Page 26 of 161 FirstFirst ... 162223242526272829303676126 ... LastLast
Results 626 to 650 of 4001
  1. #626
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.
    Scoreboared Reference post. Links to follow over the course of the dialogue.

    DarrinS:
    First illogical statement (illogical because it assumes the premise):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...9&postcount=58
    Second illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=237
    Third illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=275
    Fourth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=278
    Fifth illogical statement (appeal to popularity)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=286
    Sixth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=323
    Seventh illogical statement (slippery slope)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=332
    Eighth illogical statement (ad hominem):
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=389
    Ninth illogical statement (ad hominem)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=364
    Tenth illogical statement (strawman)
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=563

    Fair question concerning DarrinS' assertion asked:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=338
    Question ignored:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=342
    Question restated:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=347
    Question ignored
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=357
    One failed question, discarding DarrinS false assertion, final post in series:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=361

    Second fair question regarding an assertion:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=412

    Cherry-picking data:
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=560
    Darrin, aka smiley-boy, has done more to prove the assertion of the OP than anybody else so far. It seems he is on a singular mission to show how poorly thought out most "denier" arguments are.

    For that, I must applaud him.

    Thank you, Darrin.
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #627
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681


    Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...globalghg.html

    This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

    Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

    If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

    As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #628
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Remember when Darrin tried to say it was cooling in 2010? That was pretty funny. Remember when Darrin pointed to the 1998 El Nino but didn't mention the La Nina in 2010 that couldn't stop 2010 from being amount the warmest years on record? That was pretty funny too.
    It's funny that it still won't beat 1998.
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #629
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Darrin, aka smiley-boy, has done more to prove the assertion of the OP than anybody else so far. It seems he is on a singular mission to show how poorly thought out most "denier" arguments are.

    For that, I must applaud him.

    Thank you, Darrin.

    I think it says something that you spent that much time devoted to ME specifically.
    DarrinS is offline

  5. #630
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654


    Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...globalghg.html

    This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

    Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

    If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

    As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.




    I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


    Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


    EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.
    DarrinS is offline

  6. #631
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I think it says something that you spent that much time devoted to ME specifically.
    You flatter yourself.

    Given:
    I spend time analysing every climate change "denier" and their arguments and statements.

    You are only one of four listed in that post, I edited the others out.

    I have provided links to every one of those logical fallacies, and shown how and why they are illogical or dishonest.

    What is says is that you have posted here frequently, and when you have posted you have consistantly posted logically unsound and/or intellectually dishonest arguments.

    That is *something*, indeed.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #632
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


    Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


    EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.
    If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.
    That was exactly what I was trying to show, I spelled it out quite clearly.

    Percentage of emissions, or percentage of atmosphere are fairly irrelevant measures of equilibrium disturbance and overall effects respectively.

    Are you ignorant of that, or being deliberately misleading again?
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #633
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    That was exactly what I was trying to show, I spelled it out quite clearly.

    Percentage of emissions, or percentage of atmosphere are fairly irrelevant measures of equilibrium disturbance and overall effects respectively.

    Are you ignorant of that, or being deliberately misleading again?


    What is the "equilibrium" composition of the atmosphere? And when has it been in that state?
    DarrinS is offline

  9. #634
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.
    One of the other implications of that graph is that recent effects of such activity will be more pronounced than older effects, i.e. newer data more relevant than data before 1970 or so.

    As I have pointed out, property and casualty underwriters have noted this trend in their data, i.e. more storms and more powerful storms.
    RandomGuy is offline

  10. #635
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    One of the other implications of that graph is that recent effects of such activity will be more pronounced than older effects, i.e. newer data more relevant than data before 1970 or so.

    As I have pointed out, property and casualty underwriters have noted this trend in their data, i.e. more storms and more powerful storms.

    I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.
    DarrinS is offline

  11. #636
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    What is the "equilibrium" composition of the atmosphere? And when has it been in that state?
    Based on my understanding equilibrium changes over time with various other things.

    I would guess that the atmosphere was at, more or less, an equilibrium value for current conditions around the period 1000-1900 or so.

    Does that help?

    I also noted that you ignored my question.

    Were you giving us irrelevant data out of simple ignorance, or were you cherry-picking data again?
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #637
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.
    "Global warming is real, and it affects our business."


    One of the new risks [the large insurer] Munich Re is tracking is climate change. The company has the world's most comprehensive database on natural disasters, with information going back centuries. It shows that the frequency of serious floods worldwide has more than tripled since 1980, while hurricanes and other severe windstorms have doubled.
    "Global warming is real, and it affects our business," says Peter Hoppe, who heads the company's climate-change research. Munich Re has become a leading advocate for renewable-energy development, even joining a venture that plans to generate solar power in the Sahara and ship it under the Mediterranean to Europe.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #638
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    darrins has emails to prove the hoax!
    George Gervin's Afro is offline

  14. #639
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    WC, PussyEater, Jack, et all are a total dupes, ignorant, self-flattering tools of the heavily financed and focused VRWC by the carbon-extractors/polluters to protect their profits.

