Mad Meat Making Scientist Proves Climate Doomsayers Wrong

[DarrinS]

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/01/30/mad-meat-making-scientist-proves-climate-doomsayers-wrong/






Here at my rural retreat in the rolling Dutchess County hunt country in scenic upstate New York, I’m facing a dilemma. I need to get back to New York City for a meeting tomorrow, but the series of monstrous winter snowstorms has made parking scarce in the purlieus of the stately Mead manor in glamorous Queens. I may end up driving and hoping, or I may take the train; either way I won’t be thinking very much about global warming here at the tail end of the snowiest January in the known history of New York.

But record cold temperatures and snowfalls so heavy that I have to dodge falling icicles descending abruptly from the ivy-covered halls of Bard College aren’t the cause of my current skepticism about the alarmist predictions on climate change.

We are now in the season when the media tells us over and over again that “weather is not climate” and that the natural variations in the temperature do not, repeat not, affect the credibility of climate change. I actually believe this, although in just a few months the fiddlehead ferns will be poking up through the forest floor and the media will be back to reporting each and every hot spell as conclusive proof that climate change is already here.

My totally unscientific conclusion based on close study of the media: weather isn’t climate in the months which have “r” in them. The rest of the year, it is.

I am a flexible and modern person and so I can go with that thinking. Actually, I can do even better. The last time I was in Australia the whole country was bemoaning a catastrophic drought and not only blaming it on climate change; people were talking about the evacuation of large stretches of Australia as global warming turned it into a desert. Now much of the country is under water following record rains with a new cyclone hurling toward Queensland to make things even wetter. This, too, is climate change and is a harbinger of more disaster to come.

I get it, I really do. Hot weather means the climate is changing. Cold weather means the climate is changing. Dry weather means we must brace for more climate change; floods mean the change is at hand. Sometimes it takes a little extra work to get it all clear in my head, but I manage. After scientists told me that climate change was bringing us more hurricanes and stronger ones, I was a little confused with our quiet season last fall. I expect the answer is a simple one: busy hurricane seasons mean climate change is coming; quiet hurricane seasons mean it is already under way.

I can go even farther for the greens: I can collaborate with the media in forgetting the grotesque ethanol scam. This was brought to us by the infallible green wonks who, despite their well known and widely advertised commitment to rigorous scientific testing of all ideas somehow fell for a bunch of cheap lies and shiny illusions propagated by farm lobbyists. Thanks to the great green climate brains, we now have a government-subsidized rip-off that is worsening food shortages and creating political unrest all over the world while also spewing more carbon per unit of energy into the atmosphere than the evil oil companies ever did. I am not only willing to refrain from ever bringing this up in polite company, I am willing and even able to tell myself that the same idiots who fell for this claptrap can safely be trusted with even larger sums of money and power to develop even more complex systems of social engineering. And when I think about the probable consequences and side effects of the vast international carbon and permit trading markets the greens want to set up, I solemnly promise and swear not to think about the pathetic mess they have made with the European carbon market.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it: the greens are just smarter than the rest of us, better able to understand the dynamics of complex systems like the earth’s climate, European financial markets and the ethanol process than the rest of us boobs. I am only puzzled and disappointed that American public opinion seems so inflexibly opposed to the hefty tax increases and regulatory burdens that would, our infallible and wonder-working climate scientists assure us, stop the whole dire process in its tracks.

However, the reason that I’m skeptical about the climate doom scenarios has nothing to do with the tendency of climate change prediction to lapse into unfalsifiable propositions where everything that happens or can happen is considered evidence that a hypothesis is true — or even with the propensity of the climate ‘fixes’ they propose to collapse into expensive heaps of incompetence and fraud.

It doesn’t even have to do with the ugly links between the climate change movement and the European farm lobby, a group whose policies of protection and subsidy in the name of the environment some think kill more innocent people in the developing world every year than most diseases. Ethanol here, the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe, protectionism everywhere and always in cahoots with the greens: nothing here to think about or investigate, friends. Just good folks doing good things.

No, I’m skeptical of these prophecies because of something else: meat. Meat in Charleston, South Carolina in particular, where someone who seems to have every qualification to be a mad scientist is trying to grow meat in a lab. Dr. Vladimir Mironov has both a Ph.D and an MD, putting my own modest BA in English literature pretty much in the shade. Mironov thinks that growing animal protein — meat — in vitro rather than on the hoof will be more economical and effective than the current system.

If he’s right, and if lab produced meat turns out to be practical and tasty, some big changes are coming — and I’m not just talking about heated debates over how the rules of kashrut and halal apply to artificial pork that has never touched or been touched by a pig or pig byproducts.

According to a United Nations report (which must as we all know be completely and unquestionably true when referring to matters of climate science having nothing to do with glacier melt), “Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation.” Ronald Reagan was widely and no doubt justly mocked for saying that trees cause more pollution than cars do; had he said cows instead of trees he could have appealed to the UN for support. In any case, the report (from the Food and Agricultural Organization) goes on:


When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.

