Great, I see Poptech lurking. Maybe we can get some more mental illness up in this thread.
RandomLies, the list is not flimsy at all. It is peer-reviewed science,
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
There is much more peer-reviewed science here,
Climate Change Reconsidered - 2009 Report (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
Climate Change Reconsidered - 2011 Interim Report (430 pgs) (NIPCC)
You, RandomLies and FuzzyDumbkins covers the mental illness spectrum for this thread.
Thanks.
That's going to take me some time to go though. What little I read supports my points.
You will find these useful as well,
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (64pgs) (Fraser Ins ute)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF) (130pgs) (Fraser Ins ute)
Working Group (WG) I’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (PDF) (16pgs) (The Marshall Ins ute)
Working Group (WG) II’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (PDF) (13pgs) (The Marshall Ins ute)
Working Group (WG) III’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Be Sure to Read the Fine Print (PDF) (12pgs) (The Marshall Ins ute)
Now keep in mind that Burry is a billionaire yet Popcrazy has no delusion of grandeur.
Second aspergers is a disorder that is noted for its sufferers to have no conception of the feelings of others. They cannot interpret facial expressions or body language and do not observe social conventions.
The thing is that aspergers is involuntary. OTOH, personality disorders behave in the same way but they are aware of what they are doing and just do not give a . As you can see from the survey he is aware but just doesn't care.
This is a youtube explaining the difference. I recommend listening to it and think about the symptoms and behaviors and compare them to how Poptech behaves.
Either way, Popcrazy exhibits antisocial behavior. If you go to his site he has multiple posts demonstrating his paranoia towards those he considers his political rivals. He also shows a tendency to stalk others in doing so. He has commented in passing how he wants to see people's IP addresses and he trolls people's profiles.
I am not kidding when I say that he is dangerous. this is not like WC's stupidity. this guy will go after you if you reveal who you are. You can look to his site to see the truth of that. I recommend under no cir stances should someone register with his site and give him any inkling as to your iden y.
Has anyone seen my cherry tree? I seemed to have misplaced it and I want to pick it!
Isn't the NIPCC funded by the Heartland ins ute?
that they are piggybacking off of IPCC's name shows it to be a publicity stunt.
You can have mine if you like. I never pick them. The squirrels in the neighborhood like it, but they mostly just make a mess and go to waste.
You are the one here with a mental illness,
It is never too late to seek treatment Fuzzy.Psychosis is a symptom or feature of mental illness typically characterized by radical changes in personality, impaired functioning, and a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality.
Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired reality testing; that is, they are unable to distinguish personal subjective experience from the reality of the external world. They experience delusions that they believe are real, and may behave and communicate in an inappropriate and incoherent fashion. Psychosis may appear as a symptom of a number of mental disorders, including mood and personality disorders. It is also the defining feature of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and the psychotic disorders (i.e., brief psychotic disorder, shared psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder due to a general medical condition, and substance-induced psychotic disorder).
With regard to substance abuse, several different research groups reported in 2004 that cannabis (marijuana) use is a risk factor for the onset of psychosis.
Psychotic symptoms and behaviors are considered psychiatric emergencies, and persons showing signs of psychosis are frequently taken by family, friends, or the police to a hospital emergency room. A person diagnosed as psychotic can be legally hospitalized against his or her will, particularly if he or she is violent, threatening to commit suicide, or threatening to harm another person. A psychotic person may also be hospitalized if he or she has become malnourished or ill as a result of failure to feed, dress appropriately for the climate, or otherwise take care of him- or herself.
I do not smoke marijuana so I cannot be paranoid. I simply posted the truth about various alarmists.
This is a lie, please provide evidence of me ever stalking anyone. I mentioned IP addresses in relation to revealing sock puppet accounts.
This is clear evidence of your psychosis and paranoia. I've "gone after" no one and everything I have revealed about various alarmists can be found for free online.
You can locate it in the IPCC reports.
So you don't really have a testable theory that explains the observed changing carbon isotope ratios?I don't have all the answers, but it should move towards the balance between our emission and natural emission.
Are you saying it went past a point of balance?
My theory is that well over 90% of the CO2 we emit should be sinked. I believe this number should be around 98%.
Now to specify, I mean quan y. Not the specific molecules involved. Put both natural and anthropic CO2 in the same bucket, and when you pour some into the sink, it's all mixed up. I can't believe anyone will want to twist my words into meaning 90%+ specific molecules of anthropogenic CO2 is sinked. When you add our 9 GtC to the 800 GtC already in the bucket, along with the 210 GtC of natural sourcing, when you poor 215 GtC back out, in a well mixed bucket, just less than 2 GtC of the man made will be poured out, with 7 remaining. Over the years, there will be balance ac mulation until there is balance.
This current model shows us as ac ulating 4 GtC of carbon annually. My contention is that the oceans should be sinking far more than they do.
I have read a few different theories about the topic, and their conclusions were all over the place. I don't think it matters, why do you? I simply don't worry about that aspect of it.
It should?
Why isn't it doing that?
The problem with your "its coming out of the ocean" theory, is that the natural ratio would be going up, as the massive amount of natural carbon isotopes swamps that of the carbon isotopes released from burning fossil fuels.Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
This is the opposite of what we are observing, from what I understand.
Your theory does not explain this, and is directly contradicted by available evidence I have seen.
You don't see that as a problem?
Maybe your buddy Poptech can offer some data on this theory.
Not that I am going to see it.
