Mad Meat Making Scientist Proves Climate Doomsayers Wrong

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and Hector, what really makes your last post ironic as is how eager you are to make science the gateway to god. If anyone does what you described in your little list there its you when you try to rationalize your beliefs through science.

[ChumpDumper]

All I know is once we make enough synthetic meat to shoot into the stratosphere, we'll have this global warming problem licked.

[MannyIsGod]

All I know is once we make enough synthetic meat to shoot into the stratosphere, we'll have this global warming problem licked.

Pun intended?

[Phenomanul]

Oh and Phenomanul, what really makes your last post ironic as is how eager you are to make science the gateway to god. If anyone does what you described in your little list there its you when you try to rationalize your beliefs through science.

What does this have to do with the other?

If you're so eager to mix the two subjects together why not ask your neanderthal ancestors what the weather was like back *then*?

[DarrinS]

Its a beautiful strawman to finish off the post but AGW makes simple claims. The first is that the global temp is rising (the data records from many sources confirm this and is fairly undeniable) and that it is caused due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2. You try act as if AGW is about a weather forecast instead and make a ridiculous list that has no basis in fact.

If you want to disprove AGW theory, show the earth is not warming or show a mechanism that is causing the warming and is not related to greenhouse gases. Its that simple.

It's not just that the earth is warming. It's that the amount of warming of the past century is unprecedented. No one denies that there has been warming -- get that straight first.

It's not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, it's that MOST of the warming since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to human-emitted greenhouse gas emmissions.

[MannyIsGod]

You latch on the word unprecedented and you to use it in arguments with me when I've said before the warming is not unprecedented. (The word unprecedented should only be used in AGW when its used to note that this is the first time humans have affected climate on this scale - not the actual scale of the warming.)

Oh Darrin, the only thing worse than using a straw man is using the same straw man after its been torn to shreds.

[Yonivore]

(The word unprecedented should only be used in AGW when its used to note that this is the first time humans have affected climate on this scale - not the actual scale of the warming.)

Do you realize how silly that sounds? First, there is no empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and, second, temperatures are either unprecedented or not. If -- assuming for a minute that humans do have an affect -- the temperature caused by humans isn't unprecedented, in history, what's the ing problem?

Hey, Manny, what is the optimal temperature for the planet?

[DarrinS]

You latch on the word unprecedented and you to use it in arguments with me when I've said before the warming is not unprecedented. (The word unprecedented should only be used in AGW when its used to note that this is the first time humans have affected climate on this scale - not the actual scale of the warming.)

Oh Darrin, the only thing worse than using a straw man is using the same straw man after its been torn to shreds.

Take it up with the IPCC then.

[Phenomanul]

I can tell you exactly why you put CO2 in the first post. You were so overzealous to prove how silly AGW theory is that you either didn't bother to check your facts or you blatantly lied.

The belligerence in the rest of your post stands on your biased assumption that you believe I lied. I didn't... it was an error on my part; and I stated as much.

In the end it doesn't matter because the result is the same in either case: a loss of credibility on the subject.

Instead of simply acknowledging a mistake, you instead continue as if your initial viewpoint actually held a shred of merit because you morph it into an argument over the contributions of ash and soot as well as iron oxide. Why? Because it is not AGW theory that is scrambling to find a way to fit a square into a round hole but you.

The soot and ash would be noteworthy if they were 1) considered a party to increased greenhouse effect (when in fact they are the opposite) or 2) AGW somehow claimed they were a factor in the change in global temperature. Neither are the case and your claim is largely irrelevant.

I didn't state that increased soot and ash concentrations would e global temperatures.

Everyone knows they increase the earth's albedo and tend to cool the planet. I've known this since 6th grade when I did a report on Mt. St. Helens...

But leave it to you to jump to conclusions... for the sake of your argument (ad hominem attack on my credibility - as if that somehow proved your AGW position as being the correct one).

Your acknowledging of the iron oxide emissions now is amazing. Yes, the volcanic eruption did increase the amount or iron oxide in the atmosphere. Yes, this likely led to a short term increase in the absorption capabilities of the ocean regarding CO2 which would lead to an increase in acidity.

You know what an increase absorption of CO2 by the oceans means? It means a decease in CO2 content in the atmosphere which would be the exact opposite of what you indicated in your initial post.

To further the amazement you say that CO2 isn't a pollutant while claiming that it makes the ocean more acidic. You're stumbling so hard over yourself backtracking that you're making some incredibly stupid contradictions.

Oh that's nice... Manny can read wiki articles.

I don't know how high you think your horse to be, but you best get off. CO2 is naturally found in oceans. It was part a natural cycle well before the rise of the industrial age. It is not a pollutant unless you wish to classify H2O a pollutant by the same standard (even while its forcing factor on the greenhouse effect is 50 times greater than that of CO2). "You're stumbling so hard over yourself backtracking that you're making some incredibly stupid contradictions."

