Page 158 of 161 FirstFirst ... 58108148154155156157158159160161 LastLast
Results 3,926 to 3,950 of 4001
  1. #3926
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I have not read this article yet (I will and I will look for other sources that mention this proclimation) but I wanted to make a couple of comments in general.

    We do not possesses the ability to make such precise predictions on temperature in such time frames (if at all). The predictions you see over the next 100 years have very large error bars. We basically know that the earth's atmosphere will be retain larger amounts of energy which will drive the temp up but we do not know enough about the feedbacks involved to give a precise measurement to the degree. 2.5-6 degrees is the typical range you see.

    Over 100 years, its actually easier to give you a forecast because you're not dealing with short term variability. Have you ever seen NOAA or NASA give you a global temeprature forecast a few years out? No. Its because we can't.

    They went one past that and actually tried to break it down the the hundredths of a degree which is just ridiculous.

    I can tell you this. El Nino gets more and more likely with each passing week. The conditions have already started to take shape over the past month. April was already one of the hottest Aprils on record and the temperature increase coincided with the change over from La Nina conditions to a borderline EN. If EN does indeed take hold and if it lasts through the end of the summer there will be a great deal of heat increase in the atmosphere.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  2. #3927
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?


    That's right...it's a 2007 prediction.

    This summer? the summer of 2012? Well, the Arctic has average amounts of ice hanging around.

    Someone tell me this Jay Zwally is one of the "consensus" scientists upon which the AGCC crowd is dependent.

    Fools.
    Science is not conducted in the media. If you can provide a scientific paper who's basis is an ice free arctic (in the summer) then we can say that a scientist has made a poor prediction but I'm not going to go off of an out of context quote in the media that is talking about trends.

    Artic ice is something that is both easy and difficult for the average layman to understand. Everyone knows that if it gets warmer ice melts. A fairly easy way to show that it is getting warmer is to point to lower sea ice extent over the Arctic. The problem - as with much of climate science - is that people have a very hard time grasping variability.

    Water has some incredible properties that many other compounds do not possess. Most compounds tend to get denser as you cool them. Water does get denser as you cool it but only until it reaches 4 degrees. At that point, it actually starts to get less dense which is why ice floats.

    It also takes an enormous amount of energy to raise the temperature of water and to initiate the phase changes. What this means is that water is capable of holding large amounts of energy - far larger than the air. This also means it heats up more slowly and it cools down more slowly than air.

    When you have years like 2007 and 2011 where there are record low (or nearly record low in the case of 2011) ice coverage you are exposing open water to nearly 24 hours of sunlight on a daily basis through the summer. That open water is able to take in and hold large amounts of energy. Even slight raises of SST in the Arctic ocean are indicators of huge energy increases in that region. Over recent years we have actually seen not small raises but record temperatures in the arctic ocean.

    The heart of the oldest ice in the northern cap is what is known as multiyear ice. This is basically several layers of ice that has formed and not melted through at least one summer. It is thicker and comprises of a higher volume than ice in an area where you see annual thaw and refreeze.

    The area covered by multiyear ice is shrinking on a consist basis with every passing year.

    You see, you will get natural variability from year to year in the extent. Some areas that thawed last summer may not thaw in a subsequent summer. But even if they do not thaw, they will be only one year's worth of ice growth which will be lower in volume and more susceptible to thaw in future years because of this.

    This is why although we see the area vary from year to year (although the trend is down), we do NOT see such large variation in the volume. Volume is consistently falling almost every year. Volume is a far greater measure of how much ice is actually present than area for obvious reasons.

    The 2040 estimates are too conservative. I'm not sure if the 2012 comment was an actual prediction or rather a comment on the drastic nature of the trend in 2007 (the record low year). Most estimates I have seen around around 2020-2030 for an arctic that is completely ice free in the summer. The trend in ice volume hits zero within 10 years, so I would definitely go with the end of the spectrum closer to 2020.


    MannyIsGod is offline

  3. #3928
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    If the "no harm" theory really explains observed phenomenon better, it will win out in the end, despite the pseudoscientists supporting this theory.
    Which one of these is a "pseudoscientist"?

