HOME | DD

Ghoti657 In reply to Master-of-the-Boot [2015-05-08 08:45:16 +0000 UTC]

It depends on which field of scientist you are asking. The majority of climatologists say man made global warming is happening, geologists and petroleum engineers are a different story

Why people are asking geologists... is beyond me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

virtuadc In reply to Werevampiwolf [2010-03-05 06:19:36 +0000 UTC]

I would have said my arm pits are on fire, dam global warming

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Werevampiwolf In reply to virtuadc [2010-03-05 20:43:20 +0000 UTC]

lol!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

virtuadc In reply to Werevampiwolf [2010-03-10 18:42:18 +0000 UTC]

Don't laugh to hard there.. You may run out of carbon credits sooner than you think. Keep your head down, and run the machine little slave.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Werevampiwolf In reply to virtuadc [2010-03-10 20:17:58 +0000 UTC]

*CO2-free wheel-turning-slave-music plays*

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

virtuadc In reply to fuzypurplehippykitty [2010-01-03 00:10:00 +0000 UTC]

No problem, purchase your Carbon Credits.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fuzypurplehippykitty In reply to virtuadc [2010-01-03 04:00:26 +0000 UTC]

buuuuuuuuuuttttttt i dont wanna

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

virtuadc In reply to Kajm [2009-12-28 07:18:43 +0000 UTC]

Why thank you for such a gift.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

virtuadc In reply to 0wlity [2009-12-28 07:19:28 +0000 UTC]

You did suggest it, but not by words

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

0wlity In reply to virtuadc [2009-12-28 20:19:44 +0000 UTC]

Oh, awesome! How?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

virtuadc In reply to 0wlity [2009-12-29 02:04:43 +0000 UTC]

The tension that a lot of people were probably feeling going on about that subject.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-17 21:02:35 +0000 UTC]

Oy. I come in the door only to find we're going right back out again. Very quickly, then:

Peer-Reviewed Research: Hugo Chavez's Venezuela Had Medieval Temperatures Warmer Than Modern Temps (Southern Hemisphere)
[link]

Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Higher Medieval Temps In Mountains of Pakistan; Current Temps Not As High
[link]

Peer-Research Determines Gulf of Mexico Medieval Warming Had Higher Temperatures Than Modern Times
[link]

Peer-Reviewed Research Verifies Medieval Warming On Japanese Island; Study Also Finds Strong Relationship With Solar Activity
[link]

Ouch. Just way too much to copy. Main site with links here: [link]

Interactive Global Mideival Warming map here: [link]

And I'm off again!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-18 01:18:29 +0000 UTC]

Your sources don't present an overall synthesis of MWP temperatures spatially and temporally. Maybe the map does, but it doesn't present it in a way that's easily accessible for me (sorry).

On the other hand;

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
[link]

Climate in Medieval Time
[link]

+ that book.

I'm enjoying where this is going, since it's making me snoop around every reply.

👍: 0 ⏩: 5

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-28 09:09:57 +0000 UTC]

Straw Man 2: “The alleged ‘hockey stick’ graph of temperatures over the past 1600 years has been disproved. It doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of a ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

True skeptical argument: As papers by more than 770 scientists from more than 450 institutions in more than 40 countries over the past 25 years demonstrate by proxy temperature reconstructions from measured data, the medieval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present, in some places by almost 4 C° (6.3 F°. The “hockey-stick” graph is not an “alleged” graph: the UN’s climate panel reproduced it six times, large and in full color, in its 2001 assessment report. The measured data from all around the world disprove the graph, which was compiled using numerous false statistical techniques. However, the mere existence of the medieval warm period, and the fact that some 7500 of the past 11,400 years have been warmer than the present, do not in themselves establish that “global warming” is a myth. They do establish, however, that today’s global temperatures are well within the natural variability of the climate.

Scientific American says that proxy evidence from numerous sources confirms that the planet has been warming, and that the National Research Council in 2006 found that temperature during the late 20th century was warmer than for 400 years. Scientific American does not say that the NRC report found that the “hockey-stick” graph reached a conclusion that was no better than “lausible”, and that it had a statistical validation skill not significantly different from zero – in short, that it was worthless, a conclusion strongly endorsed by the report of three statisticians consulted by the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives.

The “hockey-stick” graph – with its long shank falsely suggesting no temperature change for a millennium and its blade indicating a very large uptick in temperatures in the 20th century – is the most thoroughly discredited artifact in the history of science.

