed "CLIMATE CHANGE" was real. By 2008, he was holding press conferences about striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As we all know, Bush is a liar. He knows what the real climate change threat is. He got to read the entire Pentagon report.

quote:
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

That's because AGW is a hoax...but climate change and the possibility for wars driven by catastrophic climate change is very real.

quote:
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

Will one of you AGW believers explain to me how Global Warming is supposedly going to cause water shortages and crop failure? Warmer globe means more water - melted ice. Warmer globe means ability to grow crops at higher latitudes...as evidenced by the former Viking settlements in Greenland, who settled it during a much warmer period than our current epoch.

The worst catastrophe you could possibly link to the Global Warming theory would be flooding of coastal regions. But other than California, the rest of N. America is still more than capable of supplying major food crops to feed the world...even if the CA coast were inundated by rising sea levels.

No...the real threat from climate change is global cooling. That is the climate change that would cause a global food supply crisis.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I'm confused: How do rising seas go together with "Siberian winters"? In an ice age, sea level drops. Rising seas drowning coastal cities are related to warming, not freezing.

"Warmer globe means more water - melted ice."

Melted ice that mostly blends with sea water, hence not potable. As for crop failures - if a crop grows well in temperature range X, it will not necessarily do so in a warmer climate.

Nobody is denying that significant global cooling would also be devastating to crops. Crops depend on a certain temperature range. Changing it significantly in either direction is potentially harmful.

You really arguing with voices in your head and not with what most if not all people here are actually saying.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I'm confused: How do rising seas go together with "Siberian winters"? In an ice age, sea level drops. Rising seas drowning coastal cities are related to warming, not freezing.

Exactly. This is precisely why I believe this article is basically the journalist taking parts of the Pentagon report to write this article as a support for AGW theory. The Pentagon report says Siberian conditions in 2020 - the commencement of the next ice age - but the writer sees "climate change" and automatically assumes that means AGW.

"Warmer globe means more water - melted ice."

Melted ice that mostly blends with sea water, hence not potable. As for crop failures - if a crop grows well in temperature range X, it will not necessarily do so in a warmer climate.


Ummmmmmmmmm....melted ice from land glaciers feed rivers and lakes.

Nobody is denying that significant global cooling would also be devastating to crops. Crops depend on a certain temperature range. Changing it significantly in either direction is potentially harmful.

I never accused AGW believers with denying it. My point is that if you read this article, the writer refers to the Pentagon report regarding climate change as a danger to the global food supply...and imputes it to AGW. It doesn't make intuitive sense. The Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, when the climate was warmer than it is today. When the climate changed, they had to abandon Greenland.

So, again, how does a warming climate threaten the food supply so catastrophically as the Pentagon report warns?

It doesn't. It's simply the Pentagon's report based on potential worse case scenarios caused by climate change...NOT AGW...but the journalist and/or editor (who are most likely AGW kool aid drinkers as well) used the Pentagon's Report on "climate change" to bolster the AGW theory.

You really arguing with voices in your head and not with what most if not all people here are actually saying.

[LOL]

Ok, now that is a good insult. Much better than your typically condescending ad hominem.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It might be that the 'Siberian Winter' reference was actually a worst case scenario or exaggeration for a shift in the winds that might be caused by thermohaline circulation collapse.

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

Depending on when the report was written that was a significant concern but the severity was unknown - with better modeling we expect that THC will weaken but not stop and that the cooling effect from the shift in THC will be outweighed by the local warming due to AGW. Note that this paper is supposed to be true worst case scenario - ie if our modeling of THC underestimates the impact of its collapse, etc.

Note that for THC collapse to occur you would in fact have both the anticipated sea rise and the cooling of Great Brittian and the Nordic countries so they are not mutually exclusive.

So the journalist may have in fact gotten it right.

Indeed reading the report it is exactly the THC collapse that the report is talking about.

http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

[ February 12, 2011, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note also that nowhere does it claim 'Siberian Winters' instead is says 'more like Siberias' (colder and drier local climate) so it is accurate as far as it goes though misleading.
Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding crop failures - yes THC collapse was expected to have massive reduction in food production for Europe.

Regarding fresh water - the biggest concern I have about sea level rise is not land being submerged, but instead salt water intrusion into aquifers. Essentially almost all coastal aquifers becoming salt water due to the rise in sea level increasing the pressure on the salt water side and driving the ocean water into our aquifers.