In a typical Malthusian-panic green response, one group recommends going vegan to save the planet. But Dr. Mironov has another approach: grow the stuff in labs without all the methane. I have no idea whether this will work at all or whether the meat produced that way will taste more like Kobe beef than like the anonymous gray ‘mystery meat’ they used to feed us when I was a promising young sprout back in pundit school. But if Dr. Mironov is even partly right, the dynamics of the world’s food supply, energy use and atmospheric composition are very, very different from what the greens say.

You would think that smart greens genuinely interested in saving the planet would be all over Dr. Mironov’s work like white on rice. You would think that the vast and well organized enviro-agricultural lobbies like the ones that brought us ethanol and the enviro-industrial lobbies like the ones bringing us bad electric cars and expensively subsidized alternative energy sources would be pumping billions or at least hundreds of millions into a relatively simple scientific concept that, if successful, would make the world cleaner while dramatically raising the living standards of much of the world’s population by making a high protein diet more accessible and sustainable.

But you would be wrong. Nobody seems very interested in the prospect of saving the planet by cutting cows out of the food chain. Very little money has gone into this field and very few scientists are working on it.

Now I don’t know whether this particular technology will ever pan out, so that PETA activists will be stopping in at the local McDonalds for a tasty shamburger. Dr. Mironov might be wasting his time, or he might really be onto something.

But the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of Dr. Mironovs working on all kinds of unconventional inventions and ideas in labs and garages all over the world. Most of them may never produce very much but, especially with the tremendous advance of knowledge in biology of recent decades, some of them are going to get some very remarkable, life changing results.

Whether we will get delicious juicy shamburgers and sinfully salty, crisp facon (fake bacon) anytime soon is beyond me. But that the future will be full of surprises that change the basic rules of the energy game is almost certain. This is why I don’t think the prophets of doom have it right. Human ingenuity has been getting us out of tight corners and making life unexpectedly better for thousands of years; I don’t think we’re done yet.

[Winehole23]

Lab farmed meat? Ick.

[MannyIsGod]

Damn - its stuff like this that makes it obvious Darrin is trolling and I still respond at times. I'm slipping. :(

[DarrinS]

Damn - its stuff like this that makes it obvious Darrin is trolling and I still respond at times. I'm slipping. :(



You should be happy that AGW is unfalsifiable.


hot: global warming
cold: global warming
flood: global warming
drought: global warming
hurricane: global warming
blizzard: global warming

[boutons_deux]

Severe climate instability: predicted decades ago as consequence of global warming.

[DarrinS]

Severe climate instability: proved millenia ago by glacial periods and interglacial periods.


fify

[boutons_deux]

"if lab produced meat turns out to be practical and tasty"

:lol

"if man made it, don't put it in your mouth"

The intellectual hubris of these motherfucking "food scientists" is truly repulsive.

Industrial muscle meat is an unsustainable environmental disaster, but synthetic meat is exactly the wrong solution.

[Yonivore]

You should be happy that AGW is unfalsifiable.


hot: global warming
cold: global warming
flood: global warming
drought: global warming
hurricane: global warming
blizzard: global warming
You forgot, earthquakes: global warming.

[ChumpDumper]

But you would be wrong. Nobody seems very interested in the prospect of saving the planet by cutting cows out of the food chain.It's nice when a writer flat out lies. It's easier to dismiss anything he or she says. Pretty much like most board "conservatives" here.

[LnGrrrR]

It's nice when a writer flat out lies. It's easier to dismiss anything he or she says. Pretty much like most board "conservatives" here.

Yeah, I'd say there's a vocal minority that talks about getting humanity lower on the food chain. Quite a few vegetarians in the world.

[boutons_deux]

Stimulus funds help wire rural homes for Internet

Bolstered by billions in federal stimulus money, an effort to expand broadband Internet access to rural areas is underway, an ambitious 21st-century infrastructure project with parallels to the New Deal electrification of the nation's hinterlands in the 1930s and 1940s.

President Barack Obama emphasized the importance of Internet access in his State of the Union address last week.

"To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet," Obama said.

In the Depression, it was power to the people — for farm equipment and living-room lamps, cow-milking machines and kitchen appliances. Now, it's online access — to YouTube and digital downloads, to videoconferencing and Facebook, to eBay and Twitter.

"Rural areas all across the country are wrestling with this, somewhat desperately,"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-01-30-broadband-rural_N.htm

[DarrinS]

It was only a matter of time

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html




An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

[ChumpDumper]

It's cold this week, therefore there is no global warming.

[DarrinS]

It's cold this week, therefore there is no global warming.


Haven't you been listening? It doesn't matter what the weather or climate does, it's always global warming.

[ChumpDumper]

And synthetic meat is supposed to prove something!

[DarrinS]

I guess Al Gore now sites Chicago Tribune columnists as "scientific experts".





An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”





http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-oped-0214-page-20100212_1_global-warming-term-climate-change-snow





In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.

[ChumpDumper]

Is this statement untrue, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Just a decade ago, climate experts said snow would become a thing of the past.

Which is it?


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html





Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.


Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

Not any more, it seems.

[ChumpDumper]

Might the conditions in Britain be different than other places that could see increased snowfall, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Might the conditions in Britain be different than other places that could see increased snowfall, Darrin?


Evidently, global warming causes both less and more snow.


Again, any weather pattern is a win win for AGW cultists.

[ChumpDumper]

Evidently, global warming causes both less and more snow.