    What a ing coincidence that all of climate scientists are wrong to the benefit of the wealthy conspiring polluters. Seems like the more and longer the VRWC pays, the luckier it gets.
    What science changed the world from being flat, to spherical?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  15. #640
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117


    Figure 2: Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1752-2006

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...globalghg.html

    This is the effect of a 2-3% rise per year over time. Continuing Chinese and Indian economic growth, and the commensurate changing energy usage patterns will simply cause this trend to continue.

    Since our total emissions of CO2 get larger every year, and emissions from this year represent the total emissions of CO2 for all years prior to 2001 or so, we can expect any effect of man-made CO2 to simply become more and more apparent.

    If you claim, as both Darrin and WC do, that, until now, humans have caused small amount of warming, that effect will simply become more pronounced, simply due to the fact that by 2020, the amount of CO2 released EVERY YEAR will be more than the total emissions of the entire human race up until 2010.

    As I keep saying, we will get to find out what effect this all has. I hope WC is right about the scale and negative affects.
    Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quan ative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  16. #641
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    It's funny that it still won't beat 1998.
    Depends on which temperature set you go by. In any event, even the coolest readings don't have it behind 1998 by very much at all and as I said while 1998 was dominated by a strong El Nino 2010 has seen a very strong La Nina.

    2010 is what you would expect in an AGW scenario.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  17. #642
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    I agree with you that your graph shows CO2 going up rapidly. I don't know what else you're trying to show.


    Humans still only contribute 3% to that gas that makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.


    EDIT> And, as Manny has pointed out, still very insignficiant compared to natural forces of El Nino and La Nina.
    The percentage of the gas is irrelevant on its own so do me a favor and stop repeating the figure.

    As an example, if I put a small amount of cynaide into your body's system - less than 3% of your body mass for example - it could certainly have an effect on your body.

    Adding 3% can be significant if that 3% stays in the atmosphere (and it does) and has a large effect (and it does).

    Secondly, El Nino having more of an effect is a short term climate cycle. It doesn't negate the effects of AGW. For instance, the El Nino in 1998 was able to enhance global temperatures to the point of making it the warmest year on record. However, if had the same El Nino in 2010 we would have easily broken the record because 12 years later the earth has more energy in its system due to AGW. In fact, we have the opposite of an El Nino - La Nina - and global temps are likely to come up just short of 1998.

    I don't know what logic would allow someone to come to the conclusion that AGW doesn't matter because of events such as the ENSO.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #643
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    The percentage of the gas is irrelevant on its own so do me a favor and stop repeating the figure.

    As an example, if I put a small amount of cynaide into your body's system - less than 3% of your body mass for example - it could certainly have an effect on your body.

    Adding 3% can be significant if that 3% stays in the atmosphere (and it does) and has a large effect (and it does).
    Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide.
    DarrinS is offline

  19. #644
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    If, in a hundred years, temps don't trend with CO2 (as anyone with eyeballs can see is not happening for the past decade), will there still be such a thing as a climate change "denier" and will the skeptic side still be considered pseudoscience?
    DarrinS is offline

  20. #645
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    I'll let Manny address this "more" and "more powerful" storms business.
    I've said time and time again that the more active storm seasons we've been having aren't likely a product of AGW.

    That being said, there are theories out that stronger storms are a likely by product of AGW. Also, there is some discussion on the lengthening of the Atlantic hurricane season due to the temperature increases and recent data tends to support this.

    However, aside from hurricanes there are other storms and whether or not AGW is affecting this is also up for debate.

    For Instance:

    ot Arctic-Cold Continents
    I'm in San Francisco this week for the world's largest gathering of Earth scientists, the annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference. Over 15,000 scientists have descended upon the city, and there are a ridiculous number of fascinating talks on every conceivable aspect of Earth science, including, of course, climate change. One talk I attended yesterday was called, "Hot Arctic-Cold Continents: Hemispheric Impacts of Arctic Change.” The talk was given by Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, one of the world's experts on Arctic weather and climate (I spent many long months flying in the Arctic with him during the three Arctic field programs I participated in during the late 1980s.) Dr. Overland discussed the remarkable winter of 2009 – 2010, which brought record snowstorms to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, along with the coldest temperatures in 25 years, but also brought the warmest winter on record to Canada and much of the Arctic. He demonstrated that the Arctic is normally dominated by low pressure in winter, and a “Polar Vortex” of counter-clockwise circulating winds develops surrounding the North Pole. However, during the winter of 2009-2010, high pressure replaced low pressure over the Arctic, and the Polar Vortex weakened and even reversed at times, with a clockwise flow of air replacing the usual counter-clockwise flow of air around the pole. This unusual flow pattern allowed cold air to spill southwards and be replaced by warm air moving poleward. This pattern is kind of like leaving the refrigerator door ajar--the refrigerator warms up, but all of the cold air spills out into the house.


    Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of how Arctic sea ice loss affects winter weather, from NOAA's Future of Arctic Sea Ice and Global Impacts web page.

    The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
    This is all part of a natural climate pattern known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which took on its most extreme configuration in 145 years of record keeping during the winter of 2009 – 2010. The NAO is a climate pattern in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of sea-level pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. It is one of oldest known climate oscillations--seafaring Scandinavians described the pattern several centuries ago. Through east-west oscillation motions of the Icelandic Low and the Azores High, the NAO controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and storm tracks across the North Atlantic. A large difference in the pressure between Iceland and the Azores (positive NAO) leads to increased westerly winds and mild and wet winters in Europe. Positive NAO conditions also cause the Icelandic Low to draw a stronger south-westerly flow of air over eastern North America, preventing Arctic air from plunging southward. In contrast, if the difference in sea-level pressure between Iceland and the Azores is small (negative NAO), westerly winds are suppressed, allowing Arctic air to spill southwards into eastern North America more readily. Negative NAO winters tend to bring cold winters to Europe and the U.S. East Coast, but leads to very warm conditions in the Arctic, since all the cold air spilling out of the Arctic gets replaced by warm air flowing poleward.

    The winter of 2009 - 2010 had the most extreme negative NAO since record keeping began in 1865. This "Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern", resulting in a reversal of Polar Vortex and high pressure replacing low pressure over the Arctic, had occurred previously in only four winters during the past 160 years—1969, 1963, 1936, and 1881. Dr. Overland called the winter of 2009 – 2010 at least as surprising at the record 2007 loss of Arctic sea ice. He suspected that Arctic sea ice loss was a likely culprit for the event, since Francis et al. (2009) found that during 1979 - 2006, years that had unusually low summertime Arctic sea ice had a 10 - 20% reduction in the temperature difference between the Equator and North Pole. This resulted in a weaker jet stream with slower winds that lasted a full six months, through fall and winter. The weaker jet caused a weaker Aleutian Low and Icelandic Low during the winter, resulting in a more negative North Atlantic Oscillation, allowing cold air to spill out of the Arctic and into Europe and the Eastern U.S. Dr. Overland also stressed that natural chaos in the weather/climate system also played a role, as well as the El Niño/La Niña cycle and natural oscillations in stratospheric winds. Not every year that we see extremely high levels of Arctic sea ice loss will have a strongly negative NAO winter. For example, the record Arctic sea ice loss year of 2007 saw only a modest perturbation to the Arctic Vortex and the NAO during the winter of 2007 – 2008.

    However, the strongly negative NAO is back again this winter. High pressure has replaced low pressure over the North Pole, and according to NOAA, the NAO index during November 2010 was the second lowest since 1950. This strongly negative NAO has continued into December, and we are on course to have a top-five most extreme December NAO. Cold air is once again spilling southwards into the Eastern U.S. And Europe, bringing record cold and fierce snowstorms. At the same time, warm air is flowing into the Arctic to replace the cold air spilling south--temperatures averaged more than 10°C (18°F) above average over much of Greenland so far this month. The latest 2-week forecast from the GFS model predicts that the Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern will continue for the next two weeks. However, the coldest air has sloshed over into Europe and Asia, and North America will see relatively seasonable temperatures the next two weeks.
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

    Obviously this type of situation is exactly what underwriters would want information on. Insurance against citrus crop loss in Florida, for example, would need to be more expensive if climate change is inducing a more -NAO pattern.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  21. #646
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Yeah, CO2, a gas that is needed for life on Earth, is just like cynaide.
    The point was not to draw a comparison between CO2 and Cyanide but to point out that a small amount of any substance can have dramatic effects. Simply trying to dismiss an argument with percentages completely out of context is wrong.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  22. #647
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quan ative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?
    LOL

    Trying so hard to avoid the 340349380433033403498 parts changer follow instructions from a diagram remarks I have for such a horribly ridiculous statement.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  23. #648
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    If, in a hundred years, temps don't trend with CO2 (as anyone with eyeballs can see is not happening for the past decade), will there still be such a thing as a climate change "denier" and will the skeptic side still be considered pseudoscience?
    Not going to take anywhere near 100 years for this debate to be put to bed.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #649
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Why do you try to associate CO2 to warming, when there is no quan ative accepted number in science as to it's warming effect?
    You yourself have admitted that man's activities have had a "very slight" effect on temperatures.

    We might not know the exact effect indeed, but if we continue to emit more and more CO2, that effect will, in all probability, get greater over time, yes or no?
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #650
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Not going to take anywhere near 100 years for this debate to be put to bed.
    Nope. I give it another 15 years or so.

    By then we will have, in all liklihood, roughly doubled our annual CO2 emissions from present levels.

    That rate of emissions and 15 more years of data gathering should tell us enough to get a lot closer to pinning the whole thing down.

    Hopefully that will not be too late to reverse any damage we may have done.

    If so, I hope my children and decendants can forgive us for the mess they will have to deal with.
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •