# Global warming solutions



## JeffreyD

Roberte wanted me to start a new thread about global warming solutions, so Roberte, here you go!

What is your solution?


----------



## Cabin Fever

My solution is to way a while and we'll be back in a global cooling cycle.


----------



## forphase1

Historically the earth has been heating up and cooling down since the dawn of time. Nothing that man can do to prevent that from happening. I am still one of the skeptics and have yet to be convinced that we are speeding up (or slowing down) the process. Therefore I refuse to worry about a 'solution' to something that is yet to be a 'problem'.


----------



## MushCreek

Pass a law that you can only record the temperature at night. Problem solved.


----------



## naturelover

JeffreyD said:


> What is your solution?


Stop having so many babies.

.


----------



## naturelover

Seriously, de-population is the one and only solution.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Roberte wanted me to start a *new thread about global warming* solutions


It would be as pointless as the other thread.


----------



## MJsLady

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would be as pointless as the other thread.


I don't know about that.
Instead of repeating useless data, this thread calls for a proactive approach to fixing the supposed problem.
I will read but since I do not believe there IS a problem, based on mankind, I can't help fix it.


----------



## Darren

AFAIK, there's no cure for stupidity. There are lots of things you can cure with antibiotics, vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Until they find an organic cause for stupidity, there is no chance of a cure. 

It's just like the boogey man. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

There's a common sense saying that applies. Don't fix what ain't broke.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Legislate everyone to wear white, drive white cars, install white roofs, re-pave asphalt roads with concrete, and dye all holstien cows white.

Makes as much sense as buying a Volt, doesn't it?

Seriously, my answer to climate change? Adapt.


----------



## JeffreyD

Ozarks Tom said:


> Legislate everyone to wear white, drive white cars, install white roofs, re-pave asphalt roads with concrete, and dye all holstien cows white.
> 
> Makes as much sense as buying a Volt, doesn't it?
> 
> Seriously, my answer to climate change? *Adapt*.


Yup, we do that all the time! Yesterday, the weatherman said it was gonna be clear and sunny, 92 degrees. It rained on and off all day! Got flash flood warnings on my phone! It crack me up that they can't get the weather right for the next few day's, but tell us exactly what is going to happen 30 years from now!


----------



## Narshalla

naturelover said:


> Seriously, de-population is the one and only solution.
> 
> .


Cool.

So what are you doing to actively reduce the population?

Well, okay, sorry, I know that would be murder.

What rules/regulations/laws/policies are you proposing that would lead to people have fewer children?

Which current laws do you believe should be changed so that the population has fewer children?


----------



## Darren

How about euthanizing politicians that are beaten in an election followng their first term. They can serve as many times as they can get re-elected but the first loss is it.

It could be called the Eastwood solution. Well do you feel lucky punk? Do you? A man has to know his limitations.


----------



## Narshalla

Darren said:


> How about euthanizing politicians that are beaten in an election followng their first term. They can serve as many times as they can get re-elected but the first loss is it.
> 
> It could be called the Eastwood solution. Well do you feel lucky punk? Do you? A man has to know his limitations.


That would be too few. Most, if they thought they were going to lose, would just not run -- retire, instead, to save face -- and neck!

Also, most politicians are old men whose wives are past their childbearing years; it would do nothing to reduce population.

Of course, if you gave them the option of substituting their child in their place at the execution, I'm sure you'd have many takers!


----------



## chickenslayer

naturelover said:


> Seriously, de-population is the one and only solution.
> 
> .


So we should stop sending food aid overseas and end all food stamp programs, sounds like a plan.


----------



## Darren

Narshalla said:


> That would be too few. Most, if they thought they were going to lose, would just not run -- retire, instead, to save face -- and neck!
> 
> Also, most politicians are old men whose wives are past their childbearing years; it would do nothing to reduce population.
> 
> Of course, if you gave them the option of substituting their child in their place at the execution, I'm sure you'd have many takers!


I think you're on to something. Maybe a yearly American Bastile day. All politicians from 8 am, to 8 pm are fair game. You are limited to one unless they're from Kalifornia or New York. I'm sure if the hunting licenses were auctioned off you could raise some serious money. I'm thinking you could hold a lottery. Some of the politicians would bring millions. I'd buy at least a hundred tickets for a chance on some of them.

Of course you'd need rules against shooting them over bait like payoffs, kickbacks and free buffets or junkets.


----------



## doodlemom

Narshalla said:


> Cool.
> 
> So what are you doing to actively reduce the population?
> 
> Well, okay, sorry, I know that would be murder.
> 
> What rules/regulations/laws/policies are you proposing that would lead to people have fewer children?
> 
> Which current laws do you believe should be changed so that the population has fewer children?


Start with the welfare laws.


----------



## kasilofhome

Cut down trees and heat with wood, drill and burn oil. Save corn for food. 

Greenies are just a blimp on the time line. In an effort to reduce population it would be nice if they would lead the way and stop breeding and allow mankind to see if without greenies GW would "end" being a problem. My idea is that the rest of us would make it just fine because the rest of us do not feel the need to be in charge of Nature but rather adapt to it and accept that there really is something more powerful than man. (GOD). I accept that I am only here for his pleasure and I accept that it is his to regulate the temp.


----------



## naturelover

Narshalla said:


> Cool.
> 
> So what are you doing to actively reduce the population?


I never had any more babies after the first one 44 years ago. That's what I did to actively help reduce the population. If I'd known then what the world was going to be like now I wouldn't have had even that one child. 

See, I already saw the writing on the wall 44 years ago and nobody even knew who Al Gore and his corporate ilk were at that time, the word "greenies" was non-existent and nobody thought anything about climate change because the whole concept wasn't a consideration to anyone.



Narshalla said:


> What rules/regulations/laws/policies are you proposing that would lead to people have fewer children?
> 
> Which current laws do you believe should be changed so that the population has fewer children?


None. They aren't needed. Mother Nature will take care of it. 

Like Darren said, you can't cure stupid. If other people are too stupid to see the big picture even when it's slapping them in the face like it is now then I figure their stupidity is an inheritable congenital defect that they're passing on to their kids and there's no cure for their stupidity. They're just going to continue popping out babies and breeding themselves off the face of the earth through starvation in spite of any laws or policies that might be put in place. The world is better off without stupid people like that so I'll be content to see them go the way of the dinosaurs the way Mother Nature is doing it through starvation. 

Smart people who see the big picture will recognize that eventual de-population is going to happen anyway through over-consumption of dwindling resources and they won't need anyone to tell them that they and their environment and communities and countries can't support large populations. So the sensible people with a high level of intelligence will just not have large families and they will take steps to ensure that the lesser number of offspring they do have will have food and advantages that the low intelligenced over-breeders would never be able to afford to provide for their broods.



chickenslayer said:


> So we should stop sending food aid overseas and end all food stamp programs, sounds like a plan.


Works for me. Food aid and advanced medicine has contributed to over-population in other countries anyway. Food stamps? I don't know if any other countries besides USA has food stamps (at least I don't think any other countries do the food stamp thing) but I imagine food stamps in USA has contributed to over-population in your own country. It is the 3rd highest populated country in the world. If other countries don't need food stamps then Americans don't need them either since they just encourage more people to have more babies when they can't afford to have babies.

.


----------



## MO_cows

naturelover said:


> I never had any more babies after the first one 44 years ago. That's what I did to actively help reduce the population. *If I'd known then what the world was going to be like now I wouldn't have had even that one child. *
> 
> See, I already saw the writing on the wall 44 years ago and nobody even knew who Al Gore and his corporate ilk were at that time, the word "greenies" was non-existent and nobody thought anything about climate change because the whole concept wasn't a consideration to anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> None. They aren't needed. Mother Nature will take care of it.
> 
> Like Darren said, you can't cure stupid. If other people are too stupid to see the big picture even when it's slapping them in the face like it is now then I figure their stupidity is an inheritable congenital defect that they're passing on to their kids and there's no cure for their stupidity. They're just going to continue popping out babies and breeding themselves off the face of the earth through starvation in spite of any laws or policies that might be put in place. The world is better off without stupid people like that so I'll be content to see them go the way of the dinosaurs the way Mother Nature is doing it through starvation.
> 
> Smart people who see the big picture will recognize that eventual de-population is going to happen anyway through over-consumption of dwindling resources and they won't need anyone to tell them that they and their environment and communities and countries can't support large populations. So the sensible people with a high level of intelligence will just not have large families and they will take steps to ensure that the lesser number of offspring they do have will have food and advantages that the low intelligenced over-breeders would never be able to afford to provide for their broods.
> 
> Works for me. Food aid and advanced medicine has contributed to over-population in other countries anyway. Food stamps? I don't know if any other countries besides USA has food stamps (at least I don't think any other countries do the food stamp thing) but I imagine food stamps in USA has contributed to over-population in your own country. It is the 3rd highest populated country in the world. If other countries don't need food stamps then Americans don't need them either since they just encourage more people to have more babies when they can't afford to have babies.
> 
> .


Wow. Just wow. I hope your progeny doesn't read this board.


----------



## beowoulf90

As said before..

Let those who bow down to the man made global warming cult lead the way..
If they commit mass suicide it should lessen their "carbon footprint" and help mother earth, at least according to them.. Let them have their ecoterrorist Rapture!

Just imagine all the newly empty homes and properties that would be available to demolish and turn into "green" parks and such..

Now if they would only follow their own advice...


----------



## greg273

Since we will be burning fossil fuels until either they or we are gone, there really is no solution.There really is no 'problem', there is just the reality, and we will adapt as best we can.


----------



## naturelover

MO_cows said:


> If I'd known then what the world was going to be like now I wouldn't have had even that one child.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Just wow. I hope your progeny doesn't read this board.
Click to expand...

He doesn't read here but he agrees with me about overpopulation and he has declined to father any children of his own. He doesn't want to be responsible for bringing children and grandchildren into a world that will soon be suffering from global privation. That was his decision that he made based on his own research when he was in university and he wasn't prompted or influenced by my own viewpoints on the matter.

.


----------



## poppy

naturelover said:


> He doesn't read here but he agrees with me about overpopulation and he has declined to father any children of his own. He doesn't want to be responsible for bringing children and grandchildren into a world that will soon be suffering from global privation. That was his decision that he made based on his own research when he was in university and he wasn't prompted or influenced by my own viewpoints on the matter.
> 
> .


Probably best that he doesn't breed. No need bringing more pessimists into the world. OTOH, pessimists can be handy to have around. They are good people to borrow money off of because they don't even expect it back.


----------



## boiledfrog

poppy said:


> Probably best that he doesn't breed. No need bringing more pessimists into the world. OTOH, pessimists can be handy to have around. They are good people to borrow money off of because they don't even expect it back.


Ya but the optimist caused the present economic mess.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Since we will be burning fossil fuels until either they or we are gone, there really is no solution.There really is no 'problem', there is just the reality, and we will adapt as best we can.


Yes, this is true! Unless.......... we suffer a catastrophic event like an asteriod! Then it won't matter what we did on earth! I'm also doing my part by trying to burn up as much gas as i can right now!


----------



## naturelover

poppy said:


> Probably best that he doesn't breed. No need bringing more pessimists into the world. OTOH, pessimists can be handy to have around. They are good people to borrow money off of because they don't even expect it back.


:yuck:

Your comment is a personal insult against a child of mine that you know nothing about and have never heard of before, comments designed to insult *me* because you don't like what *I* have to say but you have nothing else of worth or sensibility to say to me. Striking out at my child who you don't know in an attempt to get at me simply makes you look small and beneath contempt and ... dare I say it? .... cowardly and stupid. Let me guess, maybe you're one of them there stupid over-populating breeders :gaptooth: that I was talking about, and I struck a self-conscious nerve of yours, hmmmm?

.


----------



## arabian knight

I know lets just stop all CO2 from getting into the atmosphere and turn the earth into one giant ice ball. That will solve everything.


----------



## doodlemom

My brother has no children and never wants to have children. He's 42 and feels exactly like your son. I on the other hand have 3 kids lol, but wow do I worry about their futures.


----------



## Haven

Anyone who wants to believe that humans arent making an impact on the atmosphere has got to be delusional.

The same goes for those who do not recognize natural heating and cooling cycles.

Seems most people around here fail to recognize both realities because some political party brainwashed them into thinking they had to play for only one school of thought.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MJsLady said:


> I don't know about that.
> Instead of repeating useless data, *this thread calls for a proactive approach* to fixing the supposed problem.
> I will read but since I do not believe there IS a problem, based on mankind, I can't help fix it.


 
But what you'll SEE is more useless data from the same people.


----------



## Marshloft

We could go by the way of china,,, that worked out well, poor guy's.
No one to pro-create with.
Or,,, we could find that gene that makes guy's, not a guy. and go the AI way.


----------



## naturelover

Marshloft said:


> We could go by the way of china,,, that worked out well, poor guy's.
> No one to pro-create with.
> Or,,, we could find that gene that makes guy's, not a guy. and go the AI way.


At least China's government was sensible enough to recognize that they had a looming problem with over population. However, the Chinese still value men more than women so by the weirdest coincidence, out of the number of alloted children they're allowed, they've managed to produce more boys than girls. Funny thing how they managed to do that (strangely unfortunate things still happen to girl babies) .... to the men's detriment.

You say poor guys, they have no one to pro-create with. Don't you really mean, poor guys, they don't have enough women to have sex with? Because putting a stop to too much pro-creation was the whole point of China's ban, the intent was to reduce births, it was never intended for them to not have enough women for the men to have sex with. China has hoisted itself by its' own petard because they have devalued women enough that they still get rid of girl babies. So if the men don't have enough women to have sex with now well that's their own fault and they brought that down on themselves through their own actions of eliminating girls. 

Poor guys indeed. I don't feel a bit sorry for those men that they don't have enough women to have sex with when it is their own belief system of devaluing women that causes them to get rid of the girl babies in the first place.

Now you also say - go the AI way. Why? It sounds like you are suggesting that people stop having sex. What would be the point of that? Why stop having sex and only produce more babies the AI way when the whole point is to just not produce too many babies? Why deprive oneself of having sex when it's so easy to practise other methods of birth control? 

Sex and food are the 2 greatest pleasures known to mankind. Why should people punish and deprive themselves of either of those 2 pleasures when the goal is simply to not have too many babies? If everyone in the world would practise sensible and forethoughtful birth control and limit the number of children they produce then everyone who exists could have all the sex and all the food they wanted.

.


----------



## kasilofhome

naturelover said:


> :yuck:
> 
> Your comment is a personal insult against a child of mine that you know nothing about and have never heard of before, comments designed to insult *me* because you don't like what *I* have to say but you have nothing else of worth or sensibility to say to me. Striking out at my child who you don't know in an attempt to get at me simply makes you look small and beneath contempt and ... dare I say it? .... cowardly and stupid. Let me guess, maybe you're one of them there stupid over-populating breeders :gaptooth: that I was talking about, and I struck a self-conscious nerve of yours, hmmmm?
> 
> .


Persons reading this thread have learned from you that 

1. He doesn't read here 
2. but he agrees with me about overpopulation 
3. and he has declined to father any children of his own.
4. He doesn't want to be responsible for bringing children and grandchildren into a world that will soon be suffering from global privation.

5. That was his decision that he made based on his own research when he was in university

6. and he wasn't prompted or influenced by my own viewpoints on the matter.

This might qual as a personal attack?

Let me guess, maybe you're one of them there *stupid over-populating breeders *:

Only you can prevent someone from having an thought about your personal family----LEAVE them out --Might want to avoid using them to prove your point.

What you a parent had to say about your offspring 

*If I'd known then what the world was going to be like now I wouldn't have had even that one child.* could be view as non- nurturing as it might set the tone that the child is not valued as much as animal, ice, or solar power. Since so many people today are encouraged to express when they are offended maybe someone expressed that they were offended or PC "concerned for your child's self-worth" due to your comment that clearly relayed the information of his (learned child sex via you) NOT being wanted by you with your knowledge based on care for the Earth statues today per your values.


----------



## MJsLady

Haven we are not saying we have NO impact. 
We are saying our impact is not the huge giant issue some think it is.

The Earth will correct. There are catastrophes happening almost monthly wiping out hundreds or thousands at a time. 

When the earth has had too much either it will end in fire completely or something like Mount Toba will go off again and end a large part of the population leaving a smaller part to rebuild.
It has happened time and time again. There is no reason to suspect that it will not continue.

Of course there is the Mayan view that it is all moot and on Dec. 21st the ancient astronauts will come back and either destroy us all or fix it.

There is also the Christian view that God will judge and destroy the earth in fire. 

Hmmm increased solar activity... fire... increased volcanic activity..... fire...
Something big is going to happen, soon and mankind can not stop it.


----------



## pancho

Why don't those who worry about global warming do as they preach.
I hear quite a few people who have all kinds of solutions but I have yet to meet one of them who practices what they preach.

Much like many other things. Those who talk the talk do not walk the walk.


----------



## Darren

Haven said:


> Anyone who wants to believe that humans arent making an impact on the atmosphere has got to be delusional.
> 
> The same goes for those who do not recognize natural heating and cooling cycles.
> 
> Seems most people around here fail to recognize both realities because some political party brainwashed them into thinking they had to play for only one school of thought.


Delusional is thinking that mankind's miniscule contribution to the atmosphere outweighs that from natural causes and above all the effect of the Sun on our climate. No Sun equals no climate. It's as simple as that.


----------



## roberte

Start here:

Story of Stuff Â« The Story of Stuff Project

And try these on for size:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3lPQRzu30A"]Crises of Capitalism[/ame]

The Fight of Our Time


James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change


----------



## Darren

Roberte, do you agree that the Sun is the greatest contributor to our climate? While you're thinking about that, find and post the IPCC chart that shows the Sun's contribution to warming so we can compare the Sun's effect vs. mankind's.

That we way we can do a direct comparison of anthropogenic vs. natural effects and see the relative importance.


----------



## naturelover

kasilofhome said:


> What you a parent had to say about your offspring
> 
> *If I'd known then what the world was going to be like now I wouldn't have had even that one child.* could be view as non- nurturing as it might set the tone that the child is not valued as much as animal, ice, or solar power. Since so many people today are encouraged to express when they are offended maybe someone expressed that they were offended or PC "concerned for your child's self-worth" due to your comment that clearly relayed the information of his (learned child sex via you) NOT being wanted by you with your knowledge based on care for the Earth statues today per your values.


Your logic escapes me since the bolded statement says absolutely nothing about my offspring or the value I place on children or their self-worth. 

I see it more as a statement about today's world and about the irresponsible dis-service that too many parents have done and are still doing to their own children by thoughtlessly bringing numerous children they can't afford into an increasingly hostile and over-populated world whose resources are dwindling. Parents in this day and age who produce children that they don't need and can ill afford to feed, knowing their children and grandchildren are going to face hardship and starvation, are not doing their children any favours.

I chose to not bring a lot of children of my own into an over-populated world. It was much simpler and more sensible for me to have one of my own and foster many whose own careless parents couldn't afford them and gave them up.

I will give consideration to what you said but I think some people will still deliberately do everything in their power to come to a negative conclusion just for the sake of being contrary and argumentative. :hohum:

.


----------



## kasilofhome

Thank you publicly Nature for taking the time to think about it. Classy.


----------



## Haven

Darren said:


> Delusional is thinking that mankind's miniscule contribution to the atmosphere outweighs that from natural causes and above all the effect of the Sun on our climate.


Show me where I said that mans contribution outweighs natural causes. You can't because I never said it.


----------



## Darren

If you agree that natural causes outweigh man's contribution which appears to be 2.9% of the CO2 according to the IPCC, why is that 2.9% so more important than the remaining 97.1% caused by natural sources?

How much forcing is caused by that 97.1%?


----------



## Haven

Darren said:


> If you agree that natural causes outweigh man's contribution which appears to be 2.9% of the CO2 according to the IPCC, why is that 2.9% so more important than the remaining 97.1% caused by natural sources?
> 
> How much forcing is caused by that 97.1%?


Where did I say it was more important? I didn't. You are having an imaginary debate with yourself.

All I said was that there is more than 1 cause and it is not black and white, and left it at that.


----------



## Sonshine

naturelover said:


> Your logic escapes me since the bolded statement says absolutely nothing about my offspring or the value I place on children or their self-worth.
> 
> I see it more as a statement about today's world and about the irresponsible dis-service that too many parents have done and are still doing to their own children by thoughtlessly bringing numerous children they can't afford into an increasingly hostile and over-populated world whose resources are dwindling. Parents in this day and age who produce children that they don't need and can ill afford to feed, knowing their children and grandchildren are going to face hardship and starvation, are not doing their children any favours.
> 
> I chose to not bring a lot of children of my own into an over-populated world. It was much simpler and more sensible for me to have one of my own and foster many whose own careless parents couldn't afford them and gave them up.
> 
> I will give consideration to what you said but I think some people will still deliberately do everything in their power to come to a negative conclusion just for the sake of being contrary and argumentative. :hohum:
> 
> .


If everyone quit having babies, who's going to be putting money into all the social programs those on the left want to have?


----------



## kasilofhome

My question -------------where are we who adopt children going to find children to love, raise, and share with.


----------



## oth47

James Hansen must have forgotten about that ice age that he was predicting before the end of the 20th century.I don't remember one..


----------



## doodlemom

I remember that. Mudslides and daquiries. The 90s was an ice age.


----------



## Darren

oth47 said:


> James Hansen must have forgotten about that ice age that he was predicting before the end of the 20th century.I don't remember one..


If I commented on Hansen, I'd get banned for life from HT.


----------



## naturelover

Sonshine said:


> If everyone quit having babies, who's going to be putting money into all the social programs those on the left want to have?


Who said anything about everyone quitting having babies? That is not what I said and it's not what depopulation means. Depopulation means reduction of population, not extinction.

If everyone reduced the number of births worldwide to more manageable levels there would be no need for social programs.

Who and what are "the left"? Are "the left" everywhere in the world?



kasilofhome said:


> My question -------------where are we who adopt children going to find children to love, raise, and share with.


The same places where you can already find them now. They are a persistent fact of life all over the world. There has never been a lack of starving orphans who need to be adopted and there never will be a lack of them even if more people do practise birth control. If you're serious about adopting then try Africa, China or India .... they're full of starving orphans and always will be.

Wouldn't it be better though if there were no starving orphans anywhere in the world who needed to be adopted? 

I would not wish for there to be any starving orphans anywhere just so there would be some for me to adopt to fulfill my own emotional needs to have a child to love, raise and share with. I think to wish for that would be a selfish thing. I would prefer that there were no starving orphans in need and the adults who can't have children and can't adopt children can find other ways to fill their emotional needs to be nurturing. There are lots of ways to be nurturing besides lavishing it exclusively upon children.

.


----------



## roberte

Show us where you see that in his research.


Or where you read about it.

fyi:








What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?



oth47 said:


> James Hansen must have forgotten about that ice age that he was predicting before the end of the 20th century.I don't remember one..


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Show us where you see that in his research.
> 
> 
> Or where you read about it.
> 
> fyi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?


Glad to see you found this thread!

What is your solution to global warming/climate change?


----------



## Cabin Fever

I'm sitting here wondering what the global warming alarmist think the climate should be right now?


----------



## arabian knight

Cabin Fever said:


> I'm sitting here wondering what the global warming alarmist think the climate should be right now?


Ya for sure.
And what is the correct temperature and climate for the earth? Why thought of what the Correct temp is.
The earth is in constant change. Who are these people that think they know more then Mother Nature does?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Climate change is directly related to over consumption of the world's natural resources. When you begin to harvest at a faster rate than is being replaced, you end up with an imbalance, and it is as simple as that. And the picture of climate change has more far-reaching effects than one might like to believe. Because of certain cities being built at or below sea level (who builds below sea level??), the melt from the glaciers will create problems for these cities.
Also, shifts in the hydrologic cycle are thoroughly detrimental to the economy, and the environment. Excessive mining of aquifers mean increased land-mass issues and groundwater problems. Pollution of waterways means increased purchasing of non-local water, which in turn shifts the water supply. Climate change, I see now, is simply a symptom of a corporate society. Society places more emphasis on making and spending money than any other virtue. Lowe's motto is "never stop improving." That's a cool motto. But it means "keep buying, keep consuming, keep polluting." When anyone thinks of nothing except how to make money, they lose their soul.
I try to take everything into account. I no longer buy bottled water (rarely ever have, actually) but now I will no longer buy any liquid in a bottle because I know how bad it is in terms of environmental and socioeconomic terms.
I agree with naturelover, for whatever it is worth. The population explosion MUST be halted, or it will be exterminated simply by lack of resources.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Cabin Fever said:


> I'm sitting here wondering what the global warming alarmist think the climate should be right now?


Just look at the report for this summer if you want to know. You'll have to take off those rose-colored glasses though, 'cause from here they look about a foot thick.:gaptooth:


----------



## Cabin Fever

Heritagefarm said:


> Just look at the report for this summer if you want to know. You'll have to take off those rose-colored glasses though, 'cause from here they look about a foot thick.:gaptooth:


So, you are implying that this summers hot temps and drought have never occurred in the past....right?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Cabin Fever said:


> So, you are implying that this summers hot temps and drought have never occurred in the past....right?


No, but it is a symptom of increased climate change. So far we've (us in MO) have had a very benign winter (WARM) a month-early spring (WARM) and a roasting summer (HOT).


----------



## Cabin Fever

Heritagefarm said:


> No, but it is a symptom of increased climate change.


 Increased climate change? So, you are agreeing that climate change is normal, but increased climate change is not normal....right? At what speed or rate is should climate change occur to be considered normal?



Heritagefarm said:


> So far we've (us in MO) have had a very benign winter (WARM) a month-early spring (WARM) and a roasting summer (HOT).


 And, we're to believe that this weather has never occured in MO in the past....right?


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> If you agree that natural causes outweigh man's contribution which appears to be 2.9% of the CO2 according to the IPCC, why is that 2.9% so more important than the remaining 97.1% caused by natural sources?
> 
> How much forcing is caused by that 97.1%?


 You've been answered in the previous thread, but apparently you either didn't read it, or didn't like the truthful answer you got and ignored it. When you speak of '2.9%' CO2, you should know what you are talking about. That is the amount human industry is adding PER YEAR to the total natural CO2 already present in the biosphere.


----------



## naturelover

Cabin Fever said:


> I'm sitting here wondering what the global warming alarmist think the climate should be right now?


The climate should be doing exactly what it is doing right now. It is changing again. The climate is perfect and perfectly normal for the earth. The earth isn't starving now and it isn't going to starve nor face hardships no matter how the climate effects the weather. However, the changing climate and more severe weather and the way it's effecting resources is something you and all other people will have to adapt and accomodate yourselves to very quickly otherwise you and your children and grandchildren are going to be starving very quickly.

I'm sitting here wondering what the skeptics and deniers think they're going to do when the food and fresh water is all gone and they have no way to provide it?

.


----------



## pancho

Where I live this summer has been a cool one, much more so than last year. 
This week we have come close to setting new records for a low temp.
Also one of the wettest years on record. We already have more rain than an average year and we still have a few months to go.


----------



## roberte

The climactic conditions before we started dumping CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

If you seriously want to learn what is going on, I'd suggest a primer:


* Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
*Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming
* The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

* Climate Kids: How do we know the climate is changing?

Longer lists of beginner resources are at


* RealClimate: Start here
&
* Newcomers, Start Here





Darren said:


> If you agree that natural causes outweigh man's contribution which appears to be 2.9% of the CO2 according to the IPCC, why is that 2.9% so more important than the remaining 97.1% caused by natural sources?
> 
> How much forcing is caused by that 97.1%?


----------



## Cabin Fever

naturelover said:


> The climate should be doing exactly what it is doing right now. It is changing again. The climate is perfect and perfectly normal for the earth. The earth isn't starving now and it isn't going to starve nor face hardships no matter how the climate effects the weather. However, the changing climate and more severe weather and the way it's effecting resources is something you and all other people will have to adapt and accomodate yourselves to very quickly otherwise you and your children and grandchildren are going to be starving very quickly.
> 
> I'm sitting here wondering what the skeptics and deniers think they're going to do when the food and fresh water is all gone and they have no way to provide it?
> 
> .


I am a firm believer in climate change and I plan to adapt. I suppose Minnesota will become more like Iowa...yuk!

And, I also wonder what early man did to prepare for the mile thick sheets of ice that once covered his home? Maybe he ran around telling people not to have children.


----------



## beowoulf90

roberte said:


> The climactic conditions before we started dumping CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> If you seriously want to learn what is going on, I'd suggest a primer:
> 
> 
> * Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
> *Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming
> * The Discovery of Global Warming - A History
> 
> * Climate Kids: How do we know the climate is changing?
> 
> Longer lists of beginner resources are at
> 
> 
> * RealClimate: Start here
> &
> * Newcomers, Start Here


Is this an indoctrination list?
Do we have to get on our knees to worship or bow?

Sorry you reference government agencies that are run by nothing more then bureaucrats who wouldn't fix things even if they could, simply because they would be out of a job.. So their motivation isn't truth, it's job security...

I've shown it before where the "progressives" (read as socialists) yelled global warming as early as 1908.. Shouldn't we be dead by now? because according to them we should be..

But hey I'm looking forward to visiting Tropical Alaska on vacation.. Beats panning for gold in the cold.....


----------



## stanb999

naturelover said:


> The climate should be doing exactly what it is doing right now. It is changing again. The climate is perfect and perfectly normal for the earth. The earth isn't starving now and it isn't going to starve nor face hardships no matter how the climate effects the weather. However, the changing climate and more severe weather and the way it's effecting resources is something you and all other people will have to adapt and accomodate yourselves to very quickly otherwise you and your children and grandchildren are going to be starving very quickly.
> 
> I'm sitting here wondering what the skeptics and deniers think they're going to do when the food and fresh water is all gone and they have no way to provide it?
> 
> .



I don't know that this is the case... Let's also stick with the true proposed meme.. Global Warming. Climate change can mean cooler or warmer.
A warmer climate generally means a more mild climate, longer growing seasons, less severe storms. Co2 is "plant food." More co2 more growth.

Co2 warming is supposed to affect night time temps, not so much day time temps. Less frost or later frosts? This would mean longer growing seasons.

A warmer world means the air can hold more moisture. Some may say deserts could grow. Maybe, but all things equal a warmer world is a wetter world. Deserts are formed due to up wind mountain ranges. Warmer temps would mean more humidity getting over them. So we have less drought stress. 

Storms are created when clashing fronts collide. For you. How many of your storms come down from the Bearing sea to smash into your area? 
GW/ CO2 theory plainly expects "colder" places like the arctic to warm faster, equalizing the temperatures. This will with just a bit of logic applied mean less storms. Less storms means less crops damaged by them.


How does longer growing seasons, less drouth stress, and less storms mean less food? Put differently If I was the type to believe in a GOD, I'd say this was one heck of a plan. More people = more co2 = more water = More food!


----------



## Oak Leaf

I'm in Canada and really don't know a whole lot about the USA, so help me out here. Am I correct in assuming that the question of human influenced climate change is divided along political lines? That republicans generally believe it's false and democrats believe it's true? 

Why is it attached to politics? A recent poll showed 98% of Canadians believe in climate change, but you won't find 98% voting conservative! lol


----------



## roberte

There are two threads going on now; one is 13 pages long.

And on neither one has any substantive evidence been brought forward to support the claims of those denying the science.

And on neither one has any substantive eidence been brought forward to support the claims of those trying to absolve mankind of their responsibility in what is happening to our climate.

Again; IF you have any evidence that supports your claims and accusations, this would be a really good time to bring it forward.

And if you don't, again I'd suggest those deniers spend some time learning about what they are attempting to argue against.



beowoulf90 said:


> Is this an indoctrination list?
> Do we have to get on our knees to worship or bow?
> 
> Sorry you reference government agencies that are run by nothing more then bureaucrats who wouldn't fix things even if they could, simply because they would be out of a job.. So their motivation isn't truth, it's job security...
> 
> I've shown it before where the "progressives" (read as socialists) yelled global warming as early as 1908.. Shouldn't we be dead by now? because according to them we should be..
> 
> But hey I'm looking forward to visiting Tropical Alaska on vacation.. Beats panning for gold in the cold.....


----------



## stanb999

Oak Leaf said:


> I'm in Canada and really don't know a whole lot about the USA, so help me out here. Am I correct in assuming that the question of human influenced climate change is divided along political lines? That republicans generally believe it's false and democrats believe it's true?
> 
> Why is it attached to politics? A recent poll showed 98% of Canadians believe in climate change, but you won't find 98% voting conservative! lol


Because Canadians are generally STUPID. 

Just kidding. Well sorta.

Think of it this way. If the land areas of Canada changes so 300 miles farther north can be utilized and a southern "growing" zone could be added. How "rich" would your country be? Isn't most of Canada a wasted tundra or at least underutilized?

Does it make sense as a Canadian to try and stop GW?


----------



## greg273

A warmer planet does NOT equal less storms Stan. We've had this conversation before, back in 2009. You were wrong then about that, and are still wrong in your understanding. A warmer world means more energy will be retained by the system, that system being the atmosphere. And the system will attempt to remain in balance by shedding heat to the cold of space. The tropics will STILL be warmer than the poles, the global circulation will STILL function as it does now, only there will be more energy retained. This will lead to STRONGER storms. 

I do agree with the rest of your post, the growing seasons will increase.


----------



## stanb999

greg273 said:


> A warmer planet does NOT equal less storms Stan. We've had this conversation before, back in 2009. You were wrong then about that, and are still wrong in your understanding. A warmer world means more energy will be retained by the system, that system being the atmosphere. And the system will attempt to remain in balance by shedding heat to the cold of space. The tropics will STILL be warmer than the poles, the global circulation will STILL function as it does now, only there will be more energy retained. This will lead to STRONGER storms.
> 
> I do agree with the rest of your post, the growing seasons will increase.


No I was right about less hurricanes. Took the NHC to dispel the myth after Katrina.. I am also right about this.

I thought the poles were like 1000C warmer now.. LOL OK more like 7C is claimed. the rest of the world is 1C. So the difference should be around 6C less. 6C should be "unprecedented" lol

So if a we have a warmer pole "because it's changing faster". Doesn't this mean "more" equal temps across the board? 

Explain how this can be.


----------



## roberte

beowoulf90 said:


> ....
> I've shown it before where the "progressives" (read as socialists) yelled global warming as early as 1908..
> ....


Actually 1896, with Svante Arrhenius ...

But I'm not sure if he was a "socialist"...... Maybe you can link to a source.

And with over a century of research, where is the evidence he was wrong?

And where is "before"? I'd really like to see how your sources try to support their claim the science was driven by politics.


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> There are two threads going on now; one is 13 pages long.
> 
> And on neither one has any substantive evidence been brought forward to support the claims of those denying the science.
> 
> And on neither one has any substantive eidence been brought forward to support the claims of those trying to absolve mankind of their responsibility in what is happening to our climate.
> 
> Again; IF you have any evidence that supports your claims and accusations, this would be a really good time to bring it forward.
> 
> And if you don't, again I'd suggest those deniers spend some time learning about what they are attempting to argue against.



:hijacked: 

This a thread about solutions, your solutions. Not a debate(not that you are anyway!)


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Actually 1896, with Svante Arrhenius ...
> 
> But I'm not sure if he was a "socialist"...... Maybe you can link to a source.
> 
> And with over a century of research, where is the evidence he was wrong?
> 
> And where is "before"? I'd really like to see how your sources try to support their claim the science was driven by politics.


:hijacked:

What is your solution?


----------



## beowoulf90

roberte said:


> There are two threads going on now; one is 13 pages long.
> 
> And on neither one has any substantive evidence been brought forward to support the claims of those denying the science.
> 
> And on neither one has any substantive eidence been brought forward to support the claims of those trying to absolve mankind of their responsibility in what is happening to our climate.
> 
> Again; IF you have any evidence that supports your claims and accusations, this would be a really good time to bring it forward.
> 
> And if you don't, again I'd suggest those deniers spend some time learning about what they are attempting to argue against.


And you refused to answer in the one thread what your solution was, and continue not to answer here..

Fine..

Funny thing is I can't stand parrots! Unless they are roasted...


----------



## JeffreyD

beowoulf90 said:


> And you refused to answer in the one thread what your solution was, and continue not to answer here..
> 
> Fine..
> 
> Funny thing is I can't stand parrots! *Unless they are roasted*...


Yummmm!


----------



## roberte

Actually, posted above....



beowoulf90 said:


> And you refused to answer in the one thread what your solution was, and continue not to answer here..
> ....


----------



## naturelover

Cabin Fever said:


> And, I also wonder what early man did to prepare for the mile thick sheets of ice that once covered his home? Maybe he ran around telling people not to have children.


Early man picked up his tent and travois and moved to places where there was no ice yet. He didn't have to tell people to not have children because there weren't many people competing with him for resources.

There is no comparison between early man, low population and ice sheets with modern man, the highest human population the world has ever seen and droughts.

Did you think there was 7 billion people on the earth during the time of early man and ice sheets?

.


----------



## roberte

And we note that those attempting to deny the science have been strangely silent on what informed their thinking.

Just as those attempting to ascribe a political or funding agenda have been unable to bring anything to the table in support of those claims.



beowoulf90 said:


> And you refused to answer in the one thread what your solution was, and continue not to answer here..
> 
> Fine..
> 
> Funny thing is I can't stand parrots! Unless they are roasted...



There are two threads going on now; one is 13 pages long.

And on neither one has any substantive evidence been brought forward to support the claims of those denying the science.

And on neither one has any substantive eidence been brought forward to support the claims of those trying to absolve mankind of their responsibility in what is happening to our climate.

Again; IF you have any evidence that supports your claims and accusations, this would be a really good time to bring it forward.

And if you don't, again I'd suggest those deniers spend some time learning about what they are attempting to argue against.


----------



## roberte

Guess you better start another thread then. And query why other posters wanted to start the debate again......



JeffreyD said:


> :hijacked:
> 
> This a thread about solutions, your solutions. Not a debate(not that you are anyway!)


And still waiting for the evidence.....


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Guess you better start another thread then. And query why other posters wanted to start the debate again......
> 
> 
> 
> And still waiting for the evidence.....


You suggested i start another thread, so here it is! You have posted here and :hijacked:

What is your solution?


----------



## naturelover

Oak Leaf said:


> I'm in Canada and really don't know a whole lot about the USA, so help me out here. Am I correct in assuming that the question of human influenced climate change is divided along political lines? That republicans generally believe it's false and democrats believe it's true?
> 
> Why is it attached to politics? A recent poll showed 98% of Canadians believe in climate change, but you won't find 98% voting conservative! lol





stanb999 said:


> Because Canadians are generally STUPID.
> 
> Just kidding. Well sorta.
> 
> Think of it this way. If the land areas of Canada changes so 300 miles farther north can be utilized and a southern "growing" zone could be added. How "rich" would your country be? Isn't most of Canada a wasted tundra or at least underutilized?
> 
> Does it make sense as a Canadian to try and stop GW?


Stan, you didn't answer Oak Leaf's questions. All you did was demonstrate how very little you know about Canada.

Perhaps somebody else who is knowledgeable about *American* politics can answer Oak Leaf's questions.

.


----------



## roberte

As posted above:


roberte said:


> Start here:
> 
> Story of Stuff Â« The Story of Stuff Project
> 
> And try these on for size:
> 
> Crises of Capitalism
> 
> The Fight of Our Time
> 
> 
> James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change






JeffreyD said:


> You suggested i start another thread, so here it is! You have posted here and :hijacked:
> 
> What is your solution?



I don't see you complaining about all who are posting on 'the debate'.... Gee, wonder why.


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> As posted above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you complaining about all who are posting on 'the debate'.... Gee, wonder why.


I started this thread for YOU, i don't care about what others say here.

This is all about you!

Why don't you just tell us what YOUR solution is? Or, don't you have a real world solution?


----------



## roberte

This has something to do with it:

*NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
*

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf




naturelover said:


> Stan, you didn't answer Oak Leaf's questions. All you did was demonstrate how very little you know about Canada.
> 
> Perhaps somebody else who is knowledgeable about *American* politics can answer Oak Leaf's questions.
> 
> .


----------



## roberte

Oh, I see.....


JeffreyD said:


> ....
> This is all about you!
> ....


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Oh, I see.....


Good! Now you can explain your solution!


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> A warmer planet does NOT equal less storms Stan. We've had this conversation before, back in 2009. You were wrong then about that, and are still wrong in your understanding. A warmer world means more energy will be retained by the system, that system being the atmosphere. And the system will attempt to remain in balance by shedding heat to the cold of space. The tropics will STILL be warmer than the poles, the global circulation will STILL function as it does now, only there will be more energy retained. This will lead to STRONGER storms.
> 
> I do agree with the rest of your post, the growing seasons will increase.


I'd like to know when these stronger storms are going to show up? Even the IPCC graph shows that CO2 released by human activity is an inconsequential portion of the total in the atmosphere. Since the year of Kristina, it seems storms have been fewer and less intense. I'm still waiting for Roberte to produce the IPCC graph showing natural forcing since natural sources supply over 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

On the other hand we're headed into a period of less solar activity.

About a year ago it was discovered that plants take up CO2 25% faster than previously known. I'm waiting for that 25% to be taken into account by the IPCC. Think about it. More CO2 means more plant growth and that additional plant mass is going to be sucking up 25% more CO2 than previously known. That's like compound interest. While science continues to discover things, the alarmists are still screaming the sky is falling. Someone should look into the dangers of higher atmospheric oxygen percentages.

"Lisa Welp-Smith of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California, and her team came up with a new method for measuring how much CO2 is absorbed and released by plants.

The team used oxygen isotope markers in CO2 and more than 30 years of data from a global network that analyses air samples to measure changes in greenhouse gases, pollution and other factors.

Plants take in more CO2 than thought, study finds | Reuters

"What this (finding) means is that plants are working faster than we thought they did," said Colin Allison, an atmospheric chemist and one of the study's authors, told Reuters from Australia."

The study was published on in the journal Nature.


----------



## stanb999

naturelover said:


> Stan, you didn't answer Oak Leaf's questions. All you did was demonstrate how very little you know about Canada.
> 
> Perhaps somebody else who is knowledgeable about *American* politics can answer Oak Leaf's questions.
> 
> .


Many Orange groves? :gaptooth:


----------



## Heritagefarm

Cabin Fever said:


> Increased climate change? So, you are agreeing that climate change is normal, but increased climate change is not normal....right? At what speed or rate is should climate change occur to be considered normal?
> 
> And, we're to believe that this weather has never occured in MO in the past....right?


1. Climate is nor normal, therefore you must focus on *trends.*
2. No, it has, but again you must look at the trends, and the trends are not it is definitely getting warmer. I've asked people who don't even know what climate change is and they agree, *it's getting warmer.*


----------



## roberte

"
But she cautioned that it doesnât mean more carbon is being locked away by plants. âIt means more CO2 is passing through plants, not that it actually stays there very long.â"


Wonder why you didn't......



Darren said:


> About a year ago it was discovered that plants take up CO2 25% faster than previously known.


----------



## Cabin Fever

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. Climate is nor normal, therefore you must focus on *trends.*
> 2. No, it has, but again you must look at the trends, and the trends are not it is definitely getting warmer. I've asked people who don't even know what climate change is and they agree, *it's getting warmer.*


You've explained what has been happening here on earth for millions of years. The earth has had cooling trends and it has had warming trends. We are now in a warming trend - I'm not arguing that point, nor denying it. In another decade, century, or millenium we'll be in a cooling trend. That is what is normal for climate.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. Climate is nor normal, therefore you must focus on *trends.*
> 2. No, it has, but again you must look at the trends, and the trends are not it is definitely getting warmer. I've asked people who don't even know what climate change is and they agree, *it's getting warmer.*


Some have posted that they are experiencing cooler than normal temps. My solution--- adapt! We always do!