Again, any weather pattern is a win win for AGW cultists.Is weather the exact same everywhere on the planet, Darrin?

[Yonivore]

Evidently, global warming causes both less and more snow.

Again, any weather pattern is a win win for AGW cultists.
What we need is for AGW proponents to give us a list of things that, if they occurred, would prove AGW is not occurring.

Because, as of now, it appears any event (falling into the category of what we used to call weather) can be explained as having been caused by AGW.

Seriously,

AGW proponents definitively claim the ice would melt, snow would diminish and sea levels would rise. Then, when just the opposite occurs, they claim they've been saying all along that AGW would result in more cold, more snow, and more ice.

I think they need to start definitely stating what will not happen.

[boutons_deux]

"a list of things that, if they occurred, would prove AGW is not occurring"

numbers 1 - 20: less climate instability

[DarrinS]

"a list of things that, if they occurred, would prove AGW is not occurring"

numbers 1 - 20: less climate instability


Climate has not been stable in my lifetime (roughly 4½ billion years).

Sincerely,

Earth

[DarrinS]

I sure hope there will be some ice up there for the polar bears.


http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

[ChumpDumper]

It's cold this week, therefore there is no global warming.

[boutons_deux]

Climate has not been stable in my lifetime (roughly 4½ billion years).

Sincerely,

Earth

Exactly, Earth was non inhabited, even habitable, by humans, outside the of the last few 100K years, a geological eyeblink.

[DarrinS]

Exactly, Earth was non inhabited, even habitable, by humans, outside the of the last few 100K years, a geological eyeblink.


Do you actually read things that you respond to?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Oh irony

[Blake]

:lmao

Oh irony

:lmao

[Proxy]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.

[DarrinS]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.


It was rising before that. Quit denying the little ice age.

[Proxy]

It was rising before that. Quit denying the little ice age.

Wow.... you failed science, no doubt.

[DarrinS]

Wow.... you failed science, no doubt.



The only class I ever did poorly in was my 2nd semester of fluid mechanics, but I took it again and got an A.

[Yonivore]

Wow.... you failed science, no doubt.
Simple question, yes or no; the planet earth has both been a lot colder and it's been a lot hotter, than it is right now, several times of varying durations before man ever banged out the first plate of steel to kick off the industrial revolution?

Yes or no?

[Proxy]

Simple question, yes or no; the planet earth has both been a lot colder and it's been a lot hotter, than it is right now, several times of varying durations before man ever banged out the first plate of steel to kick off the industrial revolution?

Yes or no?

Yes. Due to the greenhouse effect.... no.

[DarrinS]

Yes. Due to the greenhouse effect.... no.


You don't there was any greenhouse effect before human beings existed?

u.b.stupid

[Yonivore]

You don't there was any greenhouse effect before human beings existed?

u.b.stupid
Not exactly my point; my point being, if the earth has both cooled and heated without the effects of man's presence -- several times (according to geological records) -- what makes him so damn sure the current trend (whether it be cooling or heating, as that seems to be dependent on Algore's location at the moment) isn't the result of whatever drove global climate before we ever came along?

That's my point. That and the fact AGW proponents are so egocentric they actually believe man can have more affect on climate that that big ball of nuclear-fueled energy bathing us in sunlight 24 hours a day and our varying distances from it from eon to eon.

[Proxy]

You don't there was any greenhouse effect before human beings existed?

u.b.stupid

Actually the greenhouse effect has always existed.

Let me educate you that our atmosphere retains enough heat to keep the planet habitable.

To put it in elementary terms, heat from sun comes in, atmosphere releases some heat and keeps some heat.... similar to your car being hotter than outside during the summer.

If the Earth had no greenhouse effect, then the planet would be like Mercury with temperatures fluctuating from extremely hot to extremely cold due to no atmosphere, leading to no greenhouse effect.

An overactive greenhouse effect is like Venus.... it's always really fucking hot.

The greenhouse effect is a name for something that happened long before humans existed on this planet.... since the beginnings of universe, in the moments of planet formation after the big bang. It existed before man evolved from apes, and it will exist after man goes extinct.

Now please..... stop spreading lies to other uneducated people. Thanks.

[Proxy]

Not exactly my point; my point being, if the earth has both cooled and heated without the effects of man's presence -- several times (according to geological records) -- what makes him so damn sure the current trend (whether it be cooling or heating, as that seems to be dependent on Algore's location at the moment) isn't the result of whatever drove global climate before we ever came along?

That's my point. That and the fact AGW proponents are so egocentric they actually believe man can have more affect on climate that that big ball of nuclear-fueled energy bathing us in sunlight 24 hours a day and our varying distances from it from eon to eon.

Um.... there is evidence. There is proof since the industrial revolution.

Why would it just start to increase at the point of human existence when we are a period in the sentence that is this planet's existence?

[Yonivore]

Actually the greenhouse effect has always existed.

Let me educate you that our atmosphere retains enough heat to keep the planet habitable.

To put it in elementary terms, heat from sun comes in, atmosphere releases some heat and keeps some heat.... similar to your car being hotter than outside during the summer.

If the Earth had no greenhouse effect, then the planet would be like Mercury with temperatures fluctuating from extremely hot to extremely cold due to no atmosphere, leading to no greenhouse effect.

An overactive greenhouse effect is like Venus.... it's always really fucking hot.

The greenhouse effect is a name for something that happened long before humans existed on this planet.... since the beginnings of universe, in the moments of planet formation after the big bang. It existed before man evolved from apes, and it will exist after man goes extinct.

Now please..... stop spreading lies to other uneducated people. Thanks.
In other words, nothing we're experiencing now is aberrant to what was experienced before man showed up. Correct?

[Proxy]

In other words, nothing we're experiencing now is aberrant to what was experienced before man showed up. Correct?

No. We further push the Earth's atmosphere towards the behavior of Venus with added emissions. Do you deny statistics?

[Yonivore]

Um.... there is evidence. There is proof since the industrial revolution.

Why would it just start to increase at the point of human existence when we are a period in the sentence that is this planet's existence?
Because the Earth has a habit of heating and cooling and if it had been cooling when man showed up, you'd be blaming us for that as well.

It's called coincidence.

And, riddle me this Batman; what is the Earth's optimal temperature?

[Duff McCartney]

I have no reason to believe that man made emissions are not bad for the enviornment. Simply put, you wouldn't lock yourself in your garage with the car running for a reason, so I can safely assume that millions of cars on Earth would have a negative effect on the Earth.

[Yonivore]

No. We further push the Earth's atmosphere towards the behavior of Venus with added emissions. Do you deny statistics?
Except none of the AGW Proponents' predictions are coming true and they're having to explain away climate behavior that directly contradicts what they said would happen.

Of what statistics do you speak? Because much has been published about the inferior quality of the data being used by the IPCC and their worshipers to make the claim that AGW exists.

And, even when using faulty statistics, they're having to constantly explain away circumstances that contradict their prognostications...

[Yonivore]

I have no reason to believe that man made emissions are not bad for the enviornment. Simply put, you wouldn't lock yourself in your garage with the car running for a reason, so I can safely assume that millions of cars on Earth would have a negative effect on the Earth.
Not a safe assumption. Most of the emissions from cars are transient and affect local air quality. If you shut off every car in Los Angeles on Monday, the air would be clean on Wednesday.

It dissipates.

And, don't even get me started on CO2. Geeze, making that a toxin is the biggest farce ever.

That's another problem I have with the AGW crowd; they're constantly conflating pollution and climate change.

I'm against pollution and believe measures to reduce toxic emissions are warranted at a local and regional level. I don't think, however, there's anything you can do to appreciably change the globe's climate...just as I don't think there is anything we've done that's led to our global climate condition now.

[DarrinS]

I have no reason to believe that man made emissions are not bad for the enviornment. Simply put, you wouldn't lock yourself in your garage with the car running for a reason, so I can safely assume that millions of cars on Earth would have a negative effect on the Earth.



Do yo know what a catalytic converter is and why it was invented?


Uh oh, looks like the AGW cultists have already rewritten the history of this great invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#Environmental_impact





Environmental impact

Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable and effective in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they may have some adverse environmental impacts in use:

The requirement for a rich-burn engine to run at the stoichiometric point means it uses more fuel than a lean-burn engine running at a mixture of 20:1 or less. This increases the amount of fossil fuel consumed and the carbon-dioxide emissions of the vehicle. However, NOx control on lean-burn engines is problematic.

Although catalytic converters are effective at removing hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions, they do not solve the fundamental problem created by burning a fossil fuel. In addition to water, the main combustion product in exhaust gas leaving the engine — through a catalytic converter or not — is carbon dioxide (CO2).[14] Carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels is one of the greenhouse gases indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a "most likely" cause of global warming.[15] Additionally, the U.S. EPA has stated catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, because of their release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas over three hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide.[16]

Catalytic converter production requires palladium or platinum; part of the world supply of these precious metals is produced near Norilsk, Russia, where the industry (among others) has caused Norilsk to be added to Time magazine's list of most-polluted places.[17]

[ChumpDumper]

How is pointing out that catalytic converters don't remove CO2 rewriting history?

Are you saying at some point catalytic converters removed CO2?

[Wild Cobra]

Just a decade ago, climate experts said snow would become a thing of the past.

Which is it?


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Just compare all your favorite scares of the month by the AGW crowd. When they cannot rely o facts, you know something is wrong with their case.

[Wild Cobra]

Evidently, global warming causes both less and more snow.


Again, any weather pattern is a win win for AGW cultists.
That's because they create all these fairy tales to tell the commoners, who they have convinced, need their stewardship.

It's all about money and power.

[Wild Cobra]

What we need is for AGW proponents to give us a list of things that, if they occurred, would prove AGW is not occurring.

Because, as of now, it appears any event (falling into the category of what we used to call weather) can be explained as having been caused by AGW.

Seriously,

AGW proponents definitively claim the ice would melt, snow would diminish and sea levels would rise. Then, when just the opposite occurs, they claim they've been saying all along that AGW would result in more cold, more snow, and more ice.

I think they need to start definitely stating what will not happen.

I think if someone simply put up a side by side, it would be better evidence they are wrong. Why people still believe this bullshit is beyond me. It has been proven to be a wrong theory long ago in my view.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.
Yes, and in the recent 11,000, since we came out of the last ice age, it has been warmer than now, at least three times. Deuterium and 18O proxy data is pretty definitive.

