Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a recent article which says it the way it is. FOXNews.com - Junk Science: Time to Retire 'Denier' - Opinion The author from junkscience has experience in shattering illogical myths. Consider the logic. 99+% of the earths greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2?

Excuse me? Didn't we establish earlier that CO2 contributes to around 20% of the total greenhouse effect (complicated due to different absorptions at different altitude, but that's a ballpark figure) and that we've increased CO2 levels from 280ppm to 380ppm?

Quote by: xyzer 97% of CO2 emissions come from natural(mostly the oceans) rather than human sources.

Misleading information. The emissions from natural sources are part of the carbon cycle, for example, we will see large amounts of CO2 released in winters when a lot of plants die and decay but in the following Spring & Summer, it'll lock away that CO2 again. Therefore, the net is no significant increase (unlike when we do deforestation). However, we are pumping back into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered over millions of years. We are causing the net increase of CO2 levels, if you doubt that fact then there's no point in debating.

Quote by: xyzer Recent satellite measurements show a leveling or even cooling of global temps inspite of the increasing human contributions to CO2.

This plateau has been explained, it fits in very nicely with the fact that we know what's causing it. It's not something new either, unless you've been living under a rock for the last 50 or so years.

Quote by: xyzer The believers can rant on about how computer models predicted increased warming and it was directly related to human carbon use but their conclusions are illogical. It strains credibility to believe that humans who contribute a fraction of the actual greenhouse gas can overcome natural influences and change climate patterns? And there is no scientific proof they can.

Fortunately, there are actually scientists out there who do the research and knows that we can. It strikes me how you can sling out the same lines over and over, as if you think repeating it will make you right.

Quote by: xyzer It seems to me absurd to postulate that global warming(and increased CO2) are going to increase a global economic drag?

Have you actually read the Stern report (a former Economist at the World Bank, was he not?)? Or is this another one of your unjustified rants again?

Quote by: xyzer CO2 increases are the essence of plant growth. Crops respond to CO2 by increasing growth! Warmer climes mean some areas are now open to crops that wouldn't grow before? This latest bit of propaganda is just more illogical nonsense designed to confirm the myth that humans can and should influence climate.

The above statements highlights, once more, how uneducated you are. Just because CO2 can increase plant growth in a controlled environment doesn't mean it'll do in the real world; you'd have to contend with the changing rain fall and changing temperatures, these are major factors that would overwhelm any benefits of increased CO2 concentration.

Quote by: xyzer By the way Pooey if the global warming myth isn't based on computer modes and alarmist hype, what is it based on?

Seems like you don't read anything I post in fear of it educating you. You already know and have complained about temperature reconstructions which all culminated in the hockey stick graph.

Quote by: xyzer The actual evidence since the initial frenzy started shows cooling as well as other more important influences(El Nino and La Nina) overcoming the alleged human influence?

You seem to have problems understanding the PDO, I'll reiterate again; it's a cycle that can have positive and negative impact on global warming but only temporarily, hence we see a record in 1998 which was not repeated in the following year. Currently, we've been seeing predominately the La Nina effect and hence the warming has been countered, this is well known and accepted.

Your misleading information may convince those who haven't had high school level education, but for the rest of us, you'll have to try harder.

[Georgia]

Thanks Pooey:

This is the media taking what has been said entirely out of context, and you have taken it hook, line and sinker without a little investigation. Some scientists may have reported that due to strong La Nina effect, we may temporarily see a flatline in the warming but this is by no means global cooling.

Apparently you haven't seen the movie "The day after tomorrow" ?
A wonderful example of the GW scare tactic. Or should I say "Documentary"?

Funny, according to Homepage: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, climate change as depicted in the movie is "not expected to happen within the next several decades."

It goes on to say:

This is the best time to worry about global warming, because there’s no longer any doubt in the scientific community that it’s happening, but if we act now, we can still avoid its worst consequences.

No doubt the whole scientific community agrees with man-made GW? This is another un-truth, and pewclimate.org is only one of a thousand "informative" websites which spews this nonsense.

Surely nobody here at volconvo is suggesting that we should just fall in line just because it sounds technically feasible and is popular? After all, everyone is an expert in the field.

I've read that if we do take action today to stop GW, but are wrong about the science- then at least we all came together for a common cause.
Well koombyah around the campfire while global, national and personal economies crash under the weight of it.
Well, campfires today contribute to GW so I guess we'd all be singing around a dim solar walkway light.
No More Singing Around the Campfire: Too Much C02 « Watts Up With That?

Additionally,
The founder of Greenpeace.org's resignation posts:

This particularly applies to political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than they did with the actual science of the environment.

Struggles at Greenpeace

So just how much of this is real? Truthfully, knobody really knows.

-Steve

[viper]

My opinion on global warming is that it is a natural cycle that has been blown out of proportion by the media and that it is not caused by humans' 5- 2% (depending on the source of information) contribution to total annual CO2 emissions.

[xyzer]

Only a mental midget would post an illogical reply like this one Pooey?

Misleading information. The emissions from natural sources are part of the carbon cycle, for example, we will see large amounts of CO2 released in winters when a lot of plants die and decay but in the following Spring & Summer, it'll lock away that CO2 again. Therefore, the net is no significant increase (unlike when we do deforestation). However, we are pumping back into the atmosphere, carbon that has been sequestered over millions of years. We are causing the net increase of CO2 levels, if you doubt that fact then there's no point in debating.

You said I was misleading you? And then post an affirmation of the original statement?

97% of CO2 emissions come from natural(mostly the oceans) rather than human sources

In order for your mental processes to grow maybe you can explain what is un natural about the oceans carbon cycle and whether it is rigid or flexible? Plus what causes it? There is little decaying vegetation in the 2/3 water coverage of the earth? Thats on land? The cycle is more of a function of warming and cooling of the oceans than it is of plant growth. Guess what nastural entity is responsible for the warming?
The answer is not CO2 or human carbon use?

Lets have a reasoned discussion rather that an ad hominem tussle. Your posts are over the edge of logic and accurate responsiveness. Frankly, you remind me of a juvenile who counters any fact because you feel you have to? Lately your posts have been ridiculous, illogical and reflective of a rigid mentality.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Only a mental midget would post an illogical reply like this one Pooey? You said I was misleading you? And then post an affirmation of the original statement?

It's clear you haven't actually read what I wrote and simply interpreted to your own advantage. You believe that what I said is an affirmation to your statements then you have a severe case of brain damage.

Quote by: xyzer In order for your mental processes to grow maybe you can explain what is un natural about the oceans carbon cycle and whether it is rigid or flexible? Plus what causes it? There is little decaying vegetation in the 2/3 water coverage of the earth? Thats on land? The cycle is more of a function of warming and cooling of the oceans than it is of plant growth.

Actually, there is a lot of plant life in the oceans (well, progenitors to plant life, from an Evolutionary point of view but let's not split hairs) in the form of algae, which majority a significant proportion of our oxygen. At any rate, the fluctuations we see from the Mauna Loa measurements are consistent with the seasons of the Northern hemisphere.

Quote by: xyzer Guess what nastural entity is responsible for the warming? The answer is not CO2 or human carbon use?

I've stated before, if you can account for the (the majority) increased warming of the last century to natural causes, we can close this case here and now.

Quote by: xyzer Lets have a reasoned discussion rather that an ad hominem tussle. Your posts are over the edge of logic and accurate responsiveness. Frankly, you remind me of a juvenile who counters any fact because you feel you have to? Lately your posts have been ridiculous, illogical and reflective of a rigid mentality.

The above, once again, encapsulates your posts down to the very last letter. It's hard believe that you even think you have a shred of dignity left in this thread. Btw, you have still not acknowledged that the OISM petition which you've cited is fraudulent and representative of the actual scientific community behind climate research, or indeed science in general...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Georgia Thanks Pooey: Apparently you haven't seen the movie "The day after tomorrow" ? A wonderful example of the GW scare tactic. Or should I say "Documentary"?

I have and it made me laugh. But it has never been acknowledged as based on the actual science, just Hollywood fluff.

Quote by: Georgia Funny, according to Homepage: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, climate change as depicted in the movie is "not expected to happen within the next several decades." It goes on to say: No doubt the whole scientific community agrees with man-made GW? This is another un-truth, and pewclimate.org is only one of a thousand "informative" websites which spews this nonsense. Surely nobody here at volconvo is suggesting that we should just fall in line just because it sounds technically feasible and is popular? After all, everyone is an expert in the field. I've read that if we do take action today to stop GW, but are wrong about the science- then at least we all came together for a common cause. Well koombyah around the campfire while global, national and personal economies crash under the weight of it. Well, campfires today contribute to GW so I guess we'd all be singing around a dim solar walkway light. No More Singing Around the Campfire: Too Much C02 « Watts Up With That? Additionally, The founder of Greenpeace.org's resignation posts: Struggles at Greenpeace So just how much of this is real? Truthfully, knobody really knows. -Steve

Again, I will point out that the Stern report (by a former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President World bank) states that we may see a 20% reduction in world economy unless we use 1% GDP per year to act on climate change. Source

So what I find curious is that even with a high level Economist telling you that it's better to act now than later, even with the uncertainty, that you're still willing to take the risk and ignore the warnings?