Scientific American says, “Even if the ‘hockey stick’ was busted, what of it? … Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does – and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.”

No. As we have already described, changes in cloud cover, and hence in the amount of sunlight actually striking the Earth’s surface, provide a much more credible correlation with measured variability in global temperature over the past 30 years than the monotonically-increasing CO2 concentration; they provide a radiative forcing that is many times larger over the period than that from CO2; and, as numerous papers in the literature now suggest, the cooling of the past nine full years may well continue for at least another couple of decades, for natural reasons.

Finally, the rate of warming from 1975-1998, when we might, in theory, have made some small contribution to the warming, is no greater than the rate of warming from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not have had any measurable influence at all over temperature.

Full article here: [link]

Enjoy!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-25 13:53:07 +0000 UTC]

New papers on CO2! Enjoy!

The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapour for the air.

With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.


[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-20 19:54:36 +0000 UTC]

I'm just glad you didn't link to Wikipedia...

'Facts didn't validate the theology of global warming? No problem--eliminate them. Unbelievers were punished with the Wiki equivalent of being burnt at the stake--their articles were removed or changed without permission or the ultimate punishment...banishment from Wiki! Voila! New phony facts--the perfect oxymoron--that magically proved the new theology!


U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley would take on particularly crucial duties.
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known - Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia's articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it - more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred - over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.


-----

ClimateGate is expanding rapidly.

Anyway! I won't be about save to post my Christmas entries this week. Merry Christmas!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-20 19:50:35 +0000 UTC]

I finally got a chance to look at the two links you sent. It was amusing to see one of the most discredited people in climate science history, heading the list of authors - michael mann, the author of the extremely bogus hockey stick. This is the guy who too the data for the entire MWP and turned it upside down, which has been proven several times over. The 'hockey stick,' in fact, has been discredited since 2004.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-18 10:45:00 +0000 UTC]

Happy to help, and I really do wish I could give it the proper time! Between the Holidays, work and our own business operating out of the house, I am constantly running at the moment. I will say this for the instant: the debate between scientists and governments keeps pushing the boundaries of knowledge about the climate / environment / and so forth... and almost every day I am finding more and more interesting news that things are not working the way the IPCC and warmists believe- such as the fact that heavy precipitation allows for more heat energy loss from the atmosphere. Of course it would help their argument greatly if they actually included the PDO, the ADO, the SUN, and a score of other major factors, into their simplistic computer models...

Into the next pahse of the morning- getting ready for work!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-17 15:50:03 +0000 UTC]

I really shouldn't make assumptions like this. Out of curiousity, I just snooped around and learned something about the medieval warm period; that it was not actually a global increase in temperature but a set of increases in temperatures (mostly asynchronous) in certain northern regions. [link] rintsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=dSJBRRU2YE&sig=Lk0dEB1e6qTgX9iAby6M_rWa4Bg&hl=en&ei=J0YqS_mGNIHC6gOS1P2BBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false You might not agree with the book's conclusions, but that's your call to make. In the distant past it has indeed been warmer than it is right now, but at the same time such changes in global temperature are associated with extreme changes over the Earth, climates changing and currents/cycles/etc with them, huge changes in biodiversity as creatures adapted to the new climates and temperatures spread and those who cannot survive in their environment any more perish, leading to a loss of biodiversity that evolution eventually recuperates from. Life goes on, of course, but in a far different form; it's certainly no walk in the path to change the planet's global temperature by a few degrees.
There are certainly creatures intended to be survivors, the type that aren't too exotic but will try to live anywhere they can, but you can't say this for the vast majority of species; anything relying on a specific climate, temperature, pH, the presence of a certain plant for its home or animal for its food will be in trouble. This is actually a significant problem even outside of climate change, and loss of biodiversity is universally considered to be bad, leading to less robust ecosystems and lower levels of variation in the wild, meaning further changes in living conditions are more able to wipe out large portions of populations. Think the way modern farmers plant huge swaths of clones of the same crop, and then suffer when a disease is capable of destroying them all; if many different species were used, or even many different linages, some of them would not succumb to the disease and could be used instead. Regardless, most creatures that are highly suited for a specific habitat are not capable of magically flash evolving should their climate change faster than evolution can change them via RM+NS. Genomes have interesting tricks, but they have not yet shown a capability of metamorphizing a species.
As for Copenhagen et all, it's interesting that I should hold the opposite view of you; that environmentalists are being far too conservative if they wish to see the human race through climate change. In response to things like the Kyoto Protocol (which the USA, one of the major polluters, has still not ratified) and carbon credits schemes, very little actual emissions reductions has occured, except by companies who would find it cheaper to do so anyway; such schemes are far far too lenient and set caps so high that they do not hinder most companies, and instead hand them free cash in the form of carbon credits for them to sell away, not to mention the fact that it creates an entirely new market for financial businesses to manipulate to their advantage. All in all, current schemes for combating emissions don't. On the other hand, one of the more profitable things a company can do is 'greenwash'; repackage itself to convince consumers that it is green, recycles and cares for the environment, despite still shipping disposable plastic containers all over the globe. Not only is it despicable it's just as unsustainable as ever, and there's no concentrated efforts to crack down on it.
What interests me more is not forcing emission cuts but encouraging, positively, less electricity to be used; I recently read in a New Scientist magazine a spread of power saving consumer gadgets, including a meter on your car that informs the driver in real time of their recent fuel economy, allowing them to build cheaper driving habits. I also recall the idea of having a meter in your house that monitors when you're in what room and turns lights on/off, air conditioning, etc to save power. Eventually though wide sweeping changes will be forced on industry and agriculture because fossil fuels are being consumed faster than they're being found and will eventually run out entirely; companies will have to look for alternatives to oil for their power and fertilization requirements. (Nuclear fission sounds good. Fusion's the obvious ideal, but I'm not banking on it coming any time soon.) My question should be though, what money do bureaucrats stand to make off CUTTING emissions? Manipulating poorly thought out 'green' schemes perhaps, but why would they want to scale back? I'm actually not sure what's being proposed at Copenhagen yet, but I've heard it's not going to force anyone to take meaningful environmental action yet again. I'm going to see what comes of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