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> "
> But she cautioned that it doesnât mean more carbon is being locked away by plants. âIt means more CO2 is passing through plants, not that it actually stays there very long.â"
> 
> 
> Wonder why you didn't......


So your saying they didn't fully understand what was going on when it comes to Co2 and plants. But they know everything about science. Ok!! 
Not surprising!

What's your solution?


----------



## roberte

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## Heritagefarm

Cabin Fever said:


> You've explained what has been happening here on earth for millions of years. The earth has had cooling trends and it has had warming trends. We are now in a warming trend - I'm not arguing that point, nor denying it. In another decade, century, or millenium we'll be in a cooling trend. That is what is normal for climate.


The trends follow CO2 fluctuations. Therefore the warming we are seeing now is artificial.


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> Some have posted that they are experiencing cooler than normal temps. My solution--- adapt! We always do!


Others have to adapt to ignoramus comments...


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> "First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
> 
> Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
> John P. Holdren
> Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


Your tooo funny! Thanks for the laugh!! :hysterical:

You just posted that scientists don't even fully understand Co2 usage in plants, yet they are positive about global warming! Right!
The weatherman/girl can't even tell me with any accuracy what the weatheris going to be like 3 days from now, but you want us to believe they are totally accurate at forcasting the weather 30 years from now, yea right!!

My solution----- adapt!(it's really that simple) 

What's yours?


----------



## Darren

roberte said:


> "
> But she cautioned that it doesn&#8217;t mean more carbon is being locked away by plants. &#8220;It means more CO2 is passing through plants, not that it actually stays there very long.&#8221;"
> 
> 
> Wonder why you didn't......


Very long in that context depends on the life of the plant. If it's a tree, it could be up to hundreds of years. Grass, not so long. The point is the absolutes you're clinging to aren't so sure. Now explain the forcing effect of the 97% of the atmospheric CO2 that's released by natural processes and why mankind's 3% is so dangerous.

I'm also waiting for proof storms have gotten stronger and more frequent since Katrina. Otherwise global warming isn't happening according to the alarmist's precepts.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> Others have to adapt to ignoramus comments...



What's your solution?


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> What's your solution?


The satirical forum hammer would work nicely.

As per your statement that scientists don't fully understand how plants use CO2, you're probably right. They don't fully understand *anything*. But they DO know a lot more than anyone else. The only thing fully understood in the universe is the power of the satirical forum hammer.


----------



## roberte

You might want to actually check that "weatherman/girl('s)" record.

And read up on logical fallacies......




JeffreyD said:


> ....
> You just posted that scientists don't even fully understand Co2 usage in plants, yet they are positive about global warming! Right!
> The weatherman/girl can't even tell me with any accuracy
> ....


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> You might want to actually check that "weatherman/girl('s)" record.
> 
> And read up on logical fallacies......


They're constantly wrong! But, they are consistant!

What's your solution?


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> What's your solution?


1. Increased governmental regulation.
2. Concern and movement at the grassroots level.
3. Decreased poverty and increased environmental education.
4. Better gas mileage and alternative energy technologies.
5. Increased stranglehold on damaging capitalist and corporate masquerades, by government but mostly by consumer choice and responsibility.
6. Decreased availability of high-mileage products.

That's a good start.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. Increased governmental regulation.
> 2. Concern and movement at the grassroots level.
> 3. Decreased poverty and increased environmental education.
> 4. Better gas mileage and alternative energy technologies.
> 5. Increased stranglehold on damaging capitalist and corporate masquerades, by government but mostly by consumer choice and responsibility.
> 6. Decreased availability of high-mileage products.
> 
> That's a good start.


THANK YOU!!!! :thumb:


----------



## stanb999

roberte said:


> You might want to actually check that "weatherman/girl('s)" record.
> 
> And read up on logical fallacies......


You want me to check out a girls... Fallacies? 

I don't know no girls like that! Using fallacies is and should be reserved for the bed room... Or at least kept from polite company.

Alas, this is the internet.


P.S. Sorry all I find that word.... Just funny.


----------



## roberte

I'd be very surprised if you can find any sort of actual study; any kind of research that shows accuracy less than 70% for NWS data derived predictions; esp. less than 6 or 7 days out.





JeffreyD said:


> They're constantly wrong! But, they are consistant!
> 
> What's your solution?




But then, lots of claims get toss out here with no effort to prove them; yours is just yet another example.


I'm out to work the garden, animals, house stuff. I wonder if anyone who is attempting to deny the science will bring any of their evidence......


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> I'd be very surprised if you can find any sort of actual study; any kind of research that shows accuracy less than 70% for NWS data derived predictions; esp. less than 6 or 7 days out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then, lots of claims get toss out here with no effort to prove them; yours is just yet another example.
> 
> 
> I'm out to work the garden, animals, house stuff. I wonder if anyone who is attempting to deny the science will bring any of their evidence......


Well, personal experiance! Radio weathermen...."maybe a 20% chance of rain today."(someone in the backround says "look -out- the- window") "Ok, 100 % chance of rain today!"

But......

What is YOUR solution?


----------



## Oak Leaf

stanb999 said:


> Because Canadians are generally STUPID.
> 
> Just kidding. Well sorta.
> 
> Think of it this way. If the land areas of Canada changes so 300 miles farther north can be utilized and a southern "growing" zone could be added. How "rich" would your country be? Isn't most of Canada a wasted tundra or at least underutilized?
> 
> Does it make sense as a Canadian to try and stop GW?


I think you're a rude, pompous, know it all; the clichÃ©d American. 

Just kidding. Well sorta.


----------



## Heritagefarm

JeffreyD said:


> Well, personal experiance! Radio weathermen...."maybe a 20% chance of rain today."(someone in the backround says "look -out- the- window") "Ok, 100 % chance of rain today!"
> 
> But......
> 
> What is YOUR solution?


That is not how they do that. Don't you think that you should at least learn basic meteorology before making an opinion on climate change?
The chance of precipitation is based over a certain area. Therefore there was a 20% over a wide area where it could be raining.


----------



## Narshalla

Heritagefarm said:


> That is not how they do that. Don't you think that you should at least learn basic meteorology before making an opinion on climate change?
> The chance of precipitation is based over a certain area. Therefore there was a 20% over a wide area where it could be raining.


I've listened to the radio when the weatherman said, "There is a 30% chance of rain today."

He paused, then continued, "Once it stops raining, that is."

I've actually _heard_ them revise their forecast mid-broadcast, too!


----------



## stanb999

Oak Leaf said:


> I think you're a rude, pompous, know it all; the clichÃ©d American.
> 
> Just kidding. Well sorta.


Glad I could oblige. :thumb:


----------



## Heritagefarm

Narshalla said:


> I've listened to the radio when the weatherman said, "There is a 30% chance of rain today."
> 
> He paused, then continued, "Once it stops raining, that is."
> 
> I've actually _heard_ them revise their forecast mid-broadcast, too!


Anchormen are not climatologists.


----------



## naturelover

Darren said:


> I'm also *waiting for proof storms have gotten stronger and more frequent since Katrina*. Otherwise global warming isn't happening according to the alarmist's precepts.


Stronger and more frequent storms where? Are you wanting proof about those storms occurring only in USA or about those storms all around the world?

.


----------



## stanb999

naturelover said:


> Stronger and more frequent storms where? Are you wanting proof about those storms occurring only in USA or about those storms all around the world?
> 
> .


Americans are largely navel gazers... So yeah just the USA. 

That is the impetuous for the vigor from the AGW side as of late. The rest of the world has been cold. Did you see the temps in Europe?


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> Very long in that context depends on the life of the plant. If it's a tree, it could be up to hundreds of years. Grass, not so long. The point is the absolutes you're clinging to aren't so sure. Now explain the forcing effect of the 97% of the atmospheric CO2 that's released by natural processes and why mankind's 3% is so dangerous.
> 
> I'm also waiting for proof storms have gotten stronger and more frequent since Katrina. Otherwise global warming isn't happening according to the alarmist's precepts.


 Nature is not 'releasing' all that CO2, that 97% you keep erroneously referring to, in the same way human industry is 'releasing' CO2. That '97%' is being cycled back and forth between plants, the atmosphere, and the ocean. It is just moving it around on an annual basis. This has already been explained to you several times in this and the other thread. That amount, along with the rest of the greenhouse gasses, is the amount that sets the global temperature. Human industry ADDS a vast amount to that existing total EVERY YEAR.


----------



## Darren

stanb999 said:


> Americans are largely navel gazers... So yeah just the USA.
> 
> That is the impetuous for the vigor from the AGW side as of late. The rest of the world has been cold. Did you see the temps in Europe?


That's a good question. The world meetings have pretty much hit a stone wall. Germany after subsidizing solar power and trying to close nuclear power plans is reembracing coal fired power plants. Germany just signed off on another 200+ billion for further Euro bailouts. The next round must be voted on by Germany's legislature based on the recent court ruling. That may signal the end of the Euro. 

There's been enough backlash after the email leaks plus the latest scientific findings that show AGW has not been proven thus slamming the brakes on. Only the EPA in this country is using AGW as an excuse for regulatory action.

The economy is such a big issue Congress won't go anywhere near AGW. The UN's idea of using carbon taxes to transfer wealth to developing countries isn't going anywhere.


----------



## greg273

And Stan, a warmer world will indeed mean more intense storms. More heat means more energy into the system. Global circulation of air relies on the rotation of the earth, plus the fact that the tropics receive more sunlight. Air heats up at the equator and falls back down at the poles. Even in a 'warmer world', the tropics will STILL be hotter than the polar regions. The circulation will be enhanced with more energy into the system. Plus there is the fact that warmer air holds more moisture.


----------



## stanb999

greg273 said:


> And Stan, a warmer world will indeed mean more intense storms. More heat means more energy into the system. Global circulation of air relies on the rotation of the earth, plus the fact that the tropics receive more sunlight. Air heats up at the equator and falls back down at the poles. Even in a 'warmer world', the tropics will STILL be hotter than the polar regions. The circulation will be enhanced with more energy into the system. Plus there is the fact that warmer air holds more moisture.


Your still ignoring the fact that the polar regions are warming faster...


Less difference means less imbalance, imbalance = storms.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Nature is not 'releasing' all that CO2, that 97% you keep erroneously referring to, in the same way human industry is 'releasing' CO2. That '97%' is being cycled back and forth between plants, the atmosphere, and the ocean. It is just moving it around on an annual basis. This has already been explained to you several times in this and the other thread. That amount, along with the rest of the greenhouse gasses, is the amount that sets the global temperature. Human industry ADDS a vast amount to that existing total EVERY YEAR.


Uh, Greg the 97% is in the atmosphere right now. When I was in grade school 3% was never a big percentage. Has that changed with the new math? The natural processes don't differentiate between CO2 emitted by man or nature.

BTW, that 3% that the alarmists are using to scare folks comes directly from the IPCC report.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> And Stan, *a warmer world will indeed mean more intense storms*. More heat means more energy into the system. Global circulation of air relies on the rotation of the earth, plus the fact that the tropics receive more sunlight. Air heats up at the equator and falls back down at the poles. Even in a 'warmer world', the tropics will STILL be hotter than the polar regions. The circulation will be enhanced with more energy into the system. Plus there is the fact that warmer air holds more moisture.


 
More *theory,* not yet backed by DATA

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes

Using your theory, there should be a *steady* *RISE* as CO2 increased, but the truth is it never happened:


> In short, *the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming induced long-term increase*.


----------



## Darren

stanb999 said:


> Your still ignoring the fact that the polar regions are warming faster...
> 
> 
> Less difference means less imbalance, imbalance = storms.


That should mean we're having more storms with more intensity if the AGW predictions are correct. How about looking at the frequency and intensity of hurricanes since Katrina and tell me if we're seeing that.


----------



## stanb999

Darren said:


> That should mean we're having more storms with more intensity if the AGW predictions are correct. How about looking at the frequency and intensity of hurricanes since Katrina and tell me if we're seeing that.


No it would mean the opposite you suggest.

P.S. I believe the #'s the world has warmed about .6C in the last 100 years. Course 100 years ago the little ice age ended. Thankfully.


----------



## naturelover

The reconstructed depth of the Little Ice Age varies between different studies (anomalies shown are from the 1950â80 reference period).​ 










Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" ..... Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1Â°C relative to late 20th century levels....."

.


----------



## stanb999

Here lets go back a bit more..


----------



## greg273

stanb999 said:


> Your still ignoring the fact that the polar regions are warming faster...
> 
> 
> Less difference means less imbalance, imbalance = storms.


 Youre missing the point... the driving engine of the atmosphere is the temperature difference between Earth and space. That will INCREASE as more heat is retained by the earth. 
Feel free to show some links that would back up your statement. I will do the same, I need to run out the door now.


----------



## roberte

Darren said:


> ....
> BTW, that 3% that the alarmists are using to scare folks comes directly from the IPCC report.


 pre-Industrial ~280 ppm

Current ~390 ppm

Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> pre-Industrial ~280 ppm
> 
> Current ~390 ppm
> 
> Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?




Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs

When you read some of those files â including 1079 emails and 72 documents â you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". 

"Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we canât account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canât. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

But, you knew this already!!

So, whats your solution?


----------



## roberte

Maybe you could explain why a blog post that has nothing to do with your response is your response .




JeffreyD said:


> ....blogs.telegraph.co.......


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Maybe you could explain why a blog post that has nothing to do with your response is your response .


Because it has quotes directly from some of the big players from the CRU!

What's your solution!


----------



## roberte

JeffreyD said:


> Because it has quotes ....


Oh.....


----------



## roberte

pre-Industrial ~280 ppm

Current ~390 ppm

Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> pre-Industrial ~280 ppm
> 
> Current ~390 ppm
> 
> Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?


What's your solution?


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> pre-Industrial ~280 ppm
> 
> Current ~390 ppm
> 
> Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?


You do know it's been as high as 1000ppm don't you? How much Co2 is the melting ice giving off?

What's your solution?


----------



## naturelover

stanb999 said:


> Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> _Stronger and more frequent storms where? Are you wanting proof about those storms occurring only in USA or about those storms all around the world?_
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are largely navel gazers... So yeah just the USA.
> 
> That is the impetuous for the vigor from the AGW side as of late. The rest of the world has been cold. Did you see the temps in Europe?
Click to expand...

Oh. Okay. Well, there's probably not much point in looking up the information then since the discussion is about global warming, not USA warming. I don't think it's a good idea for people to be insular and disconnected about something that is a global event.

I don't think the temperatures in Europe are important. I think storms and droughts are a bigger concern than fluctuating temperatures are due to the way they have more of an impact on global agriculture. I know that the world's 6 most important grain producing countries that basically feed the world had drought conditions this year and last year so they didn't produce as much grain as usual. That of course will have a major impact on food price increases around the world in coming months.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What's your solution?


It seems to be to repeat himself whenever he's backed in a corner


----------



## naturelover

To be fair to all, every time there's a discussion about global warming it's always all a repetition of the previous discussions. The only thing that changes is the dates of the discussions.

Roberte doesn't have a personal solution. Nobody does. There is only one unified solution to coping with climate change effectively. Most people don't like it, are horrified by the prospect of it and don't want to even think about it.

.


----------



## Heritagefarm

naturelover said:


> To be fair to all, every time there's a discussion about global warming it's always all a repetition of the previous discussions. The only thing that changes is the dates of the discussions.
> 
> Roberte doesn't have a personal solution. Nobody does. There is only one unified solution to coping with climate change effectively. Most people don't like it, are horrified by the prospect of it and don't want to even think about it.
> 
> .


Yes. We bring up the science, the irrefutable facts, the logic, the main arsenal in this type of debate. The deniers bring the flimsy rhetoric.


----------



## Darren

roberte said:


> pre-Industrial ~280 ppm
> 
> Current ~390 ppm
> 
> Check your math at Carbon Dioxide: How Much Do You Know?


What that is telling you is that natural processes are the real drivers behind the increase in concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. That 3% from man wasn't enough to increase the concentration by almost a third. 

There's something else going on. You can't get around that 97/3, natural/man made split. Natural causes are driving the increase in CO2 levels. Or like the recent study that showed plants consumed 25% more CO2 than was previously known there's a basic error in calculations of preindustrial CO2 concentrations.

Of course the real answer should be obvious by now since we may still be warming up from the last ice age. CO2 doesn't cause warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to be released. Everything decomposes faster when it's warmer. Which means more carbon is released. Anyway you look at it. That 3% contributed by mankind is insignificant.

We're not talking rocket science. We talking about fourth grade math when fractions are taught. 97/100 is much bigger than 3/100.


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. We bring up the science, the irrefutable facts, the logic, the main arsenal in this type of debate. The deniers bring the flimsy rhetoric.


You guys keep saying irrefutable facts, but they are refuted, by scientists no less!

You mean like the evidence that pricipal players lie to make their numbers work out? They admited that their numbers showed a cooling trend for almost a decade. That kind of flimsy rhetoric?


----------



## Narshalla

Heritagefarm said:


> Anchormen are not climatologists.


Very true, but this guy had a doctorate in meteorology, and a sense of humor, too, so I could see why they hired him.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> What that is telling you is that natural processes are the real drivers behind the increase in concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. That 3% from man wasn't enough to increase the concentration by almost a third.
> 
> There's something else going on. You can't get around that 97/3, natural/man made split. Natural causes are driving the increase in CO2 levels. Or like the recent study that showed plants consumed 25% more CO2 than was previously known there's a basic error in calculations of preindustrial CO2 concentrations.
> 
> Of course the real answer should be obvious by now since we may still be warming up from the last ice age. CO2 doesn't cause warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to be released. Everything decomposes faster when it's warmer. Which means more carbon is released. Anyway you look at it. That 3% contributed by mankind is insignificant.
> 
> We're not talking rocket science. We talking about fourth grade math when fractions are taught. 97/100 is much bigger than 3/100.


 It would appear you are confused about what the numbers are, and what they mean.
You keep going on about this 97% thing...and you are looking at it completely wrong. 
Those numbers DO NOT mean that we only account for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere... they mean we INCREASE the amount of CO2 by that much EVERY YEAR.
I've tried to explain this several times to you, and you seem unwilling to admit the error of your misunderstanding. The first link you yourself posted explained it well enough, perhaps you should go back and read it again.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> What that is telling you is that natural processes are the real drivers behind the increase in concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. That 3% from man wasn't enough to increase the concentration by almost a third.
> 
> There's something else going on. You can't get around that 97/3, natural/man made split. Natural causes are driving the increase in CO2 levels. .


 Of course, there is absolutely NO proof of your contention, and VERIFIABLE proof that fossil fuel burning is responsible for the steady upward trend in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. 
Again, I ask you, where do you think that gasoline goes when you drive down the road??


----------



## kasilofhome

solution

We, in Alaska will reclaim all of the State lands under control of the feds. Alaska would return to being the rightful breadbasket of the North America. In as much as Nature will have provided the land, water and natural fuel (oil) to run equipment we will take donations of grain seeds. (remember to contact Matt in advance). To those who worry that the salmon will be boiled remember roasted Polar bear will be the new white meat.


----------



## MJsLady

If you take a liquid say water and replace 3% of it with coke it does not make the whole a soda.


The only reason to push gw is money. 
Well that and belief that mankind is all that and a bag of chips too.
The thing is, we aren't. WE can not stop the climate from adjusting to earth's norm, not MAN'S norm but EARTH'S norm, anymore than we can stop a thunderstorm from pouring down rain. 

GW "science" is ignoring the fact that 3% can not over rule the 97%. Why? Because it makes it easy for them (Them being mostly Al Gore and his buddies) to control business. They have the cash they feed it to the scientists who will do what ever it takes to get the grant money. 
Science like teaching has become a sham where money rules. 

Some scientists put pure science above money. They are the ones pointing out the fact that math is a law. You can not change math. Science can change, it is not a law. Some parts of science is law, like gravity, but the whole is not. 3% can not dictate the 97% it is mathematically impossible.


----------



## roberte

Darren said:


> What that is telling you is that natural processes are the real drivers behind the increase in concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. That 3% from man wasn't enough to increase the concentration by almost a third.
> ....


Wow, just wow.

Tell us about the "real drivers".

With supporting data.

Show us why we should believe you.


----------



## roberte

MJsLady said:


> ....
> The only reason to push gw is money.
> ....



Show us the money trail.

Show us your evidence.


Show us why we should believe you/


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. We bring up the science, the irrefutable facts, the logic, the main arsenal in this type of debate. The deniers bring the flimsy rhetoric.


The facts are irrefutable? According to whom?


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Of course, there is absolutely NO proof of your contention, and VERIFIABLE proof that fossil fuel burning is responsible for the steady upward trend in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
> Again, I ask you, where do you think that gasoline goes when you drive down the road??


Greg, it doesn't matter whether the the additional CO2 is emitted yearly, monthly, daily, hourly or every minute. Mankind's contribution is still less than 3%. CO2 is CO2. We're not releasing some super strength CO2. It's alll the same whether it comes out the tail pipe of a car or from a rotting tree or some other natural process.

It's the IPCC not some fringe scientist that has said in their report which supposedly supports AGW that mankind's contribution is less than 3%. The rest is due to natural causes which means the increase in recent times is also predominately due to nature. That makes sense if we're still warming up from the last ice age.

If anything we need to hope the increased CO2 concentration delays the next ice age. We can adapt to AGW. We can't stop an ice age caused by nature. That's where we should be spending money on studies instead of wasting it on some hokey wealth transfer scheme and enriching parasites like Al Gore and the financial schemers that are licking their chops. 

The Sun is not a steady state furnace. We know the solar output varies over time significantly. While those research findings have been drowned out by the media promoted panic over AGW, we are making steady progress in understanding how the Sun regulates our climate. It's as obvious as day or night and the corresponding change in temperature. What we need to fully understand is how the Sun's emissions interact with and run our planet's natural processes.

The proof that the Sun and the changes in cosmic ray output affect cloud cover is an important step in that understanding. If anything, that discovery deserves a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Heritagefarm

MJsLady said:


> If you take a liquid say water and replace 3% of it with coke it does not make the whole a soda.
> 
> 
> The only reason to push gw is money.
> Well that and belief that mankind is all that and a bag of chips too.
> The thing is, we aren't. WE can not stop the climate from adjusting to earth's norm, not MAN'S norm but EARTH'S norm, anymore than we can stop a thunderstorm from pouring down rain.
> 
> GW "science" is ignoring the fact that 3% can not over rule the 97%. Why? Because it makes it easy for them (Them being mostly Al Gore and his buddies) to control business. They have the cash they feed it to the scientists who will do what ever it takes to get the grant money.
> Science like teaching has become a sham where money rules.
> 
> Some scientists put pure science above money. They are the ones pointing out the fact that math is a law. You can not change math. Science can change, it is not a law. Some parts of science is law, like gravity, but the whole is not. 3% can not dictate the 97% it is mathematically impossible.


It adds up. If you keep pouring coke into that water every year, eventually you end up with coke. Also, in total we've increased CO2 levels by roughly 63%, so the 3% argument is notwithstanding.


----------



## MJsLady

umm carbon credits comes to mind.
it is old news, look it up.


----------



## roberte

You could always bring us what you consider your best sources.....



Txsteader said:


> The facts are irrefutable? According to whom?


----------



## Darren

Heritagefarm said:


> It adds up. If you keep pouring coke into that water every year, eventually you end up with coke. *Also, in total we've increased CO2 levels by roughly 63%, so the 3% argument is notwithstanding.*


That's is where you are wrong. Although CO2 levels have supposedly increased. I get 39% using the change from 280 ppm to 390 ppm instead of your 63%. Mankind has contributed only 3% to that increase. The remaining 97% comes from nature. We can see from the table that over 98% of the CO2 is reabsorbed by nature. Mother nature doesn't differentitae between CO2 she generated and what we generated.

To use the coke and water argument, you have to consider where the coke is coming from. In this case nature is generating 97% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Mother nature is dumping most of that coke. Not mankind.

Whether the table is for the total atmosphere or a periodic addition, mankind's contribution according to the IPCC, is still less than 3%.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> Greg, it doesn't matter whether the the additional CO2 is emitted yearly, monthly, daily, hourly or every minute. Mankind's contribution is still less than 3%. CO2 is CO2. We're not releasing some super strength CO2. It's alll the same whether it comes out the tail pipe of a car or from a rotting tree or some other natural process.
> 
> .


 You're still not getting it. No one said the CO2 from humans was any different. And if you add just '3%' to the total EVERY YEAR, you eventually end up with A LOT MORE THAN 3%. Surely you can understand that.


> While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, *the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.*[16] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[16] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.
> This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[22] *As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3]*


 Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## roberte

Heritagefarm said:


> It adds up. If you keep pouring coke into that water every year, eventually you end up with coke. Also, in total we've increased CO2 levels by roughly 63%, so the 3% argument is notwithstanding.


You will notice that while some will attempt to disprove CO2 has any effect, that few of those who attempt to deny the science will accept that the term is LLGHG - Long Lived GreenHouse Gas.

Or that there are a few others beyond CO2.

Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing - AR4 WGI

NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)


Humans Are Major Cause of Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Flow Chart | World Resources Institute

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?


(Actually, our contribution through deforestation and burning of fossil fuel is ~37%. The physics and the chem still works though. That's why those who deny the science have only claims of conspiracy, money, 'gates, and such to argue with.)


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> That's is where you are wrong. Although CO2 levels have supposedly increased. I get 39% using the change from 280 ppm to 390 ppm instead of your 63%. Mankind has contributed only 3% to that increase. The remaining 97% comes from nature.


 Nope. That increase comes almost entirely from human industrial activity.


> To use the coke and water argument, you have to consider where the coke is coming from. In this case nature is generating 97% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Mother nature is dumping most of that coke. Not mankind.


 Do some more research into this. You have all the facts and figures, you are just not putting them together.

I think I see where you are getting confused... you are taking that chart and thinking that those 'natural' sources are somehow NEW CO2 being 'added' to the atmosphere... that is NOT the case. Those figures give the tonnage of ALL the CO2 already IN the biosphere, the plants and the oceans , that is the CO2 that gets moved around every year, through photosynthesis and then decaying vegetation. What we add is in ADDITION to that naturally occurring Co2.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> You're still not getting it. No one said the CO2 from humans was any different. And if you add just '3%' to the total EVERY YEAR, you eventually end up with A LOT MORE THAN 3%. Surely you can understand that.
> 
> 
> Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Greg you're ignoring the fact that nature is still reponsible for 97% of the CO2 whether it is the total or the yearly addition. In other words, if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, Mother Nature by volume is the far largest polluter. The alarmists are ----ing and moaning about the 3% from mankind when Mother Nature has pumped out 97% of the CO2 and continues to do so as we write back and forth.


----------



## roberte

Darren said:


> ....
> The remaining 97% comes from nature.
> ....]


From nature only in the sense that coal and gas is "from nature"....

"There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing."
Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle â by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?









U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Flow Chart | World Resources Institute


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Nope. That increase comes almost entirely from human industrial activity.
> 
> 
> Do some more research into this. You have all the facts and figures, you are just not putting them together.


How can a 3% contribution from mankind drive the concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm when Mother Nature contributes 97%? Basic math tells you 3% can only contribute 3% to the increase. That means Mother Nature is still responsible for 97% of the increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.

Now we're talking first grade math when we learned that 100 is bigger than 1. Counting to one hundred and understanding the relationship of numbers was first grade!


----------



## roberte

"Here&#8217;s how scientists know. The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus.[10] Carbon isotopes from different sources are &#8220;lighter&#8221; (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value). For example, carbon from ocean is the standard with a value of &#8220;0&#8221; while carbon from fossil fuels ranges from -20 to -32.[11] While atmospheric carbon has an average value of -5 to -9, it is becoming &#8220;lighter&#8221; over time as carbon from fossil fuels become more abundant in the atmosphere (Figure 1).[9,11,12]"
Humans Are Major Cause of Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

*How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
*

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.


One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means &#8220;same type&#8221 but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?



Darren said:


> How can a 3% contribution from mankind drive the concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm when Mother Nature contributes 97%? Basic math tells you 3% can only contribute 3% to the increase. That means Mother Nature is still responsible for 97% of the increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.
> 
> Now we're talking first grade math when we learned that 100 is bigger than 1. Counting to one hundred and understanding the relationship of numbers was first grade!


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> How can a 3% contribution from mankind drive the concentration from 280 ppm to 390 ppm when Mother Nature contributes 97%? Basic math tells you 3% can only contribute 3% to the increase. That means Mother Nature is still responsible for 97% of the increase from 280 ppm to 390 ppm.
> 
> Now we're talking first grade math when we learned that 100 is bigger than 1. Counting to one hundred and understanding the relationship of numbers was first grade!


 Wow. This continues to go right over your head. You're simply misunderstanding the data. Study up on the carbon cycle and maybe you will understand this. 

Also, where do you think that gasoline goes when you drive down the road?


----------



## roberte

Carbon Cycle:

Themes | Forest and Grassland Carbon in North America









http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/


----------



## roberte

MJsLady said:


> umm carbon credits comes to mind.
> it is old news, look it up.


*NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
*
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conrmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf


----------



## stanb999

roberte said:


> Carbon Cycle:
> 
> Themes | Forest and Grassland Carbon in North America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles


Where does the human +2 over the ocean come in? Is the the ships mixing the water?

Or the +3 in photosynthesis. Must be back yard gardens.


So we have +4 is that percent?

60+60+90 = 210 in off gassing. What percentage of it is 4?


----------



## MJsLady

LOL
Sorry dude I have a rocket scientist whose name is on the moon in my family.
GW is a scam, the moon landing was real. 

I may be a ding bat but I am not stupid.


----------



## roberte

stanb999 said:


> Where does the human +2 over the ocean come in? Is the the ships mixing the water?


No. Water surface absorbing CO2 (really oversimplified).



stanb999 said:


> Or the +3 in photosynthesis. Must be back yard gardens.


And front gardens.

And lawns.

And house plants. 

And golf courses.

And hydroponics.

And agriculture.

And silviculture.




stanb999 said:


> So we have +4 is that percent?


No. "gigatons of carbon per year. " from the caption.



stanb999 said:


> 60+60+90 = 210 in off gassing. What percentage of it is 4?


Not really sure "off gassing" would be the best term. You didn't add the +9 in there either. And the fossil fuel / CO2 human contribution is ON TOP of the natural cycle (recycled). An ADDITION.

An ANNUAL addition.

Which is why sequestration is one part of 'the solution'.


----------



## roberte

You missed that "endorsement of laissez-faire free markets" is also an indicator.

And one wonders why the selectivity in what science is chosen to be accepted.




MJsLady said:


> LOL
> Sorry dude I have a rocket scientist whose name is on the moon in my family.
> GW is a scam, the moon landing was real.
> 
> I may be a ding bat but I am not stupid.


----------



## MJsLady

Well if ancient history did not show the earth is meant to be warmer/cooler by turn I might buy into the idea.

However coming from the lips of a guy who claimed to invent the internet, its a no go. 
Given that the math does not add up, its a no go. 

History does not support the idea that this is man's fault. Period. 

The only reason to claim otherwise is to control things.
Like business. 
I mean the recommendations have been out for years and yet the ONLY nation folks seem to take aim at is the US. Why? When China's plants are more dangerous than ours? 

Because the only way to control the world is to control the USA. 

Yes it sounds wacky but think about it. We defend any and all who need it. For the new world order (which as a Christian I see predicted in the Bible) to take effect is to destroy the defender of freedom.

How to do it though, since our military can easily wipe out any and all comers if correctly applied, is their problem. 

It has been proven that an attack on our people will not work. So now they are trying our economy. 

Think about this. The carbon credits thing, so company A limits is use of carbons. It sells its carbon allowance to company B. So company B uses not only its share but that of any other company it buys credits from.

There is no reduction in carbons, it is just shuffled around from one company to another. 

My parents would have called that a boondoggle. A scam. 

When science and math do not agree, science is wrong. Math is law. Science begins in theory. Some becomes law, some becomes moot. 

GW just like evolution is a theory, it is not proven, it is not law, it is not mathematically accurate. 

Creationism is not a law either. It does however have historic provenance, GW does not, not to the degree relating to humans. Every culture has a creation story. None includes 2 rocks smashing together and boom here we are. 

Besides this is supposed to be a thread about FIXING the issue, you know solutions. So far all I see are limiting the growth of the human race. Which will only work if the entire world joins in... not much chance of that. 

So what is your plan to fix it?


----------



## stanb999

roberte said:


> No. Water surface absorbing CO2 (really oversimplified).
> 
> 
> 
> And front gardens.
> 
> And lawns.
> 
> And house plants.
> 
> And golf courses.
> 
> And hydroponics.
> 
> And agriculture.
> 
> And silviculture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. "gigatons of carbon per year. " from the caption.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure "off gassing" would be the best term. You didn't add the +9 in there either. And the fossil fuel / CO2 human contribution is ON TOP of the natural cycle (recycled). An ADDITION.
> 
> An ANNUAL addition.
> 
> Which is why sequestration is one part of 'the solution'.



It wouldn't be 9... 5 of those where put away.

9-5 = 4 gigatons.

The atmosphere contains about 800 gigatons.. 
That is .5% of the total on average. No? Or is the chart wrong?

So a doubling would take on the order of 140 years at the present rate. Or simple is math and the rule of 70 wrong?

Does the earth contain enough fossil fuels to last 140 years at the present rate of use?


----------



## emdeengee

A Japanese inventor Kiyoshi Nakajima created the Blest plastic-to-oil process. He was in my city this week to install one of his machines at the Recycling depot for a year-long test project. 

The recyling center bought the machine for about $200,000 through distributor E-N-ergy, and modified it to function in a cold climate. For example, cooling in the system is done with antifreeze instead of water.

Most of the plastic we throw away is essentially worthless. Recycling centres in the south will pay for the number ones and number twos, which comprise a lot of beverage containers and related products. Polyvinyl chloride, the number three plastic, is toxic and quite nasty to deal with. No one will pay for numbers four through seven, which could make them an untapped gold mine.

This plastic is worth zero as a plastic. But as oil....

The goal of this pilot project is to give the recycling center the ability to process plastics onsite, rather than sorting it and trucking it south, while producing enough energy to heat the 600-square-foot recycling centre.

The owner of the recycling centre, estimates he will save $18,000 in annual heating costs, plus labour costs for sorting and baling the plastic, and trucking costs.

The machine should produce much more oil than is needed to heat the warehouse, and the excess could be sold.

The technology has been sold to commercial operations, municipalities and non-profits around the world, but this specific design is the first in the world.

The project will help determine the exact cost of turning plastic into oil, and how much it&#8217;s worth in the end.

Plastic that has been cut into coarse granules is fed into a trough. It then moves through various tubes and chambers.

Through the process, the plastic is heated into a liquid and then into a gas, and then cooled.

At the end, a light-coloured oil drips from a spigot into a receptacle.

The machine can process about 10 kilograms of plastic and produce about 10 litres of oil every hour, and can run continuously around the clock.

The only other byproducts include a tiny bit of carbon residue, carbon dioxide and water vapour.

The carbon dioxide emitted is equivalent to about four humans breathing normally.

Just about any plastic can be fed into the machine. Paper labels and a little dirt won&#8217;t hurt it, but the material should be relatively dry.

The electricity input costs an estimate 14 cents per litre of fuel produced.

The oil that comes out is a blend of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and some heavy oils. It can be fed directly into an oil furnace, or could be processed further into something that could go straight into a diesel car


This is the sort of innovative thinking we need. And it could be a nice homestead business.


----------



## greg273

MJsLady said:


> Well if ancient history did not show the earth is meant to be warmer/cooler by turn I might buy into the idea.
> 
> However coming from the lips of a guy who claimed to invent the internet, its a no go.


 You're obviously confusing the science with the politics and the scammers. The two are separate issues. The carbon-credit scammers and everyone else trying to make a quick buck off of this are, in my opinion, just as bad as those who think they can pollute endlessly and use the skies as their personal ashtray while they rake in the money. 

You hate AlGore, we get that. But the science is sound.


----------



## roberte

IPCC-DDC: Carbon Dioxide: Projected emissions and concentrations

Also see http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf from 1979




stanb999 said:


> It wouldn't be 9... 5 of those where put away.
> 
> 9-5 = 4 gigatons.
> 
> The atmosphere contains about 800 gigatons..
> That is .5% of the total on average. No? Or is the chart wrong?
> 
> So a doubling would take on the order of 140 years at the present rate. Or simple is math and the rule of 70 wrong?
> 
> Does the earth contain enough fossil fuels to last 140 years at the present rate of use?


----------



## MJsLady

I don't hate anyone. I think he began this mess.
I think he is a buffoon.

I am all for recycling and so on. I refuse to believe mankind can fix an issue that mankind has not caused.


----------



## roberte

There are mountains of data that says the opposite.

If you can explain why we should trust your opinion against that data, this would be a really good time to do so.










Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers




MJsLady said:


> ....
> I refuse to believe mankind can fix an issue that mankind has not caused.





MJsLady said:


> Haven we are not saying we have NO impact.
> We are saying our impact is not the huge giant issue some think it is.
> 
> The Earth will correct. There are catastrophes happening almost monthly wiping out hundreds or thousands at a time.
> 
> When the earth has had too much either it will end in fire completely or something like Mount Toba will go off again and end a large part of the population leaving a smaller part to rebuild.
> It has happened time and time again. There is no reason to suspect that it will not continue.
> 
> Of course there is the Mayan view that it is all moot and on Dec. 21st the ancient astronauts will come back and either destroy us all or fix it.
> 
> There is also the Christian view that God will judge and destroy the earth in fire.
> 
> Hmmm increased solar activity... fire... increased volcanic activity..... fire...
> Something big is going to happen, soon and mankind can not stop it.


----------



## MJsLady

Did man create the warming that made areas like Antarctica a grass land?
Did mankind create the warming that has the earth 5+ degrees warmer 10,000 years ago than it is now?

No. History proves out that man kind is not in control of the climate. 

We are not yet where the earth is supposed to be. It will get there with or with out us and our 3% help. 
showing the same graphs, that are made by the same guys with an agenda is not going to change the facts. 

The MATH is not there. 

If we got rid of all our human co2, the 97% would still be there yes?

Until you have a solution for fixing nature itself, I can't help you.

As for confusing politics and science, who pays the scientists? The government. You can't separate the 2. Much as I wish it could be done.


----------



## roberte

MJsLady said:


> ....
> showing the same graphs, that are made by the same guys with an agenda is not going to change the facts.
> 
> The MATH is not there.
> 
> If we got rid of all our human co2, the 97% would still be there yes?
> 
> Until you have a solution for fixing nature itself, I can't help you.
> 
> As for confusing politics and science, who pays the scientists? The government. You can't separate the 2. Much as I wish it could be done.



*NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
*
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientic evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. *This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.* Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....nPressClimateConspiracy.pdf__________________


----------



## roberte

Let us know when you find the evidence that supports your thinking.

You might start here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php



MJsLady said:


> ....
> 
> The MATH is not there.
> ...


----------



## greg273

MJsLady said:


> Did man create the warming that made areas like Antarctica a grass land?
> Did mankind create the warming that has the earth 5+ degrees warmer 10,000 years ago than it is now?
> 
> No. History proves out that man kind is not in control of the climate.
> 
> We are not yet where the earth is supposed to be. It will get there with or with out us and our 3% help.
> showing the same graphs, that are made by the same guys with an agenda is not going to change the facts.
> 
> The MATH is not there.
> 
> If we got rid of all our human co2, the 97% would still be there yes?
> 
> Until you have a solution for fixing nature itself, I can't help you.
> 
> As for confusing politics and science, who pays the scientists? The government. You can't separate the 2. Much as I wish it could be done.


 LOL... again with the '3%'. After all the explaining I have done, you're still going to come away thinking 'uh, humans ONLY add 3% to the CO2 levels...' forgetting that means 3% year after year after year., in addition to that which was here before we started digging up 250+million years worth of dead plants and putting all that carbon back into the air. 
C02 is up some 39% since the industrial revolution began. I suppose in your mind, that little fact is meaningless... oh well, can't make you see the truth. And scientists have verified the origin of that CO2 with a high degree of certainty... and no surprise, it comes from burning fossil fuels. 
Your main contention seems to be that, 'well, it happened before without us...' which actually is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether we are affecting the climate at the present time.


----------



## Pops2

it is not irrelevant. the very fact that thw entire world has been DRAMATICALLY warmer & had FAR higher carbon levels in the atmosphere W/O ANY human involvment invalidates ALL your contentions. 3% or 300% it doesn't matter because we KNOW it happens w/o our help and nothing we can do can change it. so AGW is essentially a sham. i wish you chicken littles would turn your attention to something useful like cleaining the toxic pollutants out of our surface waters so it's safe to eat the fish you catch when you take the kids fishing.


----------



## arabian knight

And been a shame for many years~! And with Al Gore going around spewing all sorts of lies around it isn;t going to stop till somebody finally Pul;ls The Plug and all this nonsense grants being handed out by the tax payers of this country. Oh ya I guess I should have said handed out by the government. LOL


----------



## MJsLady

emdeengee, now that is a cool idea!
I like that. If it works I can see other places implementing it too.


----------



## greg273

Pops2 said:


> it is not irrelevant. the very fact that thw entire world has been DRAMATICALLY warmer & had FAR higher carbon levels in the atmosphere W/O ANY human involvment invalidates ALL your contentions..


 It doesn't invalidate the fact that we are steadily increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2 to a level not seen in 15million years.


> You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
> *
> "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today â and were sustained at those levels â global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today*, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.


 Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## roberte

Another aspect to consider is that we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a far higher rate than any natural rise.


*Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes
*"The human-caused release of increased carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also presents climate scientists with something they've never seen in the 65 million year record of carbon dioxide levels &#8211; a drastic rate of increase that makes it difficult to predict how rapidly the Earth will respond. In periods when carbon dioxide has increased due to natural causes, the rate of increase averaged about .0001 parts per million per year &#8211; in other words, one hundred parts per million every million years. Fossil fuel burning is now causing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase at two parts per million per year.

"Humans have overwhelmed the natural, slow changes that occur on geologic timescales," Hansen said."


NASA - Paleoclimate Record Points Toward Potential Rapid Climate Changes 

We have managed in 250 years to do what nature took 100 million years to do.

Yet another pesky bit that those denying the science don't mention.



greg273 said:


> It doesn't invalidate the fact that we are steadily increasing the atmospheric levels of CO2 to a level not seen in 15million years.
> 
> 
> Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom


----------



## Pops2

Roberte, greg
nothing personal, but at this point all i am hearing is blah blah blah, i'm not hysterical, blah blah blah


----------



## roberte

Since there's no response on the 'other' thread and since this one has morphed into something more akin to that one anyway.



JeffreyD said:


> ....
> 
> The policy is agenda driven, and the science has been proven wrong by themselves!


Tell us about the "agenda"; what sources inform your thinking?


Tell us about the "science has been proven wrong"; what sources inform your thinking?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today &#8212; and were sustained at those levels &#8212; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. *





And it all ocurred* NATURALLY*


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Since there's no response on the 'other' thread and since this one has morphed into something more akin to that one anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about the "agenda"; what sources inform your thinking?
> 
> 
> *Tell us about the "science has been proven wrong"; what sources inform your thinking?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Oh, things like this quote from one of the leading ipcc "scientists" e-mails!
> 
> "The fact is that we canât account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canât. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
> 
> They're letting their personal agenda drive their science! Amazing what they will stoop too!
> 
> And the fact that more than 30,000 scientists and researchers don't agree with the 1376 ipcc scientists and researchers.(used to be more, but they bailed on the ipcc)
> 
> Why do you refuse to answer what your solution is?


----------



## Narshalla

Getting back to the original question.

If I believed that AGW was real and wanted to do something about it, I'd actually do exactly the opposite of what every politician has suggested.

