Oh, so your stance is that the Ocean is not absorbing all the CO2 so its not that we're putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere its that the ocean is not taking it all in.
x 34390483094834903834903480
Grasping at some mother ing straws. Pretty awesome.
fair enough, wihtout seeing any other data.
Do we have evidence then of volcanic activity during that time period that would explain the e?
Would the level of volcanic activity from that time correspond to, be greater than, or less than what have experienced since 1850?
How would that rate of change then compare to that since 1950?
I'm sorry you didn't understand my response. No. Not as you imply. There simply isn't instantaneous equalization with change levels of one or the other.
Yes, there are some other factors, but the time it takes to equalize, i.e. lag, doesn't vary by much. The changing currents, salinity, temperature, and pH are the primary factors. However, they have little effect compared to what we see in changes.
Now what you are getting at is that 98% isn't exactly the right number because of lag time. I don't recall for sure, but the number should be closer to 80% absorption than the current 55%. In other words, if the oceans were not warming, we would likely see CO2 levels in the neighborhood of 320 ppm or less rather than around 390 now. However, over the course of 800 to 100 years, the full equilibrium would come into effect.
Now before you dispute the math ratios, look at it in a half-life format rather than linear.
You sure ask a lot of me to look up. Sorry, can't take that much time. I don't factor volcanic activity into any of my assessments because it is a short term thing. Either far and few between large eruptions, or many small, insignificant ones. therefor, I don't know where to quickly find any of that.
As for volcanic activity triggering that e? No, I doubt it. This CO2 increase clearly lags temperature by a few hundred years. Here is the same data and more. Please notice the e in methane about the same time:
Also notice large upward swings in CO2 at semi regular intervals. This is one of the factors likely to trigger the ice ages and warming periods:
Not what I have circles, but the up and down swings about every 100k years or so.
Will you stop misstating what I say?Oh, so your stance is that the Ocean is not absorbing all the CO2 so its not that we're putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere its that the ocean is not taking it all in.
Grasping at some mother ing straws. Pretty awesome.
If you really believe that, you have not been considering my words, but completely blowing me off. Science is to be dealt with an open mind, else it isn't science. You will never be a good scientist if you dismiss things out of hand.
Consenus = weak science
Time out
End Troll Mode
This "weak science" deal is ridiculous. I work at NASA in contributing areas, so I get pretty turned off by these types of microwave dinner discussions that claim to know better (nice excel graphs). Predicting the next SW division winner, yeah...go for it here. But this? Give me a break, many of you nay-sayers post 24-7 let alone actually take time to analyze and educate yourself on something (other than trash like rush Limbaugh, etc). If you think you know better, prove it and publish your paper if you dare.
Unless you're scared of the big bad evil liberal academics. But hey, You're smarter aren't you? Heck you'll even have the financial support of the petrol company if you seek it. You have nothing to lose.
There are a lot of factors that go into weather than none of you or I can constrain in an internet forum to say the least. A large range of solar flares, volcanic eruptions, etc that can have effects for centuries all encompassed. You guys think the smallest visible blips on a poorly made graph are causes for concern, yet with no analysis applied to them.
Why are WC and DarrinS debating this issue on a sports side forum? Honestly, if WC or DarrinS want some serious answers why don't they visit a real climate change discussion forum (not some right wing web, which seems to be where they got most of their images) on this issue? This is like asking for help on a car purchase during confession.
Anyway speaking of spreading misinformation, I also think that Camel cigarettes aren't bad for you since most doctors prefer them over others.
The only true scientists are the ones who believe what the majority of the scientific population doesn't.
That's why I prescribe not to the conscious-collapsing version of QM, or the Multi-verse, but my own very specific "Video game" version, in which we're all just in a video game in which the designer figured we'd never start looking at the really big or really small stuff, so just fudged the numbers.
And since I'm, AFAIK, the only one who believes this, that makes my science right.
Well, the entire purpose of this thread is less to debate the topic than to provide me with evidence that people who really go into denial are putting their belief in pseudoscience. Hence the le.
I have not been disappointed.
Seriously as much as some blather on about how bad the science is, you would think they would do a ing paper on it, and submit it to a real peer-review journal, so they could expose the evil conspiracy to the rest of us shills, er, lib s.
Until then I am going to assign such arguments fairly little weight, no matter how science-y they sound.
Don't know how good the climate change forum is since I rarely venture there but the forecasting forum has some excellent posts. I love reading it and although like any internet forum you have to do some filtering the amount of scientists on the site is nice.
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index....limate-change/
Well, I have Borat on IGNORE since his trollish input. Saw this in Random's reply:Well, of the forums I have explored I find this one far better and interactive than most. This is a great forum, even outside of basketball topics.Why are WC and DarrinS debating this issue on a sports side forum?
Kudo's to the creators.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-13-2010 at 04:06 PM.
As you attack me... Hypocrite much?
I attack partschanger's methodology. I think his job considering hes been at it for 30 years is funny but I hardly base my arguments on that. I am talking about his approach not about him and there is a difference.