Daruma,

quote:

Now does this Pentagon report really sound like it's concerned about "global warming?"

The report is indeed concerned with the impact of AGW (it comptemplates the impact of abrupt warming as opposed to the anticipated gradual warming). So your speculation that is was some other climate change scenario is unfounded.

From the reports summary,

quote:
Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production.
Regarding magnetic shifts - I haven't found any reputable source that expects any of the scenarios that you suggest from a reversal.

[ February 12, 2011, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, you repeatedly resort to "I can't find reputable sources," yet you often cite Wikipedia. [DOH]

The whole point is that "reputable sources" are all in lockstep agreement that AGW is the primary concern for near term climate change.

So whatever. I really don't care to try and convince you true believers in AGW. I just think there are far more climate change possibilities to be worried about and preparing for than warming.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

I don't cite wikipedia as a source. I often provide it as a link since it usually has a reasonably accurate summary of the current state of research that is readibly comprehended by lay persons.

By reputable I'd take any site that seems to have a reasonable grasp of science and isn't expecting doom in 2012 based on the Mayan calandar ceasing.

While some reversals occur during cataclysms it appears to be incidental (ie some causes of cataclysms can also cause field reversals).

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/11/1047.abstract

Ie a massive meteor impact could understandably change the momentum of the earths core such that it leads to a pole reversal.

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't link to those articles to show that there is an imminent cataclysm...only to show that there does in fact exist evidence that magnetic shifts can occur rather rapidly
That may not be why you wanted to link those articles, Daruma, but that is the reason given by the actual words you used to characterize the articles
quote:
For those of you highly skeptical of the idea that a magnetic reversal of the poles could happen quickly and signal a rapid change in the climate (a new ice age) and geologic catastrophes (super volcanic eruptions and earthquakes), check these links out:

Posts: 10293 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An interesting study on variations in weather since 1871.

wsj.com

quote:
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict.

I was amused by the description of how global warming affected Heathrow airport.

quote:
Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain's future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.


Posts: 3458 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Know what? I'm tired of this debate over AGW versus climate change.

My question for those of you that think all "conspiracy theories" are bat**** insane is this:

For over 5 years now, the National Guardsmen (the units that have been battletested in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been training to control civil unrest. They have been training to round up and relocate American citizenry in mock training grounds designed to replicate a typical American suburb. I've seen these training grounds with my own eyes. I've walked through them, while hunting on military training areas I was not supposed to be at.

We have Presidential administrations of both parties since Nixon onward that have been steadily building a framework of executive orders designed to be implemented at the stroke of the President's pen to impose martial law in every corner of the country.

We have FEMA camps in all 50 states, ready to go.

We have local law enforcement officers attending seminars and conventions that deal strictly with the topic of population control, civil unrest and civilian relocation.

Our government has been preparing for years now for some major event or events to serve as the impetus for changing the fundamental nature of this country and the way it is ruled and the way of life that we have here.

Now if you believe that the US government is preparing for this eventuality because of AGW, take a step back and really think about that.

If AGW driven climate change is the impetus for our government to do all these things, why wouldn't they just expend the same amount of effort in SERIOUSLY curtailing carbon emissions? Seems to a lot easier to address that then to build up the infrastructure and systems to convert this country into a Police state.

And I don't care how many "scientific" articles you can cite or link to, I think the idea that AGW would destroy the global food supply simply doesn't make sense. Warmer world - more latitudes you can grow food.

This preparation by the Government is in fact getting ready for SOME form of global cooling - whether it be the next ice age or a super volcano.

Here's a bbc article, which of course adheres to the politically correct consensus of AGW...but note:

quote:
It is important that we understand these natural climatic rhythms as our current interglacial has lasted 11,500 years and could potentially end at any time.

Although the current human-induced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are thought to be unprecedented in the recent geological record, some scientists argue that it's possible the changes we are making by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ultimately help usher in the next ice age.

As others have noted, see how AGW is used to say it will cause catastropic warming (the glaciers will melt, the seas will rise!)...but also global cooling - all that C02 emissions may usher in the next ice age!

Bah.

Analysis of ice cores shows that ice ages occur in a relatively regular cycle. We're overdue for another one, based on the rough estimate of an 11,500 year cycle. I believe this is precisely why the governments of the world are planning for.