As for the causality/effect nature of CO2, ocean temperature and pH (especially when carbonic acid is a weak acid that buffers ocean pH)... it's an chicken/egg problem... you keep looking at the effect as a cause and vice versa... it's a cycle, don't you get it?

You should just acknowledge your initial statement was foolish and had no scientific merit in this discussion. It really is the stuff of chain letters and forwarded emails.

I acknowledged I erred in including CO2 in my statement. You fancied that for the wrong reasons... thinking you were somehow going to corner me into stating that I lied. Truth of the matter is, no matter what I say... you're going to attack my position regardless.

As for the solar claims, you did not simply say we were exiting the solar minimum. You gave specific figures to the increase in solar output over the course of a few years and when challenged to back up the validity of those figures (probably another forwarded email) you ran away and never came back. We just came out of the solar minimum and output has not be increasing for years.

You mean I went on a business trip and didn't post for awhile... Sorry if my world doesn't revolve around giving Manny his answers.

As for the link, I'll look for it... but not to appease you.

Furthermore, if the rise and fall of temps was dominated by the solar cycle we would see a complete correlation between the global temps and the 11 year solar cycle but of course that is not the case. Claiming that the rise in temps is due to the solar cycle is just about as bad as claims get.

Because of course our CLIMATE doesn't dampen the effects of said cycle. To neglect the effect of the sun (which is what you all want to do repeatedly, by placing it back seat to factors which are less weighty) IS as bad as claims get.

AGW theory does not deny that as the suns output increases the earths temperature does the same.

No, it simply places it subservient to the effects of a gas (at ppm concentrations, no less) that has been part of Earth's history long before fossil fuels entered the picture.

To finish off your post, you of course puff up your chest and assume the self righteous position you love so much. The problem is that after 3 posts in a row on this subject where you have given contradictory and flat out incorrect information you are the last person that should be typing the words "no matter what I say" as if you're shining some informative light on information that is being ignored.

Its a beautiful strawman to finish off the post but AGW makes simple claims. The first is that the global temp is rising (the data records from many sources confirm this and is fairly undeniable) and that it is caused due to an increase in greenhouse gases such as CO2. You try act as if AGW is about a weather forecast instead and make a ridiculous list that has no basis in fact.

If you want to disprove AGW theory, show the earth is not warming or show a mechanism that is causing the warming and is not related to greenhouse gases. Its that simple.

That mechanism IS the crux of the argument MiG... that you would solicit that from me as proof that my denial of the theory be based on something more than just "chain letter material," is really a stretch of your arrogance on the subject. Earth's climate is far more complicated than you or any slew of AGW/non-AGW scientists want to make it. In the context of the big picture, the Sun still sits at the forefront of any argument. For example, you never admitted that the retreat/loss of Martian Ice caps was related to the same phenomenon on Earth. Of course, I didn't go all whiny on the forum and call you out for it. Why, oh why doesn't Manny respond?

[MannyIsGod]

Do you realize how silly that sounds? First, there is no empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and, second, temperatures are either unprecedented or not. If -- assuming for a minute that humans do have an affect -- the temperature caused by humans isn't unprecedented, in history, what's the ing problem?

Hey, Manny, what is the optimal temperature for the planet?

Who said anything about an optimal temp? Strawman alert!

You guys just can't help yourselves.

[MannyIsGod]

CO2 isn't a pollutant because its part of a natural cycle? Really?

Ash and soot over the ocean from a relatively small eruption raise the albedo? Really?

You keep touting solar as the cause when its been throughly debunked. The change is not great enough and the change during an 11 year solar cycle is certainly not great enough nor does it correspond.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the Martian ice caps.

[Winehole23]

Oh Darrin, the only thing worse than using a straw man is using the same straw man after its been torn to shreds.

I disagree.

It can be a strength. You have to look at it like there might be unanticipated evolutionary advantages to being simpleminded and stubborn.

[RandomGuy]

Do you realize how silly that sounds? First, there is no empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and, second, temperatures are either unprecedented or not. If -- assuming for a minute that humans do have an affect -- the temperature caused by humans isn't unprecedented, in history, what's the ing problem?

Hey, Manny, what is the optimal temperature for the planet?

The problem is the rate of change. That rate will increase as we increase our emissions in ever increasing amounts.

IRT the second question: There really isn't one.

The problem with THAT is that our current civilization's pattern of development is based in no small part on current weather patterns. If those overall patterns shift due to our actions and say, make the central US plains into an ouright desert, it suddenly becomes a rather pressing change to most Americans.

It is often argued, and climate scientists readily agree, that we dont' really know what the ultimate effect we are having on the environment is. You would take this to mean "why bother changing what we are doing?", but that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

If you don't allow for the possibility of some very bad happening, you aren't addressing the risk with the appropriately conservative approach, and have instead liberally accepted a risk of unknown probability with threatening magnitude.

I am generally not so liberal in accepting that much risk, but it seems you are fine with it.

Why?