virtuadc In reply to Yarkario [2009-12-15 19:12:46 +0000 UTC]

Better be careful that was a lot of co2 release, double check your carbonpass to make sure your at optimum levels

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Yarkario In reply to virtuadc [2009-12-15 20:37:13 +0000 UTC]

*fires a spring dart into the politician that said that, square into the chest cavity." CO2 EMMISSION REDUCTION! "

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

virtuadc In reply to Yarkario [2009-12-15 21:08:59 +0000 UTC]

Yeah! Bust his carbonpass meter into pieces!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Yarkario In reply to virtuadc [2009-12-16 00:58:11 +0000 UTC]

Across his face breaking the bones and teefies!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Yarkario In reply to virtuadc [2009-12-16 00:04:31 +0000 UTC]

I will bust more then that! *gets a battle tank rigged with a steam roller attachment! RAWRAWRRAWRAWRARRAWRWWAAWR

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-15 11:54:08 +0000 UTC]

Just taking one of the fallacies you presented: Venus.

The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, or approximately 25,000 times the current Earth level.

On top of that, the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times denser than the Earth's, making the concentration of CO2 222,000 times that of the Earth.

At the rate we are addind CO2, it should some millions of years to reach those levels.

Oh! and here's a link about acidification, a peer-reviewed paper no less: [link]

You'll find plenty of good, Accurate, Truthful info on that site.

I can provide links to many more sites also, if you wish.

Or you can just hit any of the links the artist provided.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-15 12:53:29 +0000 UTC]

For that to be a fallacy, it would have to be an incorrect form of logical reasoning; however, I intended it only as an example. Similarly, it's clearly bad if we stripped away all greenhouse gasses instantly, but it'd be just as bad for life if we stripped away, say, half or a quarter of them. It's merely demonstratory, not a statement that we need to worry about going that far.
As for ocean acification, the primary target are structures made of calcium. The idea is that CO2 is absorbed into water and forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), lowering the water's pH. The lower the pH, the more difficult it is to create precipitated structures out of calcium, which many kinds of marine life rely on (such as shellfish and coral). It doesn't particularly matter if certain kinds of marine life prosper from increased CO2 levels if other species, just as important, will go extinct in the very same area; if you knock out vital parts of an ecosystem's chain, the effects propagate around and biodiversity will drop. Similarly, certain land animal and plant species will prosper when CO2 concentrations decrease, but many others will suffer because their climate suddenly changes, they can't handle the new atmospheric conditions or another species (possibly an invading one) prospers so much in the new climate that it overwhelms everything else. It's hard to predict the complete effects of everything in advance, but with the threat of global spanning change it'd be foolish to discard it out of hand.