More money undeniably leads to more production and thus more CO2, so instead of _more_, I'd concentrate on _less_.

No more Welfare without sterilization -- it only encourages people to have babies they can't afford and that raises CO2 output.

No more foreign aid -- if the land can't support that many people, then we shouldn't help them try. As a child, we sent money to support the poor starving children in Africa. Now, we are sending money to support the grandchildren of the children we supported when I was a kid. No more money means that, eventually and probably soon, the population will shrink to a size that can be supported by the land.

For the same reason, no medical aid, either, and a ban on any company that sells pharmaceuticals in the US if it also sells them in Africa. Right now, our drug costs are sky high, mainly because we can afford it and the rest of the world can't, so we end up subsidizing them. They can sell to one or the other, but not both, so we'd that would stop. Unfortunately, this would probably make our drug costs fall, which would mean that they would be available to more people and we'd have a higher survival rate. Sad, but there's no way around it.

A complete ban on all organ transplants and cancer treatments, and all the immuno-suppressant and other drugs that go along with those types of medical procedures. Making immuno-suppressants is a long, costly process with a lot of waste that needs to be dealt with; not having the waste in the first place is better. Chemotherapy is, in the most literal sense, poison, and it's not good for the environment.

No more loans for 'green' technology. So far, the success rate of such loans is abysmal, and in the end, they create a huge carbon footprint on the front end without any corresponding savings on the back end.

For that matter, no business loans at all from the government. Small business loans is funding expansion, which produces CO2 as a natural, predictable byproduct.

Give me a couple of days, and I'll think of more.


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> And it all ocurred* NATURALLY*


 Yep, and now we are helping to cause it.


----------



## roberte

Ah, the selective quote gambit...

Your lot has no science.

Your lot has chosen to pick data to meet a preconceived opinion.


Read the full text.

Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming

And show us the C Vs of those 30,000. Show us how you know they have enough expertise to have valued conclusions.



JeffreyD said:


> roberte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no response on the 'other' thread and since this one has morphed into something more akin to that one anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us about the "agenda"; what sources inform your thinking?
> 
> 
> *Tell us about the "science has been proven wrong"; what sources inform your thinking?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Oh, things like this quote from one of the leading ipcc "scientists" e-mails!
> 
> "The fact is that we canât account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canât. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
> 
> They're letting their personal agenda drive their science! Amazing what they will stoop too!
> 
> And the fact that more than 30,000 scientists and researchers don't agree with the 1376 ipcc scientists and researchers.(used to be more, but they bailed on the ipcc)
> 
> Why do you refuse to answer what your solution is?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Since there's no response on the 'other' thread and since *this one has morphed* into something more akin to that one anyway


.

Post # 7:


> It would be *as pointless* as the other thread


184 posts could have been saved.


----------



## Narshalla

Bearfootfarm said:


> .
> 
> Post # 7:
> 
> 
> 184 posts could have been saved.


See? Us evil anti-Global Warmists waste everything, including posts!


----------



## roberte

Actually post 2 started the off-topic....


forphase1 said:


> Historically the earth has been heating up and cooling down since the dawn of time.


Let us know when those who deny the science have something to support their position.

Even if it is just a billboard, a politician, a CEO, a weatherman, somebody with a BS degree in a totally unrelated field, an agenda21 or other conspiracist, a radio commentator, .....


----------



## MJsLady

Narshalla said:


> See? Us evil anti-Global Warmists waste everything, including posts!


Too funny!:cute:


----------



## Heritagefarm

Narshalla said:


> Getting back to the original question.
> 
> If I believed that AGW was real and wanted to do something about it, I'd actually do exactly the opposite of what every politician has suggested.
> 
> More money undeniably leads to more production and thus more CO2, so instead of _more_, I'd concentrate on _less_.
> 
> No more Welfare without sterilization -- it only encourages people to have babies they can't afford and that raises CO2 output.
> 
> No more foreign aid -- if the land can't support that many people, then we shouldn't help them try. As a child, we sent money to support the poor starving children in Africa. Now, we are sending money to support the grandchildren of the children we supported when I was a kid. No more money means that, eventually and probably soon, the population will shrink to a size that can be supported by the land.
> 
> For the same reason, no medical aid, either, and a ban on any company that sells pharmaceuticals in the US if it also sells them in Africa. Right now, our drug costs are sky high, mainly because we can afford it and the rest of the world can't, so we end up subsidizing them. They can sell to one or the other, but not both, so we'd that would stop. Unfortunately, this would probably make our drug costs fall, which would mean that they would be available to more people and we'd have a higher survival rate. Sad, but there's no way around it.
> 
> A complete ban on all organ transplants and cancer treatments, and all the immuno-suppressant and other drugs that go along with those types of medical procedures. Making immuno-suppressants is a long, costly process with a lot of waste that needs to be dealt with; not having the waste in the first place is better. Chemotherapy is, in the most literal sense, poison, and it's not good for the environment.
> 
> No more loans for 'green' technology. So far, the success rate of such loans is abysmal, and in the end, they create a huge carbon footprint on the front end without any corresponding savings on the back end.
> 
> For that matter, no business loans at all from the government. Small business loans is funding expansion, which produces CO2 as a natural, predictable byproduct.
> 
> Give me a couple of days, and I'll think of more.


Your ideas are not based on any research at all, only what you "think" would be best. Your solutions would do nothing more than put a massive damper on the economy, and plus are not even viable because no one would stand for them. We must think of solutions that companies AND environmental regulations would stand for. We have to compromise: We need a compromise in our soulless American business models and a compromise in the environmentalists tree-and-animal only mentalities. 
And actually, many socialists advise MORE welfare, on the grounds that it keeps people out of the way and consuming less. That is one point of view, which I will say I disagree with, just throwing it out there. 
Green living is not impossible. It just needs prioritizing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Your lot has chosen to *pick data to meet a preconceived opinion*.


Look in a mirror when you say that


----------



## CesumPec

Heritagefarm said:


> No, but it is a symptom of increased climate change. So far we've (us in MO) have had a very benign winter (WARM) a month-early spring (WARM) and a roasting summer (HOT).


In central Florida we have had a (relatively) cold and wet summer. That is all the proof i need to know that we are experiencing a phenomenon called weather.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No, but it is a symptom of increased climate change.


Your cohort already covered that answer:



> Your lot has chosen to *pick data to meet a preconceived opinion*.


----------



## Narshalla

Heritagefarm said:


> Your ideas are not based on any research at all, only what you "think" would be best. Your solutions would do nothing more than put a massive damper on the economy, and plus are not even viable because no one would stand for them. We must think of solutions that companies AND environmental regulations would stand for. We have to compromise: We need a compromise in our soulless American business models and a compromise in the environmentalists tree-and-animal only mentalities.
> 
> 
> And actually, many socialists advise MORE welfare, on the grounds that it keeps people out of the way and consuming less. That is one point of view, which I will say I disagree with, just throwing it out there.
> 
> 
> Green living is not impossible. It just needs prioritizing.


You are correct, people won't stand for it -- I don't know that I could live with it, and I'm the one who said it.

I know that many socialists advise MORE welfare, on the grounds that it keeps people out of the way and consuming less, but that's just plain nonsense. Socialists want more socialism, not less. Fewer people necessarily means less socialism, or capitalism, or democracy, or communism, or whichever you choose.

Putting a massive damper on the economy is actually a good thing. A booming economy means more production, which means more CO2 -- thus a smaller economy is _good._

The stated premise of the intent of 'stabilizing' the climate is that there are too many people, doing too many things, using too much of the existing resources, making too many things. Thus, the actions taken _must produce_ less production, and a smaller economy, and that will _require _fewer people.

You say that the solutions I proposed wouldn't work, but the only reasons that they wouldn't work is that the economy would crash -- which would work to reduce CO2 -- that people wouldn't agree -- but they don't already -- and that business would hate it -- but they do already.

I submit to you that doing the exact opposite of my proposals demonstrably doesn't work -- it _doesn't_, and no rational person could argue otherwise.


----------



## roberte

There have been a least two threads on Anthropogenic Climate Change here. I've asked for the data that supports a position of denial of the literature.

We have four reviews of the literature showing the data pointing to our profligate burning of fossil fuels effecting the climate as sound.

And from the side of those denying that science? 

Silence.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Look in a mirror when you say that


So, again, IF you have any evidence; real substantive evidence, that your statement is true, this would be a good time to show it.


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> ....Thus, the actions taken _must produce_ less production, and a smaller economy, and that will _require _fewer people.
> ....


Or increased efficiency, localization, shifting to renewables, cleaner extractive processes, ......


----------



## CesumPec

roberte, so if you are right, what do you suggest we do to correct the situation?


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> roberte, so if you are right, what do you suggest we do to correct the situation?


Previously.....



roberte said:


> Or increased efficiency, localization, shifting to renewables, cleaner extractive processes, ......





roberte said:


> Start here:
> 
> Story of Stuff Â« The Story of Stuff Project
> 
> And try these on for size:
> 
> Crises of Capitalism
> 
> The Fight of Our Time
> 
> 
> James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change


----------



## CesumPec

So you want socialism. See, that is why freedom loving people are so skeptical about you GW alarmists.


----------



## arabian knight

Ag gee just 2 days ago these same "climatologists" declare they were WRONG when it am to naming the Hottest temp ever recorded. 99 Year record sot to heck.~!
It is now right here in the good old USA in Death Valley.
So how many other things have "THEY" gotten wrong over the years? Plenty. And now the day of reckoning is happening, along with the tree hugging GW folks. LOL


----------



## arabian knight

CesumPec said:


> So you want socialism. See, that is why freedom loving people are so skeptical about you GW alarmists.


Yuppers that is all they can talk about is control control controlling the population and pounding their two bit agenda on the not only the uSA but the entire globe. Nice Socialistic agenda for sure. NOT.


----------



## roberte

Tell us how you know that.



CesumPec said:


> So you want socialism. See, that is why freedom loving people are so skeptical about you GW alarmists.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Tell us how you know that.


I clicked on one of your links. 

If you don't want socialism but have some other cure for AGW, please write it out so that all may learn. Don't send me to vids where i have to wade through a bunch of propaganda.


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> I clicked on one of your links.


A video discussing the problems of expansionary and extractive capitalism




CesumPec said:


> If you don't want socialism but have some other cure for AGW, please write it out so that all may learn.


Other examples in that list; interesting you made a choice to only discuss one.






CesumPec said:


> Don't send me to vids where i have to wade through a bunch of propaganda.



A video discussing the problems of expansionary and extractive capitalism


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> A video discussing the problems of expansionary and extractive capitalism
> 
> Other examples in that list; interesting you made a choice to only discuss one.
> 
> A video discussing the problems of expansionary and extractive capitalism


Again, what is your solution? How about giving us the top ten things we can do to reverse AGW?


----------



## Pops2

CesumPec said:


> Again, what is your solution? How about giving us the top ten things we can do to reverse AGW?


give up individual liberty
love big brother
give up individual thought
love big brother
obey the govt in all things
love big brother
give up profit motive
love big brother
accept that big brother is always right
love big brother


----------



## arabian knight

CesumPec said:


> Again, what is your solution? How about giving us the top ten things we can do to reverse AGW?


Well for one thing. There is NO reversing or stopping GW. 
It has been happening long before man was on this earth. We might be able to slow down putting more man made particles in their but no way will it reverse what is happening naturally. Man it not ALL POWERFUL, he is not God, nor is he more powerful then what the Mother Earth has in store for us in the future. 
The Earth MUST have stuff in the atmosphere that will trap heat in. You sure don't want to take that "stuff" out.
The earth is far enough away form the Sun that it would become a giant Ice Ball floating in space if we did that. LOL


----------



## CesumPec

arabian knight said:


> Well for one thing. There is NO reversing or stopping GW.
> It has been happening long before man was on this earth. We might be able to slow down putting more man made particles in their but no way will it reverse what is happening naturally. Man it not ALL POWERFUL, he is not God, nor is he more powerful then what the Mother Earth has in store for us in the future.
> The Earth MUST have stuff in the atmosphere that will trap heat in. You sure don't want to take that "stuff" out.
> The earth is far enough away form the Sun that it would become a giant Ice Ball floating in space if we did that. LOL


Shhhhh. I want to hear roberte's top 10. He's pretty determined about this AGW stuff so i figure he's got at least the beginnings of a plan to make it better.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> There have been a least two threads on Anthropogenic Climate Change here. I've asked for the data that supports a position of denial of the literature.
> 
> We have four reviews of the literature showing the data pointing to our profligate burning of fossil fuels effecting the climate as sound.
> 
> And from the side of those denying that science?
> 
> Silence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, IF you have any evidence; real substantive evidence, that your statement is true, this would be a good time to show it.


Actually, it's been posted several times, at least once of which was actually in this thread. It's not the posters fault that you either didn't read, don't believe, or don't accept what was presented as evidence.

That said, this isn't about whether AGW is true or not. This thread is _supposed to be_ about the solutions to AGW.

If you believe that AGW is real, what do you propose should be done to curb it, or at least curb humans' contribution to GW?


----------



## Narshalla

Another way to reduce CO2 would be to start building geothermal power plants.

In the past, geothermal was limited to areas where it was geologically feasible.

Oddly enough, advances in drilling for oil can now easily translate into method and techniques that can be used for drilling to depths that make geothermal more than practical.

What's more, we can now dig deep enough to place them in or near urban areas, so there would be none of the appreciable loss of power that occurs when electricity is transmitted over long distances. If the plant is designed with two or more shafts in mind, then one can always be up, producing power, while the other is down being serviced.

That right there would take care of the two major problems with wind and solar -- they require a huge amount of space, and thus it is impractical to place them near the urban areas that really need them, and they are inherently unreliable. Solar, _by definition_, only works 50% of the time, and in practicality, it is significantly less, and with wind, the current accepted number is that it is producing 15% of the time, which is a huge waste of potential -- all that equipment, all that time and effort, useless for 85% of the time.


----------



## CesumPec

Narshalla said:


> Another way to reduce CO2 would be to start building geothermal power plants..


as an environmentalist I love geothermal, solar, wind, etc. I'm building a home soon and it will include PV electric and geothermal HVAC so I put my money where my mouth is.

as a democratic capitalist, I invite those who endorse geothermal or any other technology to put there money where there mouths are and build it. 

as a libertarian I say end all tax preferences and incentives for any business so the geotherm investors will have to prove the economic viability of their business to investors. In the interests of national security, I would make an exception and say that the gov't could subsidize energy independence industries but limit it to no more than 10% of investor capital raised. That way the gov't can encourage without stupidly funding Solyndra type projects that the marketplace knows doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## Narshalla

CesumPec said:


> as an environmentalist I love geothermal, solar, wind, etc. I'm building a home soon and it will include PV electric and geothermal HVAC so I put my money where my mouth is.
> 
> as a democratic capitalist, I invite those who endorse geothermal or any other technology to put there money where there mouths are and build it.
> 
> as a libertarian I say end all tax preferences and incentives for any business so the geothermal investors will have to prove the economic viability of their business to investors. In the interests of national security, I would make an exception and say that the gov't could subsidize energy independence industries but limit it to no more than 10% of investor capital raised. That way the gov't can encourage without stupidly funding Solyndra type projects that the marketplace knows doesn't stand a chance.


The major problem with geothermal, or nuclear, or wind, or indeed, _any_ type of plant -- the major expense and difficulty -- is in the regulatory process needed to start, build, and maintain the plant.

The actual cost of building a geothermal plant will be less than a nuclear plant, hydro-electric dam, or oil platform, though more than a solar 'farm,' but the problem is, it takes nearly a decade and tens of millions of dollars before a shovel ever touches the ground. With that kind of resources needed, well, good luck, you know?

I know there is someone who is wondering about the times and numbers I was giving -- if it takes _that_ long and costs _that_ much just to break ground, how come wind and solar are going up so much faster?

Because like CesumPec said, fed.gov regulation favor them, and not any other kind of power.

The regulations are written with the assumption that wind and solar _are good_, and in order to stop construction, it takes tons of paperwork to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there's a problem. This is why, even after it's been proved that the windmills are dangerous to birds and bats, and that many humans can hear them and it causes headaches, among other things, and that it can effect milk production in many cows (though many cows are not effected by it) and that many horses hate them, they're still considered 'good' -- because there's still a shadow of a doubt.

Conversely, nuclear, geothermal, coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric are assumed to be bad, and it must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they won't Hollywood-plotline-style problems, which is hard, because just how are you going to prove that a giant asteroid _won't_ hit the plant and cause the world to end?

Okay, that's an exaggeration, but not much of one.

One way to get over this problem, though would be to freeze the amount of power that crosses state lines a current levels, or at the average level that was sent into other states over the past five years, for instance.

California is a major importer of power from every source they can buy. They also have thrown up so many roadblocks to building new power plants, even solar and wind, that it takes some pretty heavy bribes to get anything started there. If they suddenly could only buy so much wattage and no more, they'd either have to limit power used per household, raise rates to discourage usage, or start producing thier own.


----------



## CesumPec

Narshalla, I generally agree with you but don't like the idea of limiting transmission across state lines. Your reasons are good, if Cali was made to pay the full costs for their over regulation, they would find a middle ground that protects the environment without shutting down the free market in their state. But we need less regulation, not more.


----------



## Narshalla

CesumPec said:


> Narshalla, I generally agree with you but don't like the idea of limiting transmission across state lines. Your reasons are good, if Cali was made to pay the full costs for their over regulation, they would find a middle ground that protects the environment without shutting down the free market in their state. But we need less regulation, not more.


I agree, we need less regulation, not more, so that the problems can work themselves out and find solutions that make sense without being funded by the taxpayers.

And if I thought there was any chance that fed.gov would remove their snakes' nest of regulations and just impose that one, I'd support it. As it stands, I can see them enacting that regulation without removing the others and making things worse, like they _always_ do.


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Actually, it's been posted several times, at least once of which was actually in this thread.


Easy enough to go back and see what was posted; some conspiracy theory, a newspaper article, and a bunch of empty claims that more was posted earlier.

And links to solid science.





Narshalla said:


> It's not the posters fault that you either didn't read, don't believe, or don't accept what was presented as evidence.
> .....


IF there were any solid evidence, any of those attempting to claim the science isn't solid have had plenty of time and space to do so.

Whining that those of us who understand the science aren't willing to accept a newspaper article that misstates the finding of a paper as evidence? That is the complaint?


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Whining that those of us who understand the science aren't willing to accept a newspaper article that misstates the finding of a paper as evidence? That is the complaint?


No, the complaint is that you still haven't posted your top 10 solutions to combat AGW. how about seven ways?


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Easy enough to go back and see what was posted; some conspiracy theory, a newspaper article, and a bunch of empty claims that more was posted earlier.
> 
> And links to solid science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF there were any solid evidence, any of those attempting to claim the science isn't solid have had plenty of time and space to do so.
> 
> Whining that those of us who understand the science aren't willing to accept a newspaper article that misstates the finding of a paper as evidence? That is the complaint?


Okay, you win.

The planet is warming, and it's all humankind's fault.

So, what should we _do_ about it?


----------



## naturelover

Narshalla said:


> Okay, you win.
> 
> The planet is warming, and it's all humankind's fault.
> 
> *So, what should we do about it?*


 

Start storing lots of fresh water and start reducing the number of births so there will be less people that need to be fed and less human activity that exacerbates climate change. 

There is nothing else that can be done. Why is that so hard to sink in for people to understand?

.


----------



## Narshalla

naturelover said:


> Start storing lots of fresh water and start reducing the number of births so there will be less people that need to be fed and less human activity that exacerbates climate change.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be done. Why is that so hard to sink in for people to understand?
> 
> .


But what if people won't do that? Reduce births, I mean?


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Okay, you win.
> 
> The planet is warming, and it's all humankind's fault.
> 
> So, what should we _do_ about it?


Posted above.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Posted above.


OK, you can't come up with 7 top things to do about AGW. Can you come up with 5? I'm trying to work with you here, you've got to meet me half way.


----------



## arabian knight

Narshalla said:


> Okay, you win.
> 
> The planet is warming, and it's all humankind's fault.
> 
> So, what should we _do_ about it?


Yuppers and start birth control, well tell that to the other countries, LOL
Stopping or slowing down the birthrate? Are some that concerned that overpopulation is causing GLOBAL WARMING??? Now I have heard it all.
And it is no wonder why the great majority of the people think that the GW folks are Way Out There.


----------



## MJsLady

> it is no wonder why the great majority of the people think that the GW folks are Way Out There.


It is cuz they are.
Plus many of their "spokes people" are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Saying danger danger on one hand and oh I will just take my private jet or hummer on the other.


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> OK, you can't come up with 7 top things to do about AGW. Can you come up with 5? I'm trying to work with you here, you've got to meet me half way.


Links =/= number of ideas.....


----------



## arabian knight

Links don't mean squat, what is YOUR thoughts on what can or can not be done.
In YOUR OWN words not some out of this world blog or web site.


----------



## roberte

arabian knight said:


> Links don't mean squat,



Sorry, no. That's why we have the level of misinformation being spewed by the 'opinions' here. No data, just talking points.

Use the thinking. research, data of those with some expertise to look longer and wider.

"..we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size."
Standing on the shoulders of giants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Links =/= number of ideas.....


I refer you to my colleague in post #230

You are a hard negotiator. You can't give me 10, 7, or 5 of your best ideas for dealing with AGW. How about 4? 

I'll help - cut and paste the following and then add your own sage advice for those of us foolish enough to have ever doubted your wisdom


Anthropogenic Global Warming can be stopped by:

1.
2.
3.
4.


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> I refer you to my colleague in post #230
> 
> You are a hard negotiator. You can't give me 10, 7, or 5 of your best ideas for dealing with AGW. How about 4?
> 
> I'll help - cut and paste the following and then add your own sage advice for those of us foolish enough to have ever doubted your wisdom
> 
> 
> Anthropogenic Global Warming can be stopped by:
> 
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.



Done previously.


"..we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size."


----------



## arabian knight

Come on give just 3 ideas of YOUR OWN. It can'
t be that hard unless you like parroting others that have been parroting others that have nothing but computers in front of them to rely on.


----------



## Heritagefarm

CesumPec said:


> I refer you to my colleague in post #230
> 
> You are a hard negotiator. You can't give me 10, 7, or 5 of your best ideas for dealing with AGW. How about 4?
> 
> I'll help - cut and paste the following and then add your own sage advice for those of us foolish enough to have ever doubted your wisdom
> 
> 
> Anthropogenic Global Warming can be stopped by:
> 
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.


And do you honestly think it will be stopped by quick fix methods? The world is addicted to quick fixes, and it will only make things worse.


----------



## MJsLady

AK, that is why I quit responding. He just regurgitates the same worn out old data.
It is boring. 
He can't post his solutions because he hasn't any.
there are none cuz this is not a human problem, it is a nature problem and we can't fix nature.


----------



## roberte

arabian knight said:


> Come on give just 3 ideas of YOUR OWN. It can'
> t be that hard unless you like parroting others that have been parroting others that have nothing but computers in front of them to rely on.


And your 'original ideas', where did they come from?


----------



## roberte

And here is one more:

In contrast, if emissions can be kept flat over the next 50 years (orange line), we can steer a safer course. The flat path, followed by emissions reductions later in the century, is predicted to limit CO2 rise to less than a doubling and skirt the worst predicted consequences of climate change.

Keeping emissions flat for 50 years will require trimming projected carbon output by roughly 8 billion tons per year by 2060, keeping a total of 200 billion tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere (yellow triangle). We refer to this carbon savings as the stabilization triangle.


To keep pace with global energy needs at the same time, the world must find energy technologies that emit little to no carbon, plus develop the capacity for carbon storage. Many strategies available today can be scaled up to reduce emissions by at least 1 billion tons of carbon per year by 2060. We call this reduction a wedge of the triangle (Figure 2). By embarking on several of these wedge strategies now, the world can take a big bite out of the carbon problem instead of passing the whole job on to future generations.

Carbon Mitigation Initiative: Stabilization Wedges Introduction


----------



## roberte

btw, harping on population might be worth it IF you brought some data that actually proves that there is an overpopulation issue AND that it is going to be a continuing problem.


----------



## arabian knight

Again only links we want and now are demanding YOUR personal Ideas of what man can do or must do to stop or slow down whatever man is causing in what is happening in a natural occurrence in the history of the earth, YOURS and yours alone. NO LINKS they mean squat when you are being asked to put in your own words what YOU want to happen and be done. 
And if are going to continue to just parrot others then we are done and you can go and live in peace. And no more trolling will take place.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Done previously.


care to point me to the list? Not vids to watch your propaganda, just a short list so I'll know what actions I need to take.


----------



## CesumPec

Heritagefarm said:


> And do you honestly think it will be stopped by quick fix methods? The world is addicted to quick fixes, and it will only make things worse.


I didn't ask for quick fixes. Why did you bring up quick fixes? I want solutions, quick or slow, I just want solutions.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> And here is one more:
> 
> In contrast, if emissions can be kept flat over the next 50 years (orange line), we can steer a safer course. The flat path, followed by emissions reductions later in the century, is predicted to limit CO2 rise to less than a doubling and skirt the worst predicted consequences of climate change.
> 
> Keeping emissions flat for 50 years will require trimming projected carbon output by roughly 8 billion tons per year by 2060, keeping a total of 200 billion tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere (yellow triangle). We refer to this carbon savings as the stabilization triangle.
> 
> 
> To keep pace with global energy needs at the same time, the world must find energy technologies that emit little to no carbon, plus develop the capacity for carbon storage. Many strategies available today can be scaled up to reduce emissions by at least 1 billion tons of carbon per year by 2060. We call this reduction a wedge of the triangle (Figure 2). By embarking on several of these wedge strategies now, the world can take a big bite out of the carbon problem instead of passing the whole job on to future generations.
> 
> Carbon Mitigation Initiative: Stabilization Wedges Introduction


I would give you that as number one on your list except that it is still a "if we can" idea, not a solution.


----------



## roberte

"..we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size."




arabian knight said:


> ....YOURS and yours alone. ....


----------



## Narshalla

Okay, I found it, Post #38, all the way back on the firs page (I have my setting set to display 40 posts per page, as it happens.)



roberte said:


> Start here:
> 
> Story of Stuff Â« The Story of Stuff Project
> 
> And try these on for size:
> 
> Crises of Capitalism
> 
> The Fight of Our Time
> 
> 
> James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change


I looked at all your links and they're . . . interesting, I guess.

The Story of Stuff -- this is about where things come from and where they go, but not about how to solve climate change, so it's not relevant to this discussion

Crisis of Capitalism -- Interesting, but it was only a call for Marxist intervention -- a direct quote from the video was, "I decided to look at the economy from a Marxist perspective, because I don't think that anyone has really done that."

Fight of Our Time -- Clever, fluffy little piece with no facts and no solution. Nice for propaganda, though.

James Hanson -- interesting. I've watched it, but could you please summarize what he thought the solution was?

Bear in mind, though, I'm keeping to the intent of the thread, here; I'm not going to debate the facts they used to base their conclusions and solutions, I'm only interested in the solutions themselves.


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> I would give you that as number one on your list except that it is still a "if we can" idea, not a solution.


What?


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Okay, I found it, Post #38, all the way back on the firs page (I have my setting set to display 40 posts per page, as it happens.)
> 
> 
> I looked at all your links and they're . . . interesting, I guess.


Actually, there were three..... And, yes, a response on the first page which makes all the 'what are your solutions' posts kinda.....




Narshalla said:


> The Story of Stuff -- this is about where things come from and where they go, but not about how to solve climate change, so it's not relevant to this discussion


Ummm, extractive resource consumption, energy use, conservation,....
Seems pretty relevant.



Narshalla said:


> Crisis of Capitalism -- Interesting, but it was only a call for Marxist intervention -- a direct quote from the video was, "I decided to look at the economy from a Marxist perspective, because I don't think that anyone has really done that."


Again, extractive resources, expanding consumption, energy use facilitating expansion, philosophy of limitless expansion within capitalism.....
Also, how 'free markets' don't meet all needs.

Seems right on topic. 





Narshalla said:


> Fight of Our Time -- Clever, fluffy little piece with no facts and no solution. Nice for propaganda, though.


Again, discusses subsidies, externalizing environmental costs by fossil fuel corps. 

On topic.



Narshalla said:


> James Hanson -- interesting. I've watched it, but could you please summarize what he thought the solution was?


He does spend more time reviewing basic cause and effects, but the last ten minutes lays out a basic review of the economics of limiting extraction of fossil carbon based fuels.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> What?


An idea is something like, if we could get people to drive less we would make less CO2. But that is an idea, not a solution.

A potential solution to AGW, *IF* AGW is real and you believe the idea of less driving will fix AGW is a law which prohibits everyone from driving their car in months that have an "R" in the name and fines and penalties for those that break the law. Or maybe that isn't enough and you propose a solution that is a law that prohibits everyone from driving in even numbered years. Maybe you think we can cure this with driving only on even numbered days. Or maybe you advocate a population reduction and you want only people whose last name begins in a vowel to procreate. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just give me your top 4 solutions to AGW, actions that people or the gov't must take to fix the (possible) problem of AGW.

1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

I would also add that it is a standard scientific and management principle that what can not be measured can not be known and what can't be known can not be controlled. So for your solutions to be solutions, there has to be some measurable way to test for and control compliance and effect. If you want fewer births (only vowel starting last names can breed), you need a measurable test (count the number of births worldwide), and a control (forced abortion for those out of compliance).

I mean, as much as you advocate the science and IPCC, surely you must have thought through some solutions.


----------



## roberte

you are asking either for individual 'how to' or parts of the law making process.

Moving to renewables (on of the links) establishes both a broad policy and gives the flexibility to work with all areas of the world.

Also works for those on the


CesumPec said:


> *IF*


 side, btw....




CesumPec said:


> An idea is something like, if we could get people to drive less we would make less CO2. But that is an idea, not a solution.
> 
> A potential solution to AGW, *IF* AGW is real and you believe the idea of less driving will fix AGW is a law which prohibits everyone from driving their car in months that have an "R" in the name and fines and penalties for those that break the law. Or maybe that isn't enough and you propose a solution that is a law that prohibits everyone from driving in even numbered years. Maybe you think we can cure this with driving only on even numbered days. Or maybe you advocate a population reduction and you want only people whose last name begins in a vowel to procreate. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just give me your top 4 solutions to AGW, actions that people or the gov't must take to fix the (possible) problem of AGW.
> 
> 1. ?
> 2. ?
> 3. ?
> 4. ?
> 
> I would also add that it is a standard scientific and management principle that what can not be measured can not be known and what can't be known can not be controlled. So for your solutions to be solutions, there has to be some measurable way to test for and control compliance and effect. If you want fewer births (only vowel starting last names can breed), you need a measurable test (count the number of births worldwide), and a control (forced abortion for those out of compliance).
> 
> I mean, as much as you advocate the science and IPCC, surely you must have thought through some solutions.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> you are asking either for individual 'how to' or parts of the law making process.
> 
> Moving to renewables (on of the links) establishes both a broad policy and gives the flexibility to work with all areas of the world.
> 
> Also works for those on the side, btw....


wow, I don't know how to make it any easier for you, roberte. If you can't come up with a solution just say so.


----------



## Jena

roberte said:


> Easy enough to go back and see what was posted; some conspiracy theory, a newspaper article, and a bunch of empty claims that more was posted earlier.
> 
> And links to solid science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF there were any solid evidence, any of those attempting to claim the science isn't solid have had plenty of time and space to do so.
> 
> Whining that those of us who understand the science aren't willing to accept a newspaper article that misstates the finding of a paper as evidence? That is the complaint?


That's pretty funny considering your links are mainly to blogs. Blogs, videos, articles that do not even cite references, not to mention a complete lack of peer review. 

You sound like a climate scientist. They seem to think that if they just keep saying "science" often enough, people will start to believe it really is. Much of climate science is questionable at best, ridiculous at worst. Calling it science certainly does not make it so.


----------



## greg273

Jena said:


> Much of climate science is questionable at best, ridiculous at worst. Calling it science certainly does not make it so.


 Really? Any particular conclusions you find 'ridiculous'?


----------



## naturelover

Narshalla said:


> But what if people won't do that? Reduce births, I mean?


Oh well. Everyone's going to die sooner or later anyway. 

If people won't voluntarilly reduce births that just means many MORE people will be forced into reduced births sooner whether they want it or not, naturally through starvation when there's too many people and no more food or other resources available. Women simply won't be able to get pregnant as their own bodies consume themselves. Men would become impotent and infertile due to frailty. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other when people are starving. 

The biggest problem with that is when it gets that bad then societies won't have any choices left, no control of their lives and environment then compared to the way we do now at this time while we still have the option of choices and control (and we still have food and healthy bodies). So when it gets that bad then humanity could possibly be facing extinction as a species through starvation and I doubt there's much could be done to prevent that.

.


----------



## naturelover

arabian knight said:


> Yuppers and start birth control, well tell that to the other countries, LOL
> Stopping or slowing down the birthrate? Are some that concerned that overpopulation is causing GLOBAL WARMING??? Now I have heard it all.
> And it is no wonder why the great majority of the people think that the GW folks are Way Out There.


Who said that overpopulation is causing global warming? 

I know a lot of people believe that overpopulation is contributing to it (which makes perfect sense considering the added industry) but I've never heard of anyone saying that it's causing it.

So who exactly has said that overpopulation is causing global warming? Inquisitive minds want to know.

I think if you can't answer that question then you were just imagining it, hmmm?

.


----------



## naturelover

roberte said:


> btw, harping on population might be worth it IF you brought some data that actually proves that there is an overpopulation issue AND that it is going to be a continuing problem.


What kind of data (besides 7 billion people out of which 1 billion are already starving) do you want?

How can it possibly not be a continuing problem if people refuse to reduce births?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> harping on population might be worth it IF you brought some *data that actually proves* that there is an *overpopulation* issue AND that it is going to be a continuing problem.


Who do you think drives all the vehicles that make all the CO2.
Haven't you been claiming all along *HUMANS *are causing the problems?
Some things are just COMMON SENSE, and don't require "data" to be OBVIOUS.


----------



## Pops2

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who do you think drives all the vehicles that make all the CO2.
> Haven't you been claiming all along *HUMANS *are causing the problems?
> Some things are just COMMON SENSE, and don't require "data" to be OBVIOUS.


he doesn't care about solving his percieved problem. he just wants to make everyone chant the same song.


----------



## naturelover

> he just wants to make everyone chant the same song.


I'm not sure what his song is about, I've been trying to understand but it's been a bit of a puzzle for me from the get go. 

.


----------



## roberte

naturelover said:


> What kind of data (besides 7 billion people out of which 1 billion are already starving) do you want?
> 
> How can it possibly not be a continuing problem if people refuse to reduce births?
> 
> .


Read up on population; growth curve, prediction.


----------



## roberte

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who do you think drives all the vehicles that make all the CO2.
> Haven't you been claiming all along *HUMANS *are causing the problems?
> Some things are just COMMON SENSE, and don't require "data" to be OBVIOUS.


Doesn't need to be co2 emitters.

But we do need to be looking at per capita energy use with fossil fuels.


And Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense


----------



## roberte

Jena said:


> ....
> Much of climate science is questionable at best, ridiculous at worst.
> ...



Are you able to back up that statement?


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Are you able to back up that statement?


And welcome to round number 17 where everything gets repeated AGAIN


----------



## Heritagefarm

Pops2 said:


> he doesn't care about solving his percieved problem. he just wants to make everyone chant the same song.


Our "perceived" problem is costing many people's lives and livlihoods, the destruction of vast amounts of land, melting of the ice caps, rising sea levels, and destructive climatic patterns. This is a "perceived" problem?



CesumPec said:


> I didn't ask for quick fixes. Why did you bring up quick fixes? I want solutions, quick or slow, I just want solutions.


You already know what the solution is, but none of us like it. The best solution is to get all fossil-fuel burning activities off the planet. The problem with this is that it puts a halt on economies, a damper at best. Developed countries would be affected the most, since they rely on cheap energy to crawl out of poverty. Thus, we come to another solution: Slow population growth. How? Even harder to slow population growth than halt use of cars. Does this mean we all need to become Amish? No, although that would certainly be good population control. But we can all make changes. Stop buying plastic, stop driving HumVees, drive fuel-efficient vehicles, use energy efficient homes. Practical stuff like that makes a difference. 
Alternative energy would be the best option. Solar panels are becoming more and more viable.


----------



## arabian knight

Heritagefarm said:


> Our "perceived" problem is costing many people's lives and livlihoods, the destruction of vast amounts of land, melting of the ice caps, rising sea levels, and destructive climatic patterns. This is a "perceived" problem?


Yes it sure is perceived.
*Sea Ice Area Sets New Record High*
Posted on September 14, 2012 
The amount of sea ice around Antarctica is the greatest ever for the date, and the thirteenth highest daily value ever measured. Most of the worldâs sea ice is located around Antarctica,* and it has been steadily increasing for at least 30 years.*


> It is quite clear that the mechanism driving ice gain in Antarctica is the same one driving ice loss in the Arctic, but climate scientists refuse to think about this. Their brains are locked in CO2 stupidity heck.


 I KNOW some on here just LOVE charts. LOL










Imagine If Climate Scientists Actually Used Their Brains | Real Science


----------



## Heritagefarm

It's easy to skew results if all you look at is a specific region of ice. One area can be be rising, the other falling.

great explanation, with basic science terms, here:
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?


----------



## naturelover

roberte said:


> Read up on population; growth curve, prediction.


I already did. There is nothing up-to-date and nothing correct and accurate. 

The population of present time had already far surpassed in 2011 what 1998's predictions were for 2025. If births continue at the rate they are now for the next 13 years, the population in 2025 will be what had previously been predicted for 2075.

If you want to find accurate and more up-to-date population growth curve predictions that are more fitting to the current birth trends and post them here for me I will be happy to read them. I'm not interested in reading invalid predictions from 10 to 15 years ago, I want to see information from now if it's out there.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Our "perceived" problem is costing many people's lives and livlihoods, the destruction of vast amounts of land, melting of the ice caps, rising sea levels, and destructive climatic patterns. This is a "perceived" problem?


LOL
Melodrama and hysteria.
You're on a roll now


----------



## roberte

CesumPec said:


> And welcome to round number 17 where everything gets repeated AGAIN


And rounds 2-17 wouldn't have been there if there were any substantive evidence posted in 'round number 1'......


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> And rounds 2-17 wouldn't have been there if there were any substantive evidence posted in 'round number 1'......


agreed. you haven't given substantive evidence and you haven't given solutions to your perceived problem. thanks for finally admitting the truth.

there. I think we can be done with this now.


----------



## Heritagefarm

CesumPec said:


> agreed. you haven't given substantive evidence and you haven't given solutions to your perceived problem. thanks for finally admitting the truth.
> 
> there. I think we can be done with this now.


I respectfully disagree. I do not feel that your side of the argument, the side that does not feel AGW is happening or is of no worry, has not presented adequate rebuttal. Adequate would be considered anything scientific that actually underscores mainstream climate science.



Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Melodrama and hysteria.
> You're on a roll now


The pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Doesn't need to be co2 emitters.


I guess I got confused because someone posted the same *CO2 CHART* about 20 times, and blamed it all on humans


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The pot calling the kettle black.


I've shown my examples of your obvious hype.
Feel free to *show* where I used it.


----------



## roberte

Bearfootfarm said:


> I guess I got confused because someone posted the same *CO2 CHART* about 20 times, and blamed it all on humans


The vehicles.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roberte said:


> The vehicles.....


Once more, they aren't driving themselves.

But it's pointless to continue any discussion, like I said over 100 posts ago

Carry on


----------



## Narshalla

roberte, hold my hand and walk me through what you think we should do, step by step. Don't bother telling me _why_ we should do it, because that's not what this thread is about. Please, write it out for me because I'm having trouble understanding the process you are trying to convey.


----------



## arabian knight

Narshalla said:


> roberte, hold my hand and walk me through what you think we should do, step by step. Don't bother telling me _why_ we should do it, because that's not what this thread is about. Please, write it out for me because I'm having trouble understanding the process you are trying to convey.


Your not the only one.


----------



## roberte

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more, they aren't driving themselves.
> 
> But it's pointless to continue any discussion, like I said over 100 posts ago
> 
> Carry on


An electric car fueled from renewable energy, when driven by a human, isn't emitting co2.

And that is why one of the links I posted -posted way way back when several had claimed I hadn't - focused on developing renewable energy sources.


----------



## roberte

Now, why the emphasis on population? 

Is it, perhaps because it involves nothing on your part?

And may be focused on other countries?

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## naturelover

roberte said:


> Now, why the emphasis on population?
> 
> Is it, perhaps because it involves nothing on your part?
> 
> And may be focused on other countries?
> 
> List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'll assume you're addressing your post to me since I'm the one who's been "harping" about population.

The answer is no, you are incorrect in your conclusion. If there was absolutely no CO2 emissions being produced by human activity I would still be just as concerned and harping about over-population as I am now.

I'm not the one here who's obsessed with CO2 emissions. My obsession is with natural resources and conservation of those resources, not the consequential CO2 by-products of abuse and non-conservation of resources. I think people who only focus on CO2 emissions are looking at the climate change situation with blinkers on.

.


----------



## roberte

naturelover said:


> I'll assume you're addressing your post to me since I'm the one who's been "harping" about population.


I don't think you were/are the only one pushing population reduction as a 'solution'.



naturelover said:


> I'm not the one here who's obsessed with CO2 emissions. My obsession is with natural resources and conservation of those resources, not the consequential CO2 by-products of abuse and non-conservation of resources. I think people who only focus on CO2 emissions are looking at the climate change situation with blinkers on.
> 
> .


One reason why The Story of Stuff Project was linked to as part of a range of issues that are involved in reducing our loading of the atmosphere with anthropogenic CO2.


----------



## roberte

A bit more focus on why focusing on anthropogenic CO2 is important:


There is general agreement that a 2C rise in Global Average Temp. will significantly alter environment and living conditions
We've already reached 1C
We need to reduce CO2 to 350ppm by 2050 to prevent that 2nd degree of temp rise
The reserves in fossil fuels are ~ 5x, if burned, more CO2 injected into our atmosphere than needed to make that 2nd degree rise

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone



I am glad we've (in this thread, at least) gotten past the 'we can't be the cause', 'it isn't warming', the ice is bigger, there's a glacier somewhere growing', 'climate change is normal' claptrap.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> A bit more focus on why focusing on anthropogenic CO2 is important:
> 
> 
> There is general agreement that a 2C rise in Global Average Temp. will significantly alter environment and living conditions
> We've already reached 1C
> We need to reduce CO2 to 350ppm by 2050 to prevent that 2nd degree of temp rise
> The reserves in fossil fuels are ~ 5x, if burned, more CO2 injected into our atmosphere than needed to make that 2nd degree rise
> 
> Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad we've (in this thread, at least) gotten past the 'we can't be the cause', 'it isn't warming', the ice is bigger, there's a glacier somewhere growing', 'climate change is normal' claptrap.


Okay, so we need to do all this. Well, could you please tell us _how?_


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Okay, so we need to do all this. Well, could you please tell us _how?_


Start with stabilization wedges (previously posted....) to move from fossil fuel based energy production.

Strengthen mileage requirements.

Develop biodiesel production.

Decrease dependency on chemical fertilizer ( build soil with higher carbon levels, reduce chem runoff, recycle ind. ag byproduct ) 

Home solar. Design in new construction, retrofit incentives

Home / office / industrial environmental efficiency increases (construction,heating, cooling, recycling at EOL)

Public transportation development

Alternative personal transport enhancement.

Localization for food, consumer products.

Legislation removing impediments to home-based land use (ie garden, small livestock, graywater, composting, etc. in urban /suburban settings)

Fossil fuel / carbon tax to offset the externalized costs of its production and use.

