|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 17, 2009 20:46:25 GMT
SoCold said today:
"For example Slide 8 pushes the fallacy that "humans emit only 3% of co2". Anyone familiar with this issue knows why that argument is false. But anyone unfamiliar with the issue might be unaware of those details."
You know, for once SoCold, you are right. 3% IS wrong. It is way too high.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 21, 2009 15:50:15 GMT
A sickening allegation made without thought and without supporting evidence, and probably derived from some insane denier's blogsite (perhaps via a few other thoughtless blog posters). Actually, what is sickening is the time and resources wasted on the whole AGW issue. Look at the facts. One side of the AGW debate has been caught repeatedly cooking the books. One side of the AGW debate attacks PEOPLE on the other side of the debate, not their position. One side of the AGW debate claims the science is settled and refuses to publicly debate the issue, instead they are racing to implement a socialist agenda (socialist at best) before the house of cards collapses. One side of the AGW issue advocates breaking the law as long as it is in support of their cause. This position has been stated under oath in a court of law. One side of the AGW issue believes that the ends justify the means. This puts them in a rather unsavory position with many bad guys in history. You got to ask yourself. "What side am I on?"
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 21, 2009 15:35:03 GMT
poitsplace, While you are no doubt convinced of your view, many other impartial and intelligent people have a different view. You are convinced that these people know that it was warmer in the recent past and that as the warmth wasn't disastrous then it won't be now. But it isn't true that they think it was warmer (globally and all year round) in the recent past. You're also convinced these people have an idea of the ideal climate. That's not true either. So feel free to be optimistic that some vague numerological correlation between ocean currents and temperature is the cause of the warming, and let's hope you're right. No, I'm convinced that they're mostly normal people...normal, flawed people. I'm convinced that there's the same kind of "consensus" today that there was over 30 years ago when the "consensus" said it was cooling. I'm convinced that in both cases the "consensus" did/does exist, but in a much weaker form than most are lead to believe...something along the lines of "Yeah, I can see how that might be true." I am also convinced that it was warmer in the past than it is now...because all we have to indicate it was cooler in the past are really bad proxies (most of which were shreaded almost immediately after they came out) and because quite frankly...even the world's colonization, ART and businesses reflect the climate changes of the past including both the medieval warm period and the little ice age (as well as a great deal of proxy data). Now I KNOW that CO2 in the ice cores does not show the kind of correlation that alarmists like to say it does. The CO2 was driven by the temperature, pure and simple. I KNOW the straight physics of absorption (which BTW ignores re-emission) says CO2 shouldn't have a substantial impact on temperatures (more than about a degree). I also know that similar warming periods occurred in the very recent past and without the help of substantial CO2 rises. We basically just have a few of vocal scientists that for one reason or another are VERY passionate about the piss-poor CO2 correlation and a bunch of political groups that know nothing of what they're saying jumping on the bandwagon because it suits their other agendas. The "consensus" is mostly composed of people that thought as I did a few years back...having not actually looked into the matter. It simply sounds reasonable on the surface and what the heck, I'm all for reduction in ACTUAL pollution and people conserving resources. I'm still for cutting pollution and conserving resources...but this preoccupation with CO2 is ill conceived and potentially harmful to many people. It would collapse the economies of the developed nations and would leave the impoverished developing nations wallowing in their own filth. You know, you need to give some long, hard thought to those "billions that might die" in developing nations and realize that with an average lifespan of 40 or under...THEY ARE ALREADY DYING UNNATURAL DEATHS due to lack of infrastructure. Not one, not hundreds, not thousands, not ten percent...essentially 100% of the people of the developing world are dying what WE would consider unnatural deaths. You and others poorly supported (ie, not at all) vilification of CO2 and the attempt to stop developing nations from using available resources...THAT is what will truly harm them. Wow!!! Well done poitsplace!!!
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 6, 2009 20:14:19 GMT
Steve, oh man that is a nasty self inflicted wound ya got there... When you wrote: "Other evidence of positive feedbacks is the large swings in climate that have occurred in the past such as during the ice age cycle. The changes in greenhouse gas levels, the albedo and the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near enough to explain the ice ages." Let me see, your argument is that C02 is going to kill us all, just like... well albedo can't, uhhh how about Milankovitch cycles... no? Well it must be those pesky greenhouse gasses, I don't know, dinosaurs breaking wind while driving their very large SUVs or something. NO??? Wait a minute what was your position again? Steve's take on AGW -> C02 can't cause climate change even though it does. Dude, get a band aid on that thing. :-) No bandaid required. You've misunderstood. It was a discussion about feedbacks to an initial source of warming. Some of the feedbacks are probably independent of the inital cause of warming (be it solar, albedo changes or greenhouse gases). The fact that the climate was very sensitive to changes during the ice age is evidence that it may be very sensitive to changes due to CO2 warming. Once again we are back to feedbacks and sensitive climate. The fact that the climate changed dramatically eons ago is not proof of ANYTHING. Except that climate does indeed change, sometimes dramatically. Earthshaking I agree. On the other hand, don't you think it is a stretch to say that the climate changed, and since we don't know why it must be PROOF that feedback and sensitive climate are the reason. I have a hypothesis that explains the ice age. Are you ready? A long time ago an alien spacecraft flew by the earth. The aliens in question thought that earth would be a great place to ski. But alas there was not enough snow. To fix the problem, the aliens put up a sunshade that blocked all the sunlight from the earth. Imagine their surprise when the planet failed to cool. After further study it was determined that the cause of the failed cooling was that the future inhabitants of the planet had determined that the sun did not drive the planets climate, instead certain trace gasses were keeping the planet hot. Using unfathomably advanced technology the aliens overcame this difficulty and went skiing. When they were done. They left. And powered down their device. Thus causing the planet to slowly warm. Due entirely to the presence of the greenhouse gasses, of course. Subsequent ice ages were caused by the aliens returning to ski. I have computer modeled this extensively and nothing that has ever happened or will happen is incompatible with my results. Should my premise or the results of my research come under attack by anyone. We can be sure that they are funded by the aliens themselves. Now I understand that in the old days, I would be required to go through the tedious exercise of validating my model and maybe testing my hypothesis or god forbid sharing my source code, but that is old school. All of the hip scientists such as myself use the Post-Normal science concept which eliminates all that unnecessary work. One last item. I have learned that the aliens will be returning to ski in a hundred years or so, I can stop them from plunging the planet into another ice age but it’s gonna cost you and you have to start paying now! P.S. Look at that, time for my meds. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 6, 2009 17:28:50 GMT
FurryCatHerder--> I don't know any actual climatologists who say there is going to be some "out of control water vapor feedback loop".