    John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

    "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." - John R. Christy


    Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Ins ute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Ins ute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

    "A number of studies point to sources other than greenhouse gases as explanations for the modest warming trend of the late 20th century." - Patrick J. Michaels


    Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Ins ute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

    "Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished." - Richard S. Lindzen


    Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

    "As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade." - Roy W. Spencer


    S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Ins ution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Ins ute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Ins ute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Ins ute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Ins ute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Ins ution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Ins ute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Ins ute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

    "We see no evidence in the climate record that the increase in CO2, which is real, has any appreciable effect on the global temperature." - S. Fred Singer


    Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

    "I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration." - Sherwood B. Idso


    Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941); B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University, UK (1945); Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945); Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947); Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948); Commonwealth Fellow, Ins ute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949); Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951); Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953); Fellow, Royal Society (1952); Professor of Physics, Ins ute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994); Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964); Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965); Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966); Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968); Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968); Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969); J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970); Visiting Professor, Max Planck Ins ute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975); Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975); Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Ins ute of Technology (1977); Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981); National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984); Andrew Gemant Award, American Ins ute of Physics (1988); Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988); Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989); Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989); Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991); Britannica Award (1990); Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990); Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991); Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993); Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994); Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994); Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996); Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996); Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999); Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999); Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000); Templeton Prize (2000); Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004); Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Ins ute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present); 21 Honorary Degrees

    "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson


    Kary Mullis, B.S. Chemistry, Georgia Ins ute of Technology (1966); Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Lecturer, Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pediatric Cardiology, University of Kansas Medical School (1973-1977); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco (1977-1979); Scientist, Department of Chemistry, Cetus Corporation (1979-1984); Scientist, Department of Human Genetics, Cetus Corporation (1984-1986); Director of Molecular Biology, Xytronyx Inc. (1986-1988); William Allan Memorial Award, American Society of Human Genetics (1990); Viral Hepa is Research Foundation of Japan Award (1991); California Scientist of the Year Award (1992); Cetus Corporation Biotechnology Research Award, American Society for Microbiology (1992); Robert Koch Prize (1992); Vice President of Research, Atomic Tags Inc. (1992-1993); Japan Prize, Science and Technology Foundation of Japan (1993); Outstanding Contributions To Clinical Chemistry Award, American Association for Clinical Chemistry (1993); Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1993); Gustavus J. Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Interest, American Chemical Society (1994); Hon. D.Sc. (Honorary Doctorate of Science), University of South Carolina (1994); Distinguished Visiting Professor, The University of South Carolina, College of Science and Mathematics (1994-Present); Vice President of Molecular Biology, VYREX Corporation (1997-1998); Induction, National Inventors Hall of Fame (1998); Vice President of Molecular Biology, Burstein Technologies (1999-2003); Distinguished Researcher, Children’s Hospital at Oakland Research Ins ute at Oakland (2003-Present); Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Altermune, LLC (2003-Present)

    "To make predictions about what follows from here and when, and to audaciously begin the discussion by implicating our humble species in the whole thing [Global Warming] is worse than audacious, it’s pathetic" - Kary Mullis


    Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Ins ute of Technology (1952); Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins ute (1964); Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956); Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958); Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988); Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965); Nobel Prize in Physics (1973); Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974); Member, National Academy of Science (1974); Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975); Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975); Visiting Professor, Salk Ins ute for Biological Studies (1975); Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins ute (1988-2005); Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins ute (2005-Present)

    "I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever


    Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology (1979); Fellow, IBM (1976-1978); Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981); Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004); Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989); E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986); Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989); Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990); Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present); Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998); Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003); President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006); President, Korean Advanced Ins ute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)

    "The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-22-2012 at 06:43 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  4. #3929
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117


    This graphic shows the CO2 concentrations over the past 1 million years or so as derived from an ice core from Antarctica. There are bubbles trapped in the ice that capture the atmosphere at the time those bubbles were enclosed by the ice which allows us to find out with good accuracy what the CO2 concentrations were. These results have been reproduced via other proxies but the ice core recorders are the best.