Be more Gavin


Of course, all that was in the links I put up in the at least three 'solutions' postings...... Starting on the first page.


----------



## arabian knight

I guess you have not seen that the mileage issue is HUGE and will be an average of 55 MPG by 2025!
Watch many car dealers go belly up and that~!. All thanks to Obama and his bending over and kissing the green epa folks that vote D.


> *REGULATORY MADNESS: OBAMA DECREES DOUBLE GAS MILEAGE FOR CARS BY 2025*





> It&#8217;s rather cheeky for an Administration that couldn&#8217;t accurately predict the results of its own trillion-dollar &#8220;stimulus&#8221; plan to be mapping out the future of the automobile industry a decade or more after Obama leaves office, *and it&#8217;s all being done in the name of the weird &#8220;global warming&#8221; religion, which still obsesses about &#8220;greenhouse gases&#8221; even after the theory of man-made global warming has been conclusively debunked. *


Regulatory madness: Obama decrees double gas mileage for cars by 2025 | Conservative News, Views & Books


----------



## MJsLady

Hmm according to a show I just watched the evidence shows there is nothing we can do to avert the coming cataclysm. 

The climate is changing but we can't stop it.


----------



## roberte

MJsLady said:


> Hmm according to a show I just watched the evidence shows there is nothing we can do to avert the coming cataclysm.


That's quite the definitive cite.....



MJsLady said:


> The climate is changing ......


Glad you realize we're in the Anthropocene


----------



## roberte

arabian knight said:


> I guess you have not seen that the mileage issue is HUGE and will be an average of 55 MPG by 2025!
> ....


Average Fuel Consumption in Europe 47% Better Than US
7 November *2004*
A study completed earlier this year by the French environment and energy agency Ademe and the World Energy Council indicates that over nearly 30 years, the average fuel consumption of European cars has dropped by more than 20% to around 6.5 l/100km, or 43 mpg. By contrast, average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 21 29.3 mpg. 

Green Car Congress: Corrections: Average Fuel Consumption in Europe Half 47% Better Than US

*2006*
"Right now, the average fuel economy in the European Union is over 40 miles per gallon. Japan is even better at over 45. The U.S. lags far behind with an average in the mid 20âs. "
Fuel Efficiency and Lessons from Europe

*2011*
"The United States was the first country to establish fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles after the 1970âs oil crisis. However, standards have remained unchanged for nearly a quarter century from the early 80s to late 2000s, while other countries - especially European countries, Japan, and recently China and the State of California of the
US - have moved forward, establishing or tightening GHG or fuel economy standards. In recent years, recognising the threat of climate change and potential oil shortages, efforts to further strengthen vehicle standards have been intensified globally, including a series of efforts by the Unites States."

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-paper3-transport.pdf



arabian knight said:


> Watch many car dealers go belly up and that~!. All thanks to Obama and his bending over and kissing the green epa folks that vote D.


So basically you are saying our automotive industry can't compete on this basic engineering aspect.

We were the first country to set mileage standards
Not long after that the car industry's political pressure kept those standards stagnant.

And now we are trying to catch up to the world.


----------



## roberte

arabian knight said:


> I guess you have not seen that the mileage issue is HUGE
> ....


Interesting that out of that long list you've made a conscious choice to remark on only one....

BTW:

"UCS: *Consumers Will "Save More Than $8,000 Over The Lifetime Of A New 2025 Vehicle."* According to an independent analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, "When compared to a typical vehicle on the road today, a new car buyer will save more than $8,000 over the lifetime of a new 2025 vehicle even after paying for the more fuel-efficient technology." UCS took into account a 10 percent rebound effect, which the International Energy Agency has found to be reasonable based on a review of the economic literature. [Union of Concerned Scientists, August 2012] [IEA, August 2005]

EPA and NHTSA: *Consumers' Fuel Savings Eclipse Increase In Sticker Cost Of Car.* According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the final rule is projected to bring "significant private gains to consumers," mostly due to reduced fuel spending. The report added that these gains "appear to outweigh the costs of the standards, even without counting for externalities," including the health, environmental and energy security costs of oil dependence."

Fox Misleads On Consumer Savings From Fuel Economy Standards | Research | Media Matters for America



BTW, in 2007, Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act
which mandated a 35mpg by 2020. That would be 10 miles per gallon less than current EU average.


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> Start with stabilization wedges (previously posted....) to move from fossil fuel based energy production.
> 
> Strengthen mileage requirements.
> 
> Develop biodiesel production.
> 
> Decrease dependency on chemical fertilizer ( build soil with higher carbon levels, reduce chem runoff, recycle ind. ag byproduct )
> 
> Home solar. Design in new construction, retrofit incentives
> 
> Home / office / industrial environmental efficiency increases (construction,heating, cooling, recycling at EOL)
> 
> Public transportation development
> 
> Alternative personal transport enhancement.
> 
> Localization for food, consumer products.
> 
> Legislation removing impediments to home-based land use (ie garden, small livestock, graywater, composting, etc. in urban /suburban settings)
> 
> Fossil fuel / carbon tax to offset the externalized costs of its production and use.
> 
> Be more Gavin
> 
> 
> Of course, all that was in the links I put up in the at least three 'solutions' postings...... Starting on the first page.


How long do you suppose it will take to implement all those programs.....enough to actually impact the climate?

I thought AlGore said we had 3 years before we all die. :runforhills:


----------



## naturelover

arabian knight said:


> I guess you have not seen that the mileage issue is HUGE and will be an average of 55 MPG by 2025!
> Watch many car dealers go belly up and that~!. All thanks to Obama and his bending over and kissing the green epa folks that vote D.
> 
> 
> 
> Regulatory madness: Obama decrees double gas mileage for cars by 2025 | Conservative News, Views & Books


I hope you understand that people in the rest of the world really don't care about your political complaints. Besides which, if other car manufacturers in the rest of the world can accomplish the same goal of 55 mpg by 2025 then so can American car manufacturers. I certainly hope you aren't implying that you have no faith in your own technology and that American manufacturers won't be able to match and keep up with the modern technology of other countries. I fully expect American manufacturers will surpass what other countries' manufacturers will be doing.

.


----------



## naturelover

Txsteader said:


> How long do you suppose it will take to implement all those programs.....enough to actually impact the climate?


Many other countries have already implemented a lot of those programs and more. It's not hard to do and doesn't take long to implement, it's just a matter of everyone working together cooperatively to make it work. Once all the countries who need to have implemented all their respective programs it will start to make an impact on climate within 18 - 24 months.

.


----------



## naturelover

roberte said:


> Be more Gavin


I like that guy's website, he's got some good posts there. Good one there about the Arctic and it's record melt this year. 
The Greening of Gavin: Arctic Ice Cap Record Melt

.


----------



## Txsteader

naturelover said:


> Many other countries have already implemented a lot of those programs and more. It's not hard to do and doesn't take long to implement, it's just a matter of everyone working together cooperatively to make it work. Once all the countries who need to have implemented all their respective programs it will start to make an impact on climate within 18 - 24 months.
> 
> .


But I'm talking about here in the US. And what about costs to the consumer? How many people could afford to buy solar panels or new cars?


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Average Fuel Consumption in Europe 47% Better Than US
> 7 November *2004*
> A study completed earlier this year by the French environment and energy agency Ademe and the World Energy Council indicates that over nearly 30 years, the average fuel consumption of European cars has dropped by more than 20% to around 6.5 l/100km, or 43 mpg. By contrast, average fuel economy of new cars in the US is now 21 29.3 mpg.
> 
> Green Car Congress: Corrections: Average Fuel Consumption in Europe Half 47% Better Than US
> 
> *2006*
> "Right now, the average fuel economy in the European Union is over 40 miles per gallon. Japan is even better at over 45. The U.S. lags far behind with an average in the mid 20âs. "
> Fuel Efficiency and Lessons from Europe
> 
> *2011*
> "The United States was the first country to establish fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles after the 1970âs oil crisis. However, standards have remained unchanged for nearly a quarter century from the early 80s to late 2000s, while other countries - especially European countries, Japan, and recently China and the State of California of the
> US - have moved forward, establishing or tightening GHG or fuel economy standards. In recent years, recognising the threat of climate change and potential oil shortages, efforts to further strengthen vehicle standards have been intensified globally, including a series of efforts by the Unites States."
> 
> http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-paper3-transport.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying our automotive industry can't compete on this basic engineering aspect.
> 
> We were the first country to set mileage standards
> Not long after that the car industry's political pressure kept those standards stagnant.
> 
> And now we are trying to catch up to the world.


The underlined part confused me, so I checked. 100 kilometers = 60 miles. 6.5 liters = 1.72 gallons. 60/1.72 = 34.88, not 46.

Also, I looked at your link . . . and you made an oops. They updated it, which your excerpt did not make clear at all. Th '21' should have had a line through it (don't ask me how to do that, though.)

Your second link led to an opinion piece about _why_ we feel the way we do about our cars, and how shameful the gas millage was, but provided no facts. The chart provided was nice, but used as a shaming tool.

The third link was to a paper from the UN. Really? The UN? The UN is largely controlled by dictators and countries that hate us. If you don't think the UN is a joke, just check out which countries are currently sitting on the Human Rights Council.


----------



## naturelover

Txsteader said:


> But I'm talking about here in the US. And what about costs to the consumer? How many people could afford to buy solar panels or new cars?


It's a moot point because it's a GLOBAL concern, not an insular national concern, and if other much poorer countries can do it, are _already_ doing it, then so can the richest country in the world. Why be a hold out and hold the rest of the world to ransom because of wasteful and spoiled consumerism which has become a bad habit? What about the ultimately much higher costs to the American consumer if you don't implement the programs and allow yourselves to stagnate and sink? 

Where there's a will there's a way and there's no valid excuses for not implementing beneficial programs. Money cannot be used as an excuse, most especially not in America. As long as people keep on coming up with flimsy excuses for being stagnant and delaying in doing a beneficial thing then that's just that much worse troubles and failures coming down on their heads when they fall behind the advancements that other people are making.

I don't understand why so many people are afraid of making changes in lifestyles and habits that will result in greater security, health and prosperity for them in the immediate future. Why are people so afraid? What is the problem?

.


----------



## naturelover

MJsLady said:


> Hmm according to a show I just watched the evidence shows there is nothing we can do to avert the coming cataclysm.
> 
> The climate is changing but we can't stop it.


That is correct. The climate is changing and there's no stopping it. But there are still things that can and must be done to change the impact it will have on us. There is no choice in the matter, if people want to survive then the changes must be made.

.


----------



## Jena

roberte said:


> Are you able to back up that statement?


Sure. go to google scholar, search for "climate change". Read any paper that comes up. I usually click on the "since 2008" thing on the left too.


----------



## arabian knight

naturelover said:


> That is correct. The climate is changing and there's no stopping it. But there are still things that can and must be done to change the impact it will have on us. There is no choice in the matter, if people want to survive then the changes must be made.
> 
> .


Ya get plants and crops that correspond to your area that might be changing, Man can NOT stop it nor can man slow it down if the climate is changing, just adjust to it, but don't PUSH all sorts of idiotic rules and regulations and TAXES and the people of the earth specifically here in the USA.
It hurts companies, keeps people from working, and BILLS for energy, and food stuffs keep going up and up and up because of all the rules and regulations put on businesses.
THAT has to STOP and stop NOW. This so called "green movement has been going on for years and has run its course because of so many wackos out there that seem to believe in some hooky pocky religion, that hugging a tree will make everything wonderful.


----------



## Txsteader

naturelover said:


> It's a moot point because it's a GLOBAL concern, not an insular national concern, and if other much poorer countries can do it, are _already_ doing it, then so can the richest country in the world. Why be a hold out and hold the rest of the world to ransom because of wasteful and spoiled consumerism which has become a bad habit? What about the ultimately much higher costs to the American consumer if you don't implement the programs and allow yourselves to stagnate and sink?
> 
> Where there's a will there's a way and there's no valid excuses for not implementing beneficial programs. Money cannot be used as an excuse, most especially not in America. As long as people keep on coming up with flimsy excuses for being stagnant and delaying in doing a beneficial thing then that's just that much worse troubles and failures coming down on their heads when they fall behind the advancements that other people are making.
> 
> I don't understand why so many people are afraid of making changes in lifestyles and habits that will result in greater security, health and prosperity for them in the immediate future. Why are people so afraid? What is the problem?
> 
> .


It's not that people are afraid of making changes, it's that a) the costs are still prohibitive and b) some of the solutions are impractical; home solar.....not all areas have sufficient solar index for that to be a feasible solution. Same w/ wind. 

And then you've got the NIMBYs who insist we use the technology but don't want to have to look at it, ala Ted Kennedy rolleyes. 

My point is, it's not going to happen quickly. There are simply too many obstacles to overcome for any of those solutions to be practical in terms of dealing w/ global warming. Never mind that China and India (the 2 biggest polluters on the planet, since our manufacturing has moved over there) are not on board. And never mind that if we converted tomorrow, there's no proof or evidence that it will have a significant impact on the climate.


----------



## roberte

Jena said:


> T Much of climate science is questionable at best, ridiculous at worst. ...


Still waiting for the evidence that you think supports that claim......


----------



## roberte

Txsteader said:


> ...Never mind that China and India (the 2 biggest polluters on the planet, since our manufacturing has moved over there)
> ...


That doesn't make us less responsible.

And the argument is similar to something a kid would say to justify their own egregious behavior; 'Johny was doing it too".


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> That doesn't make us less responsible.
> 
> And the argument is similar to something a kid would say to justify their own egregious behavior; 'Johny was doing it too".


No. The entire issue is.......or has been up to now.......that global warming is going to destroy the planet and if we don't change behavior now, we're gonna die. It's for the children, blah, blah, blah.

Well, my question is, if we're in such dire straits and the climate poses such an immediate threat, what difference does it make whether we change our behavior if the the world's worst polluters won't change theirs? 

You're turning a blind eye to the obvious.


----------



## Txsteader

BTW, where IS AlGore these days?


----------



## naturelover

Who?

.


----------



## roberte

Look at the timelines given in the scientific literature. While we need to have been doing things earlier, and should be doing more now, the attempt at sensationalizing the problem with your hyperbole does little to move the conversation forward.

Then come back when you have some real evidence that supports your claims.







Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change​



Txsteader said:


> No. The entire issue is.......or has been up to now.......that global warming is going to destroy the planet and if we don't change behavior now, we're gonna die. It's for the children, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Well, my question is, if we're in such dire straits and the climate poses such an immediate threat, what difference does it make whether we change our behavior if the the world's worst polluters won't change theirs?
> 
> You're turning a blind eye to the obvious.


----------



## roberte

Yet another attempt at 'attack the messenger. 

If you have evidence that the paper is inaccurate or misleading, bring it forward.

But the lame logical fallacy shows more an attempt to tossout denier talking points than to have a real discussion.



Narshalla said:


> ....
> 
> The third link was to a paper from the UN. Really? The UN? The UN is largely controlled by dictators and countries that hate us. If you don't think the UN is a joke, just check out which countries are currently sitting on the Human Rights Council.


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> Look at the timelines given in the scientific literature. While we need to have been doing things earlier, and should be doing more now, the attempt at sensationalizing the problem with your hyperbole does little to move the conversation forward.
> 
> Then come back when you have some real evidence that supports your claims.


Sensationalizing?? Hyperbole?? You've gotta be kidding me! All I did was state facts. You're avoiding the issue by accusing me of sensationalizing. 

So what about China and India and the pollution they're contributing?


----------



## roberte

Txsteader said:


> ....
> if the the world's worst polluters won't change theirs?
> ....




http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-WIND_POWER.pdf

Solar power in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wind power in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global investment in renewable energy powers to record &#36;257 billion


IF you have something substantive to support your hyperbole, this would be a good time to bring it forward.


----------



## roberte

Txsteader said:


> ....
> All I did was state facts.
> ...


Show us the evidence......


----------



## Heritagefarm

roberte said:


> IF you have something substantive to support your hyperbole, this would be a good time to bring it forward.


There IS nothing to support their side of the argument, that is why they cannot cite it!
strikethrough
Actually, there is. There are plenty of "reputable" blogs that could be cited, such as Watts Up With That? and others. But that would mean actually doing research, something most skeptics are very bad at.


----------



## roberte

Heritagefarm said:


> There IS nothing to support their side of the argument, that is why they cannot cite it!
> strikethrough
> Actually, there is. There are plenty of "reputable" blogs that could be cited, such as Watts Up With That? and others. But that would mean actually doing research, something most skeptics are very bad at.


Even Watts has been having 'foot in mouth' issues..... His attempt at the surface stations backfired at least twice. He's currently arguing against himself on sea ice. And there have been a few recent times where even other 'skeptics' have called him on the carpet for his 'reporting'.

Another reason why the Rasmussen and Gallup and Stanford polls show the public has become more in agreement with the science.


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> Show us the evidence......


Evidence of what? That China and India refused to sign the UN treaty @ Copenhagen? 

And how many times do we have to point out the contradictory science? We've discussed it here ad nauseum. Your side simply mocks it as 'pseudo-science'.

Why has Al Gore suddenly become so quiet on the subject since the collapse of the CCX? In fact, why has the administration dropped the whole issue since then? Aren't the dangers of climate change just as imminent now as they were in '09?


----------



## roberte

Bring it....



Txsteader said:


> ...
> 
> And how many times do we have to point out the contradictory science? . ....


----------



## roberte

Txsteader said:


> Evidence of what? That China and India refused to sign the UN treaty @ Copenhagen?
> 
> ...



*China and India sign on to Copenhagen climate accord
*China and India â the worldâs two most populous countries â are churning out more and more damaging greenhouse gases every year.
These two rapidly growing economies have formally agreed this week to be part of the climate change accord that was worked at last Decemberâs climate change conference in Copenhagen.
China and India sign on to Copenhagen climate accord | Worldfocus


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> *China and India sign on to Copenhagen climate accord
> *China and India â the worldâs two most populous countries â are churning out more and more damaging greenhouse gases every year.
> These two rapidly growing economies have formally agreed this week to be part of the climate change accord that was worked at last Decemberâs climate change conference in Copenhagen.
> China and India sign on to Copenhagen climate accord | Worldfocus


The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Even in your link, Obama is criticizing China for obstructing progress. They are not willing to make *binding* commitments because they know that it will hurt they're economy that is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower.


----------



## roberte

YOU were claiming China and India didn't sign....

But since you're moving the goalposts, we can talk about the US role in that conference.

BTW COP 18 is in a couple of months.....



Txsteader said:


> The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> Even in your link, Obama is criticizing China for obstructing progress. They are not willing to make *binding* commitments because they know that it will hurt they're economy that is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower.


----------



## roberte

You also need to explain why both countries are investing so heavily in wind and solar.



Txsteader said:


> The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> Even in your link, Obama is criticizing China for obstructing progress. They are not willing to make *binding* commitments because they know that it will hurt they're economy that is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower.


----------



## Txsteader

roberte said:


> You also need to explain why both countries are investing so heavily in wind and solar.


I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut it's more about money rather than 'saving the planet'. Aside from that, I'd say global pressure has a lot to do with it.


----------



## roberte

??? Seriously, ????


Txsteader said:


> I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut it's more about money rather than 'saving the planet'. Aside from that, I'd say global pressure has a lot to do with it.


From false claims to changing the goalposts, to 'bet'.....

Got it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut it's more about money rather than 'saving the planet'. Aside from that, I'd say global pressure has a lot to do with it.


There is far more money, trillions upon trillions of dollars, backing the oil industry. If you want to talk about "global pressure," look no further than who has the most money. Obviously they are not going to let some activists here and there throw them out of business.


----------



## Heritagefarm

roberte said:


> Even Watts has been having 'foot in mouth' issues..... His attempt at the surface stations backfired at least twice. He's currently arguing against himself on sea ice. And there have been a few recent times where even other 'skeptics' have called him on the carpet for his 'reporting'.
> 
> Another reason why the Rasmussen and Gallup and Stanford polls show the public has become more in agreement with the science.


Hardly surprising, considering he was a college dropout - or was it high school? - but I was just pointing out some "science" that skeptics would use if they were inclined.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Even Watts has been having 'foot in mouth' issues..... His attempt at the surface stations backfired at least twice. He's currently arguing against himself on sea ice.


Interesting claims...

In actual reality his stance about the surface stations was recently backed up. 
NOAA recently claimed this last july was the hottest on record. which is true using the surface station data where EVERY single temp must be adjusted by differeing amounts based on locale factors. If you use the system we built to measure temps with multiple redundancy however temps were NOT record breaking in july. 

An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?

You can get the data right from the source here, and run your own math. This backs up WATTS long time claim that we cannot trust the surface station data. frankly I trust the data from a system with multiple redundancy over data from a system where all the values need adjusted to account for other factors. Considering your mind is made up, am I to assume you prefer the data where all the numbers need adnusted that makes your case? Or do you prefer the dataset with multiple redundancy that shows temps were not record breaking in july? (yet noaa still sent out the fear message) Or will we get a dance and little acknowledgement of what I actually wrote as per usual?


----------



## arabian knight

Just wait till NOV. there will hardly be ANYONE in ND voting for Obama.`! Surely NONE that are in the oil business~! The stopping of that Pipeline is ONE HUGE Factor.


----------



## texican

naturelover said:


> Seriously, de-population is the one and only solution.
> 
> .


It is indeed the only solution... if the problem is humans, the solution has to be eliminate humans. Of course, you and I know that 'this' will never be uttered... as a viable solution. In the ten years or so I've been following the AGW debate, have yet to find anyone (on either side, and I know some of Gore's acolytes personally) willing to volunteer to eliminate their carbon footprint. [Ironically enough, the acolyte I know, is big on the college circuits, flying all over the country, and doing trips back and forth to the Arctic and Antarctica... can we say 'huge footprint']

As a geologist, I can see global warming happening, but nothing that hasn't happened in the past... we are naive as a species if we think we can change the planet's weather... outside of a widespread nuclear exchange.

We are in an interglacial period... it's temporarily warmer. Trust me, getting warmer is doable as a species. Getting colder?... as in another ice age episode? Billions would die... probably close to 95% or greater.


----------



## naturelover

silverseeds said:


> ... will we get a dance and little acknowledgement of what I actually wrote as per usual?


Sorry hon, but somebody has to say this. This constant complaint of yours about not being acknowledged and getting the attention you desire is getting really old and redundant. 

I wish you would stop complaining about that, just contribute whatever you have to contribute and don't worry about whether or not you're being acknowledged because it sounds like you have self-importance or lack of self-esteem issues when you bring it up so often that you're not being acknowledged. Can't you just post what you have to say without expecting to be acknowledged? Sometimes other people just don't have a response.

There now, is that enough acknowledgement for you that your posts are being read? :shrug: 

.


----------



## roberte

texican said:


> It is indeed the only solution... if the problem is humans, the solution has to be eliminate humans.
> ....


Being a human isn't the issue.

Having a human history of exploiting natural resources, profligate use of fossil fuels, fighting against our own best interests in favor of short term goals is.

We've known for nearly a century and a quarter that our burning of fossil fuels will cause a shift in the natural climactic conditions we thrive in.

We've made efforts since at least the early '70s to reduce the load of Anthropogenic CO2 we inject into our atmosphere.

And two telling aspects:

Carter putting solar panels on the White House.

Reagan pulling them down. (And his administration's gutting of the DoE budget).


----------



## roberte

texican said:


> ....
> 
> As a geologist, I can see global warming happening, but nothing that hasn't happened in the past... we are naive as a species if we think we can change the planet's weather... outside of a widespread nuclear exchange
> 
> .....


And "(a)s a geologist..." you seem to neglect the rate of change.

You are attempting to make an argument based on the omission of facts.


Find us a period of time in our geological history where the rate of increase in CO2 by natural means is any where near what we have done in 250 years.

You know, the geological 'blink of an eye'. Where we have moved the atmosphere from ~280ppm to 390.

How many thousands of thousands of years did it take natural processes to make that increase?


----------



## arabian knight

Ah yes a One sided view of politics just to slam Ronald Reagan.
I wonder why NOTHING was even mentioned certain buildings on the grounds of the federal landmark employ solar power, courtesy of the National Park Service and President George W. Bush.

Carter and Reagan Both were written about in DATAIL Bush cannot be talked about?
A sure one sided typical trying to slam the Republicans when in FACT LOOK and READ what Bush had done is PASSED UP.
And THAT alone tells me the Article is so full of holes that it is slanted ONE way and One Way Only.
And again yet another typical reporting and posting form the Greenie folks One sided. There way, and no other way is right. Pure Hog Wash..


----------



## roberte

Funny how you didn't bother to cite what you copy pasted and didn't bother to look up exactly what that source claimed.

The article I cited was focused on one aspect. The symbolism reflected the contemporary political divide. 


Feel free to post the list of accomplishments in renewable energy attributable to President Bush.



arabian knight said:


> Ah yes a One sided view of politics just to slam Ronald Reagan.
> I wonder why NOTHING was even mentioned certain buildings on the grounds of the federal landmark employ solar power, courtesy of the National Park Service and President George W. Bush.
> 
> Carter and Reagan Both were written about in DATAIL Bush cannot be talked about?
> A sure one sided typical trying to slam the Republicans when in FACT LOOK and READ what Bush had done is PASSED UP.
> And THAT alone tells me the Article is so full of holes that it is slanted ONE way and One Way Only.
> And again yet another typical reporting and posting form the Greenie folks One sided. There way, and no other way is right. Pure Hog Wash..


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Reagan pulling them down. (And his administration's gutting of the DoE budget).


Reagan gutting DOE has proven to be I wise choice. That agency has done nothing to justify its cost in the last 30 years. It's budget shouldn't be just reduced, it should be eliminated and all the bureaucrats sent packing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There is far more money, trillions upon trillions of dollars, backing the oil industry. If you want to talk about "global pressure," look no further than who has the most money.


LOL
Why do you think the amount of money in the oil industry has ANYTHING at all to do with money being made in wind or solar.

Solyndra got half a BILLION dollars from GOVT and never produced anything at all.

If you "look at who has the most money", it's the computer industry.


----------



## silverseeds

naturelover said:


> Sorry hon, but somebody has to say this. This constant complaint of yours about not being acknowledged and getting the attention you desire is getting really old and redundant.
> 
> I wish you would stop complaining about that, just contribute whatever you have to contribute and don't worry about whether or not you're being acknowledged because it sounds like you have self-importance or lack of self-esteem issues when you bring it up so often that you're not being acknowledged. Can't you just post what you have to say without expecting to be acknowledged? Sometimes other people just don't have a response.
> 
> There now, is that enough acknowledgement for you that your posts are being read? :shrug:
> 
> .


What in the world is this nonsense??? Seriously, this is well into bizarro land.

Pointing out the lack of acknowledgement says nothing about me personally. Not in the least. Ive debated this topic with the person I was talking to over several weeks before. Every single set of data that didnt agree with his stance was utterly ignored. It makes having a debate with any depth completely impossible. This is indeed important to point out. I have no idea in the world how an adult can write what yo did and believe you made a point beyond some strange type of personal attack.


----------



## Pops2

silverseeds said:


> What in the world is this nonsense??? Seriously, this is well into bizarro land.
> 
> Pointing out the lack of acknowledgement says nothing about me personally. Not in the least. Ive debated this topic with the person I was talking to over several weeks before. Every single set of data that didnt agree with his stance was utterly ignored. It makes having a debate with any depth completely impossible. This is indeed important to point out. I have no idea in the world how an adult can write what yo did and believe you made a point beyond some strange type of personal attack.


he is a religious fanatic, you can't change his mind even if a flipping ice age happened & a glacier crushes his house he'll still blame it on human caused global warming. but what you have done is put the truth out there for those that want to find it. that is the most important thing you can do. if his nonsense goes uncontested it will be more readily believed by those that don't know any better.


----------



## arabian knight

Ya this is getting beyond bazaar, it is The Twilight Zone for sure.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Every single set of data that didnt agree with his stance was utterly ignored.
> ....


The few data sources you brought were canards and were pointed out as such.

One was a guy who used every co2 measurement ever recorded with no accounting for credibility or repeatability and all were given equal weight.

No matter how much of an outlier it was.

This is a work that has routinely been shown to be inaccurate, doesn't meet basic scientific standards.

Yet was the backbone of his argument that CO2 levels were higher in recent history.

That is the level of science acumen. That is the best those who attempt to deny the solid century plus of scientific research bring to the table.



In this case, "ignored" translates to 'I didn't want to read what the majority of those with expertise had to say about my research'.


----------



## roberte

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...
> 
> Solyndra got half a BILLION dollars from GOVT and never produced anything at all.
> ....


Ummm, 
"Shipped 65MW as of July, 16 million modules produced.
Largest Solyndra project in Europe, 3 megawatts in Belgium
Exceeded 1000 installations around the world" Timeline | Solyndra

That is after getting the loan guarentee.

Might want to fact-check the claims people are feeding you. Google and public libraries can be your friends and help from committing embarrassing postings....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> The few data sources you brought were canards and were pointed out as such.


not even remotely true.



> One was a guy who used every co2 measurement ever recorded with no accounting for credibility or repeatability and all were given equal weight.
> 
> No matter how much of an outlier it was.


Interesting claim. I guess ignoring the bulk of data as the steam engineer guy callendar did, and somehow after decades of being laughed at became the offical numbers without ever even trying to justify why most direct measurements were ignored is better then including them all? If guy or anyone else had used actual facts as to why almost all early direct co2 measurements should be ignored you would have had a point, as it stands your choosing to believe unproven cherry picked datasets. 



> This is a work that has routinely been shown to be inaccurate, doesn't meet basic scientific standards.


really? interesting claim. It isnt reality based of course, but interesting. 



> Yet was the backbone of his argument that CO2 levels were higher in recent history.


In actual reality I posted becks work simply because it is easy. You can spend much more time and go through the scores of scientists who all over the globe had much higher numbers then we ended up with after guy callendar arbitrarily decided what to ignore... I wont expect to see any links backing that with any fact based response. 

Of course we have the leaf stomata data as well, that is much closer to becks work then callendars. 


> That is the level of science acumen. That is the best those who attempt to deny the solid century plus of scientific research bring to the table.


hilarious! No other field of science can wanting to include all known data be interpreted as denying the science. It will be interesting to see how history treats this as the mythology continues to fail against reality. 


> In this case, "ignored" translates to 'I didn't want to read what the majority of those with expertise had to say about my research'.


Actually ignored means you wanted to ignore the same data those "experts" had to ignore to make their weak claims that none of our records back in any way.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> not even remotely true.
> 
> ....


Bring your data forward rather than claiming you did something in some other place in some other time.

We can discuss statistical analysis, quality of data, synthesis, verification, reliability......


----------



## silverseeds

I already witnessed how you relate to posting data. It seems you believe the bulk of data is outlier. there were also severe issues of forgetting what I posted by the time we would get to a second point. Not really the game I want to play. Its hilarious to watch though.


----------



## silverseeds

I already witnessed how you relate to posting data. It seems you believe the bulk of data is outlier. there were also severe issues of forgetting what I posted by the time we would get to a second point. It made any reasonable discourse impossible, and youve displayed the same traits already here. Not really the game I want to play. Its hilarious to watch though.


----------



## roberte

A part of the piece of research you chose to cite is outlier material.

Focusing on that data - readings that are so far off the curve - is not statistically valid.


And a very weak peg to hang your skeptic hat on.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to post your source; Anyone with a search engine will discover the weakness of your argument and your source.



silverseeds said:


> I already witnessed how you relate to posting data. It seems you believe the bulk of data is outlier. there were also severe issues of forgetting what I posted by the time we would get to a second point. It made any reasonable discourse impossible, and youve displayed the same traits already here. Not really the game I want to play. Its hilarious to watch though.


----------



## CesumPec

roberte said:


> Ummm,
> "Shipped 65MW as of July, 16 million modules produced.
> Largest Solyndra project in Europe, 3 megawatts in Belgium
> Exceeded 1000 installations around the world" Timeline | Solyndra
> 
> That is after getting the loan guarentee.
> 
> Might want to fact-check the claims people are feeding you. Google and public libraries can be your friends and help from committing embarrassing postings....


So you're saying the the US Gov't spent near $7700 / KW and not even all of that can be used in the US?!? Why are we subsidizing electric production in Belgium and why are you bragging about it as if that is something good? Do you have the total power Solyndra built that stayed in the US? 

We paid roughly twice what I've been able to find as avg costs to build, operate, and decommission nuke, coal, and hyrdo power and about 50% more than petro & nat gas plants. 

What a deal. This is why the gov't should stay out of business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Might want to *fact-check the claims people are feeding you*. Google and public libraries can be your friends and help from committing embarrassing postings....


I do , which is why you have no credibility 
You FAILED to read *enough,* and failed to *understand* what little you did read

If you had REALLY done your research, you'd have seen the loan was in Sept 2009, SPECIFICALLY to build a *new plant*, which wasn't OPENED until Sept 2010, AFTER your July 16 "units shipped" figure.

They filed filed bankruptcy in August 2011, without ever having produced enough to make any profits on the NEW PLANT

Solyndra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In Solyndra's quarterly employee meetings, employees were told that *the company was losing money*, and that production costs, while declining, were still higher than the also-declining market prices for solar panels.
> 
> The decision to lay off employees and cease operations came about as the result of a board meeting on August 30 in which terms for the injection of additional capital could not be agreed upon. *This left Solyndra with virtually no cash*.


Who's the one that should be embarrased?



> We can discuss statistical analysis, *quality of data*, synthesis, *verification, reliability*......





> Anyone with a search engine will discover the weakness of your argument and your source


That one came back to bite you , huh?


----------



## roberte

Except that your claim was basically untrue.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I do , which is why you have no credibility
> You FAILED to read *enough,* and failed to *understand* what little you did read
> 
> If you had REALLY done your research, you'd have seen the loan was in Sept 2009, SPECIFICALLY to build a *new plant*, which wasn't OPENED until Sept 2010, AFTER your July 16 "units shipped" figure.
> 
> They filed filed bankruptcy in August 2011, without ever having produced enough to make any profits on the NEW PLANT
> 
> Solyndra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the one that should be embarrased?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That one came back to bite you , huh?


----------



## roberte

Funny thing, one of the solar panels that were on the White House is now part of an exhibit in China. Might want to read up on how that happened....

Part of the purpose of the loan guarantee programs were to stimulate innovation in production. .

By attempting to use this one issue as a 'proof' the program didn't work, it is obvious that efforts to minimize the whole program hinges on selective use of the data.

And, of course, has virtually nothing to do with the overall efforts and successes.



CesumPec said:


> So you're saying the the US Gov't spent near $7700 / KW and not even all of that can be used in the US?!? Why are we subsidizing electric production in Belgium and why are you bragging about it as if that is something good? Do you have the total power Solyndra built that stayed in the US?
> 
> We paid roughly twice what I've been able to find as avg costs to build, operate, and decommission nuke, coal, and hyrdo power and about 50% more than petro & nat gas plants.
> 
> What a deal. This is why the gov't should stay out of business.


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> Not really the game I want to play. Its hilarious to watch though.


Actually I'm finding it pretty amusing from my point over here as well.

Roberte: The info silverseeds refers to is The real Co2 levels in history

The man who did this research is now dead, unfortunately. But he evidently went around finding samples of air from fellow scientists who "just happened" to have it sitting around. He then tested them and found the Keck observatory's measurements to be, well, not even remotely what his findings were.


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually I'm finding it pretty amusing from my point over here as well.
> 
> Roberte: The info silverseeds refers to is The real Co2 levels in history
> 
> The man who did this research is now dead, unfortunately. But he evidently went around finding samples of air from fellow scientists who "just happened" to have it sitting around. He then tested them and found the Keck observatory's measurements to be, well, not even remotely what his findings were.


What in the world??? Clearly you did not read becks work. Apparently some delusional opinion piece of it??? 

No what he did was use ALL the direct co2 measurements, and charted them. He didnt go around and collect air samples from long dead scientists who made it into his charts, that is a wild claim. He simply charted the early direct measurements, including from some of the worlds nobel level scientists from the era. 

The current official stance is to ignore mountains of early direct measurements, instead focus on the cherry picking a person named guy callendar who was a steam engineer did. He used NO proof as to why we should ignore most data.

Beck included it ALL. Very likely some shouldnt have been included, but what guy did picking and choosing with no proof what to include would give us even worse results, yet after decades of being laughed at his work then became the official stance. Like I told you when I posted it, you can dig up the dozens of datasets from various experts the world over beck put into his work as well. None of them go along with guys works, who randomly picked the ones he thought were accurate. Having used no science to prove why some should be ignored and others counted. the ignored leaf stomata dataset goes pretty close to becks models that included them all, and rather different from callendars which dont track the seasonal changes as other datasets do, including our modern datasets. There isnt a chance callendar was correct. His dataset acts like no other. 

Where in the world did you get the nonsense you wrote here???


----------



## Heritagefarm

And what is your explanation as to why we should ignore this graph?


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> And what is your explanation as to why we should ignore this graph?


What in the world makes you believe I said we should??? I simply think we should include all the early data as well, and the nearly ignored leaf stomata co2 data. which drastically change the official numbers... (also not shifting the years some of the ice core data represents so it fit what we thought it should, would be wise as well, unless actual data suggests it should be changed as such)


----------



## roberte

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually I'm finding it pretty amusing from my point over here as well.
> 
> Roberte: The info silverseeds refers to is The real Co2 levels in history
> 
> The man who did this research is now dead, unfortunately. But he evidently went around finding samples of air from fellow scientists who "just happened" to have it sitting around. He then tested them and found the Keck observatory's measurements to be, well, not even remotely what his findings were.



I'll wait until silverseeds links to his data sources, but it is interesting that the source you are citing was published in a journal whose editor claims:" . âIâm following my political agenda..."


A science journal.....


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> yet after decades of being laughed at his work then became the official stance.
> ....




Who was doing this 'laughing'?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I'll wait until silverseeds links to his data sources, but it is interesting that the source you are citing was published in a journal whose editor claims:" . âIâm following my political agenda..."
> 
> 
> A science journal.....


 What source am I supposed to link exactly??? Someone else gave a link I previously gave then gave some bizarre interpretation of it, that had zero bearing on what it actually represented. Yo yourself have yet to acknowledge basic data points I posted. How would me adding new info help this? Id have to be debating people that actually understand the topic and what they read. 

You could back your claim that this editor believes including all the data in a piece is him supporting his political agenda. You wont of course, instead you will ignore past data points I posted and demand I post more for you to ignore.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Who was doing this 'laughing'?


anyone who read it actually. No one took it seriously for many decades. It seems at one point your data had to somewhat back claims, and ignoring most data and picking and choosing what to include was frowned on. 

You could of course use actual proof to show why we should ignore almost all of the early co2 measurements. Of course callendar never did that, and no one else tried to show it, so Im guessing you couldnt either. better to pretend it doesnt exist, and attack beck on a personal level instead.


----------



## roberte

The attacks on Callendar's works sounds an awful lot like the claims you are making about Heritagefarm not having read Beck.

So, given I have read Callendar AND Beck, I'd suggest you read:

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2007/EnergyEnvironMeijer/2007EnergyEnvironMeijer.pdf





silverseeds said:


> ....
> guys works
> 
> .....



I'm finally figuring out why reading you is so difficult;

"guys works" 


Guy's works Guy Callendar.......


----------



## roberte

Cite a 'laugher'

Show us something published - published anywhere.

And, of course, you could show us the rationale for Beck's including measurements that varied so widely so quickly there has been no serious explanation for those readings.




silverseeds said:


> anyone who read it actually. No one took it seriously for many decades. It seems at one point your data had to somewhat back claims, and ignoring most data and picking and choosing what to include was frowned on.
> 
> You could of course use actual proof to show why we should ignore almost all of the early co2 measurements. Of course callendar never did that, and no one else tried to show it, so Im guessing you couldnt either. better to pretend it doesnt exist, and attack beck on a personal level instead.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> The attacks on Callendar's works sounds an awful lot like the claims you are making about Heritagefarm not having read Beck.
> 
> So, given I have read Callendar AND Beck, I'd suggest you read:
> 
> http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2007/EnergyEnvironMeijer/2007EnergyEnvironMeijer.pdf


interesting post. Most of what they brought up was in becks work actually. They mis represented him... The idea he ignored the seasonal variability is HILARIOUS!! In ACTUAL reality, callendar did this, by assuming it couldnt shift so much season by season. beck work averaged them all, callendar ignored the seasonal variability. whoever wrote your link clearly hasnt waded into callendar and beck work in any depth, let alone the source data each used. There is no doubt some of the data beck included could be off, they dont go 100% with the leaf stomata data for instance, but very close with the same shifts, just not as drastic is shown in the leaf stomata data. (which is virtually ignored) The problem is you have to use actual science to dictate which to include, not agenda or belief. Care to post something using actual data to show why most of the data should be ignored???? 

One major point though, they used NO actual data to show why we should ignore most of the early measurements, (and leaf stomata data that isnt to far off from becks work) and why callendars work that cherry picked the data to fit his beliefs should be accepted...


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And, of course, you could show us the rationale for Beck's including measurements that varied so widely so quickly there has been no serious explanation for those readings.


hilarious!! Go look at our modern datasets. They range this wildly NOW!! (which some of becks other works show this by the way with modern data, showing very similar ranges of variability) in fact your link just claimed beck didnt account for seasonal variability, when he did exactly that by not arbitrarily ignoring such shifts in data. We literally average together ALL those shifts today to get the official numbers. Exactly as beck did. Go spend a few days at becks link, you will get a rundown of all this, with links to source data.


----------



## roberte

You are continuing to make broad claims with no supporting evidence. If your claims had validity, it would be a simple task to quote what informed your thinking.

I've got compost to put on beds, animals to take care of, winter beds to plant, and a honey-do list to address. I'll check back later to see if you've decided to actually bring forward your best resources.




silverseeds said:


> interesting post. Most of what they brought up was in becks work actually. They mis represented him... The idea he ignored the seasonal variability is HILARIOUS!! In ACTUAL reality, callendar did this, by assuming it couldnt shift so much season by season. beck work averaged them all, callendar ignored the seasonal variability. whoever wrote your link clearly hasnt waded into callendar and beck work in any depth, let alone the source data each used. There is no doubt some of the data beck included could be off, they dont go 100% with the leaf stomata data for instance, but very close with the same shifts, just not as drastic is shown in the leaf stomata data. (which is virtually ignored) The problem is you have to use actual science to dictate which to include, not agenda or belief. Care to post something using actual data to show why most of the data should be ignored????
> 
> One major point though, they used NO actual data to show why we should ignore most of the early measurements, (and leaf stomata data that isnt to far off from becks work) and why callendars work that cherry picked the data to fit his beliefs should be accepted...


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You are continuing to make broad claims with no supporting evidence. If your claims had validity, it would be a simple task to quote what informed your thinking.


 in actual reality a link to this info was posted before we even got into the topic in this particular thread. having been brought up completely out of context by another poster. I would have thought anyone following the conversation knew this... Oh well.


----------



## greg273

Hey silverseeds, since you apparently can't fathom how the jurassic could have higher CO2 and only somewhat higher temps, you'd best do some more research into what else was occurring during that time... it was an age of mountain building and massive volcanic eruptions.


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> Hey silverseeds, since you apparently can't fathom how the jurassic could have higher CO2 and only somewhat higher temps, you'd best do some more research into what else was occurring during that time... it was an age of mountain building and massive volcanic eruptions.


Global Warming Alarmism

This piece is put together pretty well. It doesnt cite everything unless I missed it, but you can dig it up yourself f you care... the interesting parts are simply assessments of our temp and co2 data, which are counter to the arguments. As well as some perspective on long term temps and where we are in that range. It doesnt cover many issues of course, its a short piece. 