Maybe you should research what is known as "The Bond Effect."

[Wild Cobra]

No. We further push the Earth's atmosphere towards the behavior of Venus with added emissions. Do you deny statistics?
LOL....

Not any similarity what so ever. If you knew what you spoke of, you'd relize how much a joke your words are.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.
And we also came out of the "Maunder Minima."

[Wild Cobra]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.
Correlation does not equal causation.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. Due to the greenhouse effect.... no.

Yet, nobody can prove that.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually the greenhouse effect has always existed.

Let me educate you that our atmosphere retains enough heat to keep the planet habitable.

To put it in elementary terms, heat from sun comes in, atmosphere releases some heat and keeps some heat.... similar to your car being hotter than outside during the summer.

If the Earth had no greenhouse effect, then the planet would be like Mercury with temperatures fluctuating from extremely hot to extremely cold due to no atmosphere, leading to no greenhouse effect.

An overactive greenhouse effect is like Venus.... it's always really fucking hot.

The greenhouse effect is a name for something that happened long before humans existed on this planet.... since the beginnings of universe, in the moments of planet formation after the big bang. It existed before man evolved from apes, and it will exist after man goes extinct.

Now please..... stop spreading lies to other uneducated people. Thanks.
Stop being so moronically simple. We know that. The question becomes this. What empirical evidence is there that the greenhouse effect is as strong as you believe. I say at best, it is about 30% the strength of what the AGW community propagates. I don't think it's that strong, but I will concede that it can be as high as 30%.

Isn't it funny how year after year, more pieces of the puzzle are found, and things like solar and black carbon are assigned more value for their radiative forcing effect? Isn't it ironic that time and time as other numbers are revised upward, CO2 isn't revised downward?

Well.... the temperature didn't magically change with these revised numbers, so from what factor must the numbers be decreased?

[Wild Cobra]

No. We further push the Earth's atmosphere towards the behavior of Venus with added emissions. Do you deny statistics?
Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.

Can you comprehend why we are so different than Venus and why it cannot be used as a comparison, or are you that ignorant?

Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2, ~96.5%. Our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, followed by Oxygen and Argon. None of which are greenhouse gasses and make up 99.96% of our atmosphere. Venus has more than 2500 times CO2 as a concentration.

Do you comprehend such realities?

[Wild Cobra]

And, riddle me this Batman; what is the Earth's optimal temperature?
I could stand for a couple more degrees, like it was about 8,000 years ago:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast1200-2.jpg

[Nbadan]

Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.

:lol

Stop denying evidence and science...

...that's what makes a wing-nut a wing-nut...

[Phenomanul]

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

[ChumpDumper]

Could that particulate matter from the volcano have effected a climate change of its own?

[MannyIsGod]

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

Wow - are you fucking kidding me? That volcano's highest estimate was 300,000 tons of CO2 per day of eruption. On the other hand, Humans add 30 BILLION tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere Even extrapolating that CO2 figure to a full 365 day year you get 11 million tons.

This is the 2nd time recently that you've put straight up false info (the other had to do with the sun's output) and for someone who considers themselves a scientist you should at least do better than a shitty chain letter for facts.

[MannyIsGod]

Could that particulate matter from the volcano have effected a climate change of its own?

Volcanic eruptions can certainly affect short term climate (years) if they're able to put enough particulate into the stratosphere (Mt. Pinitobo did this in the 90s) but the Icelandic volcano was no where near that big of an eruption.

Particulate in the stratosphere lasts much longer so its able to affect climate but stuff in the troposphere doesn't last.

[ChumpDumper]

Volcanic eruptions can certainly affect short term climate (years) if they're able to put enough particulate into the stratosphere (Mt. Pinitobo did this in the 90s) but the Icelandic volcano was no where near that big of an eruption.

Particulate in the stratosphere lasts much longer so its able to affect climate but stuff in the troposphere doesn't last.Thanks; didn't know the scale of this last eruption compared to Pinatubo.

[MannyIsGod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

The scale is logarithmic (IE Richter scale) and Pinitubo was a 6. The Icelandic volcano was a 4 or over 100 times smaller.

[DarrinS]

How is pointing out that catalytic converters don't remove CO2 rewriting history?

Are you saying at some point catalytic converters removed CO2?



No, it was designed to convert harmful hydrocarbons to CO2 and water vapor (that's why you see water dripping from your tailpipe). At the time of it's invention, CO2 wasn't seen as a dreadful poison as it is today.

[DarrinS]

If you went from San Antonio to Miami today, you'd experience about 6000 years worth of global warming.

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

[Wild Cobra]

No, it was designed to convert harmful hydrocarbons to CO2 and water vapor (that's why you see water dripping from your tailpipe). At the time of it's invention, CO2 wasn't seen as a dreadful poison as it is today.
Funny, how when we started cleaning up our emissions, the temperatures took a rise...

Clearing the atmosphere of reflective emissions allowed more energy to heat the sun. This all started in the 70's, but people want to blame the added CO2.

[boutons_deux]

"when we started cleaning up our emissions, the temperatures took a rise"

human still emit more crap into the atmosphere than they restrict.

"more energy to heat the sun."