    In any event, you can see that CO2 concentrations have oscillated between 290 and 190 PPM fairly cyclically due to the glacial - interglacial cycles which are driven by Milkanovitch orbital cycles.

    Today's concentration is 395 PPM which is far above the peaks in the previous cycles. Over a 100 ppm difference that was never experienced in the past 1 million years even though ocean temps have been warmer during that time. Direct observations show that the ocean is still gaining CO2 as well.

    Also, the X axis of that graph is time but it is time on a very large interval. In other words, the CO2 in the atmosphere changed very slowly in the past when it rose. It fell relatively quickly when compared to the rise but those drop are still far slower than the rise we have seen in the past 100+ years (especially the past half century).

    If someone wants to come up with a theory that gain we have seen in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is not due to human emissions they must explain several things in relation to the record:

    1. How an ocean that is still taking up CO2 today would not be taking it up if humans were not emitting CO2
    2. The timescale difference - Why is this increase so fast?
    3. Why did CO2 concentrations not rise in the past 1 million years to levels we have seen today?

    Someone who could come up with a theory that did answered those questions without violating any other chemical or physical property of the natural world would likely be in a position to shake up the earth sciences quite a bit.
    Don't forget that there is an unknown about of CO2 that gets released before it is trapped in the ice. for all we know, those 290 ppm levels could be more than 400.

    We just don't know for sure.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  5. #3930
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Not under the conditions I laid out.

    I'm saying our "net" addition to the atmospheric content is probably about 10ppm. When we added to the atmosphere, the balance needed between the ocean and the atmosphere required that the ocean becomes a net sink. That in the end, our part is probably around 10 ppm even though we added about double the increase we see in the atmosphere. I'm saying that due to ocean warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have increased if we never had industry anyway. I'm saying it would have increased to about 10 ppm less than we see today, because without our atmospheric sourcing, the ocean would have become a net source rather than net sink.
    um, ok.
    Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

    Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

    Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

    Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

    Does that about sum it up?
    Not quite, you are close, but I can't help think you are purposely placing a twist on my words. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend.

    When you are ready to try to understand my point of view on this, please let me know.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  6. #3931
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Which one of these is a "pseudoscientist"?
    I was referring to hacks like yourself.

    As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3932
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Not quite, you are close, but I can't help think you are purposely placing a twist on my words. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend.

    When you are ready to try to understand my point of view on this, please let me know.
    I haven't been trying too hard, but you aren't very good at explaining things, no offense.

    At this point, since you can't explain it fairly simply, I am very skeptical that you understand the underlying science.

    Manny has posted a lot of rather valid arguments that you seem to have ignored.

    By all means then put what you are trying to say down, punch up the words until it is what you are trying to get at, and remove my "twist":


    "Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.

    Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.

    Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.

    Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3933
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Don't forget that there is an unknown about of CO2 that gets released before it is trapped in the ice. for all we know, those 290 ppm levels could be more than 400.

    We just don't know for sure.
    Did the scientists making those measurements consider this possibility?
    RandomGuy is offline

  9. #3934
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I was referring to hacks like yourself.

    As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.
    That avoids the question.

    Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?
    Yonivore is offline

  10. #3935
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I was referring to hacks like yourself.

    As I have said repeatedly, there is a line between honest skeptics with the background for the science, and dogmatics without it, who choose to lean on bad science, and build intellectually dishonest worldviews around irrational belief systems.
    Oh so you are referring to yourself?

    You are so insecure you have to smear everyone with lies who does not agree with your position on anything. The reason is you are not rational but emotional and falsely believe yourself to be intellectual. You have not even done the basic research on these subjects and yet pretend to have an understanding of them. I've read both sides of these arguments extensively and came to my conclusions based on logical reasoning. Your refusal to accept that I can honestly disagree with your is simply intellectual dishonesty.
    Poptech is offline

  11. #3936
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    AGW deniers always raising the bar! grease-bag bubba science!

    Sensenbrenner: ‘CO2 Is A Natural Gas. Does This Mean That All Of Us Need To Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?’