It can however lead to many avenues of studdy for those who truly care. There is simply to much data for me to cite it all in entirety. Heck the claim our climate is even shifting at a speedy level is completely baseless in context of our climates past. I have no idea what this claim is even based on, it certainly isnt our records. i learned long ago trying to break down complex science deeply tied to peoples political and worldviews isnt really going to happen on an internet forum. People have to want to learn. Most of BOTH sides of the debate made their minds up, and never dug through all the source data for various aspects of this. 



> 1. During the Cambrian Period, global atmospheric CO2 levels varied between 16 to 25 times higher than they are today, yet average global temperatures held at the highest levels for millions of years; they did not follow the CO2 variation.
> 
> 2. During the last half of the Ordovician Period (for about 33 million years), global CO2 levels steadily increased from 13 to about 15 times higher than they are today, and yet global temperatures dropped down to the coldest average they have ever reached since higher life has been on earth.
> 
> 3. During the Silurian period, atmospheric CO2 levels dropped from 15 down to 10 times today's levels, and yet global average temperatures started at the coldest and rose to the global maximum during that period.
> 
> 4. During the first half of the Carboniferous Period (appr. 35 million years), global atmospheric CO2 levels dropped to being almost equal to CO2 levels of today, and yet average global temperatures still held at about 2 degrees (C) shy of the global maximum.
> 
> 5. The Permian, Triassic and Jurassic Periods may seem to reflect a loose sort of parallel "cause-and-effect" relationship between global atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperatures....
> 
> 6. ... however, through the Cretaceous period, while global CO2 levels fairly steadily dropped for about 80 million years, the average global temperatures climbed back up to the highest average temperatures ever seen since higher life has been on earth, and stayed there for 70 million years. --This may be seen as an example of an inverse relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
> 
> General Observations:
> 
> 1. In light of especially the Ordovician temperature-drop (while CO2 levels remained quite high), and the Cretaceous temperature-rise which remained at the maximum for about 70 million years (while CO2 levels steadily dropped), --along with other discontinuities (like the first half of the Carboniferous) mentioned above-- there often appears to be little relationship in which global temperatures follow changes in atmospheric CO2 levels in a cause-and-effect direction ...sometimes even appearing to be an inverse relationship.
> 
> 2. Despite relatively high or relatively low CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the earth seems able to maintain a maximum average temperature, above which the high CO2 levels do not make temperatures rise. --The earth may have some temperature buffering/regulating capacity ...which is fairly unrelated to the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
> 
> 3. Despite relatively high or relatively low CO2 levels in the atmosphere, something seems able to cause the earth's average temperature to fall to its lowest relative temperatures regardless of high or low CO2.
> 
> 4. With the above data considered, there does not seem to be a significant cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere and the average temperatures of earth's atmosphere.


by the way I purposely picked a source for those stats from a guy that has a site including many other topics. The reason I did this is because everything he wrote was sound. Yet because of who he is and his other beliefs many will ignore him, while also acting like they are on the side of scientific authority. Literally never even realizing they just dismissed verifiable science based on THEIR personal beliefs, just as they TELL themselves this other person did. this is a massive cosmic joke to me in that context. I laugh and laugh all through these threads.


----------



## silverseeds

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf


> The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests
> that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene
> with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my). For periods
> with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is
> suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due
> to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below
> 1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature
> is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating
> that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong
> control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.


This is interesting as well. Co2 as a driver still doesnt fit the data, we do have other explanations for why it is higher when temps are higher. higher temps are known to release it. Ignoring that though, if you believe co2 has this effect, then should we perhaps re think lowering co2 outputs?

sure we would have to leave the coasts, and adapt to shifts in climate at the beginning if the claims are true, but if co2 Is the driver of the climates temps as is claimed, we can get ourselves just warm enough we bypass iceages!!! You realize on a geological timescale an iceage is imminent, on a human timescale it might be awhile. (although the sun is possibly doing things that could trigger one if it keeps up) Iceages are MUCH more dangerous to humanity then the issues even the exaggerated claims of the IPCC represent with agw. Warmer worlds are actually more stable with their weather historically. 

the one drawback to this is the possible ocean acidification. I have major doubts this is the cause of issues for various shelled animals, considering al our nastiness in the oceans, and the fact these same animals lived through eras with equal co2 levels.


----------



## roberte

from the link above and cited.

"...CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong
control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic."

Thank you for posting some of the evidence that supports the position of the IPCC, 98% of the scientists with expertise in the field.

And the Dr. Alley presentation.










The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History


----------



## Pops2

the only control knobs are the buffoons pushing half fast psuedoscience AGW


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> The reason I did this is because everything he wrote was sound.



So sound R. Totten doesn't bother citing any science..... Wonder why....

On any topic.

/sarc on
And you are correct, his expertise seems almost encyclopedic..... /sarc off


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Heck the claim our climate is even shifting at a speedy level is completely baseless in context of our climates past.


Love to see your source data on that one......


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .... leaf stomata data.
> ....


Tell us about that......


----------



## greg273

Silverseed, you've posted nothing to disprove the major role of CO2 in climate. In fact, you cited a paper that essentially said what the AGW advocates are saying...



> *A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature
> is found *both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating
> that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong
> control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.


 I don't know how much simpler it could be made. You already have the answer... what exactly are you arguing?


----------



## CesumPec

greg273 said:


> Silverseed, you've posted nothing to disprove the major role of CO2 in climate. In fact, you cited a paper that essentially said what the AGW advocates are saying...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how much simpler it could be made. You already have the answer... what exactly are you arguing?


I'm no climate scientist so help me out. Solar luminosity, changing global geography, and CO2 play a role in GW over million and ten million year cycles. Is that what it's saying? Does it say anything about percentage effect for each of the 3 causes? And how does 100 years of data fit with time scales 4 to 5 orders of magnitude different, does it hold any relevance?


----------



## Heritagefarm

It does. If your argument is one of time scale, we are still on a large enough time scale to see changes. We know from past data that CO2 is a driving force in climate, and that currently the sun is NOT hot enough to warrant our heating.


----------



## salmonslayer

Regardless of whether AGW is real or not none of the geniuses have come up with a realistic and workable solution so the argument is pointless. Do what you can locally and support your pet causes (whether its one side or the other) and get on with your life.

If your a pessimist who fears bringing in kids to such a terrible world that is soon to come to a fiery end then dont have kids, live a simple low impact life feeling holier than thou with your miniscule impact on AGW.

If you think AGW is all bunk buy gas guzzlers, pop out the ninos, party on and dont worry about impacting anyone else.

Neither extreme will have one iota of impact either way. Most of the rest of us will just try to lead happy lives while trying to be environmentally responsible knowing that we can only have an impact in our own immediate area. But I am wondering how you will feel 20 - 30 years from now when your in your last days and the earth will still be here and life still goes on and you see happy people living happy lives if you look back at your life of fear, deprivation and loneliness from not having kids was worth it. Thats a serious question by the way, life is good for me and I cant imagine living with such fear and feelings of doom.


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> It does. If your argument is one of time scale, we are still on a large enough time scale to see changes. We know from past data that CO2 is a driving force in climate, and that currently the sun is NOT hot enough to warrant our heating.


Can you show actual data showing this is true? I havent found it in any of the records, including the co2 records the AGW folks ignore. Instead we find co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 800-1900 years. Through an ACTUALLY proven outgassing effect. We can also plug the claims about co2s effect into past co2 levels and see temps never match what the current claims say they will be. 

so what data are you basing this on exactly? In years of studying the topic and reading about everything I could on it, I havent encountered this data yet. Ive been linked to sources that CLAIM this is true, but their data never backs their claims.


----------



## roberte

A small portion of the research that addresses how natural climate forcings - volcanic activity, solar - have been masked by the rapid rise of Anthropogenic CO2 . 



ARE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCINGS ABLE TO COUNTERACT THE PROJECTED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBALWARMING?


Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century

Influence of human and natural forcing on
European seasonal temperatures



Simple indices of global climate variability and change Part II:
attribution of climate change during the twentieth century

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature
Spanning 1753 to 2011 

The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in
the Dalton Minimum (1790â1830): a model study 



If you would like to pursue further, Google Scholar should come up with a couple of thousand more papers on 18th - 21th century climate variation becoming more influenced by the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If you'd like a less technical synthesis of the information; 

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when itâs forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.


Anti-global heating claims â a reasonably thorough debunking

Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to 
Earlier Changes in Earthâs History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earthâs history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

How is Todayâs Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earthâs atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> Can you show actual data showing this is true? I havent found it in any of the records, including the co2 records the AGW folks ignore. Instead we find co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 800-1900 years. Through an ACTUALLY proven outgassing effect. We can also plug the claims about co2s effect into past co2 levels and see temps never match what the current claims say they will be.
> 
> so what data are you basing this on exactly? In years of studying the topic and reading about everything I could on it, I havent encountered this data yet. Ive been linked to sources that CLAIM this is true, but their data never backs their claims.


Who is "we?" And how do you know for certain that temperatures "lag" behind temps by many years when that statement is OBVIOUSLY false in terms of what's happening right now.









Hence: solar activity is not the cause of climate change (at the moment). Your attempts to refute AGW are based on knocking down CO2 science. Therefore you do not think CO2 is causing climate change (at the moment). Please show what you do "believe" to be the cause.


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Who is "we?" And how do you know for certain that temperatures "lag" behind temps by many years when that statement is OBVIOUSLY false in terms of what's happening right now.


Co2 lags behind temps in our entire record. I know this, because Ive looked at the records. 



> Hence: solar activity is not the cause of climate change (at the moment). Your attempts to refute AGW are based on knocking down CO2 science. Therefore you do not think CO2 is causing climate change (at the moment). Please show what you do "believe" to be the cause.


Actually there is more then one way the sun is involved, I find it interesting that if you believe in AGW you suddenly are apparently incapable of looking at the sun and what we know of it entirely, but that isnt what we were talking about. I asked how you knew co2 drove temps. I asked for actual data. You posted on different topics. Im not asking for proof it is a greenhouse gas, that much is well established, but there isnt much of it. Actual proof it drives temps. 

I never "knocked" co2 science. In actual reality I said we should include ALL the data, rather then the parts that fit our beliefs. Its the opposite of knocking science actually. Heck we barely scratched the surface of scratching the surface and Ive already posted several datapoints you and the others have yet to refute any of them with actual data. At best we got responses about entirely different topics, most simply ignored them apparently. And your telling ME Im the one knocking science??? If you ever study it in depth, you will find everything I said was accurate. You would even find others in the field have pointed these things to be ignored by the AGW mythology folks since they first tried to cherry pick their claims out of the data. 

I dont think co2 is causing changes, because in all of our records it hasnt shown this ability. If you take co2s claimed values and plug it into past co2 levels the temps are NEVER what the claims for co2s value claim are true. The math simply doesnt add up. Of course asking you to post said data is a bit of a trick question being that we simply dont have such data. Ive looked for it for years. havent found it yet. Just claims that run counter to all of our records. 

As for what i believe to be the cause? Its 100% irrelevant. The question here is whether or not co2 is a factor. Although I will say there are aspects of climate we are only just now understanding, including relationships to our planets magnetism and cosmic rays.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Love to see your source data on that one......


Youd love to see my data that shows our climate isnt changing drastically right now?? 

Id love to see data showing it IS. Ive seen the cherry picked datasets the AGW folks use, but looking at our full records its actually very obvious. Its one of the stranger claims of the AGW folks. Even in this last century before co2 was at levels it would have been an issue by anyones claims, we had climate shifting just as fast, as it does in all our records going back.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Ive already posted several datapoints
> 
> ....


Probably meant to say 'dataSETS'.

But that wouldn't be accurate as the only SET we've seen being used as support for your contentions was the Beck paper.

And, at least in this thread and from poking around here, I haven't even seen your link to it.

And I for one really want to see your explanation for why we should accept Beck's insistence that a datapoint he uses and couldn't be replicated is as important as a long strings of data from reliable and repeatable resources.

The argument that CO2 was higher in 1940 or some other year than it is now really needs to explained.

And the very least you could do would be to look up where Beck explains that, copy/paste and link it here.

Or, if you could, work the math and tell us how many gigatons of carbon were released into the atmosphere to make the ~1940's surge. Where did it come from?

Then, do the same for the precipitous drop. Where did it go?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...
> 
> Even in this last century before co2 was at levels it would have been an issue by anyones claims, we had climate shifting just as fast, as it does in all our records going back.


And where are the data that supports that "just as fast" ?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Probably meant to say 'dataSETS'.
> 
> But that wouldn't be accurate as the only SET we've seen being used as support for your contentions was the Beck paper.


Oh man, thats hilarious!! So beck, included ALL direct co2 measurements. The AGW side used NO data to support taking tiny fragments of our early co2 measurements. And you refer to this as me using one dataset. 

In actual reality I also pointed to the leaf stomata data, and early co2 datasets generally ignored by the AGW crowd since all of them are counter to their claims. I could have posted more on these of course, but I did mention them, and I did portray them accurately when I mentioned them. It is your side that doesnt account for most of this. 



> And, at least in this thread and from poking around here, I haven't even seen your link to it.


Why should I bother? I tried to debate one tiny point with you, you mocked the source, and refused to offer any data counter to what wikipedia offered. You then posted data on an entirely different topic, when I pointed out it was a different time period you posted data for, about a completely different subject, you just claimed I just didnt understand it. 

Somehow that doesnt guide me to be interested in spending hours to cite things for you. 


> And I for one really want to see your explanation for why we should accept Beck's insistence that a datapoint he uses and couldn't be replicated is as important as a long strings of data from reliable and repeatable resources.


:hrm: In actual reality beck was the one who included the long strings of data from reliable sources. The AGW side uses guy callendars dataset which literally ignored the vast bulk of the data, without ever attempting to prove why most of it should be ignored. You want to talk about not being able to reproduce it? Holy cow. Beck ignored none of the data, the AGW folks ignore the icecore that they dont like, most of the early direct measurements, the leaf stomata data... this is all obvious to anyone who has delved into the topic in depth. 


> The argument that CO2 was higher in 1940 or some other year than it is now really needs to explained.
> 
> And the very least you could do would be to look up where Beck explains that, copy/paste and link it here.


Th least you could do, would be to show us with actual data why we should ignore most of the early direct co2 measurements, which beck lumped together and charted. I asked yo for that over weeks when you mocke beck on another forum. You didnt even attempt to offer such data. Oh well. Beck didnt try to explain WHY the co2 levels were what they were, he charted them, among some other things. He wanted to bring this question to the forfront, so someone for once MIGHT have to use actual science to show us why most of the data should be ignored. So he included all of it rather then using his own judgement to dictate which should be included. The leaf stomata data is MUCH closer to becks work by the way, with the peaks and vallys not as high or low. 



> Or, if you could, work the math and tell us how many gigatons of carbon were released into the atmosphere to make the ~1940's surge. Where did it come from?
> 
> Then, do the same for the precipitous drop. Where did it go?


huh?? You do realize jumping from 280ppm to 400ppm, is only a few percentage points difference between what is released versus what is soaked up in the normal carbon cycle right??? We know even just seasonally there is a pretty wide variation, there might be longer cycles we dont understand yet. Taking many decades of data the AGW crowd basically ignores at its face, and we have indication of exactly that. Data measured with systems known to be accurate within 3%, not as good as todays methods, but it still shows vastly different results then what the steam engineer callendar turned it into. 



> ]And where are the data that supports that "just as fast" ?


Our temp records. Any of them I have ever seen. Feel free to post long term data showing our current period as changing faster then in the past. Our tree ring data for instance, certainly doesnt suggest that. Climate can and has changed several degrees in a decade. Weve had part of a degree over a few decades.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...
> is only a few percentage points difference between what is released versus what is soaked up in the normal carbon cycle right???
> ...


Four problems with that statement

1- tell us how / where Beck covers the annual carbon variability.

2- Show us the Gigatons it takes to move up and down that 120ppm.

3- Show us where Beck (or anyone else) has a hypothesis for the mechanism that created that one time leap

4- Show us where Beck (or anyone else) has a hypothesis for the mechanism that created that one time sink.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Our temp records. Any of them I have ever seen. Feel free to post long term data showing our current period as changing faster then in the past.
> ...


Your claim; you support it.

No handwaving 'I did before'. IF you have a source, cite it.


----------



## roberte

In case we don't get a response:

120 ppm co2 increase takes ~ 240 gigatons of Carbon.

We currently average ~ 2 ppm increase per year.

So where did the Carbon come from that Beck claims caused a rise in CO2 over a ~10 year period '35-'45? 

Do the math; How many times more per year than we have been doing over the past 10 or 20?

Do the chem and the physics; Where was it? How did it get into the atmosphere?

Without magical handwaving, what is the mechanism?

And then:

Undo it. In another 10 years, it all disappears.

How?

Where?


----------



## roberte

So, compare now with the '30's-50's

More people

More factories

More cars

More trains

More planes

More electricity

More fossil fuels (Coal, petroleum, NG) being extracted.


Where did all that Carbon come from for Beck's 120ppm?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Four problems with that statement
> 
> 1- tell us how / where Beck covers the annual carbon variability.
> 
> 2- Show us the Gigatons it takes to move up and down that 120ppm.
> 
> 3- Show us where Beck (or anyone else) has a hypothesis for the mechanism that created that one time leap
> 
> 4- Show us where Beck (or anyone else) has a hypothesis for the mechanism that created that one time sink.


What in the world? 

beck charted the direct measurements taken by dozens of scientists over decades. none of your points are relevant. another person who charted it (callendar) ignored most of it in his work, he never used proof to show us why. where it went is a different topic.

number three is just silly, if those early direct measurements are accurate, or close then there is no reason to think that it was a one time leap. the leaf stomata data would back that as well, and this might call some question to the true level of accuracy of the ice core data. which doesnt back the AGW stance anyway. We actually have other reasons to wonder about the icecore data, but no real way to prove it either way. 


> Your claim; you support it.
> 
> No handwaving 'I did before'. IF you have a source, cite it.


 I couldnt care less if you believe it. You would however be hard pressed to come up with anything to back the claim that our climate is currently shifting at an unprecedented rate. If you care enough to say Im wrong, feel free to care enough to post info proving it. Or will we get handwaving instead? (my bet is on handwaving) 

For you this appears very serious, to me its a big joke. As best I can tell Im the only one here who has actually waded through all the claims and data. which makes all this hilarious to me.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> number three is just silly, if those early direct measurements are accurate, or close then there is no reason to think that it was a one time leap. the leaf stomata data would back that as well,
> 
> ....


Here's Beck's chart:









Where are all the other 120 ppm leaps and drops in 10 years?

Just that bigun in the 30-50's.

If you have garbage outcomes, look for garbage inputs.

Show us who has accepted Beck's measurements and has come up with a hypothesis for where the C came from, where it went, and how that happened.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Here's Beck's chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are all the other 120 ppm leaps and drops in 10 years?
> 
> Just that bigun in the 30-50's.
> 
> If you have garbage outcomes, look for garbage inputs.
> 
> Show us who has accepted Beck's measurements and has come up with a hypothesis for where the C came from, where it went, and how that happened.




How about you tell me how any of your points are relevant??? One source (beck) charted our actual data as it was measured, the other simply didnt include what they didnt like (callendar) without having ever proven we needed to ignore most of it. We are talking data in part put together by nobel prize level folks, discarded with no proof it should be. he simply ignored most of it. Very interesting you try to change the topic, rather then explain why it should be ignored.

a thinking person who knows the topic might wonder why callendars work hasnt been redone (besides beck) using actual proof to show why his values are so vastly different then those with much more experience in the field whose work he essentially changed. Any other field of science requires proof.


----------



## greg273

silverseeds said:


> Co2 lags behind temps in our entire record. I know this, because Ive looked at the records.


 Whether it lags or leads is irrelevant to our present situation... we KNOW it is LEADING now. And the data from further back than 500K years ago is too imprecise to say for certain CO2 lagged temp increases... they have tracked very closely all throughout the record. 
Recently, glaciation caused by the earths eccentric orbit has been the main trigger for climate change, and CO2 has followed along. In the VERY Recent timeframe there has just us and our slow burning of 250 MILLION+ years of accumulated carbon in a few short generations. 
I am still trying to figure out exactly what it is you are arguing... are you arguing there is not a direct (positive) correlation between CO2 and temperature?


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> I am still trying to figure out exactly what it is you are arguing... are you arguing there is not a direct (positive) correlation between CO2 and temperature?


The data taken as a whole points to co2 levels being driven more by temps then the other way around. Including many eras where co2 levels versus temp levels simply dont match the claims, although I do agree our data might not be accurate.

I thought I should point to some of the other work out there on climate. 

This link does pretty well covering some of the other factors (even if co2 is playing a role) some of which the IPCC doesnt really cover. It cites the sources pretty well. Considering the connections here are undeniable, the fact that the IPCC and others basically ignore KNOWN factors directly related to climate is telling imo. For instance they look only at certain aspects of the suns influence, and taking the FULL influence of the sun it accounts for all temp changes over the full period we have data. which I guess is why the IPCC could only find a single solar expert to back them (see judithgate) and they have to look at only fragments of the data. 

There are even charts where they include all the data, and the data actually fits the claims, unlike the AGW folks who ignore much of the data, and the data doesnt fit the claims.

Id suggest actually studying this instead of dismissing it on religious grounds. I only quoted small fragments of the whole. We cant discuss climate without talking about all known factors. 

Earth Magnetic Field

here are some excerpts. 


> The following figure is from the British Geological Survey [http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html], âMeasurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this time (for example the so-called 'dipole moment' shown in the graph below) we can see a downward trend. ... We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.â





> The Earthâs magnetic field âacts as a shield against the bombardment of particles continuously streaming from the sun. Because the solar particles (ions and electrons) are electrically charged, they feel magnetic forces and most are deflected by our planet's magnetic field. However, our magnetic field is a leaky shield and the number of particles breaching this shield depends on the orientation of the sunâs magnetic field. â¦ Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earthâs leaky magnetic shield when the sunâs magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directedâ [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
> 
> 
> 
> The Earthâs magnetic field interacts with the Sunâs magnetic field. The interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is a part of the Sun's magnetic field that is carried into interplanetary space by the solar wind. [http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/cme.html]. The Earthâs magnetic field is distorted by the solar wind as illustrated by the following figures [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/icons/solarexp.jpg] (left) and []Request Rejected (right)





> âMost of the energy transfer to the Earth from the solar wind is accomplished electrically, and nearly the entire voltage associated with this process appears in the polar cap region,


*



A 2005 study (Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov: âOnce Again About Global Warming and Solar Activityâ, Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana, Vol 76, 2005 [http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf]) states: âWe show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.â

Click to expand...

*


> âwhen speaking about the influence of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activityâ


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> How about you tell me how any of your points are relevant???


Pass the buck...
His points are relative because they actually ask questions about the subject being discussed, and are valid points addressing specific issues and errors in people's posts. Such articulateness is seldom seen.
Beck seems like he was a good guy. A lot of people liked him. But we still must ask, is this actually true? If his measurements absolutely and completely contradict normal graphs and datasets, one has to ask, was he actually right?


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Pass the buck...
> His points are relative because they actually ask questions about the subject being discussed, and are valid points addressing specific issues and errors in people's posts. Such articulateness is seldom seen.


If you say so. But truthfully he did nothing in the world to challenge becks work. his work wasnt about explaining co2 levels, it was charting direct co2 measurements, the bulk of which the AGW crowd ignore, based on the work of guy callendar who used no proof when dismissing most of the data. You can be articulate in responding, but if you do nothing but muddy the water rather then discuss the actual topic it doesnt mean much. Im not sure how you could consider the question on topic. He took becks work entirely out of context to ask such questions, because they werent even relevant. the work of becks in question was a simple chart of actual direct co2 measurements. nothing more. measurements made with methods known to be within 3% accurate. 


> Beck seems like he was a good guy. A lot of people liked him. But we still must ask, is this actually true? If his measurements absolutely and completely contradict normal graphs and datasets, one has to ask, was he actually right?


they were NOT his measurements. they were measurements taken by dozens the all over the globe, over many decades. he simply charted them. 

His work contradicts not the actual direct measurements, not at all, it charts them, it only contradicts the datasets the AGW folks use based on a single steam engineers work who never even attempted to show why we should ignore most of the data. this is a fact, you can research it deeper or not. 

It IS very possible some data shouldnt be included, and beck included it ALL. However we should base it on actual proof. 

Have you checked out this yet?? it includes studies from factors the AGw folks basically ignore. 

Earth Magnetic Field


----------



## Pops2

greg273 said:


> Whether it lags or leads is irrelevant to our present situation... we KNOW it is LEADING now. And the data from further back than 500K years ago is too imprecise to say for certain CO2 lagged temp increases... they have tracked very closely all throughout the record.
> Recently, glaciation caused by the earths eccentric orbit has been the main trigger for climate change, and CO2 has followed along. In the VERY Recent timeframe there has just us and our slow burning of 250 MILLION+ years of accumulated carbon in a few short generations.
> I am still trying to figure out exactly what it is you are arguing... are you arguing there is not a direct (positive) correlation between CO2 and temperature?


it is absolutely relevant. if it lags then it means rising temperatures are CAUSED by something other than CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 is an effect. EXCEPT that the CO2 we release is NOT a cause NOR an effect and therefore regultion based on AGW is completely unnecessary. it also means those who believe in AGW MUST seek a different cause.


----------



## Pops2

Heritagefarm said:


> Pass the buck...
> His points are relative because they actually ask questions about the subject being discussed, and are valid points addressing specific issues and errors in people's posts. Such articulateness is seldom seen.
> Beck seems like he was a good guy. A lot of people liked him. But we still must ask, is this actually true? If his measurements absolutely and completely contradict normal graphs and datasets, one has to ask, was he actually right?


first it's relevant not relative, second he isn't saying anything but circular BS.
since you're not grasping whats being said, taking callender over beck is like picking ONE US state's economy and saying how the WOLRD'S economy is doing and predicting where it will go. while taking beck is like looking at ALL the countries of the world & their subordinate level divisions (states, provinces etc) and trying to make some overall determination & prediction. the clearest picture of the world's economic condition & predictions will come from viewing as many different countries & their subdivisions as possible. anyone that insists veiwing a single US state's economy as a determinant of world economic condition over ALL the world's countries economic situation isn't just arguing from a position of ignorance but froma position of WILLFUL ignorance. that is one of the hallmarks of zealotry.
it has absolutely nothing to do w/ beck being a good guy, heck he may hjave been a total jerk for all we know. what he did do was to COMPILE ALL CO2 measurments to be looked at as a whole instead of one taylored measurment.


----------



## roberte

"never even attempted to show why we should ignore most of the data"

Actually, go read the paper and than tell us that without having to cross your fingers behind your back.

My guess is that you were told that on some blog attempting to promote Beck's work.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> "never even attempted to show why we should ignore most of the data"
> 
> Actually, go read the paper and than tell us that without having to cross your fingers behind your back.
> 
> My guess is that you were told that on some blog attempting to promote Beck's work.


Nope, I read his work. He described why he thought he should ignore the bulk of 90thousand plus measurements, but used no actual data to support his stance. Feel free to prove he did, which I asked you to do over weeks last time we got into this on another forum. I will agree including ALL data as beck did might be faulty, but we need to use actual proof not belief when figuring out what to ignore if any. I actually never heard of beck until I debated you last time, and was digging up some of the early co2 measurements that contradicted callendars work. Then I found someone had finally charted them all, and posting one source is much easier then dozens. 

Did you have anything to say to this link

Earth Magnetic Field

It runs through many aspects of climatic science, including aspects the IPCC ignores. Including the ways they mis portray the suns role. I will warn you though, it might come as a shock to you since the claims match the data without having to ignore most of it.


----------



## roberte

Pops2 said:


> ...
> COMPILE ALL CO2 measurments to be looked at as a whole instead of one taylored measurment.



Look up Beck's paper and look up the protocols of the data sets he used.

His work amounts to a hodge-podge of data that often is self-contradicting.

No efforts to weigh data - i.e. sets with extremely variable readings given same credibility as a set with consistent readings

i.e. three sets from in city compared to one set from a country setting.

And no effort to explain why there were no low setting; only high off the chart settings. It is easy to add CO2, hard to take it out.

Basically, what Beck tried to claim were high spikes were as accurate as the baseline. And he would have been laughed out of a high school stats class trying that.

Btw, can you find any datasets that are current using the methods used for those high '40's numbers? 

And has anyone seen anything trying to put a rational explanation to Beck's hypothesis? 

Where is the research as to where the C - those 240 gigatons of carbon - came from in ten years and then just as magically left the atmosphere?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Nope, I read his work.
> ....


Where?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And has anyone seen anything trying to put a rational explanation to Beck's hypothesis?


What exactly is becks hypothesis??? that we should use proof when we ignore data? he said his work was meant to try to initiate people to come up with actual proof as to why most of the data was ignored. Nothing more. You know, basically a call to SCIENCE. 



> Where is the research as to where the C - those 240 gigatons of carbon - came from in ten years and then just as magically left the atmosphere?


Your talking a few percentage points difference between natural sources and sinks of carbon over a few decade period. Its really insignificant in that context. 


> Where?


online, heck YOU posted it to the other forum we "debated" this stuff on before. 

I notice you didnt yet acknowledge the link. which had an alternative view for all our current changes, that included all the solar data, rather then the fraction the IPCC mis portrays.


----------



## roberte

Btw, if you want to put a high level of credence on Beck's work by focusing on perceived shortcomings in Callendar's, you also need to explain away the work of:


Anderson 

Arnold

Chamberlin

Craig

Plass

Revelle

Suess


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Your talking a few percentage points difference between natural sources and sinks of carbon over a few decade period. Its really insignificant in that context.
> 
> ....


Not a "few". One decade. 

In one decade 240 Gigatons of CARBON appeared in our atmosphere, magically it seems, according to Beck's analysis.

Show us any research pointing to an explanation of where it came from.


In one decade 240 Gigatons of CARBON disappeared from our atmosphere, magically it seems, according to Beck's analysis.

Show us any research pointing to an explanation of where it went.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Btw, if you want to put a high level of credence on Beck's work by focusing on perceived shortcomings in Callendar's, you also need to explain away the work of:
> 
> 
> Anderson
> 
> Arnold
> 
> Craig
> 
> Plass
> 
> Revelle
> 
> Suess


Those of the names you list whose work I know of off hand are irrelevant in this context. Of course the much mor eimportant matter would be explaining why we should ignore most early direct measurements without solid fact based reasons. Feel free to post those reasons since your assured they exist. 

Still nothing to say about the aspects of the suns influence I posted on the IPCC "accidentally" ignored??? (while they used their single solar expert AKA judithgate to argue against the entire field of astrophysics)


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> In one decade 240 Gigatons of CARBON disappeared from our atmosphere, magically it seems, according to Beck's analysis.


Actually a few percentage points difference between sinks and sources of co2 wouldnt be hard to imagine. Im not sure that earns a "magic" label... Apparently I need to again point out this is 100% irrelevant. The co2 levels were what they were, you need PROOF as to why we should ignore direct measurements taken the globe over by dozens all over the planet. You literally seem to be saying we should just include data that we explain when taking measurements. that is silly. In this respect we simply need accurate measurements, we can figure out the why later. To date no one has used actual data to explain why most of this early data should b ignored. 

Id think however the belief co2 can raise temps in decades, when the best it could do in all our records was lag after temps by hundreds to thousands of years hints at magic properties for human released co2.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Those of the names you list whose work I know of off hand are irrelevant in this context.


Wow, more handwaving....



Tell us why you consider their work "irrelevant".

What was their work?

How does it not relate to this discussion?


----------



## roberte

If you have an explanation that doesn't involve arm waving and or magic, this would be a really good time to bring them.

And it is absolutely relevent since that was the point Beck was trying to make. That early co2 measurements showed higher levels of co2 

Where was it?

How did it get into the atmosphere?

Where did it go?

How did it get out of the atmosphere?



silverseeds said:


> Actually a few percentage points difference between sinks and sources of co2 wouldnt be hard to imagine. Im not sure that earns a "magic" label... Apparently I need to again point out this is 100% irrelevant. The co2 levels were what they were, you need PROOF as to why we should ignore direct measurements taken the globe over by dozens all over the planet. You literally seem to be saying we should just include data that we explain when taking measurements. that is silly. In this respect we simply need accurate measurements, we can figure out the why later. To date no one has used actual data to explain why most of this early data should b ignored.
> 
> Id think however the belief co2 can raise temps in decades, when the best it could do in all our records was lag after temps by hundreds to thousands of years hints at magic properties for human released co2.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Wow, more handwaving....
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us why you consider their work "irrelevant".
> 
> What was their work?
> 
> How does it not relate to this discussion?


Oh man, this was HILARIOUS..

You have yet to offer ANY proof of why we should ignore most early direct measurements. You insinuated I must not have read callendars work. (which you yourself posted to me previously) you kept pointing to explaining the co2 levels as if it was relevant, it was a discussion of measuring them. Now you list random names, and call it "handwaving" because I pointed out they werent relevant to the early direct measurements. (well the ones on the list I know by name anyway) 

Apparently you need a mirror, your doing a bit of handwaving yourself. Youve offered a few avenues for mis direction but nothing to suggest most early co2 data should be ignored. Im trying to keep on topic. Feel free at any point to use actual proof to show why most of the data was ignored. Or keep waving your hands I guess. 

Still laughing that you have yet to acknowledge the solar data the IPCC also likes to ignore, that further explains the suns role. Somehow the IPCC and judithgate forget many aspects of the suns influence. The link I gave broke all this down pretty well and cited it all well. 

You demand citations for my stance, yet any time I bother to dig them up you ignore them... hmmm...


----------



## CesumPec

blah blah blah blah

No, you blah blah blah blah

I'm sick and tired of your blah blah blah

blah blah blah is the answer

No, blah blah blah, is the question

I think we can all agree it is blah blah blah


----------



## arabian knight

silverseeds said:


> Oh man, this was HILARIOUS..
> 
> You have yet to offer ANY proof of why we should ignore most early direct measurements. You insinuated I must not have read callendars work. (which you yourself posted to me previously) you kept pointing to explaining the co2 levels as if it was relevant, it was a discussion of measuring them. Now you list random names, and call it "handwaving" because I pointed out they werent relevant to the early direct measurements. (well the ones on the list I know by name anyway)
> 
> Apparently you need a mirror, your doing a bit of handwaving yourself. Youve offered a few avenues for mis direction but nothing to suggest most early co2 data should be ignored. Im trying to keep on topic. Feel free at any point to use actual proof to show why most of the data was ignored. Or keep waving your hands I guess.
> 
> Still laughing that you have yet to acknowledge the solar data the IPCC also likes to ignore, that further explains the suns role. Somehow the IPCC and judithgate forget many aspects of the suns influence. The link I gave broke all this down pretty well and cited it all well.
> 
> You demand citations for my stance, yet any time I bother to dig them up you ignore them... hmmm...


It is a religion some just have to worship something and some are doing so in this GW hyped up stuff that has been debunked many times in the making of those charts taking pictures of missing sea ice when they camera in the sky was pointing in the wrong area.~! That has been proven to be real, but still they just have to worship something and GW is what some think is what they do.
Do not feed somebody that has such a thing as worshipping something that is not backed by hard science.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If you have an explanation that doesn't involve arm waving and or magic, this would be a really good time to bring them.
> 
> And it is absolutely relevent since that was the point Beck was trying to make. That early co2 measurements showed higher levels of co2
> 
> Where was it?
> 
> How did it get into the atmosphere?
> 
> Where did it go?
> 
> How did it get out of the atmosphere?


Good questions, yet the only relevant question you forgot to ask is why should we ignore these measurements taken the globe over, by dozens of people, covering decades be ignored without proof?? That isnt how science works...

And frankly if you think its "magic" that co2 can shift a fraction of a percent between sinks and sources, but you dont think it is magic that co2 is now claimed to raise temps in decades when it lagged them for up to a few thousand years in our entire records, Im not even sure how to respond. Very clearly your opinion is belief based, and not data based. 

Still nothing on the link?? and how much time should I spend citing data for you to ignore exactly?? 

Earth Magnetic Field


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> random names,
> .....


That says bucketfuls.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Good questions, yet the only relevant question you forgot to ask is why should we ignore these measurements taken the globe over, by dozens of people, covering decades be ignored without proof?? That isnt how science works...
> ....


Look up those "random names"......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> That says bucketfuls.


it does? what does it say exactly? 

I think it is much more telling, you have yet to refute a single point I mad with actual data, instead you simply try to muddy the topic up in confusion. You also kept demanding citations for some things I said, and when you got them have thus far ignored them. (as does the IPCC) yet Im sure you will soon demand yet more citations to ignore. this is all very comical to me. 

but me describing names you listed as random is telling... HILARIOUS! you brought them up and have yet to tell us how they are relevant on top of this!! but its telling that I told the guy ignoring reams of data they were random... this couldnt get much funnier from my end, unless you start demanding I prove your sides stance as you did on several points on the other forums, when I had offhandedly mentioned things out of your own links no less.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> Still nothing on the link??



Seems rather like a attempt to claim 'anything, anything, anything but Anthropogenic CO2'


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Look up those "random names"......


I know most of them off hand actually. Care to explain how they are relevant? You forgot to tell us how they are relevant. 

Did any of them try to use actual proof as to why most early direct measurements should be ignored????

Care to acknowledge this yet? which cites many things you have in the past mocked me for not taking the time to cite. You could also offer counter data to any of the other points you ignored or offered off topic data for thus far. 

Earth Magnetic Field


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Seems rather like a attempt to claim 'anything, anything, anything but Anthropogenic CO2'


Finally!! 

This is all you have to say? Large swaths of data the IPCC ignores entirely, backed by actual data. and you look at it as anything but co2??? If you understood science in a vague way youd see how sad that was. 

Oh well. I cant make you study, at best I can take my time and cite data for you to look at. If you wat to ignore that the co2 records are contrary to the data, and that the IPCC ignores most solar and related data, that ACTUALLY explain temp changes without ignoring most data, what can I do??? Not much of course. 

So I guess we should follow the IPCC and keep this chalked up as data to ignore since it doesnt fit the AGW theory??? 

So where are we now? Ignore most of the early direct co2 measurements without proof, why? well it seems you think this is okay because the measured levels of co2 dont fit your beliefs. We should ignore that plugging co2s claimed effect into past co2 levels (such as the jurassic I mentioned and others I mentioned offhand) never matches up with actual temps. We should ignore most of the influence of the sun, because well as you say its not co2 related so it must be wrong. hmmmm... And this is the science your always talking about??? hmmm...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> but me describing names you listed as random is telling... HILARIOUS! you brought them up and have yet to tell us how they are relevant on top of this!!
> ....



Five seconds of Google would have shown you their connections, their direct connections, to the research on CO2 measurement.

That you called them "random names" points rather to the fact that those attempting to deny the science (the anything but Anthropogenic CO2 crowd) haven't attempted to write up why their work isn't important.

Or, in specific context to this discussion, why Beck's work doesn't have the validity needed to use as a basis of an argument.

Why nobody has taken up Beck's call and developed an hypothesis for explaining the wild upticks and downturns and inconsistancies.

Nobody has tried to develop a hypothesis explaining where that 240 gigatons of Carbon appeared in our atmosphere in ten years and then as quickly disappeared.

No hypothesis for why.

No hypothesis for how.

But plenty of research (including many more names than those "random" ones) showing why it didn't happen.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Why nobody has taken up Beck's call and developed an hypothesis for explaining the wild upticks and downturns and inconsistancies.


Actually becks work didnt call for that, as I keep repeating he basically called for actual proof as to why most data should be ignored... 

You claim 5 seconds of searching can explain this, but you have yet to post it. I looked for years and never found actual data based proof. Only vague justifications for it. 

You have yet to answer why those folks were relevant. (hence me calling them random of course) Did one of them use actual proof to show why most early direct measurements should be ignored? Measurements taken all over the planet. Or will you give us more handwaving instead of actual proof???


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...Did one of them use actual proof to show why most early direct measurements should be ignored?
> ....


Yes.

Read their papers.


----------



## roberte

Nobody has taken up Beck's call and developed an hypothesis for explaining the wild upticks and downturns and inconsistancies.

Nobody has tried to develop a hypothesis explaining where that 240 gigatons of Carbon appeared in our atmosphere in ten years and then as quickly disappeared.

No hypothesis for why.

No hypothesis for how.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Yes.
> 
> Read their papers.


I have read the work from most of those listed. Perhaps all, Im not the best with names. I never saw proof most direct early measurements should be ignored. I never even saw anyone attempt to prove that with actual data. (which would be tedious, we are talking 10s of thousands of direct measurements) 

Im pretty assured in my stance as it is, having spent a lot of time looking for this exact proof in my own quest to understand this topic. You see when I found most of the data was ignored, I tried to find the explanation for why it was ignored. I was still a believer at the time. I never found it though.


----------



## roberte

According to Beck, 240 gigatons of Carbon were converted to CO2 in ten years and moved into our atmosphere.

According to Beck, 240 gigatons of Carbon were broken out of the atmospheric CO2 and moved somewhere.

And no one has developed a hypothesis to support those contentions.

No physics.

No chemistry.

Nothing, not even the most ardent of skeptics of Anthropogenic Climate Change have stepped up to offer an explanation.

If your results are garbage, look at the inputs.


----------



## roberte

I wonder when we'll see why those "random names" are to be considered irrelevant..... 




silverseeds said:


> I have read the work from most of those listed.





silverseeds said:


> ....(well the ones on the list I know by name anyway)
> ....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Nobody has taken up Beck's call and developed an hypothesis for explaining the wild upticks and downturns and inconsistancies.


When did beck cal for that explanation? Oh yeah, never as I already pointed out. He basically called for actual proof as to why most of the direct co2 measurements were ignored. So instead of ignoring them, he included them all trying to initiate debate on it. 


> Nobody has tried to develop a hypothesis explaining where that 240 gigatons of Carbon appeared in our atmosphere in ten years and then as quickly disappeared.
> 
> No hypothesis for why.
> 
> No hypothesis for how.


Ok, so we should ignore the data because it suggests that perhaps co2 levels shifted a fraction of a percent between natural sinks and source of co2 over decade level periods? interesting stance. completely baseless in regards as to which data we should include or ignore though. Isnt that obvious? 

Oh well, like the solar and related data Earth Magnetic Field it doesnt back the AGW theory, so it should be ignored. I can understand why you want to ignore all the data that doesnt fit your beliefs, but Im not sure how you view this as scientific. 

In actual science you have to weight all known variables without bias. You base what data is included based on whether or not there is reason to believe the data is accurate, not whether or not it fits your beliefs. Not AGW though. Here you get to ignore everything that doesnt fit, including most of the suns influence and still call it science.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I wonder when we'll see why those "random names" are to be considered irrelevant.....


You are hilarious, seriously. You brought them up, and have yet to tell us why, but here you are waiting for me to prove they arent relevant to whether or not we should ignore most of the early co2 measurements. 

Feel free to show me how each of those people did work showing us it is best to ignore most early co2 measurements. you claimed this would take 5 seconds. Surely you can spare 5 seconds. 

Ive never encountered an attempt to prove this, perhaps I missed it. Feel free to post it. Or I guess you could demand I disprove a case you never made except by listing names without even telling me why you listed them. This is the funniest tactic of yours yet!! 

By the way ALL of this is moot. Neither co2 chart supports the AGW stance anyway. neither one points to co2 as a driver of climate, this only tells us whether or not humans raised co2 levels.


----------



## greg273

Pops2 said:


> it is absolutely relevant. if it lags then it means rising temperatures are CAUSED by something other than CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 is an effect. EXCEPT that the CO2 we release is NOT a cause NOR an effect and therefore regultion based on AGW is completely unnecessary. it also means those who believe in AGW MUST seek a different cause.


