"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

:lmao and you picked just one of his posts to make your point.

---

The thread is a behomoth. Jeez. Can't I say something about just one of DarrinS's persistent themes?

He keeps posting daily temperatures as if that meant something. I'd like him to explain why. If he already explained it, I forgot and I'm too lazy to check, ok?

If you know the answer, please share it with me, 2cents.

Why be content to raise your leg on the conversation, when you can correct it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The thread is a behomoth. Jeez. Can't I say something about just one of DarrinS's persistent themes?

He keeps posting daily temperatures as if that meant something. I'd like him to explain why. If he already explained it, I forgot and I'm too lazy to check, ok?

If you know the answer, please share it with me, 2cents.

Why be content to raise your leg on the conversation, when you can correct it?

---

how about the 2 posts immediately preceding the one you pointed out. Seemed to me all three fit together in his argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

how about the 2 posts immediately preceding the one you pointed out. Seemed to me all three fit together in his argument.

---

As a joke, right? I only sort of understand what they're talking about to begin with.

DarrinS asks RG for "quantitative" information, then goads him by posting US temperatures? Something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

As a joke, right? I only sort of understand what they're talking about to begin with.

DarrinS asks RG for "quantitative" information, then goads him by posting US temperatures? Something like that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS_post1

Well, CO2 was rising between 1940 and 1970, so why did the average temperature decline during that period?



By the way, the hottest year in history was 1934, not 1998 (after the "hockey stick" was thoroughly debunked and NASA corrected their data). You'll probably remember the hockey stick graph because it has been featured so prominantly in IPCC reports as well as the giant graph in Al Gore's science fiction thriller.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by post 2

Can you give me some QUANTITATIVE figures on this so-called consensus? If you REALLY look into it, you'll be surprised.

---

then he followed those up with the weather map. Looks like he's saying more than it's cold today so GW doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

then he followed those up with the weather map. Looks like he's saying more than it's cold today so GW doesn't exist.

---

I couldn't believe he would be saying something that dumb, so I ruled it out to start with. Are you sure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I couldn't believe he would be saying something that dumb, so I ruled it out to start with. Are you sure?

---

Showing the map was a joke.


A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.

Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.

If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

.If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity. :rolleyes

---

Bargain basement. :lol

Any chance it's gonna be accidentally beneficial in some way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Bargain basement. :lol

Any chance it's gonna be accidentally beneficial in some way?

---

The answer to that question is yes, and Darrin is probably honest enough to grudgingly admit that, but WC is not.

Now ask him or WC to provide a source and reasoning for the cost that he picked, and ask him to explain how that cost was derived.

If he or WC, can't then they are as guilty as sucking up something without being skeptical as they say the "liberals" are.

I might not have the time to piss around with learning enough about climate science, but cost analysis is another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Showing the map was a joke.


A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.

Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.

If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity. :rolleyes

---

i got the joke. winehole is just lost.:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

i got the joke. winehole is just lost.:lol

---

Perhaps my guide led me somewhat further astray. But yes, I'm lost.

Looks like a lot of Americans are scared shitless of Global Warming.

http://people-press.org/report/485/e...olicy-priority


http://people-press.org/reports/images/485-1.gif


They list lobbyists as a higher priority. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

They list lobbyists as a higher priority. :lmao

---

Is that so unrealistic?

James Hansen's former NASA supervisor says that Hansen embarrassed NASA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Email from Dr. John Theon

Subject: Climate models are useless

Marc, First, I sent several e-mails to you with an error in the address and they have been returned to me. So I’m resending them in one combined e-mail.

Yes, one could say that I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

With best wishes, John

---

Look at the bio of this flat-Earther:

Quote:

---

Subject: Re: Nice seeing you

Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made. A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.

John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.

Best wishes, John

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Is that so unrealistic?

---

It actually should be a higher priority because lobbyists are real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It actually should be a higher priority because lobbyists are real.

---

Yeah. There's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The answer to that question is yes, and Darrin is probably honest enough to grudgingly admit that, but WC is not.

Now ask him or WC to provide a source and reasoning for the cost that he picked, and ask him to explain how that cost was derived.

If he or WC, can't then they are as guilty as sucking up something without being skeptical as they say the "liberals" are.

I might not have the time to piss around with learning enough about climate science, but cost analysis is another matter.

---

Never did get an answer.

Funny how some people will piss and moan about other people taking things at face value, and when you point out their own cool-aid, they put their fingers in their ears and ignore you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Never did get an answer.

Funny how some people will piss and moan about other people taking things at face value, and when you point out their own cool-aid, they put their fingers in their ears and ignore you.

---

To believe in AGW, you have to believe the following are true:


1. The global temperature of the 1990's to present is remarkable and unprecedented.

2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.

3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.


If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.

By the way, CO2 concentration is currently at 383 parts per million. If the atmosphere was a gallon, then the total C02 would be about 0.29 teaspoons. The amount of C02 produced by human activity is about 3% of that, or 0.008 teaspoons.

Scary stuff

"But, if we don't spend the 20 gazillion dollars and increase controls over the populace...then we could all die.

Will you risk death...will ya?

Spend the money...and if we're wrong. Your only broke and in economic slavery. If we're right, your alive...and broke, and in economic slavery.

But, your alive...right?"

Fear is the biggest motivator, and best tool in any politician's or activist's pocket. Obama knows this well.

Oh well, I still have several can's of "The dry look" hair spray I've been hoarding since the 70's when they banned it cuz of the hole in the sky. When nobody's looking, I use 'em, then spray old freon cannister's in the backyard. Cools things off, and decreases the humidity so if I go outside, my hair still looks damn good.

Lemme know how that hole is doing. I don't wanna kill anyone y'know.

I just wanna be nice and cool...and have damned good looking hair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

To believe in AGW, you have to believe the following are true:


1. The global temperature of the 1990's to present is remarkable and unprecedented.

---

Incorrect. This is a distortion of the science.

Quote:

---

2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.

---

Incorrect. This is a distortion of the science.

Quote:

---

3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.

---

Correct. You got one out of three right. If you don't understand the theory you are supposed to be skeptical of, it makes it kind of hard to sift through the evidence, doesn't it?


If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

By the way, CO2 concentration is currently at 383 parts per million. If the atmosphere was a gallon, then the total C02 would be about 0.29 teaspoons. The amount of C02 produced by human activity is about 3% of that, or 0.008 teaspoons.

Scary stuff

---

Also incorrect.

Cite a source for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity.

---

Please cite a source for this cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Also incorrect.

Cite a source for this.

---

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Please cite a source for this cost.

---

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semo.../pdf/11399.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Incorrect. This is a distortion of the science.

---

Yes, Mann's hockey stick graph that filtered out the medieval warming period and turns random white noise into "hockey sticks" is a distortion of science. This has been completely discredited and should be a complete embarassement to the IPCC and Al Gore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Correct. You got one out of three right. If you don't understand the theory you are supposed to be skeptical of, it makes it kind of hard to sift through the evidence, doesn't it?

---

I agree there is a relationship. The ice core record has shown that when temperatures have risen, CO2 levels have FOLLOWED. It's the exact opposite relationship than the one put forward by AGW alarmists.