:lol :lol :lol

[Wild Cobra]

"when we started cleaning up our emissions, the temperatures took a rise"

human still emit more crap into the atmosphere than they restrict.
I'll bet we emit less "crap" than in the 60's or 70's. Sure, we emit more CO2, but less particulate pollution and toxic gasses than decades back.

"more energy to heat the sun."

:lol :lol :lol
OK, I worded that wrong, but you knew what I meant. More energy from the sun makes it to the surface, so the effective greenhouse effect is larger. Is that a better explanation?

[Phenomanul]

Wow - are you fucking kidding me? That volcano's highest estimate was 300,000 tons of CO2 per day of eruption. On the other hand, Humans add 30 BILLION tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere Even extrapolating that CO2 figure to a full 365 day year you get 11 million tons.

This is the 2nd time recently that you've put straight up false info (the other had to do with the sun's output) and for someone who considers themselves a scientist you should at least do better than a shitty chain letter for facts.

The emphasis was on soot, and ash... I don't know why I wrote CO2 in there to begin with... fact is, I don't even consider it the pollutant that you, and other AGW proponents consider it to be. Where the Icelandic volcano differentiated itself from its peers was in the emission of iron oxide which I didn't mention (as in large enough amounts to affect the ocean's, pH and it's own absorption of CO2).

As for the solar output... we were at a solar minimum last year... that's all I was saying... the point was that increases in the sun's radiative power are not being given the weight they deserve by those in your camp. If the sun's output increases, so too will Earth's temperature.

No matter what I say, or what we observe for that matter, you will keep believing the anthropogenic climate change farce... considering that every climatic observation is attributed to the theory anyways, regardless of context.

It's "hot"... AGW
It's "cold"... AGW
less snow... AGW
more snow... AGW
less hurricanes... AGW
more hurricanes... AGW
rising sea-level... AGW
falling sea-level... AGW
evidence of pre-industrial warming and cooling periods... IGNORED

See the morphing convenience in this strategy?

[DarrinS]

As for the solar output... we were at a solar minimum last year... that's all I was saying... the point was that increases in the sun's radiative power are not being given the weight they deserve by those in your camp. If the sun's output increases, so too will Earth's temperature.



The Year Without a Summer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer





The Year Without a Summer (also known as the Poverty Year, Year There Was No Summer and Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death[1]) was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities destroyed crops in Northern Europe, the Northeastern United States and eastern Canada.[2][3] Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[4] enough to cause significant agricultural problems around the globe.

Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5]

It may be that the climate anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event; the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped off by the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest known eruption in over 1,600 years.




Interesting.



People should also research the correlation between CO2 and temperature change and compare that with the correlation between factors such as total solar irradiance (TSI) and PDO/AMO.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it was designed to convert harmful hydrocarbons to CO2 and water vapor (that's why you see water dripping from your tailpipe). At the time of it's invention, CO2 wasn't seen as a dreadful poison as it is today.So the history wasn't rewritten.

Thanks!


If you went from San Antonio to Miami today, you'd experience about 6000 years worth of global warming.

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
It's cold this week, therefore there is no global warming.

[MannyIsGod]

The emphasis was on soot, and ash... I don't know why I wrote CO2 in there to begin with... fact is, I don't even consider it the pollutant that you, and other AGW proponents consider it to be. Where the Icelandic volcano differentiated itself from its peers was in the emission of iron oxide which I didn't mention (as in large enough amounts to affect the ocean's, pH and it's own absorption of CO2).

As for the solar output... we were at a solar minimum last year... that's all I was saying... the point was that increases in the sun's radiative power are not being given the weight they deserve by those in your camp. If the sun's output increases, so too will Earth's temperature.

No matter what I say, or what we observe for that matter, you will keep believing the anthropogenic climate change farce... considering that every climatic observation is attributed to the theory anyways, regardless of context.

It's "hot"... AGW
It's "cold"... AGW
less snow... AGW
more snow... AGW
less hurricanes... AGW
more hurricanes... AGW
rising sea-level... AGW
falling sea-level... AGW
evidence of pre-industrial warming and cooling periods... IGNORED

See the morphing convenience in this strategy?

I can tell you exactly why you put CO2 in the first post. You were so overzealous to prove how silly AGW theory is that you either didn't bother to check your facts or you blatantly lied. In the end it doesn't matter because the result is the same in either case: a loss of credibility on the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

[ChumpDumper]

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

Pun intended?

[Phenomanul]

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

:lol

What does this have to do with the other?

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

[DarrinS]

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

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



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

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

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

[Yonivore]

(The word unprecedented should only be used in AGW when its used to note that this is the first time humans have affected climate on this scale - not the actual scale of the warming.)
Do you realize how silly that sounds? First, there is no empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming and, second, temperatures are either unprecedented or not. If -- assuming for a minute that humans do have an affect -- the temperature caused by humans isn't unprecedented, in history, what's the fucking problem?

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

[DarrinS]

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

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


Take it up with the IPCC then.

[Phenomanul]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



You should just acknowledge your initial statement was foolish and had no scientific merit in this discussion. It really is the stuff of chain letters and forwarded emails.
I acknowledged I erred in including CO2 in my statement. You fancied that for the wrong reasons... thinking you were somehow going to corner me into stating that I lied. Truth of the matter is, no matter what I say... you're going to attack my position regardless.