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-on-our-noses/
    boutons_deux is offline

  12. #3937
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    That avoids the question.

    Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?
    Should I pull the "PopTech Defense" for that?

    "That is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that I was referring to non-scientist hacks."

    If you don't like that answer, then tell me why you don't like it, and explain to me why it is important to answer the question as asked.

    I will then apply your logic and response to PopTechs earlier use of that tactic to avoid answering hard questions.

    I await your response with breathless anticipation, fully expecting you yourself to dodge this request and change the subject.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #3938
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Oh so you are referring to yourself?

    You are so insecure you have to smear everyone with lies who does not agree with your position on anything. The reason is you are not rational but emotional and falsely believe yourself to be intellectual. You have not even done the basic research on these subjects and yet pretend to have an understanding of them. I've read both sides of these arguments extensively and came to my conclusions based on logical reasoning. Your refusal to accept that I can honestly disagree with your is simply intellectual dishonesty.
    Wow. Project much?

    I don't claim to be any kind of exepert on climate science. I have stated repeatedly that I am not.

    I generally rely on scientists to come to reasonable conclusions based on their expertise, as this seems to be reasonable.

    My interests lie in energy, economics, and finance. I spend the time I have available on that.

    I am pretty scientifically literate, and generally understand most scientific topics.

    I allow for honest skeptics. You aren't one of them.

    You can be as butthurt about that as you want to, but I have seen you repeatedly fail to show what honest skeptics and good critical thinkers would agree is a reasonable level of intellectual honesty when discussing something.

    You don't admit you are wrong, and you don't admit when others make good points, or that any of your arguments, although valid, may be weak.
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #3939
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    When you trap air in ice, you are simply sealing it off from the rest of the atmosphere. There is no chemical process so nothing is released. The ice core samples are accurate and have been reinforced through other measurements. There is no scientific reason to believe that CO2 has been higher in the past 800-1000k years.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #3940
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    That avoids the question.

    Us hacks rely on the reason of scientists, such as those listed in Poptech's post. So, which of them are pseudoscientists?
    None. That doesn't change your cherry picking on which scientists to rely on other than they happen to agree with is pretty bad conformation bias.

    The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

    The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

    More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

    If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  16. #3941
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I allow for honest skeptics. You aren't one of them.
    You are not the arbiter of who is an honest skeptic and your perpetual lies about my integrity are getting old.

    You don't admit you are wrong, and you don't admit when others make good points, or that any of your arguments, although valid, may be weak.
    I admit I am wrong, when I am actually wrong not when you simply declare it. I admit others make good points, when I believe they actually make good points. Your don't make good points. You don't even understand the material.
    Poptech is offline

  17. #3942
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    None. That doesn't change your cherry picking on which scientists to rely on other than they happen to agree with is pretty bad conformation bias.
    They make reasonable arguments with which I agree. Neither you nor anyone else has persuaded me away from that position.

    The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

    The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

    More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

    If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.
    Assuming you're right about Spencer; does any of that apply to any of the others on the list and has Spencer or any of the others recanted their general positions about AGCC?
    Yonivore is offline

  18. #3943
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Should I pull the "PopTech Defense" for that?

    "That is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that I was referring to non-scientist hacks."

    If you don't like that answer, then tell me why you don't like it, and explain to me why it is important to answer the question as asked.

    I will then apply your logic and response to PopTechs earlier use of that tactic to avoid answering hard questions.

    I await your response with breathless anticipation, fully expecting you yourself to dodge this request and change the subject.
    So, are any of the people on the list pseudoscientists or not?

    It's important because the premise of this long-ass thread is that people who don't believe in anthropogenic global climate change are relying on pseudoscience.
    Yonivore is offline

  19. #3944
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.
    No he hasn't. Spencer has refuted all criticisms of his papers or published a correction. Quote where he made any such admission.

    The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.
    This is a lie. Please cite the paper and quote Spencer on this.

    More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.
    He caused no such thing. Pressure from alarmist scientists caused the editor to resign in a PR ploy to discredit the paper. The editor's reasoning was idiotic ("as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora"). Is peer-reviewed science now based on Internet discussions?