If that's bat**** insanity to find that theory more plausible than AGW, than good. The last thing I want is to be considered "normal" in an insane world. [LOL]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

Could you provide sources for maybe 10% of what you just posted? By the way, a TV show that quotes "some scientists" doesn't count.

The average baseball team wins a World Series every 30 years*. So sell everything you own and bet it on the Cubs!

*I read that on the internet, so it must be true.

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

quote:
Now if you believe that the US government is preparing for this eventuality because of AGW
Hmm none of your preceding sounds like it has anything to do with AGW 'preperations'. What are your sources that state that those are the government reasons why?

More likely is that they are training initiated after how poorly the response to Katrina was by the various government agencies particularly FEMA and the Coast Guard, but that isn't predicated on AGW. We will have hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes irrespective of AGW. There might be an uptick in their frequency or severity due to AGW but largely is irrelevant to whether the training is needed (which it obviously is, hence the wide spread complaints about FEMA and the Coast Guards inadequacy related to Katrina).

quote:
Why wouldn't they just expend the same amount of effort in SERIOUSLY curtailing carbon emissions? Seems to a lot easier to address that then to build up the infrastructure and systems to convert this country into a Police state.
Seriously Daruma, the cost on FEMA and Coast Guard training is fairly small and applys to any disaster preparedness. That same amount of spending on CO2 abatement would have very close to no impact.

quote:

And I don't care how many "scientific" articles you can cite or link to, I think the idea that AGW would destroy the global food supply simply doesn't make sense. Warmer world - more latitudes you can grow food.

If a jet stream shifts from providing warm moist air over europe to instead over the ocean, then that regions food productivty drops drastically. It isn't just air temperature suitability - moisture and water availability, soil richness, current biota and flora to support the growth are also important. Also infrastructure and displacing the biota currently in those locations. It has taken hundereds of years to create our current agricultural infrastructure - uprooting it and moving it hundereds or thousands of miles is a non trivial undertaking.

Just because you have a poor grasp of the science and factors involved doesn't mean others are wrong.

You have been shown to clearly not understand what you are talking about numerous times in this thread and completely ignore the evidence and instead skip to something else insisting you are still right.

There is nothing to indicate a near term ice age. Indeed current best estimates are

quote:
[i]mproved orbital calculations and paleoclimate data would eventually show that the natural end of the current interglacial is tens of thousands of years away.
If you are truly interested in ice ages and our best scientific understanding of them, this article does an awesome job of tracing our knowledge and the research that formed our historical and current opinions.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

[ February 13, 2011, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*I read that on the internet, so it must be true.

Right. [Roll Eyes]

"I read it in the newspaper...I saw it on TV...so it must be true." Better yet..."I heard it on NPR!"

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=National+Guard+training+for+civil+unrest&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&psj=1&fp=92188ee12107320c

Google up "House Resolution 645"

Personally velcro, you can kiss my ass. I never once ever said "I heard it from a scientist quoted on TV shows."

I referred to personal conversations I've had with Law Enforcement officers I've known for a long time who have attended mainland seminars about civil unrest and assisting the military in mass relocation and martial law. I have a cousin who is in the National Guard and has done 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghan. He told about the civil unrest and round up training his unit has undergone. If you think I'm just making it up, than fine. Keep your head in the sand, it's no skin off my nose.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because you have a poor grasp of the science and factors involved doesn't mean others are wrong.

No, I have a poor grasp of the "science" that LetterRip declares is legitimate or that which is not. If LR sees an article that disagrees with the mainstream consensus, than it's "not science."

I've provided links of many scientists that have stated that there is an ice age cycle of 11,500 years or so, and that we are overdue.

Whatever.

Oh....as for your claims that FEMA and the Government are simply training to better respond to emergencies like Katrina, keep believing whatever the government and media tells you.

I personally think that National Guard units training for home invasions and mass relocation by force has nothing to do with "Emergency Preparedness."

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

the Milankovitch cycle is a broad driver, it is true that it is approximately 11,500 years - but there is also +/- 3000 years (actually much bigger error bars than that if I recall correctly), and if you were making the claim in 1970 or so such a naive understanding would be fine (well assuming you remember to include the +/- 3000 error bar which apparently you and your sources don't) - we could see the rough timing of the cycle in oxygen ratios of ocean floor cores and ice cores, and radiocarbon dating of glacial paths among other evidence.