As for the solar claims, you did not simply say we were exiting the solar minimum. You gave specific figures to the increase in solar output over the course of a few years and when challenged to back up the validity of those figures (probably another forwarded email) you ran away and never came back. We just came out of the solar minimum and output has not be increasing for years.
You mean I went on a business trip and didn't post for awhile... Sorry if my world doesn't revolve around giving Manny his answers.

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

[MannyIsGod]

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

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

Who said anything about an optimal temp? Strawman alert!

You guys just can't help yourselves.

[MannyIsGod]

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

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

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

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

[Winehole23]

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

[Yonivore]

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


Strawman alert!
I wish Sesame Street would change the phrase of the week...


You guys just can't help yourselves.
And you can't explain Anthropogenic Global Climate Change in a way that makes any sense.

[sickdsm]

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


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


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


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

[DarrinS]

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


Sounds good, but it isn't happening.


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

[Yonivore]

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

Reliable forecast under the weather (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1314036)


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

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

But then something happened. Since 1998, temperatures have been relatively flat. We’ve got more polar bears than ever, and Manhattan is buried under snow. For a planet-roasting crisis that threatened the human race with extinction, there doesn’t seem to be much actual warming.
Well, that and the fact that Global Climate Change alarmists don't really act like there is anything wrong. They certainly haven't changed their carbon footprint.

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

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to disprove AGW theory, show the earth is not warming or show a mechanism that is causing the warming and is not related to greenhouse gases. Its that simple.
I have, but you true believers don't listen.

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the Martian ice caps.
That's why you are a true believer.

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg

Oh...

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

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

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

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

My educated guess

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg

Oh...

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda.

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

[RandomGuy]

hint: http://co2now.org/

[RandomGuy]

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

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg

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


http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

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

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

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

Can you find any similar spikes in the data available?

[Yonivore]

Hey, RG; why is it so fucking cold? And, if CO2 keeps rising, why have temperatures remained fairly stable since '98?

Just asking.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, RG; why is it so fucking cold? And, if CO2 keeps rising, why have temperatures remained fairly stable since '98?

Just asking.

I don't know where you are to answer the question "why is it so fucking cold".

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/600-global-temperature.png

Not sure what you mean or what data set you base your statement that "temperatures have remained fairly stable since 98.

You suck at posing questions.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, RG; why is it so fucking cold? And, if CO2 keeps rising, why have temperatures remained fairly stable since '98?

Just asking.

Is cold weather inconsistant with man made climate change?

You don't even understand the theory you are criticizing.

[Yonivore]

Is cold weather inconsistant with man made climate change?

You don't even understand the theory you are criticizing.
Because it keeps fucking changing, like the weather. In fact, I think the theory adequately describes what's been going on for -- well -- ever. They call it weather.

Not three years ago, Al Gore was telling us the glaciers were irreversibly receding and that they'd be gone by 2025. Now that they're growing, he says, of course, that's perfectly in line with what scientists predicted.

It's all a fucking farce and you're so invested you can't admit it.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, RG; why is it so fucking cold?
It's cold this week, therefore there is no global warming.

[DarrinS]

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

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

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

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

Can you find any similar spikes in the data available?



Only if I use a computer model that turns a random signal into "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

[Wild Cobra]

Propaganda.

What is the current concentration of atmospheric CO2, and why is it not on your graph?
The proxy data is limited to what is on the graph. To extend the graph would be to splice in other sources.

The proxy data shown is not in dispute with your side. So I ask, why is our temperature and rate of change unprecedented?

[RandomGuy]

Can you find any similar spikes in atmospheric CO2 in the data available?


Only if I use a computer model that turns a random signal into "hockey stick" shaped graphs.

I think it is safe to assume, by your evasiveness, the answer is "no".

If you can't find any other similar spikes in CO2 concentration over such short periods of time, then I guess "unprecedented change" seems to be a fair statement.

[DarrinS]

I think it is safe to assume, by your evasiveness, the answer is "no".

If you can't find any other similar spikes in CO2 concentration over such short periods of time, then I guess "unprecedented change" seems to be a fair statement.



I misunderstood. I thought you were asking me if I could find temperature spikes that correlated with the CO2 spikes. My bad.

[RandomGuy]

Because it keeps fucking changing, like the weather. In fact, I think the theory adequately describes what's been going on for -- well -- ever. They call it weather.

Not three years ago, Al Gore was telling us the glaciers were irreversibly receding and that they'd be gone by 2025. Now that they're growing, he says, of course, that's perfectly in line with what scientists predicted.

It's all a fucking farce and you're so invested you can't admit it.

One of the hallmarks of good science is that theories will change as new data is collected.

That's how real science works, as opposed to bullshit dogma. You're so invested in that ideologically-based bullshit dogma, you can't admit it.

[RandomGuy]

I misunderstood. I thought you were asking me if I could find temperature spikes that correlated with the CO2 spikes. My bad.

We were talking a bit past each other, an understandable mix-up. I could have been a bit more clear.

For CO2, and not temperature:

Assuming mild growth in emissions, we will emit as much CO2 in the next 24 years or so as we have in the previous 100.

It seems pretty obvious that our activities have been responsible for a pretty good run-up in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution really kicked off around 1900 or so.

WC, probably won't even want to accede that, but the ice core data he provided seems to show that the equilibrium concentration of CO2 was about 260-300 ppm for the last 12000 years or so.

Correlation is not causation but provides a reasonable basis to put together some testable hypotheses. The testing that has been done so far to test the thesis that our activities have been responsible for the run up seems to confirm that.

If this is the case, as we double, and re-double our emissions, that concentration should keep going up.

People who are skeptics about global warming may be able to quibble now, but if there is a man-caused overall warming, that will become more and more marked, snit fits over proxy data or no. We won't need proxy data.

[Wild Cobra]

One of the hallmarks of good science is that theories will change as new data is collected.

That's how real science works, as opposed to bullshit dogma. You're so invested in that ideologically-based bullshit dogma, you can't admit it.
LOL....

It's the AGW theory as presented that's bullshit dogma.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, probably won't even want to accede that, but the ice core data he provided seems to show that the equilibrium concentration of CO2 was about 260-300 ppm for the last 12000 years or so.
Why do you think that? I know that is essentially true.

Correlation is not causation but provides a reasonable basis to put together some testable hypotheses. The testing that has been done so far to test the thesis that our activities have been responsible for the run up seems to confirm that.
Not true. Not all factors are taken into account, or can be. The modeling is difficult, and as I have repeatably pointed out, new information over the years shows that solar and soot cause more warming than thought of in the past.

I ask you this. With this revised upward forcing due to solar and soot, why where have they removed forcing to make the end results match?

If this is the case, as we double, and re-double our emissions, that concentration should keep going up.
Sure it will, but rather gradually. We probably have a 9 GtC GtC is still under 5% of the total CO2 sourcing to the atmosphere. The sinks will absorb more, so don't expect the atmospheric rise to double as emissions do.

People who are skeptics about global warming may be able to quibble now, but if there is a man-caused overall warming, that will become more and more marked, snit fits over proxy data or no. We won't need proxy data.
I have never stated otherwise. we just disagree on the source.

Source = soot (black carbon) as the largest man made AGW effect.

[RandomGuy]

Sure [CO2 emissions] will [rise], but rather gradually. We probably have a 9 GtC GtC is still under 5% of the total CO2 sourcing to the atmosphere. The sinks will absorb more, so don't expect the atmospheric rise to double as emissions do.

Gradually, like 20 ppm increase in 3,000 years. (+1 ppm per 150 years)
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TemperatureandCO2overthelast12000years50pctannotat ed.jpg
(you know the one you attributed to ancient Egyption SUV's)

or gradually like 70 ppm in 50 years? (+1 ppm per 8.5 months) (1960 to 2010)

http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

??

Sure mankind's emissions of CO2 are small compared to what nature does. If the system was in a rough equilibrium before, and you add more CO2 than the climate system can absorb, is it not logical that the extra CO2 will simply stick around?

No one has ever claimed that doubling our emissions will double CO2 concentration. I certainly don't.

Define "gradually". What concentration do you posit we will be at in 25 years when we have likely doubled our total emissions yet again?

[RandomGuy]

we just disagree on the source [of warming].

Source = soot (black carbon) as the largest man made AGW effect.

Please outline a test for this hypothesis.

[Wild Cobra]

Please outline a test for this hypothesis.
LOL... Please outline their hypothesis...

How can I do what the best scientists cannot?

They cannot test the theory which supports the IPCC claim of 1.6 watts of warming for CO2 during the period the AR4 covers. Since the AR4, even the IPCC has agreed that both black carbon warming and solar are more than previous said. They have no reasonable way to measure or test CO2 warming. It is simply educated guess work by the results of the leftover numbers in math. They have modeled numbers to give to CO2 warming, but constantly revise them lower, and lower, and lower.

Why is it that you guys include feedback to CO2 warming, which is a feedback of solar radiation, then refuse to give other variables a feedback? Have you ever really thought about the different arguments?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL... Please outline their hypothesis...

How can I do what the best scientists cannot?

They cannot test the theory which supports the IPCC claim of 1.6 watts of warming for CO2 during the period the AR4 covers. Since the AR4, even the IPCC has agreed that both black carbon warming and solar are more than previous said. They have no reasonable way to measure or test CO2 warming. It is simply educated guess work by the results of the leftover numbers in math. They have modeled numbers to give to CO2 warming, but constantly revise them lower, and lower, and lower.

Why is it that you guys include feedback to CO2 warming, which is a feedback of solar radiation, then refuse to give other variables a feedback? Have you ever really thought about the different arguments?

So you do not understand their arguments yet you espouse them?

I can imagine it has something to do with the absorption of solarradiation and the thermodynamic properties of carbon, the surface area of said carbon and the same traits of a control.

You are a minion.

[MannyIsGod]

WC doesn't know what Spectroscopy is?

[Wild Cobra]

WC doesn't know what Spectroscopy is?
Idiot.

You know better. You simply don't understand how complex it can get.

Remember these:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/CO215umexpanded.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/SpectralCalcCO2lines10to20microns1x.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/science/spectralcalc/spectralcalcCO2isotopes.jpg