[Yonivore]

Who said anything about an optimal temp?

I did. I'm curious what you believe is the optimal temperature for Earth. Obviously, if we're getting too warm (or too cold), there must be an optimal temperature.

Strawman alert!

I wish Sesame Street would change the phrase of the week...

You guys just can't help yourselves.

And you can't explain Anthropogenic Global Climate Change in a way that makes any sense.

[sickdsm]

I did. I'm curious what you believe is the optimal temperature for Earth. Obviously, if we're getting too warm (or too cold), there must be an optimal temperature.


I wish Sesame Street would change the phrase of the week...


And you can't explain Anthropogenic Global Climate Change in a way that makes any sense.

Actually i think its "the word on the street".

[DarrinS]

The problem is the rate of change. That rate will increase as we increase our emissions in ever increasing amounts.

Sounds good, but it isn't happening.


If we continued on the trend we were on from the mid to late 90's, I might buy this argument. But, something different happened post-1998 and we've been holding pretty steady since then. Don't blame me, blame the data.

[Yonivore]

This is the logic Anthropogenic Global Climate Change proponents are going to have to overcome in order to convince anyone there is such as thing as Anthropogenic Global Climate Change...

Reliable forecast under the weather

Meet the global weirdos. They’re the ones telling you that all the snow outside is proof that it’s getting warmer. Only, they don’t call it “warming” anymore.

No, that was back in the “Earth has a fever” days. Back when Al Gore was predicting that the ice caps were melting, the polar bears were drowning and Manhattan would sink beneath 20 feet of water “in the near future.”

But then something happened. Since 1998, temperatures have been relatively flat. We’ve got more polar bears than ever, and Manhattan is buried under snow. For a planet-roasting crisis that threatened the human race with extinction, there doesn’t seem to be much actual warming.

Well, that and the fact that Global Climate Change alarmists don't really act like there is anything wrong. They certainly haven't changed their carbon footprint.

I may believe there is a global climate crisis when those who say there is one start behaving like there is one.

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to disprove AGW theory, show the earth is not warming or show a mechanism that is causing the warming and is not related to greenhouse gases. Its that simple.

I have, but you true believers don't listen.

[Wild Cobra]

You keep touting solar as the cause when its been throughly debunked. The change is not great enough and the change during an 11 year solar cycle is certainly not great enough nor does it correspond.

Liar.

Sure, the 11 year cycle isn't very strong, and lag hides much of it's effect. However, the long term solar radiance change from about 1700 to 1950 is significantly larger than the 11 year cycle. Energy to heat is a linear equation. Must be too complex for you to grasp.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the Martian ice caps.

That's why you are a true believer.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is the rate of change. That rate will increase as we increase our emissions in ever increasing amounts.

So, it's the rate of change that's unprecedented?



Oh...

Nobody yet has been able to explain to me why, when the CO2 levels went from the 260's into the 280's over a 3,000 year span, why we don't see associated warming with it...

Isn't it also funny how at the start of the graph, CO2 lags temperature?

My educated guess is that the CO2 levels took a rise, because that's when life on earth started to boom. In fact, anthropologists will agree that this change of CO2 levels past the 260's correspond with a growing life on earth.

I didn't know they had SUV's, airplanes, cement factories, etc. back then.

I guess the ancients that built the pyramids were smarter than we thought!

[ChumpDumper]

My educated guess

[RandomGuy]

And then there was the Icelandic volcano last year (Eyjafjallajökull) which pumped out more soot, CO2, ash, and sulfur in a week (even though it erupted for several weeks) than humans [combined humanity world over] had over the previous 2 years...

No one disputes that natural processes are capable of putting out a lot of CO2.

Natural processes also emit CO2 at a fairly constant rate, with a few es here and there for such events, correct?

[RandomGuy]

So, it's the rate of change that's unprecedented?



Oh...

Nobody yet has been able to explain to me why, when the CO2 levels went from the 260's into the 280's over a 3,000 year span, why we don't see associated warming with it...

Isn't it also funny how at the start of the graph, CO2 lags temperature?

My educated guess is that the CO2 levels took a rise, because that's when life on earth started to boom. In fact, anthropologists will agree that this change of CO2 levels past the 260's correspond with a growing life on earth.

I didn't know they had SUV's, airplanes, cement factories, etc. back then.

I guess the ancients that built the pyramids were smarter than we thought!

Propaganda.

What is the current concentration of atmospheric CO2, and why is it not on your graph?

[RandomGuy]

hint: http://co2now.org/

[RandomGuy]

So, it's the rate of change that's unprecedented?



Nobody yet has been able to explain to me why, when the CO2 levels went from the 260's into the 280's over a 3,000 year span, why we don't see associated warming with it...

20 ppm increase in 3,000 years. (+1 ppm per 150 years)

70 ppm in 50 years. (+1 ppm per 8.5 months) (1960 to 2010)

That is a rate of increase more than 210 times faster.

Can you find any similar es in the data available?