 Uh, no. 
In our present circumstances, CO2 is LEADING a warm up. And WE are the main reason CO2 is rising. Sorry if that is an upsetting thought, or too human-centric, but the fact is we are digging up 250+ MILLION years worth of carbon and putting it into the atmosphere. Some falls out, some gets soaked up, but 40% stays in the air, making our heat trapping blanket that much more effective. 
Why are you grasping at straws, and ignoring the accumulated scientific wisdom of the human race? If you're still arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence. Good luck with that!


----------



## Pops2

greg273 said:


> Uh, no.
> In our present circumstances, CO2 is LEADING a warm up. And WE are the main reason CO2 is rising. Sorry if that is an upsetting thought, or too human-centric, but the fact is we are digging up 250+ MILLION years worth of carbon and putting it into the atmosphere. Some falls out, some gets soaked up, but 40% stays in the air, making our heat trapping blanket that much more effective.
> *Why are you grasping at straws, and ignoring the accumulated scientific wisdom of the human race*? If you're still arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence. Good luck with that!


right back at you?
it's very simple if EVERY(or even most) temperature rise PRECEDED the CO2 rise (and in some periods MUCH higher levels of CO2 had LOWER temps) then it means our release of CO2 DOESN"T MATTER and you AGW alarmists are ASSUMING our CO2 release is leading when in fact it is purely coincidental. all of which means you also have to find the true temp driver.
your attitude is pretty typical of the scientific/academic community. once they decide on a paradigm anything contrary is ruthlessly attacked and typically when the methodology, data &/or evidence are unassailable they community attacks the the person &/or ignores the evidence/data. eventually repeated assaults on the paradigm causes a swing from the traditional paradigm to the new proposition and it's supporting evidence until it becomes the thenew psuedoreligious paradigm.
a look at the history of science shows this consistantly for centuries. that is why i take EVERYTHING the scientific community puts forward as absolutely proven w/ a grain of salt (especially the things that truly are NOT proven by truly scientific method).


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> Uh, no.
> In our present circumstances, CO2 is LEADING a warm up.


 I just offered alternative data that explains our climate. Or we could ignore most of the influence of the sun I guess? (the AGW crowd ignore most of the ways the sun influences climate, I posted a link hat broke it down pretty well with citations) unlike the co2 claims you dont have to ignore most of the data to make the claims. Even if co2 was playing a factor ignoring most of the influence of the sun seems a bit off to me. 

What makes you think co2 can raise temps in decades, when it lagged temp shifts in the past by 800-1900 years? What changed? 

Im curious if you realize we have actual proof showing how and why co2 follows temps up and down. (and yes I agree its a greenhouse gas, we have proof for that, even a stronger one then water vapor, there is just a tiny amount of it though) 

You realize we are COLDER then the last few interglacial periods but have more co2, according to our records? (and shifts of around 100ppm in co2 its claimed played a major role in those temp changes by the way, we have more then 100 more then most of those co2 level peaks) several degrees colder then a few of those interglacials actually, with close to 100ppm more co2. According to the co2 mythology, co2 is the control knob and by far the most important factor. 


We are told for instance despite what the sun is currently doing if kept up a few more years has triggered mini iceages in the past, co2s effect is stronger then the suns influence (of course they ignore the data on most of the suns influence) and will cancel out the mini iceage. Yet we have a much lower temp then the last interglacial that had much less co2. does it make you wonder at all?


----------



## greg273

Pops2 said:


> right back at you?
> it's very simple if EVERY(or even most) temperature rise PRECEDED the CO2 rise (and in some periods MUCH higher levels of CO2 had LOWER temps) then it means our release of CO2 DOESN"T MATTER and you AGW alarmists are ASSUMING our CO2 release is leading when in fact it is purely coincidental. all of which means you also have to find the true temp driver.


 The 'true temperature driver' is of course the Sun. But without the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses of our atmosphere,most notably H2O and CO2, the surface of the earth would be frozen. That is just physics and chemistry, it has nothing to do with Al Gore or politics. 
The fact is that CO2 is now rising, and CO2 and temperature are proven to have a DIRECTLY proportional relationship, when one goes up, so does the other. 
If you can prove otherwise, lets see the data. 


In this most recent era, with its relatively low levels of volcanic activity, and with little CO2 being added to the biosphere until very recently, the main trigger for climate change has been the earths eccentric orbit around the sun. This is what triggered the ice ages... and the melting... Planet gets less sunlight, more CO2 is sequestered in the oceans. Planet gets more sunlight, more CO2 is liberated from the oceans. This is known as a positive feedback mechanism... the increased levels of CO2 lead to higher temps, which lead to more CO2.... this keeps us nice and toasty until the next ice age. Now, we are adding much more CO2 to the atmosphere, during an already warm spell. 



> Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
> Initial warming
> 
> *This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.*


 Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist


----------



## Heritagefarm

Pops2 said:


> since you're not grasping whats being said,


Your comment is in error.


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> The 'true temperature driver' is of course the Sun.


You seem reasonable. Do you believe we should ignore much of the suns influence? As the ipcc does with their single solar expert. (judithgate) When we do not, we already have an explanation for the current climate, one where you dont have to ignore data to believe it. 

If we do include the ignored aspects, then there is really no room for co2 to have had an effect. this is a pretty big deal. You talk about wanting to see the data, did you pour over the link I gave??? 



> The fact is that CO2 is now rising, and CO2 and temperature are proven to have a DIRECTLY proportional relationship, when one goes up, so does the other.


very true, what isnt true though, is that we have any data indicating it is co2 doing the driving. correlation does not imply causation. Out gassing that leads to co2 tracking temps is pretty well established. Even the AGW folks acknowledge this, one of the feedbacks they point to from rising temps is co2 releasing other greenhouse gases including co2. 

Look at the numbers for yourself perhaps. (although a few out there run the numbers if you look) plug the claimed values for co2 into our past records, it simply never matches up. If co2 is having an effect it would have to be a small one. 

Id be curious what data you believe proves co2 drives climate, and further at the specific levels claimed. because ive poured over the data for years and I cant find it. 

So everyone apparently wanted to ignoe the solar data, or atleast didnt acknowledge it explains our current climate. So lets try going deeper into co2s claimed role. If I took the time to cite it all, there isnt an honest person here who studied it all who would believe co2 was a major climate driver. Its a massive topic though, and complex. With lots of agenda mixed into most datasets. 


Anyway that leads to..

Claim: Today&#8217;s climate is more sensitive than that of the past | Watts Up With That?

I find this interesting. The link isnt to the actual study, but you can look it up to veriy if you care. Further data suggesting, co2 indeed was NOT tied to co2 early on. It wasnt until ocean currents shifted as the continents took their present positions that they became correlated. 

Why do I bring this up? Well their data (and all our data before them) showed co2 and temps werent correlated until relatively recently. they showed parts of how ocean currents seem to relate to shifts in the carbon cycle. 

they did NOT however show how suddenly co2 became a climate driver, they only showed that the carbon cycle changed and co2 started moving in line (lagging behind) temp changes. (through a proven outgassing effect) 

It also shows us that water vapor by itself can have a strong enough greenhouse effect without including co2 to account for a much greater greenhouse effect then we have today. (without runawat feedback loops no less) 

they also did not show, why co2 did not function as a greenhouse gas even at MUCH higher levels at rates consistent with the claims of co2s effects. Just because the carbon cycles shifted, doesnt in any way at all tell us why co2 in the atmosphere would work differently. this is completely counter to basic physics of course. 

Truth is co2 likely WAS (if it ever did it had then at an equal level it does today, if co2 in physical reality is indeed a greenhouse gas-which it clearly is) acting as a greenhouse gas at the time, as it is today, thing is though, even then at concentrations much higher then today co2 makes up a small portion of our greenhouse gases. 

This paper however attempts to make the case, the climate is simply more sensitive today. sounds good on the surface perhaps? Not really. Because it made no attempt to prove a greater sensitivity. they simply showed that a change in ocean currents lead to a change in the carbon cycle that lead to co2 tracking in line with temps. Our data doesnt indicate co2 simply had less of an effect in a less sensitive atmosphere as they imply. Not at all, co2 simply wasnt tied to temps at the beginning, until the ocean currents shifted which appears linked to a shift in the carbon cycle. 

If we were talking about a less sensitive forcing level for co2, it would still have to be tied to temps however loosely. It was not however. this by itself rips a massive hole in the claims about co2. If you understand it. You cant have it both ways. 

All this said, this is NOT to dismiss humanities role in messing with our planet!!! We are on a horrible track, that will indeed lead to pretty dire issues if not corrected. They simply arent co2 related. tat doesnt even include issues like our oil wells in the ocean, that a major earthquake or tsunami could potentially knock out and cause issues I dont even want to think about. Or if we get one of the 1000 year floods on the ohio river that would easily swamp the dams, and leave several nuclear sites underwater. And many similar related issues. 

there is no doubt the AGW crowd is right on one thing, we NEED to get a long term view. We do indeed have major impacts, especially over longer time periods on large aspects of the earths systems. the oceans and desertification, are both major issues wed be wildly naive to ignore. which is odd, BOTH of these we will likely face in a major way before AGW even if the claims fit the data. Yet environmentalists are almost silent on those. I also fear the backlash after the AGW mythology falls apart for the rest of the enviro issues.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Good questions, yet the only relevant question you forgot to ask is why should we ignore these measurements taken the globe over, by dozens of people, covering decades be ignored without proof?? That isnt how science works.......]


That you can't find a single hypothesis for

Where was it?

How did it get into the atmosphere?

Where did it go?

How did it get out of the atmosphere?

Questions you acknowledge as :




silverseeds said:


> Good questions/...


That IS how science works. Ask questions, find answers.

So, according to Beck's compilation of data, 240 gigatons of carbon magically appear and disappear.

And that doesn't raise a question about the data?

If you have garbage outcomes, look at the inputs....


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .... (although a few out there run the numbers if you look)
> ....


Source?

Who published where?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....So everyone apparently wanted to ignoe the solar data, or atleast didnt acknowledge it explains our current climate.
> .....


This would be a really good time to point to this "solar data" that is being 'ignored'

Alternatively, please show us the physics that makes this chart inaccurate:









http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

Especially since the observed data shows CO2 and other LLGHG have a stronger influence by an order of magnitude times 2.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....All this said, this is NOT to dismiss humanities role in messing with our planet!!! We are on a horrible track, that will indeed lead to pretty dire issues if not corrected. They simply arent co2 related.
> ....


What exactly is "humanities (sic) role in messing with our planet"?


And how are the "arent (sic) co2 related" ones more important than our profligate burning of fossil fuels?

With supporting data, of course.....


----------



## roberte

Until we see a substantive and supported by science response:

A small portion of the research that addresses how natural climate forcings - volcanic activity, solar - have been masked by the rapid rise of Anthropogenic CO2 . 



ARE NATURAL CLIMATE FORCINGS ABLE TO COUNTERACT THE PROJECTED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBALWARMING?


Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century

Influence of human and natural forcing on
European seasonal temperatures



Simple indices of global climate variability and change Part II:
attribution of climate change during the twentieth century

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature
Spanning 1753 to 2011 

The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in
the Dalton Minimum (1790â1830): a model study 



If you would like to pursue further, Google Scholar should come up with a couple of thousand more papers on 18th - 21th century climate variation becoming more influenced by the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

If you'd like a less technical synthesis of the information; 

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when itâs forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.


Anti-global heating claims â a reasonably thorough debunking

Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to 
Earlier Changes in Earthâs History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earthâs history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

How is Todayâs Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earthâs atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.






silverseeds said:


> ....
> So everyone apparently wanted to ignoe the solar data, or atleast didnt acknowledge it explains our current climate.
> ....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> That you can't find a single hypothesis for
> 
> Where was it?
> 
> How did it get into the atmosphere?
> 
> Where did it go?
> 
> How did it get out of the atmosphere?
> 
> Questions you acknowledge as :
> 
> 
> That IS how science works. Ask questions, find answers.
> 
> So, 240 gigatons of carbon magically appear and disappear.
> 
> And that doesn't raise a question about the data?
> 
> If you have garbage outcomes, look at the inputs....


So you are still arguing we should ignore data because it doenst fit assumptions? You do this while also trying to tell ME "this is how science works"

Okay, heres a question for you, WHY SHOULD WE IGNORE MOST OF THE DIRECT CO2 MEASUREMENTS. callendar forgot to use prof. You claimed a person could search for 5 seconds and find the answer. Instead you gave us some great questions, that you already gave, that are 100% irrelevant in regards to what co2 levels were, or whether or not we should ignore most of the data as the current stance is today. 

and you do this while saying "this is how science works" AMAZING.... Am I to take it science is ignoring data that doesnt fit assumptions...





roberte said:


> Source?
> 
> Who published where?


You can plug them in yourself, or look it up as I said and you neglected to take from the quote. I actually did post it to you on the other forum last time we debated though. 


roberte said:


> This would be a really good time to point to this "solar data" that is being 'ignored'
> 
> Alternatively, please show us the physics that makes this chart inaccurate:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since the observed data shows CO2 and other LLGHG have a stronger influence by an order of magnitude times 2.


Ut oh. No I said the IGNORED SOLAR DATA. I didnt point to the included one you just did. Remember yesterday, when I asked what you thought of the link I had posted about an alternative explanation for our climate change? You said it looked like it represented "anything but co2". In ACTUAL reality, it represented an entire realm of ignored input of a solar influence...

You ask for it to be explained, it is explained on the link. 

There is a reason the IPCC could only get one solar expert (see judithgate) and had to argue against the entire field by ignoring much of the way the sun causes it influence. 

Earth Magnetic Field






roberte said:


> What exactly is "humanities (sic) role in messing with our planet"?
> 
> 
> And how are the "arent (sic) co2 related" ones more important than our profligate burning of fossil fuels?
> 
> With supporting data, of course.....


now you want citations for an entirely different topic?

hmm, you demanded citations for what I said about the solar influence. Then mocked me when I said it takes to much time. So I went out of my way and dug it up and posted anyway. You ignored it until after I pointed it out to you half a dozen times or so directly. Then dismiss it as "anything but co2" Then come back later and falsely claim the IPCC DID cover all aspects of the suns influence. which is completely false..

And you also listed a bunch of names claiming they disproved something I had said. You claimed I could prove this in five seconds. You refused to prove it yourself or even tell us why yo listed them or how they were relevant. Instead you claimed since I didnt know why you posted them I dont know much about the topic. And despite it taking five seconds as per your claim, you have yet to offer any proof as to why we should ignore most of our early direct co2 measurements. Instead, you try to change the topic completely or demand I prove why you posted the names of those folks...

And after both of those games, now Im supposed to give citations on an entirely different topic?? You have yet to answer eve a single datapoint I raised with actual data. Thus far youve posted on different topics in response to me then claimed I was confused, and various other stances that basically made the case we should ignore all data that doesnt point to co2, all while you try to say your on the side of science???

bizarre.

I wonder how many MORE times you will falsely claim the IPCC included all of the solar influence???? Its all clear at the linked, complete with citations.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Until we see a substantive and supported by science response:


hmm not sure why you keep missing it. Sorry but saying this link represents "anything but co2" isnt very scientific. the link does indeed explain and give citations for work showing a fuller picture of the suns role. Without any doubt the IPCC only focuses on a fraction of it. there is a reason why almost no astrophysicists believe AGW. (well the IPCC found one-see- judithgate) 
Earth Magnetic Field


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> So you are still arguing we should ignore data because it doenst fit assumptions? You do this while also trying to tell ME "this is how science works"


If you get results that vary significantly from the norm, you look at the inputs.

Works for baking a cake.

Works for problem solving.

Works for viewing data.

Works for answering basic science.

Beck didn't question his results, he ASSUMED his methodology was viable.

So he left others to ask the question about where the 240 gigtons of Carbon came from and went.

And, since it is inconvenient to those attempting to deny the science, that question isn't being asked.

No hypothesis.

No research.


----------



## roberte

As I said:

Until we see a *substantive* and *supported by science* response





silverseeds said:


> hmm not sure why you keep missing it. Sorry but saying this link represents "anything but co2" isnt very scientific. the link does indeed explain and give citations for work showing a fuller picture of the suns role. Without any doubt the IPCC only focuses on a fraction of it. there is a reason why almost no astrophysicists believe AGW. (well the IPCC found one-see- judithgate)
> Earth Magnetic Field


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I said the IGNORED SOLAR DATA.
> ....


Are you claiming the magnetism is the cause theory is your "ignored solar data"?

Or are you just unwilling to cite who has the "ignored solar data"?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> there is a reason why almost no astrophysicists believe AGW.
> ....


So, let's see this list of 'almost every astrophysicist' who put their faith in something other than our profligate burning of fossil fuels as the cause of our current climate changes.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If you get results that vary significantly from the norm, you look at the inputs.


of course! And if you stance differs from 10s of thousands of direct measurements you have to look at how the data was computed. If no PROOF was used to ignore most of the data, then the results simply cant be accurate, and what we call the norm, is simply not the norm. 


> Works for baking a cake.
> 
> Works for problem solving.
> 
> Works for viewing data.
> 
> Works for answering basic science.
> 
> Beck didn't question his results, he ASSUMED his methodology was viable.


OPPS, in actual reality, he assumed nothing. that was the point of his work. He charted ALL direct measurements instead of only those that fit his ASSUMPTIONS, in an attempt to end the assumptions and get someone to use actual proof as to why we should ignore most of the data. 

Its amazing to see, you literally are making the case we should ignore the data without proof because it doesnt fit what we believe is accurate. That simply is not how science works. Or wasnt pre AGW anyway. 



> So he left others to ask the question about where the 240 gigtons of Carbon came from and went.


yes of course. 


> And, since it is inconvenient to those attempting to deny the science, that question isn't being asked.


It is YOU and the AGW crowd trying to "deny the science" you ignore most of the solar influence, and in this case without proof dismiss most co2 data. Including the icecores that disagree with them, and the leaf stomata data, and almost all early direct measurements. 


> No hypothesis.
> 
> No research.


OPPS it was research, excet not of the manner you keep trying to frame around it. It simply charted the actual direct measurements, without having cherry picked it for the ones that fit his beliefs as callendar did. If you want to deny the science without offering any proof, well your have a lot of company, thats what the entire field of the mythology of co2 does. 



> As I said:
> 
> Until we see a substantive and supported by science response


HILARIOUS. So ignored data that explains our climate, and can be verified by direct measurements, with no need to ignore most of the data as with AGW and you say this isnt substantive. In actual reality it is. You are showing very clearly, truth doesnt matter at all for you in this. 

I noticed you also didnt respond to the post I made talking a bit about how co2 simply didnt track temps before the ocean currents shifted. the AGW folks want it both ways, co2 didnt drive temps most of earths history, but now it is tied to temps. Basic physics would tell us even fif the carbon cycle was different, even if the climate wasnt as sensitive if co2 is a major greenhouse gas at these levels it would be so no matter what the carbon cycle is doing. Instead they just claim it has added sensitivity now. Yet that still implies it would be in line with temp shifts which it was not most of earths history. Id love to get into all this deeper, but Id need to debate it with someone that understands the claims.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....Earth Magnetic Field


Should we assume your source has an encyclopedic knowledge of Climate Change AND how the Americas were populated, AND oil production, AND taxes, AND religion?


Guess why I ask for SUBSTANTIVE.....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Are you claiming the magnetism is the cause theory is your "ignored solar data"?
> 
> Or are you just unwilling to cite who has the "ignored solar data"?


Wait do I have to read all the studies at the link I gave to you now as well?? 

and I did of course cite it. As anyone who knows how to point and click, who cared to click said link knows... I guess your hoping if you pretend the link had nothing valid on it then maybe others reading this wont click it and see you are dead wrong?



> So, let's see this list of 'almost every astrophysicist' who put their faith in something other than our profligate burning of fossil fuels as the cause of our current climate changes.


When did I say there was a list? Its pretty obvious if youve studied the topic in depth though, that despite working intimately with climate, among experts in fields relating to climate there is a very high number in the skeptic side who are astrophysicists. This is likely why the IPCC had only one solar expert AKA judithgate. 

Why would astrophysicists believe co2 was the culprit when the suns activities explain it with more accuracy??


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Should we assume your source has an encyclopedic knowledge of Climate Change AND how the Americas were populated, AND oil production, AND taxes, AND religion?
> 
> 
> Guess why I ask for SUBSTANTIVE.....


what in the world?? the link had nothing to do with oil production and taxes and religion. (well besides shooting down a religion perhaps) It had to do with mostly ignored climatic influences. 

If you didnt think the link was substantive, you either have yet to read it, didnt understand it, or just arent being honest.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....OPPS, in actual reality, he assumed nothing. that was the point of his work. He charted ALL direct measurements
> ....


By Beck NOT QUESTIONING his results he ASSUMED his methodology was viable.


If your angel food cake doesn't rise, you don't ASSUME that is the result you should have gotten. Especially if your mom's cake always came to the top of the pan.


240 gigatons of CARBON. Have any idea how much CO2 that is?

Where did it come from? Where did it go?

Show us the physics and chem that account for that shift 120ppm up and down in one decade each.

Show us the physics and chem that account for it happening one time.


You are using Beck as a focal point of your claims.

Except for some weird bits about IPCC ignoring some data, you've brought nothing to the table.

But then, notice that there is nothing in the literature to bring.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> what in the world?? the link had nothing to do with oil production and taxes and religion.




Applied
Information
Systems
Home - AppInSys: Applied Information systems 

Topics
> Global Warming
> Oil Greases the Globe
> Taxes
> NASA Solar Cycles
> Peopling of the Americas
> Doors of Oaxaca
Interesting Things
> Mohammed portraits


----------



## roberte

So basically you claim that 'almost no astrophysicists' support the findings of 98% of the scientists with expertise in the field of climate science?

That our profligate burning of fossil fuels has caused the warming, the ocean ph shift, the species migration, the weather record setting that we have been observing.


And you don't have a list of those astrophysicists . That's convenient...

So, a magical 240 gigatons of Carbon.

So, some guy claiming it's magnets.

And a mythical 'almost no astrophysicists'







silverseeds said:


> Wait do I have to read all the studies at the link I gave to you now as well??
> 
> and I did of course cite it. As anyone who knows how to point and click, who cared to click said link knows... I guess your hoping if you pretend the link had nothing valid on it then maybe others reading this wont click it and see you are dead wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> When did I say there was a list? Its pretty obvious if youve studied the topic in depth though, that despite working intimately with climate, among experts in fields relating to climate there is a very high number in the skeptic side who are astrophysicists. This is likely why the IPCC had only one solar expert AKA judithgate.
> 
> Why would astrophysicists believe co2 was the culprit when the suns activities explain it with more accuracy??


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> By Beck NOT QUESTIONING his results he ASSUMED his methodology was viable.
> 
> 
> If your angel food cake doesn't rise, you don't ASSUME that is the result you should have gotten. Especially if your mom's cake always came to the top of the pan.


And if you are measuring the amounts of various ingredients in the cake to see what went wrong, you base your answers on the actual measurements, and not what you assume they will be.

when you posted your yet to be explained list of names, you claimed you could disprove this in 5 seconds. You could show us why most of the early direct co2 measurements were ignored. Instead a dozen posts later or so, here you are stil making the case we should ignore the data because it doesnt fit our beliefs. Its amazing to watch you. 


> 240 gigatons of CARBON. Have any idea how much CO2 that is?
> 
> Where did it come from? Where did it go?
> 
> Show us the physics and chem that account for that shift 120ppm up and down in one decade each.


You are talking about a fraction of a single percent of a shift in the balance between sinks and sources of co2. 


> Show us the physics and chem that account for it happening one time.


Truthfully it wouldnt matter if no one alive could explain it. We cant ignore the direct measurements because it doesnt fit our beliefs. Well I guess you can, its been happening for decades. But it isnt science. 



> You are using Beck as a focal point of your claims.


Huh? Not even remotely am I doing that! You have to be kidding!! I even pointed out right in the forum that this doesnt prove or disprove co2 driving climate. NEITHER co2 chart, as it "officially" stands, or how it was actually measured supports the ca co2 drives climate. All this does is make the case humans drove up co2 levels. 

Ive already told you if not here the other forum, that I poit to this solely because its a blatant mis representation of the data, without having used proof. There are several others, but on mre complex points, so its an easy one to point at. On the other forum as well you tried to claim my case rested on this, which isnt even remotely true. It need never have been mentioned. Our data still doesnt match their claims. Especially when you get into the deeper aspects like I attempted last night. 



> Except for some weird bits about IPCC ignoring some data, you've brought nothing to the table.
> 
> But then, notice that there is nothing in the literature to bring.


You dont seriously believe you made a point to you...

So I brought nothing to the table, except having showed ignored data co2 data (I could have went into other ignored co2 datasets as well), without proof as to why it was ignored. Ignored solar data that if included explains current changes in climate. also bizarre claims such as co2 didnt track temps most of earths history but physics apparently changed entirely (rather then just a shift in the carbon cycles) and now co2 is a climate driver. and several others...

I could have cited much more on all these points as well, but I did cite them. Interested folks had more then enough to go further. I could have brought up dozens of more holes in the claims as well of course, but we can never seem to get past the most basic of things, without you trying to make the case we should ignore it. I have trouble understanding how you think ignoring so much data is scientific. 

this really is amazing to watch!! So please explain this again. which data do I have to ignore exactly to have a "science" based opinion???


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Why would astrophysicists believe co2 was the culprit when the suns activities explain it with more accuracy??


Could you point us to at least one astrophysicist who has published on the Sun having a substantive level of forcing on our current climate?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> So basically you claim that 'almost no astrophysicists' support the findings of 98% of the scientists with expertise in the field of climate science?


OPPS, sorry. the field of climate science is MUCH bigger then the AGW mythology. Your 98% comes only from people who wrote 20plus papers on AGW. 



> That our profligate burning of fossil fuels has caused the warming, the ocean ph shift, the species migration, the weather record setting that we have been observing.
> 
> 
> And you don't have a list of those astrophysicists . That's convenient...


Hey the IPCC only had a list of one solar expert, it served them well enough.  

What records have we been breaking exactly??? we are still several degrees cooler then the last interglacial. 



> So, a magical 240 gigatons of Carbon.
> 
> So, some guy claiming it's magnets.
> 
> And a mythical 'almost no astrophysicists'


Who said it was magnets?? It wasnt "some guy" it was many experts in the field, and the data that show this. If you can find astrophysicists that believe AGW feel free to post them. If you study however you will find very clearly a large portion of those with expertise in what drives climate who dont believe AGW are astrophysicists. Its not "convenient" at all I dont have some list of them actually. Because it lets you pretend perhaps Im wrong. and since most here base their opinions on personal bias rather then the data many will assume its wrong. Oh well. So no its not convenient I dont have a lis, that sure would be a strange list though.

I could EASILY put together a list longer then solar experts who agree worked with the IPCC on their last report though. they only had one. Actually multiples more then the IPCCs one were on the link I already gave.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Could you point us to at least one astrophysicist who has published on the Sun having a substantive level of forcing on our current climate?


Huh... How many times should I post the same link exactly???


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Who said it was magnets?? It wasnt "some guy" it was many experts in the field, and the data that show this.
> ....


Actually is is "some guy" who has taken some bits and pieces of a very large field and then attempted to claim correlation.


So, if you can find us the name of an actual astrophysicist who has published their research showing the Sun has the major effect on the climate change we are experiencing this would be a really good time to do so.

Not rely on "some guy" who also writes screeds on oil, religion, taxes, magnetism, etc, etc, ...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> OPPS, sorry. the field of climate science is MUCH bigger then the AGW mythology. Your 98% comes only from people who wrote 20plus papers on AGW.
> ....


Published.

Papers.

Science journals.

Each paper listing many references to more papers.


And you can't bring forward a single astrophysicist to support your claim of 'almost no' and 'large proportion'.


----------



## silverseeds

Ahh I see, the science should be "denied" because a guy who has opinions on other topics cited them all on one easy to link page. Interesting stance. 

and I of course did already post research showing the sun is playing a major role in the climate we currently see. Nice dodge though! People who didnt read the link might even believe you made a point!!!


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .....Actually multiples more then the IPCCs one were on the link I already gave.



Some more areas "some guy" is someone we should accept their expertise in:

Global Warming Summary
The Summary [updated 2009/08/16]
The Simplified "Nutshell" [updated 2009/03/21]
GW Acceleration [updated 2012/01/09]
60-Year Climate Cycle [updated 2011/01/01]
Pre-Historical Record [updated 2010/02/15]
Temperature [updated 2010/07/19] 
> GW is Not Global [updated 2010/03/20] 
> Urban Heat Effect [updated 2010/08/29] 
> Seeking Warming [updated 2010/02/25] 
> Hansen's Revisions [updated 2010/04/11] 
> Hansen's Modeling [updated 2009/10/11] 
> Projections [updated 2012/01/09] 
> Diurnal Temp. Range [updated 2010/08/31]
Climatic Events [updated 2009/08/16] 
> Hurricanes [updated 2010/11/21] 
> Precipitation [updated 2011/04/30] 
> Glaciers [updated 2011/04/16] 
> Polar Ice Caps [updated 2009/06/21] 
> Sea Level [updated 2011/04/17] 
> Animals [updated 2010/07/03] 
> Human Death [updated 2010/11/24] 
> Gulf Stream [updated 2010/09/14]
The Greenhouse [updated 2010/06/09] 
> CO2 and the IPCC [updated 2010/04/03] 
> GHG Sources [updated 2010/04/03] 
> Water Vapor [updated 2010/05/07] 
> Clouds [updated 2010/12/09]
The Solar Evidence [updated 2010/05/03] 
> Magnetic Fields [updated 2010/05/28] 
> Climate Shifts [updated 2010/07/08] 
> The 1976-78 Climate Shift [updated 2009/12/24]
Oceanic Influences [updated 2010/01/03] 
> PDO [updated 2011/03/02] 
> AMO [updated 2010/01/03] 
> AO / NAO [updated 2011/03/02] 
> ENSO [updated 2010/01/06] 
> Tropical SST [updated 2009/05/06]
Alarmist Confusion [updated 2011/02/09]
Political / The "Consensus" [updated 2010/06/23]
History of the Scare [updated 2009/07/28]
U.S. Government [updated 2011/02/23] 
> White House Deception [updated 2010/06/14]
Global Governance [updated 2010/04/11] 
> United Nations [updated 2011/03/17] 
> Shadow UN (GHF) [updated 2009/06/04] 
> Socialism [updated 2010/04/21] 
> EcoReligion [updated 2010/10/08]
Climate Industrial Complex [updated 2011/05/19] 
> CO2 Monetization [updated 2010/05/09] 
> Double Standard [updated 2010/11/06]
Ozone [updated 2011/02/15]
Ocean Acidification [updated 2010/06/20]
Tunguska, Siberia [updated 2009/03/24]
Linear Trends [updated 2010/02/18]
The Experts [updated 2010/11/13]
Psychology [updated 2010/11/13]
Absurd Global Warming [updated 2010/02/16]
Vulnerability [updated 2010/11/19]
Deforestation [updated 2010/06/12]
Biomass Burning [updated 2009/08/13]
Agriculture [updated 2010/10/31]
Wind Energy [updated 2011/02/17]
Biofuels [updated 2011/03/18]
Reuters: False Alarms [updated 2011/03/01]
Nature: No Evidence [updated 2009/12/29]
Mensa Exposed [updated 2008/12/28]
Archaeology Mag Refuted [updated 2009/03/04]
HuffPo Apocalypse [updated 2010/05/17]
Regional Summaries
> Antarctica [updated 2009/04/18]
> Antarc. Peninsula [updated 2009/04/18]
> Wilkins Ice Shelf [updated 2009/04/18]
> The Arctic [updated 2009/10/11] 
> Sea Ice 2007 [updated 2010/05/28] 
> Arctic Cycles [updated 2011/05/21]
> Greenland [updated 2010/05/22]
> North America: 
> Western N. A. [updated 2009/02/02]
> Central N. A. [updated 2007/07/07] 
> Eastern N. A. [updated 2007/09/14] 
> USA: 
> United States [updated 2010/06/09] 
> Southern USA [updated 2008/05/18] 
> Northeast USA [updated 2010/12/31] 
> Alaska [updated 2009/01/31] 
> Washington [updated 2010/05/03] 
> California [updated 2010/09/22] 
> Utah [updated 2009/12/28] 
> Montana - west [updated 2010/04/12] 
> Colorado [updated 2008/10/24] 
> Colorado River [updated 2010/02/24] 
> South Dakota [updated 2010/11/04] 
> Minnesota [updated 2010/04/02] 
> Wisconsin [updated 2009/03/01] 
> Illinois [updated 2010/11/20] 
> Missouri [updated 2008/03/21] 
> Virginia [updated 2008/02/28] 
> South Carolina [updated 2010/02/20] 
> Georgia [updated 2008/10/28] 
> Florida [updated 2010/03/21] 
> Alabama [updated 2010/03/31] 
> Tennessee [updated 2008/12/02] 
> Texas [updated 2010/09/21] 
> New England [updated 2008/06/07] 
> New York City [updated 2008/06/07] 
> Hawaii [updated 2010/11/07]
> Costa Rica [updated 2010/03/03]
> South America [updated 2010/04/20]
> S. Am. 5x5 degree [updated 2007/08/28]
> Amazon Drought [updated 2010/03/14]
> Bolivia [updated 2010/12/12]
> United Kingdom [updated 2008/01/01]
> Northern Europe [updated 2010/02/16]
> Baltic Sea Area [updated 2008/06/25]
> Iceland [updated 2010/04/17]
> Australia [updated 2010/04/13]
> New Zealand [updated 2010/05/15]
> Oceania [updated 2010/06/03] 
> Kiribati [updated 2011/02/17]
> Africa [updated 2008/03/02] 
> African Sahel [updated 2010/06/13] 
> Southern Africa [updated 2007/12/30] 
> East Africa [updated 2008/03/02] 
> Kenya [updated 2007/11/26] 
> Rwanda [updated 2010/09/20] 
> Liberia [updated 2010/10/20] 
> Malawi [updated 2009/06/01] 
> Agriculture [updated 2010/09/01]
> Seychelles [updated 2010/12/08]
> Maldives [updated 2010/10/20]
> India [updated 2009/11/11]
> Bangladesh [updated 2010/11/03]
> Russia [updated 2011/03/09]
> Siberia [updated 2009/12/16]
> Mongolia [updated 2010/09/06]
> Myanmar [updated 2008/05/08]
> Lebanon [updated 2010/11/15]
Related Summaries
> NASA Solar Info [updated 2009/06/10]


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Published.
> 
> Papers.
> 
> Science journals.
> 
> Each paper listing many references to more papers.
> 
> 
> And you can't bring forward a single astrophysicist to support your claim of 'almost no' and 'large proportion'.


hmm. actually there was more then one at the link I gave. I literally already dwarfed the level of solar experts the IPCC collected for their last report. Oh well though, honesty isnt part of this conversation apparently.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Some more areas "some guy" is someone we should accept their expertise in:


This is telling me something interesting about your thinking patterns. it makes more sense now why AGW has so much cult of personality going on. 

In actual reality he simply linked the studies. you know the peer reviewed work you want to ignore. His opinions on it or other topics mean nothing. he simply linked many studies in one easy to link source. When I was looking for one study I wanted to post, I found that site that listed a good range of them, so I posted that instead of piecing the case together myself. 

You could go read the actual STUDIES at the link, now then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation. Or will we get more dodging and handwaving instead???


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Huh... How many times should I post the same link exactly???





silverseeds said:


> hmm. actually there was more then one at the link I gave. I literally already dwarfed the level of solar experts the IPCC collected for their last report. Oh well though, honesty isnt part of this conversation apparently.




First link from your magnetism expert is to a single data chart.

NOT proof that the unnamed person who compiled that data believes the sun has a larger effect on our climate than the CO2 we are injecting in the atmosphere.

Neither does the second link

Nor the third


Or the fourth

the fifth and sixth are dead links

the seventh doesn't mention climate

The eighth is a chart of the South pole movement. Nothing about climate.

Nothing about an astrophysicist claiming it is causing the observed changes in the climate.


I'll let you do the rest......


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> In actual reality he simply linked the studies.
> .....


Links to SELECTED studies, not "..the studies."


And in the link you proffered "some guy" is trying to make a correlation.

Far beyond a list of links.


Just as "some guy" links to taxes, oil, religion,....... SELECTED with an implication there is enough thinking behind the selection to justify their inclusion and the exclusion of other studies.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....and I of course did already post research showing the sun is playing a major role in the climate we currently see.
> .....


Point of clarification: Are you still talking about the AppInSys: Applied Information systems link?

Or something else?

If it is something else,, refresh our memory. We're on page 16 here....


----------



## roberte

Finally, "some guy" links to a press release (100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles) about a piece of research that looks at solar sunspot cycles and Earth's temp on 100,000 year cycles.

and then a paper saying sunspots "underestimate" the effect. Basically putting into question any and all graphs touting a sunspot / earth temp correlation. And nothing about magnetism...



Still waiting for:

A named astrophysicist who has published a paper showing a stronger solar effect on our current atmosphere than our injection of CO2.

Still waiting for a link in your apppinsys link showing causation of our climate change by solar activity..


----------



## silverseeds

You are seriously funny. I pointed to a whole series of things, you have yet to show any data for. Each time you demand some data, and I eventually offer it, it is then ignored. Yet you still speak from this position of authority and science while arguing against ignoring large segments of data. this is amazing to watch. You didnt think that link was all inclusive did you? "some guy" pieced it together, and it covered a good number of the ignored bases. So I posted it. Honest people who actually care will spend weeks following streams of thought that link will lead to. 

Its very hard to take you seriously. It actually shows how cult like the topic is, in that anyone takes you seriously, whether they agree with you or not. I really get off on only partially answering you, and letting you express how little of the overall topic you understand. convincing anyone doesnt register. If it did, Id have made a much different case. I watch the topic closely, and the debate is already changing at the edges in the circles that matter. Its only a matter of time unti the mythology falls apart. convincing people that believe on faith in line or against the topic doesnt impress me much as is the case with most. 

By the way, you can find much more official sources for the info in that link. I just posted that ne as i encountered it. It covered it pretty well. although a few aspects werent present now that i look a second time. The boom in research into this happened recently actually. One of the cern experiments even centered on testing an aspect of this explanation for solars influence. It will be interesting to see how the IPCC reacts next round.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> It will be interesting to see how the IPCC reacts next round.


the next report is coming out in about a year. The pub. cutoff date is close.

So maybe you should compile a list of that new research you claim will significantly change the findings of the past 4 Assessment Reports.

ALL the stuff, part of the stuff, whatever you can find that purports to change the findings showing how our burning of fossil fuels is causing the observable changes in our climate.


----------



## roberte

That explains a lot.....



silverseeds said:


> ....I really get off on only partially answering you
> 
> .....


----------



## roberte

Still waiting for:

A named astrophysicist who has published a paper showing a stronger solar effect on our current atmosphere than our injection of CO2.

Still waiting for a link in your apppinsys link showing causation of our climate change by solar activity..


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> whatever you can find that purports to change the findings showing how our burning of fossil fuels is causing the observable changes in our climate.


Our findings would have to actually indicate that co2 is a driver of climate first for us to NEED to show a "change" to our findings. Well if you include all the data and expect claims to match the data.., which apparently isnt important with the AGW version of science. 

Rather whats happening is we are discovering to a greater degree the actual factors controlling climate.


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> Claim: Todayâs climate is more sensitive than that of the past | Watts Up With That?
> 
> I find this interesting. The link isnt to the actual study, but you can look it up to veriy if you care. Further data suggesting, co2 indeed was NOT tied to co2 early on. It wasnt until ocean currents shifted as the continents took their present positions that they became correlated.
> 
> Why do I bring this up? Well their data (and all our data before them) showed co2 and temps werent correlated until relatively recently. they showed parts of how ocean currents seem to relate to shifts in the carbon cycle.
> 
> they did NOT however show how suddenly co2 became a climate driver, they only showed that the carbon cycle changed and co2 started moving in line (lagging behind) temp changes. (through a proven outgassing effect)
> 
> It also shows us that water vapor by itself can have a strong enough greenhouse effect without including co2 to account for a much greater greenhouse effect then we have today. (without runawat feedback loops no less)
> 
> they also did not show, why co2 did not function as a greenhouse gas even at MUCH higher levels at rates consistent with the claims of co2s effects. Just because the carbon cycles shifted, doesnt in any way at all tell us why co2 in the atmosphere would work differently. this is completely counter to basic physics of course.
> 
> Truth is co2 likely WAS (if it ever did it had then at an equal level it does today, if co2 in physical reality is indeed a greenhouse gas-which it clearly is) acting as a greenhouse gas at the time, as it is today, thing is though, even then at concentrations much higher then today co2 makes up a small portion of our greenhouse gases.
> 
> This paper however attempts to make the case, the climate is simply more sensitive today. sounds good on the surface perhaps? Not really. Because it made no attempt to prove a greater sensitivity. they simply showed that a change in ocean currents lead to a change in the carbon cycle that lead to co2 tracking in line with temps. Our data doesnt indicate co2 simply had less of an effect in a less sensitive atmosphere as they imply. Not at all, co2 simply wasnt tied to temps at the beginning, until the ocean currents shifted which appears linked to a shift in the carbon cycle.
> 
> If we were talking about a less sensitive forcing level for co2, it would still have to be tied to temps however loosely. It was not however. this by itself rips a massive hole in the claims about co2. If you understand it. You cant have it both ways.
> 
> All this said, this is NOT to dismiss humanities role in messing with our planet!!! We are on a horrible track, that will indeed lead to pretty dire issues if not corrected. They simply arent co2 related. tat doesnt even include issues like our oil wells in the ocean, that a major earthquake or tsunami could potentially knock out and cause issues I dont even want to think about. Or if we get one of the 1000 year floods on the ohio river that would easily swamp the dams, and leave several nuclear sites underwater. And many similar related issues.
> 
> there is no doubt the AGW crowd is right on one thing, we NEED to get a long term view. We do indeed have major impacts, especially over longer time periods on large aspects of the earths systems. the oceans and desertification, are both major issues wed be wildly naive to ignore. which is odd, BOTH of these we will likely face in a major way before AGW even if the claims fit the data. Yet environmentalists are almost silent on those. I also fear the backlash after the AGW mythology falls apart for the rest of the enviro issues.


Curious if anyone has a response to this? just so no one tries to claim otherwise, i didnt cite this as the sole source showing co2 was divorced from temps when you go back far enough. that much is obvious if you look at our earliest co2 records, if our records are valid its very clear. 

While the author of this paper clearly believes in AGW, his findings further support that co2 was once not tied to temps, until ocean currents changed how the carbon cycle functioned. 

which only could be true if temps drove co2 levels (which is proven to be true, even agw brethen acknowledge it, its one of the feedback loops that they claim could make warming un stoppable) Even if climate sensitivity changed, it would have still been tied to temps if it was a climate driver of th nature claimed. 

Like I said much more data supporting that stance is out there.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh Man where is there a Picture of Eating Popcorn. LOL

This is so funny it is now turning into a Soap Opera.


----------



## CesumPec

arabian knight said:


> Oh Man where is there a Picture of Eating Popcorn. LOL
> 
> This is so funny it is now turning into a Soap Opera.


DOn't be silly. Soap operas are boring, useless, and not relevant to my life.

Oh wait a second...Hey! You're right!


----------



## Trixie

Narshalla said:


> Cool.
> 
> So what are you doing to actively reduce the population?
> 
> Well, okay, sorry, I know that would be murder.
> 
> What rules/regulations/laws/policies are you proposing that would lead to people have fewer children?
> 
> Which current laws do you believe should be changed so that the population has fewer children?