[xyzer]

Here is one fairly recent observation that reverses the Gorelike trance that seems to have permeated what little cranial functions remain among the Global Warming faithful.
climatescienceinternational.org - VANISHING SUNSPOTS PRELUDE TO GLOBAL COOLING?

Lets quote..

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure. Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson, we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

However, as usual the CO2 fanatics will ignore the natural influences and accentuate the human cause. Right Pooey? Note, the British Met Office confirms that the earth has cooled slightly since 1998! How can this be if human generated CO2 has increased during the same period? Could it just be that natural climate influencers are more powerful than my pipe smoke?? ...and your pipe dreams Pooey?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is one fairly recent observation that reverses the Gorelike trance that seems to have permeated what little cranial functions remain among the Global Warming faithful. climatescienceinternational.org - VANISHING SUNSPOTS PRELUDE TO GLOBAL COOLING? Lets quote.. However, as usual the CO2 fanatics will ignore the natural influences and accentuate the human cause. Right Pooey? Note, the British Met Office confirms that the earth has cooled slightly since 1998!

This is an entirely deceptive point, as we both know that 1998 was far hotter than any other recent years because of very strong El Nino effect. You know this because I have told you, do I have to quote specifically?
Furthermore, I have already pointed to you about the lack of correlation between solar activity and increased warming of the past 2 decades.

Quote by: xyzer How can this be if human generated CO2 has increased during the same period? Could it just be that natural climate influencers are more powerful than my pipe smoke?? ...and your pipe dreams Pooey?

If you'd actually read and understood anything I've posted in the last few months you'd know that there is nothing new here to climate science.
Time and time again, you've ignored what I've said and ran straight to the next point, thus moving the goalpost and never acknowledging what has been debated over. This cycle has already been repeated several times per month per year. Just because you can repeat the same flawed arguments doesn't make it any truer, you can't win a debate through persistence.

[Dandelo]

The current warming trend cannot be a result of CO2 emissions.

We have already experienced a similar warming trend during the Middle Ages--an event known as the Little Climate Optimum. We experienced a warming trend of roughly 4-7 degrees Fahrenheit--the same amount we expect for the current increase.

I may be a bit rusty on my history, but I'm fairly certain that people rode around on horses, not SUVs. So unless there was an ungodly amount of equine emissions, I'd say that it's safe to assume that CO2 was not to blame for the LCO. Should we believe that the current trend is completely unrelated?

[xyzer]

Yep Dandelo! Logic and history tell us so but we encounter this rigid, flat earth', type thinking and so the myths persist.
Pooey posts..

If you'd actually read and understood anything I've posted in the last few months you'd know that there is nothing new here to climate science

There is nothing new in climate science since that warm year 1998?
Why, because Pooey tells us so? And Pooey is the only one that can correctly interpret climate change? If we question his interpretations we "dont understand" or are misleading in our analysis of facts,
He ignores recent satellite measurements,(It's grown cooler in the last decade)and then has the audacity to rationalize it by saying 1998 was very warm....so I guess it had to cool, right Pooey? This even though humans are spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere? He ignores Dr Tappings observations of sun spot activity,....and rigidly clings to the Gore like nonsense and antiquated models(pre 2000) of the UN Climate Panel. Models which did not includes natural factors(because they can't be forecast)like the suns wavering intensity, El Nino, La Nina, the effect of cosmic particles on atmospheric moisture and a host of other NATURAL influences on global climate!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Yep Dandelo! Logic and history tell us so but we encounter this rigid, flat earth', type thinking and so the myths persist.

Again, you are describing yourself very aptly there.

Quote by: xyzer Pooey posts.. There is nothing new in climate science since that warm year 1998? Why, because Pooey tells us so? And Pooey is the only one that can correctly interpret climate change?

Please do not misquote me.
That is not what I meant, I've explained to you before. You know what I was referring to; El Nino which caused the 1998 record, El Nino is a phenomenon that scientists have charted for the past 50 years, ergo, it is not something new to climate science. Please stop twist my words just because you have no actual substance for debate.

Quote by: xyzer If we question his interpretations we "dont understand" or are misleading in our analysis of facts,

Quote by: xyzer He ignores recent satellite measurements,(It's grown cooler in the last decade)and

No, I haven't, I have addressed them with when ever it has been brought up. Put simply, we know that we're going through a period of La Nina for the past few years which has temporarily overwhelmed the warming. This has been spelt out to you over and over, do I have to recite my sources or are you going to stop beating this dead horse?