Also, should I assume that you had no qualms with the rest of my comment?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-15 21:22:32 +0000 UTC]

In response to your comments about shells I have this from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.: [link]

Seems they've been through this kind of thing before, having experience natural climate change for the past half billion years.

As to the rest of your comment, I had little time this morning, which is why I chose only One of the fallacies you listed. And 'fallacies' was a bad word: as Real science keeps studying the situation, they keep finding that things are actually working quite well, seeing that natural climate change like this has been ongoing since the atmosphere and life developed.

And I am out the door again. Check Climate Critic or C#, they have tons of good articles that the IPCC and others have been ignoring in pursuit of this farce.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-16 00:03:57 +0000 UTC]

From that VERY SAME LINK:

"Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.

This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” he said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”"

So, yes, ocean acidificationis going to have good effects on some things and bad effects on others, just like global climate change will have both ups and downs. What we need to do is pin down the 'downs' and prepare to compensate for them. Or do you think that study is lying about clams and oysters being less able to create their shells under ocean acidification?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-16 00:05:44 +0000 UTC]

Do we expect to hit 2600 parts per million any time soon?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-16 09:05:19 +0000 UTC]

No. Do we have to hit 2600 parts per million to create apperciable climate change? No.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-16 10:28:51 +0000 UTC]

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-16 09:26:04 +0000 UTC]

Nor did we to have the global warming that was higher in the 30s, when they also predicted the north polar cap would disappear completely. Or the global cooling in the late 1800s which led to fears of another ice age, or the global cooling in the 1970s which led to fears of another ice age. Funny how it keeps cycling around. Also interesting are the three other major warming periods within the past 5000 years, all of which were warmer than now. Also interesting is the much, MUCH higher concentrations of CO2 that did not cause 'runaway' global warming in the past. Also interesting is that the atmosphere of Venus was NEVER anything like the Earth's to begin with, so it IS a complete fallacy as an argument.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Patashu In reply to Kajm [2009-12-16 13:47:49 +0000 UTC]

Predictions of global coolingin the 1970s were a lot more nuancedthan you think. What you're more likely to be reading aboutis what the pressreported, not what the scientiststhemselveswere talking about, foregoing nuances in papers and discussions. As an actuality,global cooling was a speculation by some scientiststhat addition of aerosols to the atmosphere might induce a cooling effect; this was merely a hypothesis, however, and no scientificpapers actually advanced the idea any further then that,despite how the pressoverblew the concern. The body of scientificresearch sincethen is showing an overall rise in Earth's temperature and also producing models that match up with our history of temperature data with a high degree of certainty (thatis, if you give it data from yearsX to Y it predicts the change laterat Z accurately) and thesemodels are what predicts a future rise in global temperatures assuming CO2 emissions follow the current trend(and it's likely they will). The otherhot periods in humanhistory were not as hot as things are getting, nor did they come aboutnearly as fast;even ignoring that,thoseglobal changes themselvesenacted significant changes for climates and ecosystems, meaning we'd be foolheartyto not consider what the consequences of global warming mightbe and how to cope with them.Also,careful; I haven't actually used the word runaway yet, nor have I used feedback. Increased CO2 concentrations and thus increased temperatures will have some feedback mechanisms; for instance by melting permatundra to release I thinkmethane, releasing undersea stores of methane and by reducing how much of the Earth's surface is whiteice thus reducing reflectivity (see [link] ) as examples, theseare goingto agitate an increase in temperature but not indefinitely. Eventuallyplantlife will adaptto the pointwhereit siphons up all the excess CO2 and allows temperatures to fall with it, but that won'thappen instantly.Again, Earth's atmospheredoesn't have to be like Venus's to alterclimates and ecosystems; we even see in Earth's own record that when the Earth's average temperature changes, everythingchanges with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kajm In reply to Patashu [2009-12-16 14:16:26 +0000 UTC]

Have it your way. I have much too much on my plate today to get into any kind of answer that you would give even the slightest creedence to.

Climate change is cyclical. It has a great deal of factors involved which I have been reading on ever since I first believed in 'man-mae' global warming, back in the 80s.
But I've done my homework for two decades now and agw is a Crock. We are heading into 20 years of cooling and when it next warms up again, it will be pretty much just like it is now. Unless we get favored with really great climate, such as the Climate Optimum, the Roman Warm Period or the Mideival Warm Period- ALL of which were warmer than today.

I have to get back to work. The problem you see is naturally solving itself, as it always has and always will. If you want your country to shell out tens of billions to people who will squander it, not to mention Not appreciate it, that is up to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0