They began the mantra in the 70's there were too many people in this country - world wide. This country, being so prosperous was just being totally selfish if we didn't limit ourselves to 2.1 children.

Many people took that to heart. 

Now guess what one of the main arguments for allowing the illegals to come, stay and produce so many children? 'Americans have stopped having children and we need more people.'

While I do think we shouldn't have more children than we can provide for, it sickens me when we have our own responsibility used against us.

That, and other things, I have seen over the years, is the reason I am a total cynic about any of these propaganda campaigns.


----------



## Trixie

boiledfrog said:


> Ya but the optimist caused the present economic mess.



Oh, no, it was pure unadulterated greed.

Global warming was something invented to get us to, once again, choose up sides and refuse to even consider the situation of the world and our own country. Think about it, mention burning coal being nasty and destructive and immediately someone will mention - or think - global warming and you could take them and show them the pollution, the contaminated lakes, etc., and they would not believe it.

Just try to talk to someone who professes to believe in global warming and tell them we really have no choice right now, but what we should do is demand our government, rather than subsidizing oil companies and coal companies - who are doing quite well - they truly encourage developing alternatives. They pros want all or nothing. The antis want nothing.

That gives the polluters free reign to continue with what they are doing and for our government to continue to take the payoffs to allow them to do it - and give them 'subsidies' as well.

It isn't something as ethereal as global warming, it is just plain fouling our own nest.

It's a bit like trying to convince those who profess to be either a Rep or Dem that all Americans have shared goals, interests and hopes for this country, and for their children's future, and maybe we should get together and discuss our common goals. No one is going to talk to anyone of 'the other party'. That gives the political parties free reign to put in whatever miscreant they want and continue destroying this country.


----------



## greg273

silverseeds said:


> While the author of this paper clearly believes in AGW, his findings further support that co2 was once not tied to temps, until ocean currents changed how the carbon cycle functioned.
> \


 No where does that paper claim that. On the contrary, it claims a direct relationship between temps and CO2.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> First link from your magnetism expert is to a* single data chart*.


Will it be more credible if he posts it 47 times?


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> No where does that paper claim that. On the contrary, it claims a direct relationship between temps and CO2.


Im not even sure what to say. 

You might want to reread it. It is there in black and white.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Im not even sure what to say.
> 
> You might want to reread it. It is there in black and white.


The description of the paper is a rewording of Watts' take on the paper and doesn't much come from the abstract but more from a couple of quotes from the press release.


Now, if silverseeds were to post from the body of the paper a quote that supports Watts......


----------



## roberte

Posts: 362
Still waiting for:

A named astrophysicist who has published a paper showing a stronger solar effect on our current atmosphere than our injection of CO2.

Still waiting for a link in your apppinsys link showing causation of our climate change by solar activity..


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> The description of the paper is a rewording of Watts' take on the paper and doesn't much come from the abstract but more from a couple of quotes from the press release.
> 
> 
> Now, if silverseeds were to post from the body of the paper a quote that supports Watts......


Either is what you just claimed OR, the authors themselves are quoted saying what I said they did.... Lets look. Yep I was correct. Do you guys even read these things???


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Posts: 362
> Still waiting for:
> 
> A named astrophysicist who has published a paper showing a stronger solar effect on our current atmosphere than our injection of CO2.
> 
> Still waiting for a link in your apppinsys link showing causation of our climate change by solar activity..


You take all this to the comical level. how many points was it you have yet to back thus far?? Youve either ignored or posted on other topics for every single point I brought up. youve failed to address any of them with actual data. Yet you say things like this from a place of authority. Its amazing to watch. 

Its not my fault you didnt understand the link by the way. Perhaps you needed more backround to understand it then I thought. I always forget im talking to people who dont actually study this stuff, and got their version of data from biased sources.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds made a conscious choice to claim :



silverseeds said:


> .... there is a reason why almost no astrophysicists believe AGW.
> 
> ...


Yet silverseeds is unwilling to bring forward a single source that lists all those who have said something like that.

Yet silverseeds is unwilling to bring forward a single astrophysicist who has said something like that.

Yet, we have silverseeds saying:



silverseeds said:


> Youve either ignored or posted on other topics for every single point I brought up. youve failed to address any of them with actual data.


----------



## roberte

This thread supposedly started in order to find solutions to the effects we are observing in our oceans and atmosphere and climate from our profligate burning of fossil fuels.

We have a century plus of research pointing to our profligate burning of fossil fuels as the primary driver.

In the first pages I listed a range of solutions.

But this thread has yet again devolved into a series of unsupported claims that what we, the whole world, is observing is caused by 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2.

A majority of the world agrees with the findings of the IPCC reports:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.&#8221; Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers



So, here is what I've posted as solutions:



roberte said:


> Start here:
> 
> Story of Stuff Â« The Story of Stuff Project
> 
> And try these on for size:
> 
> Crises of Capitalism
> 
> The Fight of Our Time
> 
> 
> James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change





roberte said:


> Start with stabilization wedges (previously posted....) to move from fossil fuel based energy production.
> 
> Strengthen mileage requirements.
> 
> Develop biodiesel production.
> 
> Decrease dependency on chemical fertilizer ( build soil with higher carbon levels, reduce chem runoff, recycle ind. ag byproduct )
> 
> Home solar. Design in new construction, retrofit incentives
> 
> Home / office / industrial environmental efficiency increases (construction,heating, cooling, recycling at EOL)
> 
> Public transportation development
> 
> Alternative personal transport enhancement.
> 
> Localization for food, consumer products.
> 
> Legislation removing impediments to home-based land use (ie garden, small livestock, graywater, composting, etc. in urban /suburban settings)
> 
> Fossil fuel / carbon tax to offset the externalized costs of its production and use.
> 
> Be more Gavin
> 
> 
> Of course, all that was in the links I put up in the at least three 'solutions' postings...... Starting on the first page.





Maybe posters can honor the request of the OP and stick to the subject. Myself, I apologize for following those who couldn't.

And, if someone wants to argue the well established and well documented science, they can post a new thread with their best rationale why we should ignore that well established and well documented science.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> silverseeds made a conscious choice to claim :
> 
> 
> Yet silverseeds is unwilling to bring forward a single source that lists all those who have said something like that.
> 
> Yet silverseeds is unwilling to bring forward a single astrophysicist who has said something like that.
> 
> Yet, we have silverseeds saying:


Yes silverseeds did say that. It is indeed true. there is a reason the IPCC had only one solar expert the last time round. (see judithgate) 

In fact I heard about "judithgate" last time I discussed aspects of the suns influence with you, and I told you then as well astrophysicists arent buying it. You posted the IPCC. I went through all the contributing authors from the IPCC to their solar section to see if there were any who are in astrophysics. towards the bottom of the list I found judith, and the "judithgate" story. the IPCC argues against most of the field actually. this is all evident if you study the field, and read what the IPCC says, and the sparse works they claim to back it with. 

how about piers corbyn if you want just one. His name is easy to remember.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And, if someone wants to argue the well established and well documented science, they can post a new thread with their best rationale why we should ignore that well established and well documented science.


We shouldnt ignore ANY science. Problem is to be science it must include all known factors, and the claims must fit the data. In this case it simply does not. 

I dont have the time to post enough of the data, and break down how the AGW side cherry picked it. I just tried to post enough that interested parties would study themselves. Or not. the mythology will fall apart in time either way. 

As far as what to do aboutclimate change? how about this...

Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance



> Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.


I paid to read this when it first came out. Its a call for global government, that controls basically all resources and all energy among other things. 

Of course it isnt the first call for global government over this issue.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> how about piers corbyn if you want just one. His name is easy to remember.



You said 'almost no *ASTROPHYSICISTS*'

Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piers Corbyn - RationalWiki

So we are still waiting for your list of all the astrophysicists who claim not to agree with the IPCC findings.

So we are still waiting for your single astrophysicist who claims not to agree with the IPCC findings.

And we are still waiting for your explanation of the 240 gigatons of Carbon that -until we see some empirical evidence - seems to have magically appeared in the span of a decade in our atmosphere and just as magically disappeared in the same span. 

Do you think it fair to give you the rest of the day to come up with those pieces of evidence? Easy enough to search here or there or the global google for what you've claimed to post already. Not like you have to do any original research.

Or do you need longer? Say, next Monday......

No claims of 'I did already' . No claims of 'do it yourself'. No claims of 'the data is out there'. No claims of 'you just need to read'. No ........

Just bring your best evidence.

Heck, start a new thread 'Why I believe a blogging exweatherman rather than the published scientific literature'

Or, 'how a high school chemistry teacher has disproved all the research on CO2 for the past century'

Or, 'the sun, the sun'

Or.......



"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I paid to read this when it first came out. Its a call for global government, that controls basically all resources and all energy among other things.
> 
> Of course it isnt the first call for global government over this issue.


Actually, it argues almost the opposite:

"Some of the more radical proposalsâsuch as an international agency that centralizes and integrates existing intergovernmental organizations and regimesâ are unlikely to be implemented and would yield uncertain gains."

Science Magazine: Sign In

Free, btw. And Science is a journal that quite often is available in paper at your public library.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You said 'almost no *ASTROPHYSICISTS*
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are still waiting for your list of all the astrophysicists who claim not to agree with the IPCC findings.
> 
> So we are still waiting for your single astrophysicist who claims not to agree with the IPCC findings.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you did just get one. the second sentence was a joke right? Ok so far the IPCC is at one, and Im at one with corbyn. So its a tie. :hysterical:
> 
> 
> 
> 'And we are still waiting for your explanation of the 240 gigatons of Carbon that -until we see some empirical evidence - seems to have magically appeared in the span of a decade in our atmosphere and just as magically disappeared in the same span.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmm Im still waiting for your explanation as to why we should ignore almost all early co2 measurements. which is the 240 gigatons your talking about here. What amounts to a fractions of a percent between carbon sinks and sources within a year. You claimed this could be proven in 5 seconds.
> 
> You even listed many names you implied were connected and mocked me for not knowing how they were connected. Yet no one has tried to use actual proof as to why we shold ignore said data. If you believe otherwise spend the five seconds and show us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it fair to give you the rest of the day to come up with those pieces of evidence? Easy enough to search here or there or the global google for what you've claimed to post already. Not like you have to do any original research.
> 
> Or do you need longer? Say, next Monday......
> 
> No claims of 'I did already' . No claims of 'do it yourself'. No claims of 'the data is out there'. No claims of 'you just need to read'. No ........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> holy cow you sit on a high horse! you ignored ALL things I asked you to cite. You offered no data contradicting a single thing I posted actually. And you post this? oh man. :hysterical:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just bring your best evidence.
> 
> Heck, start a new thread 'Why I believe a blogging exweatherman rather than the published scientific literature'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Or why I dont believe theories that are counter to the data and must cherry pick every dataset involved"
> 
> My last link I posted, two of you responded to, and apparently couldnt even read what was there in black and white. the conversation ended. am I supposed to spend more time backing the same stance that by itself leaves a gapping hole in agw mythology??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
> 
> Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
> John P. Holdren
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you dont have to offer an alternative theory when disproving another. That is a silly claim. Shows his lack of how science works. Of course AGW "science" works like no other field. You can pick and choose which data to include.
> 
> we also already have a solid idea how co2 interacts with the atmosphere. The ocean is the major sink, a cold ocean holds more and a warm one less.
> Of course its only recently in geological time co2 followed temps at all, which further points to it not actually being a driver of climate. Unless of course co2 is magic, which it appears to be.
Click to expand...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Im at one with corbyn.


Ummmm,

I gave two resources that show no degree in astrophysics, no publication history in astrophysics.

But then, if he meets your standards......

And you did say 'almost no' and STILL have not come up with a list of who you claim don't support the IPCC findings.


AND

You STILL haven't come up with any support for Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon.

Heck, for that matter you haven't come up with any real substanive research that attempts to prove the IPCC findings were incorrect. 

Refresh our memory:
A paper on decoupling
Some guy claiming it is the movement of the magnetic poles
A high school teacher who claims we shouldn't consider the most accurate CO2 data as any better than a pile of data scraped up and given equal weight. 
Lots of claims that work was done and we should go look for it.

Any other 'Anything but Anthropogenic CO2' claims you care to make?

Or can we get back to the topic of this thread?

Or do you want to pursue your claims a paper wants world governance?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Actually, it argues almost the opposite:
> 
> "Some of the more radical proposals&#8212;such as an international agency that centralizes and integrates existing intergovernmental organizations and regimes&#8212; are unlikely to be implemented and would yield uncertain gains."
> 
> Science Magazine: Sign In
> 
> Free, btw. And Science is a journal that quite often is available in paper at your public library.


Your link still wants me to pay. 

that was a great cherry pick by the way!!!


here I will cherry pick 


> The world saw a major transformative shift in governance after 1945 that led to the establishment of the UN and numerous other international organizations, along with far-reaching new international legal norms on human rights and economic cooperation. We need similar changes today, a &#8220;constitutional moment&#8221; in world politics and global governance.
> 
> Such a reform of the intergovernmental system&#8212;which is at the center of the 2012 Rio Conference&#8212;will not be the only level of societal change nor the only type of action that is needed toward sustainability. Changes in the behavior of citizens, new engagement of civil society organizations, and reorientation of the private sector toward a green economy, are all crucial to achieve progress. Yet, in order for local and national action to be effective, the global institutional framework must be supportive and well designed. We propose a first set of much-needed reforms for effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.


They also wanted to be able to vote on issues instead of consensus rule. this way countries can be forced into compliance from the international level. How is this not global gov?? they actually wish we DID have a full global gov, but as you pointed out, it wouldnt be accepted just yet.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Your link still wants me to pay.


Follow link from
Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance | Earth System Governance

open access to full text

And from your quote "*intergovernmental* system", your 'world government'.....


"An intergovernmental organization, sometimes rendered as an international governmental organization and both abbreviated as IGO, is an organization *composed primarily of sovereign states *(referred to as member states), or of other intergovernmental organizations"

Intergovernmental organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And yet another attempt to ramify the discussion.....

Still waiting for YOUR SOLUTIONS

Still waiting, if you persist, in a list of those astrophysicists...

Still waiting, if you persist, in an explanation of Beck's magical 240 gigatons....


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....My last link I posted, two of you responded to, and apparently couldnt even read what was there in black and white.
> ....


This one?:

silverseeds 
Terra-former

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverseeds 
Claim: Todayâs climate is more sensitive than that of the past | Watts Up With That?


I'm waiting for your quoted material from the article that supports your claim. 

A claim that is basically a rewording of Watts' blog posting based on an abstract and a press release.

Sounds an awful lot like someone needs to go read the article rather than some opinion......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I'm waiting for your quoted material from the article that supports your claim.
> 
> A claim that is basically a rewording of Watts' blog posting based on an abstract and a press release.
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like someone needs to go read the article rather than some opinion......


I couldnt agree more that some of us need to go reread it. Everything I said was from the papers authors own words, which were a large part of what your calling "watts blog posting". Id think the opinion of the papers author was fairly reliable accounting of the paper. 

If you PM me your phone number, I will call you and read it to you I guess. Not sure what else I can do. Posting it to the forum wouldnt change the words it contained. If you dont understand it reading it from one area, I fail to see how i should expect you to understand it if I post it into the forum.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....Everything I said was from the papers authors own words, which were a large part of what your calling "watts blog posting". Id think the opinion of the papers author was fairly reliable accounting of the paper.
> ....



Until there is a quote from the paper,

"The Pacific Ocean in the late Miocene was very warm, and the thermocline, the boundary that separates warmer surface waters from cooler underlying waters, was much deeper than in the present.

The scientists suggest that this deep thermocline resulted in a distribution of atmospheric water vapor and clouds that could have maintained the warm global climate.

"The results explain the seeming paradox of the warm--but low greenhouse gas--world of the Miocene," says Candace Major, program director in NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences.

Several major differences in the world's waterways could have contributed to the deep thermocline and the warm temperatures of the late Miocene.

For example, the Central American Seaway remained open, the Indonesian Seaway was much wider than it is now, and the Bering Strait was closed."
nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years - US National Science Foundation (NSF)


Now, how does that make the author(s) an AGW supporter?

The rest of your and Watts' claims are basically taking a bit here and piece there and adding up to a new sum that the author(s) don't claim.


And we are STILL waiting for that list of skeptic/denier astrophysicists.

And we are STILL waiting for your (or anyone's) explanation of Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon appearing in and disappearing from our atmosphere.

And, in the spirit of this thread, your solutions....


----------



## CesumPec

silverseeds said:


> We shouldnt ignore ANY science. Problem is to be science it must include all known factors, and the claims must fit the data. In this case it simply does not.


?!? SCIENCE ?!? Who said anything about science? AGW has nothing to do with science. Science involves hypothesis, tests, publication of all data and methods of testing, independent verification, retests by third parties, etc. AGW is just at step one, a hypothesis that man has caused global warming. Then uses post hoc reasoning that since man is creating some CO2 and climate is changing, that the former must cause the latter.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Now, how does that make the author(s) an AGW supporter?
> 
> The rest of your and Watts' claims are basically taking a bit here and piece there and adding up to a new sum that the author(s) don't claim.


What in the world are you even talking about? For one I pointed out the author was an AGW supporter. I also pointed out how my interpretation of their data differed from their own. Nothing i said about their paper was inaccurate however, it was literally the authors own words I based what said on. The authors claims do not fit their own data. 

And you say this?


> Until there is a quote from the paper,


So it it isnt real until I post it to the forum? Is that what your implying? It was there the entire time. 

this is bizarre, I have to post this, for you to reread in the authors own words which in no way was counter to what I said. I dont even know what to think. If this doesnt work, I really will be left with just reading it to you. 



> Geologic record shows evolution in Earth&#8217;s climate system
> 
> The phytoplankton Emiliania huxleyi offers clues about climate past, present and future.
> 
> 
> Until now, studies of Earth&#8217;s climate have documented a strong correlation between global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide; that is, during warm periods, high concentrations of CO2 persist, while colder times correspond to relatively low levels.
> 
> However, in this week&#8217;s issue of the journal Nature, paleoclimate researchers reveal that about 12-5 million years ago climate was decoupled from atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. New evidence of this comes from deep-sea sediment cores dated to the late Miocene period of Earth&#8217;s history.
> 
> During that time, temperatures across a broad swath of the North Pacific were 9-14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations remained low&#8211;near values prior to the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> The research shows that, in the last five million years, changes in ocean circulation allowed Earth&#8217;s climate to become more closely coupled to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
> 
> The findings also demonstrate that the climate of modern times more readily responds to changing carbon dioxide levels than it has during the past 12 million years.
> 
> &#8220;This work represents an important advance in understanding how Earth&#8217;s past climate may be used to predict future climate trends,&#8221; says Jamie Allan, program director in the National Science Foundation&#8217;s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research.
> 
> The research team, led by Jonathan LaRiviere and Christina Ravelo of the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC), generated the first continuous reconstructions of open-ocean Pacific temperatures during the late Miocene epoch.
> 
> It was a time of nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere and warmer-than-modern conditions across the continents.
> 
> The research relies on evidence of ancient climate preserved in microscopic plankton skeletons&#8211;called microfossils&#8211;that long-ago sank to the sea-floor and ultimately were buried beneath it in sediments.
> 
> Samples of those sediments were recently brought to the surface in cores drilled into the ocean bottom. The cores were retrieved by marine scientists working aboard the drillship JOIDES Resolution.
> 
> The microfossils, the scientists discovered, contain clues to a time when the Earth&#8217;s climate system functioned much differently than it does today.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s a surprising finding, given our understanding that climate and carbon dioxide are strongly coupled to each other,&#8221; LaRiviere says.
> 
> &#8220;In the late Miocene, there must have been some other way for the world to be warm. One possibility is that large-scale patterns in ocean circulation, determined by the very different shape of the ocean basins at the time, allowed warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide.&#8221;
> 
> The Pacific Ocean in the late Miocene was very warm, and the thermocline, the boundary that separates warmer surface waters from cooler underlying waters, was much deeper than in the present.
> 
> The scientists suggest that this deep thermocline resulted in a distribution of atmospheric water vapor and clouds that could have maintained the warm global climate.
> 
> &#8220;The results explain the seeming paradox of the warm&#8211;but low greenhouse gas&#8211;world of the Miocene,&#8221; says Candace Major, program director in NSF&#8217;s Division of Ocean Sciences.
> 
> Several major differences in the world&#8217;s waterways could have contributed to the deep thermocline and the warm temperatures of the late Miocene.
> 
> For example, the Central American Seaway remained open, the Indonesian Seaway was much wider than it is now, and the Bering Strait was closed.
> 
> These differences in the boundaries of the world&#8217;s largest ocean, the Pacific, would have resulted in very different circulation patterns than those observed today.
> 
> By the onset of the Pliocene epoch, about five million years ago, the waterways and continents of the world had shifted into roughly the positions they occupy now.
> 
> That also coincides with a drop in average global temperatures, a shoaling of the thermocline, and the appearance of large ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere&#8211;in short, the climate humans have known throughout recorded history.
> 
> &#8220;This study highlights the importance of ocean circulation in determining climate conditions,&#8221; says Ravelo. &#8220;It tells us that the Earth&#8217;s climate system has evolved, and that climate sensitivity is possibly at an all-time high.&#8221;
> 
> Other co-authors of the paper are Allison Crimmins of UCSC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Petra Dekens of UCSC and San Francisco State University; Heather Ford of UCSC; Mitch Lyle of Texas A&M University; and Michael Wara of UCSC and Stanford University.





> And we are STILL waiting for that list of skeptic/denier astrophysicists.
> 
> And we are STILL waiting for your (or anyone's) explanation of Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon appearing in and disappearing from our atmosphere.
> 
> And, in the spirit of this thread, your solutions....


:hysterical: I stopped waiting for everything you refused to cite. Do you think your making a point by listing this? You surely dont believe this implies I cant play your game right? there is indeed a reason the IPCC only had one solar expert on their side. 

Lets take a look at "judithgate" and the single solar expert of the IPCCs. Who had to fudge the data just a bit.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: 'Judithgate' Update

here are some excerpts.



> Included are the original quotes and a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites):
> 
> FrÃ¶hlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments... He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model.





> And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) - who agrees with Willson. Klimaskeptic.cz:"The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge."





> From astrophysicist Douglas Hoyt's letter regarding the paper by Lean and Frolich: "Thus, Frohlich&#8217;s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer."


There is a lot more on the topic out there. Its amazing its ignored by so many who claim to care about science. II taalked to roberte about this before and he dismissed it. Of course he failed to show me the other solar experts involved with the IPCC or explain why she had to alter data to make her claims. the common joke about it is "the consensus of one" Where she agreed with her own work based on altered data.


----------



## arabian knight

13 pages of nothing back gobbled kook and misrepresentation from 40 pics of the same chart and nothing is going to come of it. 
Pass The Popcorn. it is twilight zone time.


----------



## roberte

Oh, the issue "went viral" two years ago, and you can't bring a piece of research that shows a substantive change of the IPCC findings published in 2007?

Saying something is fishy about your claims is just insulting to fish......


We STILL haven't seen a list of astrophysicists who disagree with the findings of the 2007 IPCC report. You know, the 'almost no astrophysicists' claim you made......

We still haven't seen an explanation for Beck's magic 240 gigatons of Carbon appearing and disappearing.

Then there is that issue of claiming a 'world government'......

And then you wonder why we ask for proof that the paper on decoupling was written by 'AGW supporters'......






silverseeds said:


> What in the world are you even talking about? For one I pointed out the author was an AGW supporter. I also pointed out how my interpretation of their data differed from their own. Nothing i said about their paper was inaccurate however, it was literally the authors own words I based what said on. The authors claims do not fit their own data.
> 
> And you say this?
> 
> 
> So it it isnt real until I post it to the forum? Is that what your implying? It was there the entire time.
> 
> this is bizarre, I have to post this, for you to reread in the authors own words which in no way was counter to what I said. I dont even know what to think. If this doesnt work, I really will be left with just reading it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :hysterical: I stopped waiting for everything you refused to cite. Do you think your making a point by listing this? You surely dont believe this implies I cant play your game right? there is indeed a reason the IPCC only had one solar expert on their side.
> 
> Lets take a look at "judithgate" and the single solar expert of the IPCCs. Who had to fudge the data just a bit.
> 
> THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: 'Judithgate' Update
> 
> here are some excerpts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot more on the topic out there. Its amazing its ignored by so many who claim to care about science. II taalked to roberte about this before and he dismissed it. Of course he failed to show me the other solar experts involved with the IPCC or explain why she had to alter data to make her claims. the common joke about it is "the consensus of one" Where she agreed with her own work based on altered data.


----------



## Pops2

are you two still going at it?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Oh, the issue "went viral" two years ago, and you can't bring a piece of research that shows a substantive change of the IPCC findings published in 2007?
> 
> Saying something is fishy about your claims is just insulting to fish......


Oh finally you posted info about the second solar expert the IPCC used!!! Oh wait, nevermind. Still just the one. :hysterical:

your confused, it was the IPCC that was contrary to the data about the solar influence. But yes actually, lots of data has come out since then further confirming previous work. 



> We STILL haven't seen a list of astrophysicists who disagree with the findings of the 2007 IPCC report. You know, the 'almost no astrophysicists' claim you made......


Can you name more then the single on who had to alter data to make their case that believe with the IPCC?? Or perhaps an explanation as to why she altered data? 




> We still haven't seen an explanation for Beck's magic 240 gigatons of Carbon appearing and disappearing.


OPPS it wasnt "becks" co2 to explain. He simply charted the actual direct measurements. You claimed 5 seconds could prove the bulk of the data should be ignored, do you ever intend to prove this??? What do you hate about direct measurements or using actual proof in regards to which data to include? 


> Then there is that issue of claiming a 'world government'......


Yep, all right there in black and white. 



> And then you wonder why we ask for proof that the paper on decoupling was written by 'AGW supporters'......


That was only you actually, so far. The only other person to resond claimed his work backs AGW (as if I hadnt already pointed it out). By the way, I think its obvious the studies authors support AGW since I posted a link to some of the authors own words mentioning its validity, the paper was literally to explain what shifted to change climate that made co2 a driver. The first im aware of that tried to explain why co2 didnt use to be coupled to temps but currently is.


----------



## silverseeds

Pops2 said:


> are you two still going at it?


hehe. Ive done this before with roberte. Im pretty sure he tries to "win" an argument by confusion first and boredom second.


----------



## Pops2

silverseeds said:


> hehe. Ive done this before with roberte. Im pretty sure he tries to "win" an argument by confusion first and boredom second.


that's because it's like a religious conviction for him. i've said it before, a glacier could flatten his house & he will still be yammering about AGW.
it's like trying to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time & annoys the pig.


----------



## roberte

Well, since you can't bring a scientific explanation that fits to Beck's magical 240 gigatons of carbon being injected and then sucked out of the atmosphere....

Well, since you can't bring a list of all those astrophysicists - the list that you characterize as 'nearly all' - who disagree with the IPCC findings....

Well, since you can't support your claim that the author(s) of the decoupling paper are AGW supporters.....

We have to ask:





silverseeds said:


> ....it was the IPCC that was contrary to the data about the solar influence.


How do you 'know' this?




silverseeds said:


> But yes actually, lots of data has come out since then further confirming previous work.


You have a link to any of it? Seems if it were such a critical issue, someone would have compiled a list......

Of course then, someone would have done your homework on the list of astrophysicists.......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Well, since you can't bring a scientific explanation that fits to Beck's magical 240 gigatons of carbon being injected and then sucked out of the atmosphere....


And you cant explain why we should ignore most early direct measurements, despite having claimed it could be proven in five seconds. 


> Well, since you can't bring a list of all those astrophysicists - the list that you characterize as 'nearly all' - who disagree with the IPCC findings....


You seriously seem to think you have a point here. In reality its called laziness. Im responding to you between dealing with my animals and kids. You could of course show us that the IPCC used more then one solar expert. Well wait, no you cant because they didnt. 


> Well, since you can't support your claim that the author(s) of the decoupling paper are AGW supporters.....
> 
> We have to ask:


I cant support it except they said exactly that in their own words in the text I linked. So yeah besides direct quotes, your right. :hysterical: 





> How do you 'know' this?


For one



> Included are the original quotes and a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites):
> 
> FrÃ¶hlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments... He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model.


for two



> And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) - who agrees with Willson. Klimaskeptic.cz:"The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge."


For three I studied the topic for years. Plus astrophysics and AGW into a search, you will see many avid skeptics. 


> You have a link to any of it? Seems if it were such a critical issue, someone would have compiled a list......


Heres a list of the IPCC solar experts

judith lean 

:hysterical:



> Of course then, someone would have done your homework on the list of astrophysicists.......


Im sure theres a list somewhere. I didnt look for it. Ive read the work of many avid AGW skeptics though, a large portion are astrophysicists. I always knew that, it wasnt until discussing this with you, and I was wondering why the IPCC disagreed with the field, that I started looking through the list of names in their solar section, and when I got towards the bottom of the list found the sole person the used who had any experience in the field.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> how about piers corbyn if you want just one. His name is easy to remember.



You said 'almost no *ASTROPHYSICISTS*'

Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piers Corbyn - RationalWiki

So we are still waiting for your list of all the astrophysicists who claim not to agree with the IPCC findings.

So we are still waiting for your single astrophysicist who claims not to agree with the IPCC findings.

And we are still waiting for your explanation of the 240 gigatons of Carbon that -until we see some empirical evidence - seems to have magically appeared in the span of a decade in our atmosphere and just as magically disappeared in the same span.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> But yes actually, lots of data has come out since then further confirming previous work.


You have a link to any of it? Seems if it were such a critical issue, someone would have compiled a list......

Seems you would have a list of bookmarks at the very least.....


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I was wondering why the IPCC disagreed with the field,
> ....



So, "the field". Tell us;

1- Just some of the main names whose research you relied upon to develop your thinking.

2- What numbers can you cite of their findings.

3-What number are you using from the IPCC as a comparison

And, since you haven't yet:

Where's your list of the 'almost all the astrophysicists' who disagree with the IPCC findings?

And your, or anyone's, explanation of Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon injected and then sucked out of the atmosphere.

Until that is well answered, what Beck published is basic GIGO.


----------



## silverseeds

You have yet to answer a single thing I asked roberte. the things I did link you apparently had trouble reading. I cant fathom what point you think your making. If I went back through all your posts Id have many more times you wouldnt answer me then vice versa, including instances you ignored it until I pointed it out many times. including instances you posted data on different topics and claimed it was a response. including instances you apparently had major trouble reading what was written. And Im supposed to take more time for you after that? Sorry, Im mostly sane. that doesnt sound terribly fun. 

Still cant stop laughing that you think we need to prove why co2 levels were as they were in our early direct measurements, rather then explaining why we should ignore most of those measurements.

Surely no intelligent honest person thinks we should ignore direct measurements taken over decades all over the planet should be ignored because it doesnt fit beliefs. 

I find it hilarious you mock corbyn so much, he has shown he is rather accurate at weather forecasting, and gives his reports months ahead of time. All based on the factors I mentioned. He keeps updating how he models his data as well, and is getting better with time. 

I also find it hilarious you believe I might be wrong about what I said about astrophysics. It shows me how little you have looked into it.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...
> Still cant stop laughing that you think we need to prove why co2 levels were as they were in our early direct measurements, rather then explaining why we should ignore most of those measurements.
> ....


GIGO, as mentioned several times, comes to mind......


You are assuming that Beck's methodology was an accurate way to chart the hodge-podge of data he used.

The group who agree with you on that don't really have a lot of credibility. And, it seems, not enough expertise to look critically at the data.

Otherwise, there'd be a body of research into that 240 gigatons of Carbon which seemingly magically came into our atmosphere and then disappeared.

There is however a fairly large body of research on how and where to make the measurements. How many of the datasets of Beck's meet that standard?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...I find it hilarious you mock corbyn so much, he has shown he is rather accurate at weather forecasting,
> ....


It was you that claimed 'almost all astrophysicists'


Which seems to have become one weather forcaster......


So, still looking for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists'.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> You have yet to answer a single thing I asked
> ...
> ....


I'm sure you'll attempt to correct me if I'm wrong, but it rather seems you mostly ask about why I don't accept your sources.


Because you link to weather forecasters as an example of 'almost all astrophysicists disagree with the IPCC'

Because you link to an ex-weatherman's blog as proof that CO2 isn't the primary driver of our current climate.

Because you link to a high school teacher who literally did not use basic common sense to not use measurements that everyone knew weren't accurate.

Because you make claims and when asked for your support tell us to 'go google it'.

Because you make claims and when asked for your support tell you did it in some undefined time and place.

So, if you want to argue the science, bring some.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> GIGO, as mentioned several times, comes to mind......
> 
> 
> You are assuming that Beck's methodology was an accurate way to chart the hodge-podge of data he used.


 Im assuming he actually included large amounts of data that others ignored without giving us proof as toy why. (despite you claiming you could have proof in 5 seconds) 




> The group who agree with you on that don't really have a lot of credibility. And, it seems, not enough expertise to look critically at the data.


Ha! I dont have the expertise to realize data was ignored without proof. interesting claim. 



> Otherwise, there'd be a body of research into that 240 gigatons of Carbon which seemingly magically came into our atmosphere and then disappeared.
> 
> There is however a fairly large body of research on how and where to make the measurements. How many of the datasets of Beck's meet that standard?


They arent becks datasets. he simply charted them without having used belief to ignore most of them. 

callender whos work the official stance is based on used no proof when he ignored most of the data. As I told you many times, its very true some data should have been ignored, ignoring almost all of it though, without proof simply isnt science. Or wasnt pre AGW. 



roberte said:


> It was you that claimed 'almost all astrophysicists'
> 
> 
> Which seems to have become one weather forcaster......
> 
> 
> So, still looking for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists'.


:hysterical: this cracks me up. 

You can do a search, you will find many pretty easily. After that explain, why the IPCC used one expert who had to alter data? 

this is the internet dude, not court. A guy who ignores data, pretends data on different topics challenges posts Ive made and showed the inability to read doesnt exactly entice me to cite more for you. 

I answered everything you posited until recently, you have yet to answer a single thing I posted in an honest way. 

the arrogance you portray is a sight to behold. It baffles me you care so much about this yet understand so little of the claims and data backing them.


----------



## roberte

IF you had any substance to your claims, you'd have tons of resources to use to support your claims.

Which tends to point to the quality of your claims.

Because you link to an ex-weatherman's blog as proof that CO2 isn't the primary driver of our current climate.

Because you link to a high school teacher who literally did not use basic common sense to not use measurements that everyone knew weren't accurate.

Because you make claims and when asked for your support tell us to 'go google it'.

Because you make claims and when asked for your support tell you did it in some undefined time and place.

So, if you want to argue the science, bring some.


----------



## roberte

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that the IPCC's number for solar irradiance was far off the mark, you would have brought it by now.

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that solar irradiance was even a forcing that needed to accounted for, the IPCC would have used it. It is a review of the literature after all.

What we have with the claims you are presenting is a hash of arguments based on the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' blogosphere.

No science, or you'd have brought it forward since you have claimed to have done extensive research.

A claim for extensive research that helped formulate your thinking and one would think one would want to share it to help convince others.

But, no. Seems rather that keeping it secret is more the order of the day.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would be a large body of evidence showing what they did wrong.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would have been a large body of evidence showing a different set of numbers.


Which comes back to your claims.

Where is all that data that would support your argument?


----------



## silverseeds

Pops2 said:


> that's because it's like a religious conviction for him. i've said it before, a glacier could flatten his house & he will still be yammering about AGW.
> it's like trying to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time & annoys the pig.


You would have thought I had made it clear I wasnt going to play the game anymore. Still he demands the same questions after ignoring a greater number of mine. After ignoring links I posted, after not being able to read things in black and white from links, after posting on different topics in response to me and pretending it answered the issue I rose...

Its interesting to watch for me.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> IF there were a substantive body of evidence that the IPCC's number for solar irradiance was far off the mark, you would have brought it by now.


huh. I literally did. Remember judithgate??? Granted there is a lot more on the topic, but that was enough to show something was wrong. 


> IF there were a substantive body of evidence that solar irradiance was even a forcing that needed to accounted for, the IPCC would have used it. It is a review of the literature after all.


oh man, this is simply hilarious. 



> What we have with the claims you are presenting is a hash of arguments based on the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' blogosphere.
> 
> No science, or you'd have brought it forward since you have claimed to have done extensive research.


Its true I only posted tiny fragments. Yet I hinted at much more. Anyone who studied what I wrote in any depth knows there was merit. You refused to answer any of the science I did bother to cite though, so not exactly enticing. 


> A claim for extensive research that helped formulate your thinking and one would think one would want to share it to help convince others.


Thats literally why I posted. any interested parties who study the topic will have weeks of data to trace down. Im not interested in converting the true believers. Ive tried that in the past, it doesnt matter what you post. 

Surely you dont expect I essentially teach several college level classes on an internet forum?? 


> But, no. Seems rather that keeping it secret is more the order of the day.


:hysterical:


> IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would be a large body of evidence showing what they did wrong.


Wait, are you under the impression there isnt???



> IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would have been a large body of evidence showing a different set of numbers.





> Which comes back to your claims.
> 
> Where is all that data that would support your argument?


You seem to have trouble reading, so perhaps find a friend and get them to read my posts to you. 


Its rather obvious I stopped taking you seriously due to the way your responded to citations I took my precious time to link. Its bizarre to see someone who claims to value science argue we should ignore data as you did on several points now. Its also strange to see you unable to read text yet your able to post. strange as well to watch you pretend you make points based on what I cite. 

honestly I only keep responding to you, because I find this utterly hilarious. Its cathartic.


----------



## roberte

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that the IPCC's number for solar irradiance was far off the mark, you would have brought it by now.

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that solar irradiance was even a forcing that needed to accounted for, the IPCC would have used it. It is a review of the literature after all.

What we have with the claims you are presenting is a hash of arguments based on the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' blogosphere.

No science, or you'd have brought it forward since you have claimed to have done extensive research.

A claim for extensive research that helped formulate your thinking and one would think one would want to share it to help convince others.

But, no. Seems rather that keeping it secret is more the order of the day.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would be a large body of evidence showing what they did wrong.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would have been a large body of evidence showing a different set of numbers.


Which comes back to your claims.

Where is all that data that would support your argument?


----------



## silverseeds

Actually roberte, it is the IPCC who would first have to prove why their position is counter to the data. This point isnt even debatable. Well unless you want to ignore data. You realize by that logic, you proved me correct by failing to cite an alternative many times now. Of course that isnt a valid stance, but its hilarious to see you claim it. 


Just for fun.

For some reason the IPCC used the WWF as a source a few dozen times. There can be problems with peer reviewed works already, but these are basically opinion pieces. 

and here... this explains how some of the citations were used. rather wild. Its amazing anyone with basic intelligence still believes this is a scientific organization
No Frakking Consensus: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning Climate Report

By the way, the IPCC also cited greenpeace 8 times. Dont take my word for it, go to the IPCc and look. 

Gate du Jour &#8211; Now it&#8217;s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4 | Watts Up With That?

This one was an IPCC claim supported by an advocacy group in canada that claimed by 2020 africa would be producing half the yields. 
IPCC&#8217;s &#8220;Africagate&#8221; blunder as told by Dr. Richard North | Watts Up With That?

This is an interesting read. It covers the hundreds of millions of dollars of big oil backing AGW and related research get from some big oil companies. (Perhaps they plan to own whatever energy sources we move into??? I dunno) 
No Frakking Consensus: BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

This one is just silly. the IPCC cites a boot cleaning guide having nothing to do with temps or climate as proof that the stresses of climate change have caused the need for stringent clothing decontamination guidelines. 
Gate Du Jour: IPCC gets the boot (cleaned) | Watts Up With That?

There were several other very questionable citations on the last IPCC report as well actually. that whole deal with the glacier probably made the most waves. 

Coral Reefs are Not Endangered Due to Global Warming &#8212; News of Interest.TV
this one talks about the past claims about all the coral dying. Which was pretty obviously bunk. 

This one talks about one of the cherry picked datasets. It included a few big names in the field. Looking at the data, its very obvious what they did. 
A Discernible Human Influence ...

and I will stop there, not because I couldnt go on about more false claims of the IPCC, oh not at all... There is a ton more of this type of thing... I saved some of the funner ones for another time.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Actually roberte, it is the IPCC who would first have to prove why their position is counter to the data.
> 
> .....


Well, first "the data" needs to be defined and exhibited.


Let us know when you decide to bring forward your best sources.

So far we've seen a piece by Beck, some claims about sunspots or something and a bunch of smilies and a lot of claims that the stuff you post being the be all and end all of the research.

Refresh our memories if I missed anything that was sorta science based.


----------



## roberte

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that the IPCC's number for solar irradiance was far off the mark, you would have brought it by now.

IF there were a substantive body of evidence that solar irradiance was even a forcing that needed to accounted for, the IPCC would have used it. It is a review of the literature after all.

What we have with the claims you are presenting is a hash of arguments based on the 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2' blogosphere.

No science, or you'd have brought it forward since you have claimed to have done extensive research.

A claim for extensive research that helped formulate your thinking and one would think one would want to share it to help convince others.

But, no. Seems rather that keeping it secret is more the order of the day.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would be a large body of evidence showing what they did wrong.

IF your arguments about the IPCC findings had any real validity, in the past 5 years there would have been a large body of evidence showing a different set of numbers.


Which comes back to your claims.

Where is all that data that would support your argument?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> and a lot of claims that the stuff you post being the be all and end all of the research.


Hilarious! I never once said that. In fact I pointed out many many many times that I have only thus far gotten into the very basic stuff. I didnt even come remotely close to even mentioning all the holes in the claims let alone citing them. It would take me* WEEKS!! * I pointed out I only pointed to enough things interested parties will study themselves. 

Why the need to lie??? 

All t his in light of the fact, you didnt use actual data to counter a single on of the things I pointed to, is simply hilarious. my sides are hurting.


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> This one talks about one of the cherry picked datasets. It included a few big names in the field. Looking at the data, its very obvious what they did.
> A Discernible Human Influence ...


Have an answer for this roberte? Why the need to chop up the data to fit their assumption? Wasnt finding the truth more important? I guess not. Oh well. Hey its AGW, you can chop up the data anyway you like. To question it makes you a "denier". Only deniers like to include the data in context.


----------



## roberte

Where is all this data you claim is available?

Published.

Papers.

Science journals.

Each paper listing many references to more papers.


And you still haven't brought forward a single astrophysicist to support your claim of 'almost no' and 'large proportion'.

And you still haven't brought forward a single explanation for Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon being injected into and then sucked out of our atmosphere.


Let us know if you want to actually argue the science. Let us know when you decide to actually bring some science to the discussion.





silverseeds said:


> Hilarious! I never once said that. In fact I pointed out many many many times that I have only thus far gotten into the very basic stuff. I didnt even come remotely close to even mentioning all the holes in the claims let alone citing them. It would take me* WEEKS!! * I pointed out I only pointed to enough things interested parties will study themselves.
> 
> Why the need to lie???
> 
> All t his in light of the fact, you didnt use actual data to counter a single on of the things I pointed to, is simply hilarious. my sides are hurting.


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> Coral Reefs are Not Endangered Due to Global Warming â News of Interest.TV
> this one talks about the past claims about all the coral dying. Which was pretty obviously bunk.


this might not be the best link for this, but it covers the basics. 

Anyway, why the fear spread about corals all going away? It wasnt reality based, they have persisted through sharper changes then present, much higher temps, and colder ones. Higher and lower acidity. 

Yet when corals did something they do as a response to changes naturally, it was branded as proff they were all dying? 

Scary huh. except that it isnt true.


----------



## roberte

If Mr. Daly truly wanted to discuss the issue based on the science, he would have quoted the material about why the selection was chosen by the authors of the paper.