Quote by: xyzer then has the audacity to rationalize it by saying 1998 was very warm....so I guess it had to cool, right Pooey?

You have the audacity to ignore that 1998 was a record anomalous year due to strong El Nino effect, even when this has been said to you time and time again.

Quote by: xyzer This even though humans are spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere?

It's been stated before, other factors can overcome the CO2 forcing, such as huge amounts of sulphates in the atmosphere. No one has ever suggested that we have a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, except perhaps yourself.

Quote by: xyzer He ignores Dr Tappings observations of sun spot activity,....and rigidly clings to the Gore like nonsense and

I'd like to point again that I've already cited many a times that the majority of studies so far (including earlier this year) has found no correlation between solar activity and increased warming of the past 20 years.

Quote by: xyzer antiquated models(pre 2000) of the UN Climate Panel.

Again, I will point out that the IPCC has used post-2000 material in their 2007 assessment report. I have told you this before, therefore, you are lying.

Quote by: xyzer Models which did not includes natural factors(because they can't be forecast)like the suns wavering intensity, El Nino, La Nina, the effect of cosmic particles on atmospheric moisture and a host of other NATURAL influences on global climate!

I'm not going to go through all of those but since when can we reliably forecast the PDO cycles with great precision? You will tell the rest of the world what the formula for that is, won't you?

Once more, we see how you're ignoring what I've said and simply ploughing into your next flawed and misleading point, as documented above.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Dandelo The current warming trend cannot be a result of CO2 emissions. We have already experienced a similar warming trend during the Middle Ages--an event known as the Little Climate Optimum. We experienced a warming trend of roughly 4-7 degrees Fahrenheit--the same amount we expect for the current increase. I may be a bit rusty on my history, but I'm fairly certain that people rode around on horses, not SUVs. So unless there was an ungodly amount of equine emissions, I'd say that it's safe to assume that CO2 was not to blame for the LCO. Should we believe that the current trend is completely unrelated?

Bzzzt, the so called Medieval warming period is not actually true. Please select from a variety of temperature reconstructions to see that you've been mislead. Next please!

[Dandelo]

It's hard to argue something if the other side simply says that it's a lie.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Dandelo It's hard to argue something if the other side simply says that it's a lie.

I am not saying it's a lie based on my opinion, but the National Climatic Data Center. Basically, you've said that we're pretty seeing the same level of warming experienced in the Middle ages, which is simply not true. I have cited my source for this contention, where's yours?

[Dandelo]

Your first argument was that the medieval warming period did not occur at all. I admit that your data contends with my previous statement that the two warming periods were identical.

However, isn't the fact that the warming period occurred at all an indicator that carbon emissions may not be a factor--or as great a one as many people believe?

[Thanatos]

Fascinating. 76 pages in and nothing has changed. Dandelo, find a graph of temperature over time that backs up your assertions. There are a few old ones that do, but the fact that you expect Pooey to just sort of take your word for it is just bad form.

As a warning all the graphs I just pulled out of curiosity with medieval warming periods also happen to have this curious near-vertical hockey stick at the end. Perhaps your google-fu is stronger than mine.

[xyzer]

More uninformed fakery...Pooey posts...

I am not saying it's a lie based on my opinion, but the National Climatic Data Center. Basically, you've said that we're pretty seeing the same level of warming experienced in the Middle ages, which is simply not true. I have cited my source for this contention, where's yours? I am not saying it's a lie based on my opinion, but the National Climatic Data Center. Basically, you've said that we're pretty seeing the same level of warming experienced in the Middle ages, which is simply not true. I have cited my source for this contention, where's yours

Interpret the data you claim proves your point Pooey I note in the jumbled mass of readings in your source, there have been fluctuations in temperature estimates(and these are estimates) of up to 3 degrees? If this is significant how can an increase of .06 of a degree in one century be significant? Is an estimated temperature of an ice shelf of 31 and 30 going to significantly increase of decrease ice melt? You, Gore, and the IPCC claim an increase of less than 1 degree signals doom. You just showed that changes of several degrees occured well before humans began to light fires? How come? How come the Norsemen called it "Green" land? They even settled there until it grew too cool? Could natural climate influences have had an effect?

I hate to say it, but who is trying to slip whoppers into the mix now?
I repeat your plaintiff wails are illogical and don't address anything but your fanatasies.

Thanatos..

Fascinating. 76 pages in and nothing has changed. Dandelo, find a graph of temperature over time that backs up your assertions. There are a few old ones that do, but the fact that you expect Pooey to just sort of take your word for it is just bad form

All we have is estimates of temperatures and they are only estimates based on crude proxy information? Plus, Greenlands ice core temps don't reflect anything but Greenlands temps and even that is not exact to units as small as a degree? In case you and Pooey forget we are taling about global warming?
Take a deep breath and return to reality unless Gore has completely addled you?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer More uninformed fakery...Pooey posts... Interpret the data you claim proves your point Pooey I note in the jumbled mass of readings in your source,

If have an issue with the NOAA (who are accountable to the US gov't), with regards to their web page, please send them your opinion and ways to improve it.

Quote by: xyzer there have been fluctuations in temperature estimates(and these are estimates) of up to 3 degrees? If this is significant how can an increase of .06 of a degree in one century be significant?

None of the graphs shows global temperatures to have fluctuated by 3 degrees Celsius in the last millennia. Furthermore, we have seen an approximate 0.6 C increase this century, not 0.06 as you've incorrectly stated above. Hence, the increase is significant.

Quote by: xyzer Is an estimated temperature of an ice shelf of 31 and 30 going to significantly increase of decrease ice melt? You, Gore, and the IPCC claim an increase of less than 1 degree signals doom.

No, that's your fantasy, the warnings are over increased warming as projected over the next century which may be 3-5 degrees Celsius globally.

Quote by: xyzer You just showed that changes of several degrees occured well before humans began to light fires? How come?

You seem to have trouble understanding this so I will use the medical analogy again; Cancer has always been present in humans, from the beginning of our existence to now. There are natural carcinogens (such as certain Fungal toxins) that increase cancer risks but we also know that humans can and have produced carcinogens. Ergo, just because something has occurred naturally in the past does not automatically exonerate possible human influence. That just doesn't logically follow.

Quote by: xyzer How come the Norsemen called it "Green" land? They even settled there until it grew too cool? Could natural climate influences have had an effect?

Let's highlight the contradiction; as documented below in your rant about Greenland ice core temperatures, a warmer Greenland doesn't automatically mean the rest of the world is warmer. That's assuming Greenland was actually warmer in that particular period in the past.

Quote by: xyzer I hate to say it, but who is trying to slip whoppers into the mix now? I repeat your plaintiff wails are illogical and don't address anything but your fanatasies.

Let's highlight the hypocrisy here; when you think it is convenient, the temperature reconstructions are reliable and show much warming in Medieval period. When I'm using it, you'll start questioning it's accuracy, as evidenced below.

Quote by: xyzer All we have is estimates of temperatures and they are only estimates based on crude proxy information? Plus, Greenlands ice core temps don't reflect anything but Greenlands temps and even that is not exact to units as small as a degree? In case you and Pooey forget we are taling about global warming?

The temperature reconstructions are taken from various sources from around the world and using different methods. The paleoclimatogists are using the very latest techniques to ensure that the best precision is achieved, although by no means perfect (without a time machine, it can't be), these are the best reconstructions we've got. Unless, that is, you have a better method of piecing together the temperatures of the past. In which case, I am all ears...

Quote by: xyzer Take a deep breath and return to reality unless Gore has completely addled you?

No one here as cited any material by Al Gore as evidence, please leave the politician out of here as we're discussing science.

As we see, once again, it is you who is uninformed.

[xyzer]

Pooey, as usual you lose the salient points in your fanatical fervor about warming? Its like te babblings of an infant.

Let's highlight the hypocrisy here; when you think it is convenient, the temperature reconstructions are reliable and show much warming in Medieval period. When I'm using it, you'll start questioning it's accuracy, as evidenced below.

I haven't referred to exact temperature reconstuctions because using proxy sources is ridiculous except to cimate modelers? The very term you use (temperature reconstructions) puts me on guard? An Ice Core in Greenland doesn't give us any accuracy close to even 1 degree in the annuls of antiquity.In actuality it refes to a trend. I refer to a period of warming in an area rather than using temperature measurements in degrees? You and the climate gloom followers are the ones worrying about LESS than 1 degreeof temperature rise or fall? As if you can even measure what hppened a thousand years ago accurately?

Your reconstuctions are illogical and unproven as are those of the climate modelers. They havent(and can't) predict the natural nfluences that are the major drivers of climate change...plus their models have been overtaken by subsequent and much more accurate measurements of temps?

[xyzer]

Here is the latest in the sensationalizing press! Ever ready to jump on any bit of sensational hype?Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Notice the liberal sprinkling of temporizers in this screed. e.g. "may well", "If it happens","seasonal polar scientists believe", etc.
The very title is misleading..." No ice at the North Pole"? Wanna bet that is not true?

This is mostly conjecture and has nothing to do with scientific inquiry and yet the mainstream media and Pooey will run with it?