However, science and our understanding of a relatively weak effect Milankovitch cycles work has evolved (ie from wondering why would such a small change in amount of solar output received matter, and why wasn't it having effect on only one hemisphere to understanding that the small amount of warming resulted in methane and CO2 release which spread globally which self reinforced till a peak is reached. Combined with other factors - continental drift results in some water bodies being locked sometimes which causes cooling; land bodies can block and redirect currents in general resulting in cooling. Upthrust land masses can result in CO2 being pulled from the atmosphere faster).

quote:
Oh....as for your claims that FEMA and the Government are simply training to better respond to emergencies like Katrina, keep believing whatever the government and media tells you.
I didn't go by media reports or government statements. I went strictly by logical induction. The actions you are talking about are fairly recent - after major disasters and PR embarrassments for the two agencies involved related to exactly this topic.

quote:
I personally think that National Guard units training for home invasions and mass relocation by force has nothing to do with "Emergency Preparedness."
For National Guardsmen (my mistake had thought you had said Coast Guard initially) the training is clearly related to our new urban doctrine as formulated during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been recognized that most of our actions for ground troops are urban related operations where significant neutral or friendly civilian populations are located.

If seems difficult to believe that you are truly oblivious to the non consipiracy theory reason for this.

[ February 13, 2011, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR - they're bringing back veteran National Guard units who are already experienced in urban combat. The drills they are training are American domestic suburbia. I'm pretty sure the mock training site I saw with my own eyes does not resemble urban combat zones like those in Iraq & Afghan.

It's not a "theory" that the US Gov is actively training for the possibility of civil unrest and forced home invasions.

http://www.carrollspaper.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=7451&TM=46226.32

This is the sort of training they are conducting at sites like the one I walked through. It's made to resemble a typical American suburb.

Frankly LR, it doesn't take a conspiracy mindset to understand that our Government lies to us all the time. Only naive fools accept the Gov's explanations at face value.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

I assume the government lies about many things. However generally I need some sort of good reason to believe they are doing so (ie financial benefit of themselves or one of their constituents, to cover up something embarassing, etc.).

quote:
The drills they are training are American domestic suburbia. I'm pretty sure the mock training site I saw with my own eyes does not resemble urban combat zones like those in Iraq & Afghan.
What likely reason might the government have other than the public reasons of assisting in disasters and similar issues (Army National Guard does train for assisting FEMA and CDC, and have done things like assist in flood control, and hurricane Katrina among other tasks in the past).

quote:
They're bringing back veteran National Guard units who are already experienced in urban combat.
Veterans from every war participate in training, so I don't see why you view this as in some way suspicious.

[ February 13, 2011, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clearly you believe the Arcadia exercises in door to door searches, road blocks and other such police state measures are solely for legitimate purposes...despite the raft of Executive Orders that clearly gives the president the right to enact martial law, and the kind of training being done to implement those EO's is all just some grand coincidence.

Google "Executive Orders" AND "Martial Law."

Veterans from every war participate in training, so I don't see why you view this as in some way suspicious. It's not that they are training (duh), but the kind of training they've been doing.

Politically driven theories on why both the Dems and Reps have all contributed to the Executive Orders that in sum totality gives the President the right to enact martial law, will always be confined within the left-right dialectic. In other words, the sheeple will be distracted by endlessly focusing on the perfidy of "the other side." Both right and left forums of debate feature speculations about how Clinton, or Bush, or Obama were/are plotting to use the powers claimed by EOs to overthrow the Constitution so that they can become a dictator.

I think our Government knows damn well our country, and it's food supply system and the way we distribute and consume the food are very vulnerable. Whenever their is even the threat of a natural disaster or catastrophic event, the grocery store shelves get cleaned out in short order.

Our Government knows damn well they've been running the country right into bankruptcy to benefit the richest of the rich in our corporatist fascist government...while the rest of us are steadily driven deeper and deeper into this economic Depression and insane debt.

Starving masses angry at their blatantly corrupt government is the fastest recipe to civil unrest.

Hence - police state tactics for martial law training.

You think that sounds implausible and crazy?

[ February 13, 2011, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because that is exactly what is going on right now.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma wrote
quote:
Personally velcro, you can kiss my ass. I never once ever said "I heard it from a scientist quoted on TV shows."
I never claimed you said "I heard it from scientist quoted on TV shows". What I actually said was "a TV show that quotes "some scientists" doesn't count" as a source.