    Dr. Spencer stands by everything in his peer-reviewed paper,

    Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)

    It looks like Manny has resorted to Internet propaganda to smear Dr. Spencer.

    Also Manny can you please re-size your ridiculously large graph so it does not distort the comments.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 06:43 PM.
    Poptech is offline

  20. #3945
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    They make reasonable arguments with which I agree. Neither you nor anyone else has persuaded me away from that position.
    I'm well aware you're not open minded in this debate but thanks for stating it yourself.

    Assuming you're right about Spencer; does any of that apply to any of the others on the list and has Spencer or any of the others recanted their general positions about AGCC?
    Whats the point? See your above comment.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  21. #3946
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    The first person on that list, Roy Spencer, has been corrected in the scientific literature over his skepticism quite harshly recently. To his credit, he's admitted he made mistakes in some of his most skeptical papers. Darrin and WC have both tried to use papers of his (the same one I believe) in this thread to defend a point.

    The problem was they both tried to use the paper years after Spencer himself had acknowledged the papers problems and pretty much rescinded his conclusions.

    More recently Spencers bad science caused the head of a journal to resign (on his own volition) due his erroneous research passing through the peer review process when it was very clear there were serious holes in the paper.

    If this is the type of scientist you wish to hitch your wagon to, by all means go right ahead.
    After reading his response to Manny's regurgitated criticism of him, yep; he's the type of scientist to which I wish to hitch my wagon.

    Care to pick on anyone else on the list?

    So, are they pseudoscientists or not?
    Yonivore is offline

  22. #3947
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I'm well aware you're not open minded in this debate but thanks for stating it yourself.
    Okay, you tell me, why do I disagree with your position and agree with Spencer's, et. al.?

    Whats the point? See your above comment.
    Apparently, you weren't right about Spencer.
    Yonivore is offline

  23. #3948
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    No he hasn't. Spencer has refuted all criticisms of his papers or published a correction. Quote where he made any such admission.


    This is a lie. Please cite the paper and quote Spencer on this.


    He caused no such thing. Pressure from alarmist scientists caused the editor to resign in a PR ploy to discredit the paper. The editor's reasoning was idiotic ("as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora"). Is peer-reviewed science now based on Internet discussions?

    Dr. Spencer stands by everything in his peer-reviewed paper,

    Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper (Roy W. Spencer, September 2, 2011)

    It looks like Manny has resorted to Internet propaganda to smear Dr. Spencer.

    Also Manny can you please re-size your ridiculously large graph so it does not distort the comments.
    So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling? I guess publishing a correction does not involve admitting you were wrong?

    It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #3949
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    So John Christy and Roy Spencer didn't change the way UAH temperature record is calculated and change their stance that their record showed cooling? I guess publishing a correction does not involve admitting you were wrong?

    It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.
    Well, in 20 years of working in this business, the only indisputable mistake we ever made (which we immediately corrected, and even published our gra ude in Science to those who found it) was in our satellite global temperature monitoring, which ended up being a small error in our diurnal drift adjustment — and even that ended up being within our stated error bars anyway.
    Yonivore is offline

  25. #3950
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Okay, you tell me, why do I disagree with your position and agree with Spencer's, et. al.?
    Because Spencer is saying your political party of choice wants to believe. Its certainly not due to any understanding of the science. You've just said no one can change your mind. Do you realize the implication of such a statement?

    How is that when you're the one making that statement that the people who understand AGW theory are labeled as the zealots? I have provided a roadmap of all someone needs to do to disprove the theories in place time after time after time in here.

    Apparently, you weren't right about Spencer.
    I'm absolutely right about Spencer. He and John Christy published many papers in the 1990s saying that the Earth was cooling based on their satellite temperature record. They made mistakes. It turns out its not cooling and they admitted it and fixed their record.

    Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
    near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
    challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
    global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
    global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
    data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
    discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
    radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
    have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
    http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...1/finalreport/
    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •