|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:17:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Bane Necran Just the latest nail in the coffin for the man-made global warming theory. The big giveaway for me was discovering all the planets in our solar system are warming at the same rate the Earth is, which was a number of years ago now. Surely our pollution isn't causing the icecaps on Mars to melt at the same rate Earths are. It was brutal discussing the entire thing online for a very long time, so i'm glad to see more people cluing in lately. I think i even discussed it here once a year or two ago, and received the usual insults and ad hominem attacks.
There was also a recent study done by NASA showing another reason the theory is flawed.
Amen to that one. I got tired of the insults and childishness of the pro warming crowd and left. Felt like I was a holocaust denier. Ironically it was the viciousness of the attacks that confirmed it for me that AGW was and is a farce. Been saying it for years.
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.08.31 23:58:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Riedle on 31/08/2011 23:59:22
Quote:
No offense, but even though you've been saying it for years, I prefer to listen to these guys instead. I'll wait until NASA has something to say about the ramifications of the cosmic ray study.
It also doesn't help that the OP is misrepresenting the cosmic ray study's significance.
As for the planets are warming argument, check out item 40, or specifically this link. Also, the user comments are pretty interesting.
You can listen to whomever you like. I have done my research. I know the the alarmist approach has bastardized the science. it is appalling really. I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else. I don't care what you think. It will all come out, it always does. Nature doesn't seem to be cooperating and no matter where they decide to cherry pick their temperatures to suit their laughably wrong models sooner or later people will wise up. They already are.
My comment was on the viciousness of people who don't think I should be able to think the way that I do or that there is something wrong with me that I do think this way.
That's all.
Oh, and just so you know - NASA's primary mission these days? Outreach to the Muslim world. LOL Pathetic what politics can do to science. And sad.
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.02 11:36:00 -
[3]
Run away run away!
The sky is falling for nigh on 20 years now! lol
oh yeah, but it hasn't even been warming for the past 10
oops
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.03 22:31:00 -
[4]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle Run away run away!
The sky is falling for nigh on 20 years now! lol
oh yeah, but it hasn't even been warming for the past 10
oops
You need to look at the last 200000 years to get the trend. The last 300ish years you will find a very large spike (in scientific terms). In the last 10 years we have seen record after record broken all over the planet but it is not evenly spread. For example the largest rises are at the poles while some places have seen a cooling trend because of global warming inpacting wind currents. Its a complicated matter and so easily miss-interpreted by people who don't want it to be true and people who make genuine mistakes.
Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe. A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.04 11:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle
Exactly. Look at the Mann Hockey stick as proof to how badly some people want to believe. A fellow Canuck disproved it. (or exposed it if you prefer)
Meanwhile climate data gathered via ice cores, satalite data, weather stations from across the globe and even hundreds of years worth of data collected by the royal navy from around the worlds oceans show that we are warming up and the chemical composition of the atmosphere is changing.
Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.
The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.04 20:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Riedle
Right, so you are a believer. Thought so. The whole discreditation of the Mann hockey stick, if you even know what that is, was that the warming we have experienced is nothing out of the ordinary at all. Neither was the warming in the 1940's or the cooling in the 1970's or the cooling of the 2000's for that matter.
The midieval warming period was much warmer that it is now. Kind of hard to blame that on the ol' SUV
But it is warmer than in the medieval warming period...
The oceans are also more acidic, ice shelves are much much smaller and desertification is increasing.
Of course, we do not know is the MWP was warmer than it is today or not. We will never know for sure. Some people think it was warmer some people think it was colder. However, the important part to acknowledge is that it got warmer and then colder all by itself with little to no influence from man. It always has it always will.
What more reasonable people are saying now is that the man may or may not be responsible for Global Warming, (now conveniently changed to 'climate change'). This is for many reasons that I will summarize into a list for you as I don't intend to waste my time explaining it all for you as I have done for many others so many times.
Carbon Dioxide is a very minor Global warming gas. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. The Sun is a much larger driver of climate change. particulate matter in the atmosphere is a larger driver of climate change Carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth we cannot measure the premodern era temperatures accurately. The 'computer models' purported to simulate and forecast global temperatures have turned out to be laughably wrong.
etc etc
there are many more but I am short on time and have to leave
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 11:47:00 -
[7]
Quote: We have very accurate temperature data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores.
How would we even know that? We can try and extrapolate temperatures by proxy but we cannot even directly measure them obviously so the accurate records are guesses about generalities.
Quote: True but we are producing vast quatities of it
It is a bit player in the atmosphere.
Quote: All evidence says that it is not the main driving force and if it was, why is the planet warming while the sun is cooling?
Well obviously you never read the article in the OP. Read that and try again. If you are such an admirer of science why do you even refuse to read opposing theories? Oh that's right - it's a belief system for you.
Quote: If this were true we would be seeing a gradual cooling of global temperatures not warming.
uhh, no. We are emitting less particulate matter now than we were due to much better methods of using coal, for example to power our electrical plants. The pollution per kilowatt has come down quite a lot.
Quote: This is not as true as you would think. Yes they need it but too much casuses issues and they can only absorb so much.
Is that right? lol
Quote: Yes we can. We have accurate tempeature and atmospheric data going back 600,000 years thanks to ice cores and geological records (although nowhere near as good) give a good idea of temperature going back over a billion years.
We have a grasp on the general thanks to ice cores and geological data. To combine that with 'accurate' 20th century records is a fools errand.
Quote: Computer simulations are very accurate when it comes to global temperatures and have made several predictions on volcanic impacts upon global temperatures with a 100% success record and to date, they have predicted everything correctly. They only have issues with local weather preditions due to the complicated way weather interacts with itself and sea/land masses.
Riiight... lol I was in the AGW game earlier than you I guess.
Here is a good starting place for you if you are really interested in what is going on
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 15:00:00 -
[8]
Quote: Yes we can see what temperature it was. You see, when the ice is formed it traps air making in effect a time capsule of the atmosphere. Now the air has a different chemical makeup depending upon the temperature. Scientists can measure the levels of two types of oxygen to get an exact temperature level at the time the snow was compacted into ice.
Right, they take an indirect data source and guestimate what the temperature was. They have no way to take a direct temperature reading like we have had in the 20th century. Two very different methods used to describe the same thing should never be used on the same graph. basic science 101.
Quote: It is the primary greenhouse gas the keeps the Earth warm
Notsureifserious... If so you have A LOT of work to do my friend. Water vapour plays a MUCH larger role and that is just the gasses. Cloud cover makes up an eve larger role than gasses.
Quote: Which has resulted in higher temperatures across europe as less partical matter is released. Also after 9/11 all air traffic was grounded across US airspace. This resulted in higher temperatures across the continent. If global dimming due to partical ejection into the antmosphere was indeed a more powerfull force then we would be seeing a cooling trend not a warming.
Umm... this suggests exactly what I have been saying. There was MUCH more particulate matter in the atmosphere from anthopenic sources in the 1970's than today. In the 1970's it was cooler than today. This suggests that particulate matter in the atmosphere plays a much larger role in climate than does c02. lol
Quote: see first reply
see first response
Quote: Also, thanks for the link but I like to get my info from scientific papers rather than blogs on the internet and badly biased "news" reports
A true believer! lol That 'blog' is run by Dr. Roy Spencer. he happens to RUN the satellites that you pretend to know so much about.
lol
FAIL
you keep believing I and others will keep reading the real science.
lols
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.05 21:44:00 -
[9]
Quote: Wrong again. You get the exact temperature readings because the levels of oxygen 18 are directly impacted by temperature.
k, what part are you not getting? They can look at proxies - in this case as you say with oxygen 18 and make inferences about what the temperatires may have been to produce that but they are guestimates and are not direct measurements. This is not a difficult assertion to accept unless it impacts a belief system you are uncomfortable in accepting.
Quote: As for the CO2 comments, please go look up the impact large amounts of CO2 have has on venus.
Thanks for proving my point. Exactly how many people live on Venus?
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.06 16:22:00 -
[10]
Quote: It is you who is not getting it. Oxygen 18 levels are directly impacted by temperature. Therefor if we know how much oxygen 18 there is we know just warm or cold the climate is. The chemestry does not change.
Nope, sorry. They look at Oxygen 18 as a proxy to estimate precipitation temperature to then extrapolate the atmospheric temperature. It is a guestimate. At the end of the day, a totally different method than direct measurement of the temperature. They should not be used side by side in a graph using these two very different methods. Simple.
Quote: No you missed the point I was making entirely. Because of CO2 the temperature on venus is hot enough to melt lead. Itis an example of how powerfull it can be in response to your rather silly claims that it is a reletivly harmless gas without the power to impact the planet.
How much more c02 is on Venus compared to Earth? lol Oh and how much closer is Venus to the Sun than the Earth? lols
|
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 12:46:00 -
[11]
Quote: It was volcanic activity not the sun that caused the runaway warming on venus and the proxcimity of the sun should infact act as a scrubber and remove CO2. You should look up these things before putting your foot in it.
my foot in it? lol Just giving you an education, son
So your contention now is that it is hot on Venus because of it's atmopheric conditions and not due to it's proximity to the sun?
yikes. ok...
Then I guess it's only cold on Neptune cause there ain't enough c02 in it's atmosphere? How am I doing?
:)
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 18:47:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Riedle on 07/09/2011 18:47:22 Mercury doesnÆt even have an atmosphere for all intents and purposes. ItÆs front side is exposed to the sun and the back side is practically exposed to the cold vacuum of space. See if you actually knew what it is you are talking about you would know this.
Here are some more facts for you CO2 makes up 0.0360% of the EarthÆs atmosphere Co2 makes up 96.5 % of VenusÆ atmosphere û no one is saying anything of the sort is going to happen here on Earth so while you are correct that Venus holds it heat in very well itÆs because almost the whole atmosphere on Venus is pure Co2 û lol Co2 in the EarthÆs atmosphere is, by contrast, a trace gas. Even the worst case scenario of increases will barely move this if at all.
So you comparing the two is an exercise for the brain dead.
Sorry but I am not brain dead so you are going to have to try harder.
|
Riedle
Minmatar Paradox Collective
|
Posted - 2011.09.08 12:16:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Riedle on 08/09/2011 12:18:35 Edited by: Riedle on 08/09/2011 12:17:44
Quote: According to you c02 is a harmless gas and the sun the the real powerhouse. Granted I gave you the most extream example but untill now, you didn't think co2 was a factor even on venus. I am also not sure what you are trying to say about Mercury.
Co2 is quite clearly a harmless gas on the earth precisely because it's concentration is 0.036% of the atmosphere. Also, plants need it to respirate. All the elements ever discovered by man are toxic in the right concentration.
We are talking about global warming on earth, right? That you have to travel to another planet with no humans on it to say how bad global warming is says all that needs to be said really.
I will repeat it for you: Co2 on the earth is a minor, bit player on the Global warming scene. ItÆs just a fact. Water vapour and cloud cover are much, much more important.
This CERN article is talking about cloud cover for example. Dr. Roy Spencer, an accredited Climatologist who used to be in charge of the NASA satellites who measure the earthÆs temperature says the same thing and has in fact written a book in the very subject under the hypothesis that the AGW computer æmodelsÆ that have been proven to be so utterly, consistently incorrect have been incorrect precisely because the effect of C02 was over-estimated and the effect of the changes in average cloud cover so far, pretty much ignored.
This CERN study appears to back up his hypothesis even as it does so apologetically. This is how science works.
You have æfaithÆ in AGW caused by Co2 and I understand why this bothers you so. But if you just follow the science you will come to see that AGW is a tempest in a tea pot and it has a huge opportunity cost in that we could have better spent our environmental efforts on truly important things like preventing over fishing, bottom trawling on the oceans, creating and protecting more wildlife corridors, deforestation in poor countries, toxic pollution in our air, water and soil etc etc..
So I understant why you prefer to obfuscate but it doesn't do your 'argument' any favours. You are arguiing from a position of faith and I am just following the facts wherever they take me.
|
|
|
|