And, look, you quoted a bbc article saying "some scientists argue that it's possible the changes we are making by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ultimately help usher in the next ice age" to prove your point.

If you can explain how that is not exactly what I said (not what you claimI said) I'd love to hear it.

I asked you to provide sources, to which you replied
quote:
I referred to personal conversations I've had with Law Enforcement officers I've known for a long time ...I have a cousin who is in the National Guard ... If you think I'm just making it up, than fine. Keep your head in the sand, it's no skin off my nose.
In fact, you did not refer to anything in your original post, which is why I asked for sources. Giving the sources (such as they are, being completely unverifiable) after I ask, then belittling my request because you just provided sources seems a little confused, no?

I never accused you of making it up (the lady doth protest too much, methinks?), but until I know the sources, I can not judge the validity of the data.

And by the way, "I read it on the internet, it must be true" was a joke, in case you were not sure.

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,
The current best evidence is that CO2 is a driver for historical climate change, it just isn't the most significant during all time frames. The fact that you believe otherwise suggests you have little or no acquaintance with the actual research.

No, it's not the current best evidence. It's been demonstrably shown that CO2 levels are lagging indicators of warming. The fact that you believe otherwise suggests you have little or no acquaintance with the actual research.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
First CO2 clearly was related to previous warming it just isn't necessarily the most important factor for any particular time period, if you fail to acknowledge this, then you have either been misinformed or failed to understand the information you have encountered.

Also miniscule in what sense?

CO2 was not related in any other way other than a lagging indicator, if you fail to acknowledge this, then you have either been misinformed or failed to understand the information you have encountered.

Minuscule in the sense that total CO2 accounts for 0.039% of the atmosphere. Of that amount, roughly 3% comes from anthropogenic sources. Run the numbers, we're talking about an insignificant amount, something that is virtually lost in the background noise.

95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, the rest from trace elements like CO2 and Methane.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
While I won't address your characterizations of historical climate, the current climate is one our species is well adapted to and the anticipated climate changes are likely to be extremely expensive to adapt to in terms of monetary but also potentially in terms of human life.

You don't have to address it because it's historical fact. It simply is what it is and it directly contradicts AGW theory. The current climate is among the coldest in planetary history, well below planetary averages. CO2 levels are the lowest in planetary history and dangerously close to the level where plants suffocate (about 280 ppm).

If you think anything can be done to control planetary evolution, then you truly fail to understand the magnitude of the issue.

[ February 15, 2011, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
CO2 levels are the lowest in planetary history and dangerously close to the level where plants suffocate (about 280 ppm).
This is only true if you exclude definitely the last 800 thousand years (and possibly the last 20 million years) from planetary history.
Posts: 10293 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

I know it is pointless discussing things with you, but for edification of others here is a pretty decent explanation

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

As mentioned in the article, the CO2 lags warming was predicted in 1990, so it isn't a surprise to scientists, just counter intuitive to lay persons.

Note that the small change in temperature caused by orbital dynamics is so small that that without the CO2 feedback there isn't any feasible method for the significant temperature increase that is seen.

[ February 15, 2011, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 7939 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Minuscule in the sense that total CO2 accounts for 0.039% of the atmosphere. Of that amount, roughly 3% comes from anthropogenic sources. Run the numbers, we're talking about an insignificant amount, something that is virtually lost in the background noise.

95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, the rest from trace elements like CO2 and Methane.

How many times are you going to bring up this canard, as simplistic as it is falacious?

I know we tried to explain it to you a couple of times back in 2008, but apparently you weren't listening.

Maybe this site can explain it to you.

quote:
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

Not to mention the fact that the greenhouse effect accounts for about 59 degrees of our atmospheric temperature. But we don't have to change that significantly to change weather patterns. Just because it's a relatively small change in the total greenhouse effect doesn't mean it won't have a large effect on us.

You can keep repeating simplistic assertions, G2, but remember, we have records showing that we rebutted them before. And we can keep linking to those rebuttals for as long as you keep making those assertions. [Smile]

[ February 15, 2011, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8083 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
CO2 levels are the lowest in planetary history and dangerously close to the level where plants suffocate (about 280 ppm).
This is only true if you exclude definitely the last 800 thousand years (and possibly the last 20 million years) from planetary history.
Disregarding the plant suffocating comment, his basic comment is true. 800,000 years is less than 2% of the time since the start of the Cambrian period.