My take--> AGW REQUIRES a runaway water vapor feedback loop to happen. All of their dire predictions are based up runaway catastrophic warming, caused by positive water vapor feedback loops. The position of AGW proponents is NOT “We know that human introduced C02 will cause a small positive change in global temperatures from what they would have been over the next century or two. We understand that we are not sure if this warming is significant to the planets environment in any way, and we are not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Instead the IPCC has stated on the record that their climate MODELS project that the earth will be as much as 11.5 degrees F warmer by 2100. Of course the models say everything, warmer, yep, cooler, yep, wetter, yep, drier, yep. Well, what if it’s a nice day? Global warming for sure dude, got to stop it. It is fairly safe to say that at this point there is nothing that is incompatible AGW. Ice age? Why yes our models did predict that an ice age could occur, but after that it will be really hot. Now, give us our climate taxes, and our eco police and our one world government. NOW, or you are going to die.
FurryCatHerder--> And I beg to differ -- the positive feedback cycles are also just as proven as the fact that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trapped by the atmosphere.
My take--> Positive feedback loops are proven?!? Whoa not so fast… did you forget a word? The one I’m thinking of is false. As in: Positive feedback loops have been proven false. Was that what you meant. If not, please help me understand how they are proven.
FurryCatHerde--> And seriously, if you don't know the difference between a HYPOTHESIS and a THEORY, don't use the words. Too many people here use "theory" to refer to their own ideas when the correct word is "guess", as in "probably incorrect guess because I never studied the sciences needed to understand the concepts."
My take--> Hmmm I don’t think I used those words in my post, but I think I know what they mean. Although I do need help coming up with a word: What do you call a THEORY or a HYPOTHESIS that has been falsified?
FurryCatHerder--> I reject the warmies fixation on "ZOMG! IT'LL BE SO HOTZ!" because it's been hotter, and it's been colder, and life on Planet Earth keeps on going. I'm much more concerned with "there is so much coal!" foolishness from people who don't grasp that the easy coal has all been mined and some of the techniques (like, cutting off the tops of mountains ...) are so destructive to the environment and so expensive to use that people will quit using fossil fuels long before the run out.
My take--> Wow! My take exactly. Well, I don’t have a problem with them getting the stuff out. With one condition. The folks doing the extraction need do it with the understanding that when the coal is out, the mountain needs to be put back. At least as good as it was before. (And no toxic runoff) Furthermore the costs of doing this should be included in determining whether or not getting the stuff out is economically feasible. We only have one petri-dish to play with, we need to stop urinating in it.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 6, 2009 4:55:34 GMT
Steve, oh man that is a nasty self inflicted wound ya got there... When you wrote:
"Other evidence of positive feedbacks is the large swings in climate that have occurred in the past such as during the ice age cycle. The changes in greenhouse gas levels, the albedo and the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near enough to explain the ice ages."
Let me see, your argument is that C02 is going to kill us all, just like... well albedo can't, uhhh how about Milankovitch cycles... no? Well it must be those pesky greenhouse gasses, I don't know, dinosaurs breaking wind while driving their very large SUVs or something. NO??? Wait a minute what was your position again?
Steve's take on AGW -> C02 can't cause climate change even though it does.
Dude, get a band aid on that thing. :-)
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Feb 5, 2009 20:02:06 GMT
FurryCatHerder... "The basic science behind AGW is as proven as gravity -- rises in CO2 levels will increase the amount of energy trapped in the system."
You are right, and so what. The amount of extra heat trapped in the system is trivial... WITHOUT A POSITIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM!!! AGW requires that the trace amount of heat trapped by the added C02 cause an out of control water vapor feedback loop. This has never happened. Period. Even at much greater concentrations of C02 and warmer temperatures. Why. Because it is fantasy. The only place this sort of positive feedback loop has EVER been seen is inside a computer instructed by its programmer in a kind of what if scenario. NONE of these models has EVER been validated to model the real world. NOT ONE.
|
|