You I do not really care about. You're innocuous as far as I am concerned.
Damn, check out this memo from the Nixon library
http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibra...s/jul10/56.pdf
A hilarious exerpt:
The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has corne along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.
This memo says the sea level could rise 10 feet. Al Gore said 20 feet. IPCC's WORST CASE SCENARIO is 23 inches. Eh, what's an order of magnitude between fellow catastrophists?
I wonder...
When did the term "greenhouse effect" start being used? I forget? Was it 1969?
1969 is the best year of all times. Great cars, great women, great music, great... everything!
My God...
Look who the first signature block is!
Are New York and Washington still there? That memo was written 41 years ago.
Ease of use, a diverse population, politically at least, and a team worth rooting for.
Wish Extra Stout still posted.
Here's (hopefully) the last thing I have to say on the matter.
The AGW community may be right and the skeptic side wrong (or vice versa). Bottom line is, with so many variables that affect climate, with so many anomalies and contradictions in the data, with so many MAJOR climatic changes without human influence, with so much shady behavior by the climate science community, and with so much at stake, maybe a little skepticism is a healthy thing. And not something to be labeled heretic, denier (a.k.a. holocaust denier) or lumped in with 9/11 twooferism. After all, many climate scientists (many of them former IPCC contributors) are at odds with much of the AGW alarmism.
Last edited by DarrinS; 10-13-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Well, I see that instead of attempting to actually answer any of my questions, Manny filled out a Butthurt form instead:
I'm pretty sure that creating a "butthurt report" is a sure sign of butthurt.
Republican Global Warming Deniers Funded By Energy Industry
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey raised eyebrows when he said in a local radio interview on Friday, that the degree to which human activity is to blame for global warming is being "very much disputed" and "debated."
It's not the first time he's made the argument.
"There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming," Toomey claimed in June.
Trolling Opensecrets.org, HuffPost found Toomey's top contributors include oil and coal giants Koch Industries ($15,000) and Murray Energy ($16,655). Those are the top two contributors of climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who received $45,500 and $30,600 from those companies respectively.
Inhofe drew headlines during the record-breaking snowfall in Washington in February when he built an igloo outside the Capitol with a sign on it that read: "Al Gore's Home. Honk If You Like Global Warming." And for years now, Inhofe has insisted that global warming doesn't exist, deeming it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
The only other Senate candidates whose top contributors include these two companies are global warming deniers David Vitter (R - La.), John Hoeven (R - N.D), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Vitter received $16,750 from Koch Industries and $17,378 from Murray Energy; Hoeven received $10,000 from Koch Industries and $20,789 from Murray Energy; and DeMint received $22,000 from Koch industries and $24,333 from Murray Energy.
Hoeven has said of global warming "there's different opinions of exactly what's causing it," while Vitter has called evidence from liberals supporting climate change "ridiculous pseudo-science garbage." Meanwhile Demint took to Twitter to write, in the midst of the snowstorm in DC last winter: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'"
The Washington Post cited Toomey as a prime example of a Tea Party candidate who comes across as moderate and reasonable, when compared to the likes of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, but who holds extreme views on specific issues -- in this case, climate change.
The question is whether Toomey's view can even be considered extreme given the views of others in his party.
Though his claims are sharply at odds with scientific consensus, which holds that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming, Toomey's position on climate change will likely be the position held by a majority of GOPers in in the 112th Congress.
A roundup by ThinkProgress's Wonk Room shows that nearly all dispute the scientific consensus that the United States must act to fight global warming pollution. ThinkProgress's Brad Johnson writes:
Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, no one supports climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O'Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.
Many of these Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries' Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to "Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global compe iveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures."
HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)
Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.
In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.
That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.
Listen to Toomey's local radio interview here. The relevant conversation starts around the 15 minute mark:
Toomey is locked in a tight race with Rep. Joe Sestak to replace five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, who lost to Sestak in May's Democratic primary.
"This is just the latest example of Congressman Toomey's refusal to hear perspectives that don't fit into his own narrow mindset, even if those perspectives are backed by a large volume of credible evidence," said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. "But try as he might, Toomey can't escape from the facts. Pennsylvania needs a public servant dedicated to finding practical solutions to the problems we face, not another closed-minded ideologue bent on insisting that the 'world is flat.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...tml?view=print
===========
Nothing new here, just facts that all politicians support/block according to their corporate paymasters' desires.
I tend to view this as part of the Republican "war on science".
Gut biology courses to pamper to evangelicals, play-up the pseudoscience AGW denier "evidence", create a climate where MBAs are viewed as more important and engineers/scientists, and we wonder why scientific literacy is dropping like a rock.
But hey we need to show up them intellectual types, with their hoity toity PhD's. I mean, real men don't " rate ionic solutions". Yippy ki yay.
Pfft.
Yeah engineers are scientists no longer run technological development. Its now all bid and managed by financiers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