CO2 levels have been low during the Ice Age period (the last 400,000 years). So, the current level is low compared the most of the last 600 million years.

However, clearly life on earth thrived with much higher CO2 than we currently observe. Rising CO2 levels and global warming do not necessarily mean much of a change for Earth's biosphere. Indeed, all the evidence I've seen indicates a hotter, wetter, higher CO2 content will make flora flourish. However, it will inconvenience humans.

Link

In regards to the plants suffocating at lower than 280ppm, that's wrong.

quote:
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you would agree that, using the implied analogy, we can characterize the past 140 years as not being included in human 'history'? [Smile]

And that is focusing on the 800 thosand year span (other proxy analyses suggest that CO2 levels are as high or higher now than at any other time in the past 20 million years)

Posts: 10293 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
So you would agree that, using the implied analogy, we can characterize the past 140 years as not being included in human 'history'? [Smile]

I'm sorry but that goes over my head. I thought we were referring explicitly to planetary history, though I thought "the history of large animal life" was sort of implied.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To show how shallow the CO2 thing is, check this:
quote:
Total US Debt (public and private) as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) correlates with NASA GISS US Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the debt!
Chart is here.
quote:
It is amazing how the Warmists point to human-caused CO2 as the primary cause of Global Warming when Total US Debt as a Percentage of GDP matches so much better! Perhaps cutting the GISS budget will do more for the Warmist cause than wrecking our economy by cutting energy use and sequestering CO2? Let us save the environment by increasing US productivity and reducing deficits!
There is a far better correlation to US debt and warming than CO2 and warming. This is offered as an example of how weak the CO2 connection is, not meant as a real theory - I know how difficult it is for many of you to understand humor.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is offered as an example of how weak the CO2 connection is, not meant as a real theory - I know how difficult it is for many of you to understand humor.
Of course, it shows nothing of the sort, since it assumes a basically linear relationship between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. And even you know that is not the case.
Posts: 8083 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
This is offered as an example of how weak the CO2 connection is, not meant as a real theory - I know how difficult it is for many of you to understand humor.
Of course, it shows nothing of the sort, since it assumes a basically linear relationship between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. And even you know that is not the case.
What do you base that assertion of a linear relationship on and what makes you think it's even remotely valid? Debt correlates much better than CO2, pretty cut and dried. [Wink]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although Letterrip can explain it to you much better than I can, I'll give it a shot.

Correlation measures how closely two lines are identical, or, conversely, how much they differ. How much do the two lines differ from each other, or from being identical (i.e. a "perfect correlation.")

The graph shows lines for temperature, atmospheric CO2 levels, and the U.S. Debt. The U.S. Debt and temperature certainly have a fairly good correlation, at least compared to CO2 levels. So, yes, it is better. Apparently, if the U.S. Debt goes up, temperatures go up, and vice versa.

As I said, a simple linear relationship. One goes up, the other goes up in a proportional manner.

But, as you well know, climate is not a simple linear system. First, there are several forcings in the system--solar irradiation, orbital variations, greenhouse gas levels, El Nino and La Nina systems--that all influence the actual temperatures. One may go up, while the other goes down, leading to non-correlation between any one forcing.

Furthermore, even these are not linear relationships. A 0.1 percent increase in solar irradiation does not mean there is a 0.1 percent increase in temperature. There are feedback mechanisms involved, both positive and negative, such as the relationship between CO2 and water vapor that I linked to above. A 1 degree increase in temperature due to CO2 increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which can add perhaps another 2 degrees to the temperature. Unless, of course, the vapor forms clouds, which reflects sunlight and decreases temperature... [Smile]

So expecting a system like that to show a linear increase in temperature from one of its forcings is not reasonable. And without that linear relationship, there simply is no way to expect that lines will correlate--that a change in CO2 levels will cause a similar change in temperature.

So the fact that you expect that CO2 levels could correlate as closely as U.S. Debt ignores the fundamental system. Only someone with a wildly simplistic view of climate would believe that could happen.

So, no, the chart doesn't show anything except a rather interesting coincidence between two completely unrelated happenings.

Now, if the chart showed U.S. Debt, Earth's temperature and the best estimates from the best climate model, that might be a bit more enlightening. But the correlation between the model and actual temperatures would be much closer, perhaps even surpassing the U.S. Debt/Earth's temperature correlation.

Which wouldn't do any good for your point at all. [Smile]

Posts: 8083 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1