Really? What evidence do you have that it isn't?
No it wouldn't.
You completely fail to grasp the dynamics, and I'm not going to go into a lengthy explanation. I hope this will suffice.
If we refer back to the graphic, then in balance, the sinking and sourcing between the ocean and atmosphere would be equal. The ocean primarily sources in the equatorial regions as the water moves and warms, and primarily sinks near the poles, at the colder water.
The vegetation will be pretty much in balance also without any changes in the solar radiation, influence of man, etc.
Take the 9 GtC out of the picture, and if there was not changes in the ocean temperature over time, all sinking and sourcing numbers would cancel each other out.
Now consider the ocean warming over time. The sourcing would be grater than the sinking. I will contend that our the ocean sourcing would be larger. let's say about 91 and the ocean sinking would be about 89 without man's influence. Now we would have a net sourcing effect. The water getting warmer cannot hold the same ratio as it did before, and must release CO2 until the new balance is achieved.
Now add man's 9 GtC rate. Now for the earth to attempt balance, but we are now adding more CO2 than the ocean does, so to achieve balance, the oceans sink CO2.
The ocean holds something like 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. If there was no change in ocean warming, then the ocean would sink about 98% of the AGW component. It will sink what is needed for balance. If it did sink 98% of that 9 GtC, then it would take ten years at that rate to increase the atmospheric component by almost 2 GtC, or by about 1 ppm.
Solubility of gasses in water... Henry's Law... are known scientific concepts. How temperature plays a role are also known and universally accepted by all scientific. Not just a consensus of scientists.
The trend shows as it should. The changes in ratio is indicating a larger percentage of fossil fuels being burned.
It's your misunderstanding. The ocean is a net sink. I am saying it would be a net source if we didn't have the anthropogenic component. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Good point, RG. While I think there is more than ample evidence that the increase in CO2 is due to human emission, the changes in the ratios of carbon 12 and carbon 13 are clean easy and established science that people rarely even bring up. Stable isotopes just aren't sexy enough.
Yes, stable. Still too many variables. One for example is that not all plants are so particular.
If this part of the science were as stable as you guys say, then the studies would be far more repeatable.
RandomGuy,
This guy's blog is right up your alley. Enjoy.
http://climatechangefork.blog.brookl...22/first-post/
EDIT> And a good comment left by a reader
I’m absolutely convinced of the historical veracity of the Holocaust. My father told me his own stories late in life (he was a combat infantryman in the ETO) about encountering newly liberated concentration camp inmates wandering around Germany seeking food and shelter during the last days of the war and after VE Day.
But long before that, my own study of history had convinced me that only a fool (or a charlatan) would ever claim that the Holocaust never happened.
Climate change is a horse of a different color. I’ve been a pilot for almost 40 years (major U.S. airline and corporate), have an engineering dgree and have had extensive training in advanced mathematics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, meteorology and atmospheric physics. I view the matter through the prism of my education, professional training and the experience of many thousands of hours of flight time recorded over a period of several decades.
I’ve studied this issue extensively for many years, keep up with the literature and have listened with an open mind to both sides of the debate. My conclusion is that the climate is indeed changing and human activities definitely do influence the climate. But so do many other natural factors, including some that we currently appear to know very little about (cosmic rays, for example). I have also concluded that there has been a great deal of alarmist exaggeration about the threat of climate change, the rate at which it is occurring and the means available to humanity to influence the climate. Jim Hansen’s catastrophist screed in today’s New York Times is an excellent example of what I’m talking about.
The Climategate E-mail revelations (I’ve read them) have also done nothing to improve my confidence in the objectivity of many climate scientists. It is perfectly obvious to any neutral observer that many climate scientists have become overzealous advocates for a cause they deeply believe in. Careers, reputations and research grants are at stake. Their corrupting influences are plain. Many individuals with climate science pedigrees can no longer claim to be dispassionate analysts of the scientific evidence.
I find efforts to suppress debate about this issue profoundly disgusting, as do most people who love and respect science and the power of the scientific method. Equating well-meaning people who hold legitimate, well informed and skeptical views about the causes and effects of climate change with lunatics that deny the Holocaust is disgusting beyond words. It is the same kind of repulsive smear tactic that the Nazis themselves often used against dissent. It has no place in science and no place in America.
Holocaust deniers are rightly regarded as kooks. The reason, of course, is because of the overwhelming weight of do ented evidence on the side of the truth. If AGW advocates ever hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public of the truth of their arguments, the first thing they must do is reject and condemn the use of the type of smear tactic embodied in this piece. The second thing they need must do is concentrate on building a far more convincing case for their claims. That includes engaging in a meaningful debate with scientific skeptics, not calling them names and equating them with lunatics.
Last edited by DarrinS; 05-17-2012 at 04:11 PM.
Darrin once again demonstrates he cannot come up with his own arguments and piggybacks --poorly I might add-- onto others.
His arguments on cosmic rays and those emails could have been done in about 4 sentences.
This is so dead on.
When all the alarmists do as try to destroy careers, call skeptics names, etc. it is even more evidence that they are not able to win in a proper debate of facts. No wonder none of them will debate a well informed skeptic.
He had some other thoughts on equating Holocaust denial to AGW skepticism, but I guess you picked out the part that was important to you.
It is ironic as when the same people who claim not enough proof of CO2 try to jump to cosmic rays.
I have more to say about the bs lack of debate once i get to a computer as im on my phone
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