But the best he could do was quote bits and pieces of the argument against.

You claim to know how science works. You know that isn't how science works.

So the real question is 'Why did you choose to bring an attack on a single piece of research as your proof that all the science is wrong?


And, by the way, here is a short report that utilizes the Santer, et al paper:

Have any science to refute their findings?

Would removing the Santer ref make a significant difference?


*Climate change: How do we know?
*









This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)

Resources

The following are the key sources of data and information contained on this page:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Technical Summary
NOAA Paleoclimatology

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era â and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earthâs orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."	
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change	

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earthâs climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earthâs orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:


*Sea level rise
*
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

*Global temperature rise
*
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 *Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase*. 7

*Warming oceans
*
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

*Shrinking ice sheets
*
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

*Declining Arctic sea ice
*
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

*Glacial retreat
*
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world â including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10

*Extreme events
*
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

*Ocean acidification
*
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

Climate Change: Evidence



silverseeds said:


> Have an answer for this roberte? Why the need to chop up the data to fit their assumption? Wasnt finding the truth more important? I guess not. Oh well. Hey its AGW, you can chop up the data anyway you like. To question it makes you a "denier". Only deniers like to include the data in context.


----------



## roberte

And we get another goalpost since the poster has made a conscious choice to not bring forward evidence that refutes the IPCC numbers on solar irradiance and any explanation of why Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon being injected and sucked out of our atmosphere doesn't raise a single question about the quality of the data being used.





silverseeds said:


> this might not be the best link for this, but it covers the basics.


You are correct; using a source that mainly cites a book that was just about universally panned for it's lack of science and intellectual rigor would be the "best link".

But it yet again does underscore how those who attempt to deny the science really have nothing to bring to the table in support.

Here's a bit more about coral reefs. Note that they support their discussion with research:

*Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem
*Increased carbon dioxide is changing the chemistry of the earthâs oceans, threatening marine life
Earthâs atmosphere isnât the only victim of burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the earthâs oceans, where theyâre having an impact thatâs just starting to be understood.

Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.

A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity.

Before people started burning coal and oil, ocean pH had been relatively stable for the previous 20 million years. But researchers predict that if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, ocean acidity will more than double by 2100.

The polar regions will be the first to experience changes. Projections show that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica will actually become corrosive by 2050.



Click the photo above to view a slideshow of corals and learn more about the impact of ocean acidification.

Corrosive Impacts on Sealife

The new chemical composition of our oceans is expected to harm a wide range of ocean life -- particularly creatures with shells. The resulting disruption to the ocean ecosystem could have a widespread ripple effect and further deplete already struggling fisheries worldwide.

Increased acidity reduces carbonate -- the mineral used to form the shells and skeletons of many shellfish and corals. The effect is similar to osteoporosis, slowing growth and making shells weaker. If pH levels drop enough, the shells will literally dissolve.

This process will not only harm some of our favorite seafood, such as lobster and mussels, but will also injure some species of smaller marine organisms -- things such as pteropods and coccolithophores.

Youâve probably never heard of them, but they form a vital part of the food web. If those smaller organisms are wiped out, the larger animals that feed on them could suffer, as well.

Disappearing Coral Reefs

Delicate corals may face an even greater risk than shellfish because they require very high levels of carbonate to build their skeletons.

Acidity slows reef-building, which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to their erosion and eventual extinction. The âtipping pointâ for coral reefs could happen as soon as 2050.

Coral reefs serve as the home for many other forms of ocean life. Their disappearance would be akin to rainforests being wiped out worldwide. Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment and have profound social impacts, as well -- especially on the fishing and tourism industries.

The loss of coral reefs would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal communities against storms surges and hurricanes -- which might become more severe with warmer air and sea surface temperatures due to global warming.

Ocean Acidification - What is Ocean Acidification? | NRDC


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If Mr. Daly truly wanted to discuss the issue based on the science, he would have quoted the material about why the selection was chosen by the authors of the paper.
> 
> But the best he could do was quote bits and pieces of the argument against.


Yep, he picked out "bits and pieces" that if they hadnt cherry picked the data, make their claims faulty. 



> You claim to know how science works. You know that isn't how science works.


Oh yeah, I forgot, in "science" you have to ignore the data that doesnt fit belief. 

Actually this is EXACTLY how science works. Or used to before AGW. This is literally the point of the peer review process. Except in AGW somehow it still stands as valid after having to cherry pick data to make a claim. Using the full dataset, doesnt support their claims, so they used the part that does. 



> So the real question is 'Why did you choose to bring an attack on a single piece of research as your proof that all the science is wrong?


Lie much??? 
why the need to put words in my mouth?? Did I say this one piece disproves AGW??? this only shows one of the cherry picked "studies"... There are many more. In fact ALL base studies are cherry picked, the rest link to those and assume they are true. 

Breaking down the entire topic is not easy, so instead I will show you guys some of the littler stuff. Of course Im not sure what Im expecting, you were unable to understand what you read in several links already presented. Also refused to address several points I made. It should be fun anyway...


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You are correct; using a source that mainly cites a book that was just about universally panned for it's lack of science and intellectual rigor would be the "best link".
> 
> But it yet again does underscore how those who attempt to deny the science really have nothing to bring to the table in support.
> 
> Here's a bit more about coral reefs. Note that they support their discussion with research:


Yes "research"... hilarious! In actual reality however if you study it, you will find the link I gave was correct. These corals have dealt with faster changes in temps, much higher temps AND higher acidification. Considering the junk we throw in the ocean, we might indeed be affecting corals, but it isnt with temps or acidification, or otherwise someone needs to explain how all these species survived higher levels in the past and still exist. This is very basic. Co2 levels (and thus acidification) have been MULTIPLES of current levels while these same species have lived and survived and thrived. Notice your "research" doesnt mention this very real fact. Why? Oh yeah, it would make their work meaningless. Which it does of course.


----------



## roberte

If your claims had any validity, those making the claims would put the entirety of their claims into the public eye.

Instead, we have a link to a blog that presents one side.

You claim to know how science works. Thus, you should know that what you are presenting isn't science.





silverseeds said:


> Yep, he picked out "bits and pieces" that if they hadnt cherry picked the data, make their claims faulty.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I forgot, in "science" you have to ignore the data that doesnt fit belief.
> 
> Actually this is EXACTLY how science works. Or used to before AGW. This is literally the point of the peer review process. Except in AGW somehow it still stands as valid after having to cherry pick data to make a claim. Using the full dataset, doesnt support their claims, so they used the part that does.
> 
> 
> Lie much???
> why the need to put words in my mouth?? Did I say this one piece disproves AGW??? this only shows one of the cherry picked "studies"... There are many more. In fact ALL base studies are cherry picked, the rest link to those and assume they are true.
> 
> Breaking down the entire topic is not easy, so instead I will show you guys some of the littler stuff. Of course Im not sure what Im expecting, you were unable to understand what you read in several links already presented. Also refused to address several points I made. It should be fun anyway...


----------



## roberte

Bring forward the best you have.




silverseeds said:


> Yes "research"... hilarious!
> .....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If your claims had any validity, those making the claims would put the entirety of their claims into the public eye.
> 
> Instead, we have a link to a blog that presents one side.
> 
> You claim to know how science works. Thus, you should know that what you are presenting isn't science.


Ok, so in "science" your allowed to ignore the parts of the data that disagree with you?? then base your paper on it? Amazing!!! thanks for letting me know!!!! 

Oh by the way, their claims were put into the public eye, I just linked it to you. Complete with the full data sets making it undeniable the "study" had chped up the data to make their claims. Taking the full dataset and their claims remain unsupported. OPPS! 

The "one side" the present, is the full dataset. 

Actually Im confused as to what science is again? please explain. So we get to ignore data we dont like? thats how it works? Youve argued this on several points over the last few days. You see where I went to school, we were taught about this thing called the scientific method. We never heard the part that you get to ignore data that doesnt fit your claims. I guess my teacher failed me.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Bring forward the best you have.


I already pointed to the proof. Youu can study it or not. Its absolutely undenable however if you care enough to look. Corals and for that matter shelled animals have lived through much higher temps. They have lived through faster climate shifts even wild ones like the younger dryas, and they lived through MULTIPLES more co2..

You seriously deny this? Oh well. Im not going to spend an hour to convince you. this is very basic and undeniable. Corals are hundreds of millions of years old, they seen all this and more..

Again, humans may indeed be killing them, we release some nasty stuff, but Id need some proof as to how things they faced at much more dramatic levels such as acidification could kill them. Heck the oceans they first evolved into had much higher co2/acidification then presently!


----------



## roberte

If you have data supporting your "faster climate shifts", let's see it.

No real point in arguing with you if all you bring are claims the 'data is out there', and 'go look it up yourself', or some screed from a blog.



silverseeds said:


> I already pointed to the proof. Youu can study it or not. Its absolutely undenable however if you care enough to look. Corals and for that matter shelled animals have lived through much higher temps. They have lived through faster climate shifts even wild ones like the younger dryas, and they lived through MULTIPLES more co2..
> 
> You seriously deny this? Oh well. Im not going to spend an hour to convince you. this is very basic and undeniable. Corals are hundreds of millions of years old, they seen all this and more..
> 
> Again, humans may indeed be killing them, we release some nasty stuff, but Id need some proof as to how things they faced at much more dramatic levels such as acidification could kill them. Heck the oceans they first evolved into had much higher co2/acidification then presently!



"some nasty stuff,"

AKA as 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Oh by the way, their claims were put into the public eye, I just linked it to you.
> .....


Are you referring to your 'Discernible' link where the author gave selected bits from a couple of letters discussing what they thought were errors in a single paper?

You claim to know how science works. Tell us how that fits your definition.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> .
> 
> You are correct; using a source that mainly cites a book that was just about universally panned for it's lack of science and intellectual rigor would be the "best link".
> 
> But it yet again does underscore how those who attempt to deny the science really have nothing to bring to the table in support.
> 
> Here's a bit more about coral reefs. Note that they support their discussion with research:


Another interesting note...

When the IPCC made their claims about corals (that ignored corals entire history and the periods it faced ALL the same threats at greater intensities then we are told will kill them today) they cited GREENPEACE as their SOLE source of proof....

Gate du Jour &#8211; Now it&#8217;s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4 | Watts Up With That? 

There are links right to the IPCC doing it by the way, so dont try to deny it. 

So they cited greenpeace and ignored most of corals history. hmmm. 

Also if you think we need a "study" to tell us that coral lived through warmer more transitional eras, as well as through much higher co2 levels your just wrong. We have all this data. Anyone here can look it up if they wanted to.


----------



## silverseeds

> "some nasty stuff,"
> 
> AKA as 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2


You act as if I believe humans arent doing messed up things. 

Look at my signature line. "we must learn to ride the wave"... 

That was my way of saying as humans our cultures are terribly imbalanced. Im literally practicing what I preach, and building the world I want to see. Im pretty sure you would value my work were I to show it all to you. Im both building microclimates and breeding plants and trees for them. Ive been able to do this with a much higher success rate then other in similar areas, and I still have many variables to work out and trial. I already can provide a complete diet with lots of diversity wih no irrigation in an area where it is considered non arable, and with breeding there will be much more. I hope to one day see the desert south west able to feed itself. Not that Im against importing food, but I believe its better for the bulk to be local. So Im trying to help make it happen. This states ag relies on irrigation that will in time fail. Most water tables already are hurting . We need solutions that fit reality, this "ride the wave" 

building societies based on fossils, without trying to replace them ASAP is naive. Heck I will agree even using fossil fuels is a horrible plan!!! I will agree it is pollution. I just do not agree that co2 is a climate driver. This is indeed based on having gone over the source data, whether or not you believe me I couldnt care less. I do point all this out though because you act like Im trying to make excuses for humans behavior. I AM NOT. We will kill ourselves on our current path, in worse ways then AGW could EVER be. With our crazed chemical cocktails all over the place. Already in some areas at levels its directly affecting life cycles. This is a grand experiment of idiocy we are engaged in. Now if we were a space faring culture spreading across the stars, and taking asteroids for resources with ease, then living as we do would potentially be sustainable. As it is, we have many directions a trai could derail us. I could list a dozen probably, some of them potentials others already happening. 

Im not in the least trying to make excuses for humanities actions. the way we are relating to our environment is horrible. this is undeniable. Our throw away culture WILL end either from ignorance or from wisdom. there is no doubt about that.


----------



## roberte

Hence all the posts trying to prove 'anything BUT Anthropogenic CO2.'


Hence the insistence on any scrap of evidence that might point to anything -sunspots, poor recordkeeping, fake 'gates', blogs using semantics in labeling a doctoral candidate as a 'student', single papers that come up with a slightly different number than the other 100's of papers, false equivalency, empty claims - anything thing that some denier blog has posted as a talking point.


So, something like 2-3% of the scientists active in the field hold a view similar to yours. They don't have a lot of expertise, but they get published.

And over the past weeks we've been treated to two or three of those papers.

And a lot of empty claims.

Virtually every chapter of every report put out by the IPCC has a page or two or a dozen pages of references - citations of the specific pieces of research used in the development of the thinking of experts.

Single spaced list of papers - pages of them.

And all you've brought forward are scraps of evidence that might point to anything -sunspots, poor recordkeeping, fake 'gates', blogs using semantics in labeling a doctoral candidate as a 'student', single papers that come up with a slightly different number than the other 100's of papers, false equivalency, empty claims - anything thing that some denier blog has posted as a talking point.

So, here's the findings after analyzing thousands of pieces of original research, the review of real science"

âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â









Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007











silverseeds said:


> ....
> I just do not agree that co2 is a climate driver.
> .....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Virtually every chapter of every report put out by the IPCC has a page or two or a dozen pages of references - citations of the specific pieces of research used in the development of the thinking of experts.
> 
> Single spaced list of papers - pages of them.
> 
> [/url]


Yet they still ignore most of the suns influence. And for a few dozen claims cited sources like greenpeace, the WWF, a various other non scientific sources. 

Then of course there is the fact the "peer reviewed" work their claims are based on had to chop up rhe data to make their claims. They had to claim even though co2 used to be de coupled from temps, until the carbon cycle shifted and from there tracked temps from a proven outgassing effect (cold ocean hold more co2 then a warm one) it now drives climate. In our records co2 is tied to temps following it by 800-thousands of years. Yet is claimed to be playing a role in driving climate. In todays world it will do this in decades. In our records co2 often actually peaked as temps were dropping, even at times over levels claimed to cause runaway warming by some. 

Here is an example of a chart used in many peer reviewed works that alan watts breaks down. He uses the actual data, and shows how through their 1200km adjustment factor to cover areas for which there is no data. Its very clear if you go over the data, that the chart is meaningless. strangely i could go through works like this for days. and if you go through the data you will indeed see the bias. 

GISS Swiss Cheese | Watts Up With That?


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> For some reason the IPCC used the WWF as a source a few dozen times. There can be problems with peer reviewed works already, but these are basically opinion pieces.
> 
> and here... this explains how some of the citations were used. rather wild. Its amazing anyone with basic intelligence still believes this is a scientific organization
> No Frakking Consensus: More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning Climate Report
> 
> By the way, the IPCC also cited greenpeace 8 times. Dont take my word for it, go to the IPCc and look.
> 
> Gate du Jour â Now itâs Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4 | Watts Up With That?
> 
> This one was an IPCC claim supported by an advocacy group in canada that claimed by 2020 africa would be producing half the yields.
> IPCCâs âAfricagateâ blunder as told by Dr. Richard North | Watts Up With That?
> 
> This is an interesting read. It covers the hundreds of millions of dollars of big oil backing AGW and related research get from some big oil companies. (Perhaps they plan to own whatever energy sources we move into??? I dunno)
> No Frakking Consensus: BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot
> 
> This one is just silly. the IPCC cites a boot cleaning guide having nothing to do with temps or climate as proof that the stresses of climate change have caused the need for stringent clothing decontamination guidelines.
> Gate Du Jour: IPCC gets the boot (cleaned) | Watts Up With That?
> 
> There were several other very questionable citations on the last IPCC report as well actually. that whole deal with the glacier probably made the most waves.
> 
> Coral Reefs are Not Endangered Due to Global Warming â News of Interest.TV
> this one talks about the past claims about all the coral dying. Which was pretty obviously bunk.
> 
> This one talks about one of the cherry picked datasets. It included a few big names in the field. Looking at the data, its very obvious what they did.
> A Discernible Human Influence ...
> 
> and I will stop there, not because I couldnt go on about more false claims of the IPCC, oh not at all... There is a ton more of this type of thing... I saved some of the funner ones for another time.


Im curious roberte, what do you think about all these bogus citations the IPCC used? a boot cleaning guide as proof AGW is causing the need for stringent decontamination? greenpeace? the WWF? and several others of equal stature. All while using one solar expert to argue against the entire field no less. I didnt even link them all. 

doesnt that strike you as a bit odd?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> GISS Swiss Cheese | Watts Up With That?


from your source "It uses 1200 km smoothing, a technique which allows them to generate data where they have none â based on the idea that temperatures donât vary much over 1200 km. "

You do realize that early in the comments Watts, an ex weatherman, is shown the errors in that statement.

And not much further down, some other of his statements are shown to be erroneous.

And that doesn't address the basic fact that you, yet again, attempt the false equivalency of using some blog as 'proof' all the science should be in question.


More 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2'.....


----------



## roberte

You've said the below many times.

Your source of information is,...... well what exactly?


Don't forget the data the IPCC used for this chart










shows that you need to come up with enough reliable information to boost the solar influence by over an order of magnitude. Your data needs to show a 10+ times stronger force.



silverseeds said:


> Yet they still ignore most of the suns influence.
> ]


----------



## silverseeds

Here is another interesting run down on altered data from GISS. It seems in the year 2000, the numbers were "adjusted" and the 30s became cooler, and the 90s warmer. 

GISTEMP Movie MatinÃ©es | Watts Up With That?

At this point it might be interesting to point to this last july. Some of you might remember the claim it was the hottest july on record!!! Well that depends which dataset you go by. If you go by the old system where most every temp reading has to be adjusted because of local influences it was the hottest in modern records. If however you go by the system with multiple redundancy that was built to track long term climate (the other wasnt built with that specifically in mind) that cost us many millions it was NOT the warmest by a few DEGREES. Do you believe the multiple redundancy dataset? Or the one where the values need adjusted for various factors by amounts we hope are correct? Actually to me this proves the values they adjust at are indeed incorrect as many have long tried to make the case for. 

An &#8216;inconvenient result&#8217; &#8211; July 2012 not a record breaker according to data from the new NOAA/NCDC U.S. Climate Reference Network | Watts Up With That?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> from your source "It uses 1200 km smoothing, a technique which allows them to generate data where they have none â based on the idea that temperatures donât vary much over 1200 km. "
> 
> You do realize that early in the comments Watts, an ex weatherman, is shown the errors in that statement.
> 
> And not much further down, some other of his statements are shown to be erroneous.


What was erroneous exactly??? The data speaks for itself imo... 

I believe I saw the link your talking about, it didn change the outcomes however. It didnt even try to address most of the planets anomalies between the claims and how the holes in our data were filled in by "magic"!!! 

You can believe what you like though of course. 


> And that doesn't address the basic fact that you, yet again, attempt the false equivalency of using some blog as 'proof' all the science should be in question.


the data the blog links to was the proof, not the blog. I also didnt try to disprove all of agw by that single piece. thats silly, I keep pointing it out to you as well. It just shows how the datasets AGW is based on is nefarious, I already posted a bit you liked to ignore on the doctored and ignored co2 records. 




> More 'anything but Anthropogenic CO2'.....


More "only believe official sources for data, even when their own data is counter to the data they put the public face to"...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Here is another interesting run down .....]


Not really, except he is trying the same gambit as you used on wanting to use 'all the data' even when there are specific reasons why one dataset is better than another.

Watts is using the same science 'chops' as Beck in this case.


Let us know when you decide to bring some science rather than the blog of an ex-weatherman.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .....
> 
> "only believe official sources for data, even when their own data is counter to the data they put the public face to"...


?????????????????


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> speaks for itself imo...
> ....


"imo"

And we should trust your "o" why exactly?

You've already stated you don't consider CO2 as a primary driver in spite of a century plus of research.

When you can demonstrate a CV that starts to approximate what those scientists in the 98% have, let us know.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> ?????????????????


the data that countered the claims, was literally from the same sources that made them. Without any proof or explanation. Its literally undeniable if you look at it. It was unexplained, so your stance that some data should be ignored, while true isnt relevant in this case. 



roberte said:


> "imo"
> 
> And we should trust your "o" why exactly?


I dont care what you trust. I trust the numbers myself. If you break down the numbers on the info I posted, its rather clear. You can ignore it all you like. No attempt was made to explain why the official numbers for public consumption differed from source data. Yo can literally trace it all out through most of those links. Sad part is I barely started. Almost all datasets used in AGW are like this. 

i wonder if its because AGw is backed by big oil???

Do you trust greenpeace? and the WFF to make scientific claims they failed to back with study? The IPCC does. 



> You've already stated you don't consider CO2 as a primary driver in spite of a century plus of research.


That is because the claims run entirely counter to the data on pretty much every point. 


> When you can demonstrate a CV that starts to approximate what those scientists in the 98% have, let us know.


Really you have proof that 98% agree? Oh wait, no you have proof that those who published I believe it was 20 papers within a specific branch of climate science believe AGW. Im actually shocked it wasnt 100%. the "study" you got this from was flawed, heck it didnt even include all fields of science that deal in climate. Of course the lead author is in college makes sense. 

Feel free to give a citation backing the actual claim you made. Not one that has to be chopped up into a strange context to work.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> ..... the "study" you got this from was flawed,



Now you seem to be adding statistics to your list of areas of expertise.....

Make sure to offer your assistance to the "college .." student.

You know, the one at Stanford University, finishing his Doctorate......

You know, the one at Stanford University with a rather long CV in publications, awards, grants, research.......

Don't forget to CC the other three authors either. Wonder why you're not making up or posting some blogger claims about them.....

And we note you haven't been able to support your 'almost all astrophysicist disagree with the IPCC findings about Anthropogenic Climate Change being driven by our injecting CO2 into the atmosphere' claim yet either.

And you haven't come up with a justification to claim a weather forecaster is an astrophysicist.

And you haven't been willing to explain why no one has come up with a hypothesis for Beck's magical 24 gigatons of Carbon appearing and disappearing.

Oh, wait, that might be because Beck didn't understand basic statistical methodology either...... And no one wants to go out on a limb trying to support that bit.

And we still haven't seen where you are getting any data that supports your claim that astrophysics have different numbers than what is in the IPCC report.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .....i wonder if its because AGw is backed by big oil???
> ......


If one argument doesn't stick, chuck another one at the wall .......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If one argument doesn't stick, chuck another one at the wall .......


Actually most of those stuck for anyone who actually looked into them and the data involved. 

scary part is I still barely scratched the surface.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> That is because the claims run entirely counter to the data on pretty much every point.
> 
> 
> ....


Really?

Please, please show us some of that data. 

Or are you going to claim you already did?
Will it turn out to be Beck?


Research on CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been going on since 1896 (actually, a bit before but Svante Arrhenius is a good milepost), so you have a lot of science to review to come up with your sources.

Heck, maybe somebody in googleland has developed a list of all the bits.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Really?
> 
> Please, please show us some of that data.
> 
> Or are you going to claim you already did?
> Will it turn out to be Beck?
> 
> 
> Research on CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been going on since 1896 (actually, a bit before but Svante Arrhenius is a good milepost), so you have a lot of science to review to come up with your sources.
> 
> Heck, maybe somebody in googleland has developed a list of all the bits.


Yes I will "claim" I already have been doing that. hilarious to see you imply otherwise. Although there is a LOT more. Some of it much more technical then where ive went thus far. 

Its hilarious you have no qualms with the IPCC having cited various activist groups as "science" but you dismiss web posts ive linked that literally use the source data to show that the official stats arent fitting the source data. All this with no explanation ever officially given as to the discrepancies between claims and actual data. Several of those I linked had the actual numbers, from the actual sources linked. You could verify it all yourself... And I could do this for some time at the same frequency. 

Your faith is strong I give you that.


----------



## silverseeds

NOAA&#8217;s Jan-Jun 2010 Warmest Ever: Missing Data, False Impressions | Watts Up With That?

Here is another altered data set for you to ignore. It again, uses the ACTUAL DATA. They claim is 2010 was the hottest on record. Yet we really dont have a full range of data for many of the warmer spots. 

I guess we could assume without proof that they guessed the right answers, but in many of the cases if you look at the info you will see that their guesses often dont even fit neighboring areas or related sites. Sorry my faith is weak. I like numbers. 

Of course this speaks to a degree against AGW claims, so we should probably ignore it.


----------



## silverseeds

double post. wouldnt let me erase it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Of course this speaks to a degree against AGW claims, so we should probably ignore it.


You should know by now all the Pro AGW sources are *highly credible and trustworthy*.......except for maybe just this one:



> Scientist Who Saw Drowned Polar Bears Reprimanded


Scientist Who Saw Drowned Polar Bears Reprimanded


----------



## silverseeds

This is an interesting read. Its just an opinion piece, so its not posted to make a case or anything. By the way this is FAR from the only person who worked with the IPCC who said similar things. Maybe i should gather a few of those to go with the IPCC citations from greenpeace and WFF and other activists groups cited as if it was science. 

Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph



> For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.





> Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement and the director of RWE Innogy, one of Europe's largest renewable energy companies. Last Wednesday, he delivered the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society, London


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> i wonder if its because AGw is backed by big oil???


Red herring. Anti-AGW would be much more plausibly backed by the oil industry. The oil industry fears AGW sciences, and what's it squashed. They will do anything at all to ensure that it all looks false, made up, modified, etc., anything to cause the public to lose interest. And do you know why that works so well?
Because no one wants to believe they're part of any problem.


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Red herring. Anti-AGW would be much more plausibly backed by the oil industry. The oil industry fears AGW sciences, and what's it squashed. They will do anything at all to ensure that it all looks false, made up, modified, etc., anything to cause the public to lose interest. And do you know why that works so well?
> Because no one wants to believe they're part of any problem.


Actually if you go back through those links I gave big oil DOES support these things. With several hundred million dollars actually. Heck perhaps this is the reason why our "answers" to balancing our relationship to co2 involve continuing to use our oil and such. They will make as much as they ever did in that time WE will pay the tax. Heck we will probably even pay additional tax to help THEM own the next energy source they sell us. I couldny say for sure, but looking at past deal of gov in bed with business seems plausible if not likely. 

Of course big oil couldnt have altered the data. Its the data that makes it clear AGW isnt real, you have to chop up datasets and ignore entire variables for it to seem true. Im not sure how big oil could have changed all the data forcing them to cherry pick their case.


----------



## arabian knight

silverseeds said:


> Actually if you go back through those links I gave big oil DOES support these things. With several hundred million dollars actually. Heck perhaps this is the reason why our "answers" to balancing our relationship to co2 involve continuing to use our oil and such. They will make as much as they ever did in that time WE will pay the tax. Heck we will probably even pay additional tax to help THEM own the next energy source they sell us. I couldny say for sure, but looking at past deal of gov in bed with business seems plausible if not likely.
> 
> Of course big oil couldnt have altered the data. Its the data that makes it clear AGW isnt real, you have to chop up datasets and ignore entire variables for it to seem true. Im not sure how big oil could have changed all the data forcing them to cherry pick their case.


I am sure so called big oil wants to know what is going on. It effects the North Slope Oil BIG TIME.
They can only get supplies up there if the Ice Stays frozen long enough or the Ice Road Truckers to get supplies to them.
Warm temps means less time for the IRT to truck up the much needed supplies for the oil rigs. 
No ice no supplies. So you can bet your bottom dollar the oil companies want to know the truth as to what is happening and what is causing it.


----------



## silverseeds

According to the IPCC lad use changes do not affect climate much. Despite the natural sources and sinks of co2 being much larger then us. I dont think I should post them all at once, but Im doubting all the studies showing the IPCC is wrong will be included. We cann start here....

Sugarcane cools climate | ScienceBlog.com



> The scientists found that converting from natural vegetation to crop/pasture on average warmed the cerrado by 2.79 Â°F (1.55 Â°C), but that subsequent conversion to sugarcane, on average, cooled the surrounding air by 1.67 Â°F (0.93Â°C).





> here is a chineese study on the heat island effect from cities. The IPCC dismisses this even though noaa has to adjust the tems of many sites because of it. And if you remember if you use the multiple redundancy system we built this last july was NOT the hottest, if you use the older system where most numbers need adjusted because of local influences it WAS the warmest july. The difference between the two systems was over 2 degrees!!
> 
> New paper: UHI, alive and well in China | Watts Up With That?
> 
> Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398Â°C and 0.26Â°C decade&#8722;1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.


There are other studies on similar topics. The IPCC downplays all this drastically despite the weight studies imply it has. Taken in context though these land use issues might very well be MAJOR factors in our current changes. Both of the land use changes listed above obviously have changed a large amount this last century. and if you studied the temp charts I gave that had links to actual source data, you might see that in places with lower numbers of temp stations we see more warming. Strangely though when the gaps are filled in with close by data, it often ends up with hotspots we have no reason to believe exist. 

The idea that the debate is over is simply bizarre. The idea the IPCC is an honest accounting of the data is even more bizarre. Heck I could list several other ignored factors the IPCC doesnt include or includes in a drastically altered way from what the data shows. Its a political not an scientific organization after all.


----------



## greg273

silverseeds said:


> The idea that the debate is over is simply bizarre. The idea the IPCC is an honest accounting of the data is even more bizarre. Heck I could list several other ignored factors the IPCC doesnt include or includes in a drastically altered way from what the data shows. Its a political not an scientific organization after all.


 I never mentioned the IPCC once. I could care less what the UN-types do. I still know the science I have learned, and you have shown NOTHING that would disprove that we can warm the climate by raising the CO2 levels by 39%+ over pre-industrial levels.


----------



## silverseeds

greg273 said:


> I never mentioned the IPCC once. I could care less what the UN-types do. I still know the science I have learned, and you have shown NOTHING that would disprove that we can warm the climate by raising the CO2 levels by 39%+ over pre-industrial levels.


Perhaps you believe I didnt show such, yet if you read and understood what I linked and studied further I indeed did. Co2 wasnt even tracking with temps for most of the planets history. The only time an AGW believer even attempted to account for this Im aware of was one of the studies I linked, and his stance contradicted his own data and basic physics. 

I barely even started by the way, and didnt even get into the more technical aspects. Their claims rely 100% on cherry picked datasets. If you disagree you simply didnt look at the source data without bias. 

Did you understand the significance of this???
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

this study was in response to the above. just in time for the IPCCs next report by the way.
New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer | UW Today
this is the response to the above study trying to poke holes in the first. 
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures Â« Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

In a very literal sense if the first link is accurate it simply isnt happening!!! Based on direct measurements. If you read the 3rd link you will see the issues with the study that attempted to poke holes in the first and you will also see the way the data had to be adjusted wasnt ad hoc first of all and will soon not be needed, so their data cant so readily be dismissed. 

This is literally the most important AGW study to date. If their numbers hold true it simply isnt happening anywhere near the level claimed based on direct measurements.


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> Actually if you go back through those links I gave big oil DOES support these things. With several hundred million dollars actually. Heck perhaps this is the reason why our "answers" to balancing our relationship to co2 involve continuing to use our oil and such. They will make as much as they ever did in that time WE will pay the tax. Heck we will probably even pay additional tax to help THEM own the next energy source they sell us. I couldny say for sure, but looking at past deal of gov in bed with business seems plausible if not likely.
> 
> Of course big oil couldnt have altered the data. Its the data that makes it clear AGW isnt real, you have to chop up datasets and ignore entire variables for it to seem true. Im not sure how big oil could have changed all the data forcing them to cherry pick their case.


Please support your statement. It is very clearly not in the oil industry's best interest to support AGW, as it only cuts into their profit margin. Renewable energy can be financially rewarding, but is nowhere near as profitable as simply harvesting oil.


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Please support your statement. It is very clearly not in the oil industry's best interest to support AGW, as it only cuts into their profit margin. Renewable energy can be financially rewarding, but is nowhere near as profitable as simply harvesting oil.


Your not reading my links!!  I linked to a blog that had links to several stories on this.

anyway..


Princeton University - BP and Princeton renew partnership to tackle climate problem

2.1.2007 - BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving a Climate Grant to Stanford

Nature Conservancy faces potential backlash from ties with BP

I didnt mention this as proof of anything by the way! i mentioned it only because many always claim skepticism of co2 as a climate driver is often claimed to be sourced from oil companies. which simply isnt true. Many of us look at the numbers and simply disagree with the official stance as to what the data shows. As far as Im concerned it would be near suicidal for humanity to stay on its current track. My opinion was based on much more then what Ive posted so far. It is sad its so politicized.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Renewable energy can be financially rewarding, but is *nowhere near as profitable* as simply harvesting oil


The profit is in the hype about it, and the handouts
Solyndra got $500 million and went bankrupt so they wouldn't have to pay it back, while the Govt was buying products from China


----------



## roberte

Oh, so not only do we have to read your links, we are supposed to follow all the links from your links.......

BTW, reread your first link. They aren't supporting research attempting to prove or disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change; it is funding research into energy production and efficiency.......

But that isn't the first time your source didn't prove your contentions...




silverseeds said:


> Your not reading my links!!  I linked to a blog that had links to several stories on this.
> 
> anyway..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Oh, so not only do we have to read your links, we are supposed to follow all the links from your links.......


lol! I couldnt care less what you do. It isnt a debate however if we arent even looking at eachothers data. 


> BTW, reread your first link. They aren't supporting research attempting to prove or disprove Anthropogenic Climate Change; it is funding research into energy production and efficiency.......
> 
> But that isn't the first time your source didn't prove your contentions...


OPPS.. wrong... when I first linked it I said.... quote...



> This is an interesting read. It covers the hundreds of millions of dollars of big oil backing AGW *and related research* get from some big oil companies. (Perhaps they plan to own whatever energy sources we move into??? I dunno)


----------



## coup

i have thought for a while that we should build dry dams that catch flood water and then release it slowly....
could have one sunday a month that your not allowed to drive,fly,unless for commerce.
give bigger tax breaks for electric auto being sold-bought,,.
more hydroelectric dams.
law where you have to walk to church.

there is thousands of gas wellpipelines that are leaking gas into are atmosphere and being wasted.......

put humans back to work.......


----------



## Narshalla

coup said:


> i have thought for a while that we should build dry dams that catch flood water and then release it slowly....
> could have one sunday a month that your not allowed to drive,fly,unless for commerce.
> give bigger tax breaks for electric auto being sold-bought,,.
> more hydroelectric dams.
> law where you have to walk to church.
> 
> there is thousands of gas wellpipelines that are leaking gas into are atmosphere and being wasted.......
> 
> put humans back to work.......


I like all but the underlined one. All-electric cars that you have to plug in to fuel have the same carbon footprint as the electricity in thier area, because that's where they get thier power.

A great many of the power plants are _less_ efficient than the gas-fueled internal combustion engine, so you'd be trading more a efficient method that you _can_ see for a less efficient that you _can't_ see, and believing that you come out ahead, when in reality, all you've done is swept it under the rug.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Oh, so not only do *we have to read your links*, we are supposed to follow all the links from your links.......


You don't have to read anything, but you have to stop whining about "no evidence shown"


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to read anything, but you have to stop whining about "no evidence shown"


Hahaha!!! I LOVE your new sig line!!! Ain't it the truth!! ound:


----------



## Heritagefarm

coup said:


> i have thought for a while that we should build dry dams that catch flood water and then release it slowly....
> could have one sunday a month that your not allowed to drive,fly,unless for commerce.
> give bigger tax breaks for electric auto being sold-bought,,.
> more hydroelectric dams.
> law where you have to walk to church.
> 
> there is thousands of gas wellpipelines that are leaking gas into are atmosphere and being wasted.......
> 
> put humans back to work.......


Thank-you. This is the kind of constructive thinking we need more of. Bickering about whether or not we should pay attention to climate science truly gets up nowhere. True change will only come when we put our minds together and learn to think cooperatively and productively.


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> I like all but the underlined one. All-electric cars that you have to plug in to fuel have the same carbon footprint as the electricity in thier area, because that's where they get thier power.
> 
> A great many of the power plants are _less_ efficient than the gas-fueled internal combustion engine, so you'd be trading more a efficient method that you _can_ see for a less efficient that you _can't_ see, and believing that you come out ahead, when in reality, all you've done is swept it under the rug.



Actually, I'm pretty sure you won't find that the ~20% efficiency of an IC engine is comparable to power plants' efficiency. Especially after you factor in the energy loss in moving the fuel to the vehicle.

And we could control the emissions of ONE powerplant a wee bit better than 10s of thousands IC engines.

And we are adding renewable energy sources to the power grid.


----------



## MushCreek

The good news: There are free (for now) electric vehicle charging stations now in the Greenville/Spartanburg area.

The bad news: It takes FOUR HOURS to charge up for 40 miles worth of driving. I didn't see that catching on until the only other option is walking.


----------



## arabian knight

MushCreek said:


> The good news: There are free (for now) electric vehicle charging stations now in the Greenville/Spartanburg area.
> 
> The bad news: It takes FOUR HOURS to charge up for 40 miles worth of driving. I didn't see that catching on until the only other option is walking.


Ya for sure EV is just not going to be the choice of getting around America has way too many Wide Open Spaces with NOTHING in between towns. EV is just a fancy fadf for the tree huggers that have nothing else better to do then waste their hard earned money and get federal grants and federal subsidies from buying a way over priced car in the first place.


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> Another interesting note...
> 
> When the IPCC made their claims about corals (that ignored corals entire history and the periods it faced ALL the same threats at greater intensities then we are told will kill them today) they cited GREENPEACE as their SOLE source of proof....
> 
> Gate du Jour â Now itâs Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4 | Watts Up With That?
> 
> There are links right to the IPCC doing it by the way, so dont try to deny it.
> 
> So they cited greenpeace and ignored most of corals history. hmmm.
> 
> Also if you think we need a "study" to tell us that coral lived through warmer more transitional eras, as well as through much higher co2 levels your just wrong. We have all this data. Anyone here can look it up if they wanted to.


Here are some studies on related data. Why exactly did the IPCC use greenpeace for a citation as if it was science??

CO2 Science


> What was learned
> The four researchers determined that nutrient uptake and photosynthetic parameters "were all unaffected by pH treatments 8.3-7.7," treatments that they say "match the predicted 21st century changes in CO2 and pH." In addition, they found that "cellular carbon and total particulate organic carbon were both completely unaffected by pH treatment within this range," and that "the same was true for the succession of all 25 enumerated protist species." In addition, they report that "phytoplankton pigment analysis did not show effects of pH either," and they say that "the investigated plankton community was thus, in all ways, resilient to pH changes between 8.3 and 7.7," noting once again that these changes are equivalent to the predicted changes for the next century.
> 
> What it means
> In discussing their findings, Nielsen et al. write that "others have also found no or very limited changes in phytoplankton communities in response to 21st century predicted changes in pH and CO2," citing Kim et al. (2006), Riebesell et al. (2007) and Suffrian et al. (2008); and they also note, in this regard, that "many coastal plankton communities are impervious to such changes," additionally citing the work of Nielson et al. (2010). One potential reason for this "broad level of pH-tolerance," as they describe it, is that "pH in coastal waters often fluctuates as a result of respiratory and photosynthetic processes," as well as "hydrographical events," with the result that "seasonal, and even diurnal, fluctuations in coastal seawater pH have been shown to encompass 7.5 to 9.6 (Macedo et al., 2001; Hansen, 2002)." And thus they conclude that "it is unlikely that the investigated plankton community would be significantly affected by a pH and CO2 change as predicted for the 21st century."


CO2 Science


> What was learned
> Overall, in the words of the five UK researchers, "there were very few effects on T. pseudonana of long-term culture at different pCO2 and pH." In fact, they report that "growth rates were identical in cultures supplied with 780 or 360 ppm CO2," and they note that "similar results have been reported for other diatom species," citing the studies of Tortell et al. (1997), Tortell (2000), Kim et al. (2006) and Shi et al. (2009 ).
> 
> What it means
> In light of their several findings and the analogous results of several other scientific teams, Crawfurd et al. conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."


This last one is the most interesting and likely explains why some disaree with this premise. 
CO2 Science


> Background
> The authors write that studies on the impact of ocean acidification on marine organisms that have been conducted to date "have only considered the impacts on 'adults' or 'larvae', ignoring the potential link between the two life-history stages and the possible carry-over effects that may be passed from adult to offspring," citing the work of Dupont et al. (2010), Hendriks et al. (2010) and Kroeker et al. (2010).
> 
> What was done
> To begin to fill this research void, Parker et al. placed adults of wild-collected and selectively-bred populations of the Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) - which they obtained at the beginning of reproductive conditioning - within seawater equilibrated with air of either 380 ppm CO2 (near-ambient) or 856 ppm CO2 (predicted for 2100 by the IPCC) that produced seawater pH values of 8.2 and 7.9, respectively, after which they measured the development, growth and survival responses of the two sets of larvae.
> 
> What was learned
> The six scientists found that the larvae spawned from adults living in the "acidified" seawater were the same size as those spawned from adults living in near-ambient seawater; but they report that "larvae spawned form adults exposed to elevated CO2 were larger and developed faster." In addition, they say that "selectively bred larvae of S. glomerata were more resilient to elevated CO2 than wild larvae," noting that "measurement of the standard metabolic rate (SMR) of adult S. glomerata showed that at ambient CO2, SMR is increased in selectively bred compared with wild oysters," and that it is further increased "during exposure to elevated CO2."
> 
> What it means
> Parker et al. say their findings suggest that "previous studies that have investigated the effects of elevated CO2 on the larvae of molluscs and other marine organisms [whose predecessors had not been exposed to elevated CO2] may overestimate the severity of their responses," concluding that the results of their work suggest that "marine organisms may have the capacity to acclimate or adapt to elevated CO2 over the next century."


ALL of these contradict the IPCC stance. They arent even mentioned by them. A group that claims to solely review the data. somehow however they always end up ignoring what they dont like.


----------



## silverseeds

Here is another study on the heat island effect. which the IPCC downplays drastically. There are several others as well. I believe I posted the second and third links here already, but I will re post them. 
CO2 Science

Urban warming in Japanese cities and its relation to climate change monitoring - Fujibe - 2010 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

New paper: UHI, alive and well in China | Watts Up With That?


----------



## arabian knight

silverseeds said:


> Here is another study on the heat island effect. which the IPCC downplays drastically.


It sure does have a effect.
After living in the Phoenix metro area for 10 years.
I Watched how well the heat island works. 
I saw storms many times split in half just as they were reaching the PHX area and the storm split and would Go Around the Metro area.~! Many times this would happen not just once or twice. So ANY DATA that is taken inside those Heat Islands are FALSE as they can be.
And at night driving to the edge of the metro area you could feel the temp go DOWN the further away from the city. It was great.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Actually, I'm pretty sure you won't find that the ~20% efficiency of an IC engine is comparable to power plants' efficiency. Especially after you factor in the energy loss in moving the fuel to the vehicle.
> 
> And we could control the emissions of ONE power plant a wee bit better than 10s of thousands IC engines.
> 
> And we are adding renewable energy sources to the power grid.


Perhaps I was inexact with my words.

What I meant was, the carbon footprint needed to use coal to produce electricity is greater than the carbon footprint needed to use an IC engine to do the same work.

Natural gas has a similar footprint to coal, when it comes to carbon that can be released into the atmosphere, as opposed to smoke/soot.

Engineers count on wind power being available 15% of the time. If you are using wind to fuel a battery at your house and then transferring the charge to your car overnight, this will work. Otherwise, we have to factor in that so far, there isn't one commercial windmill out there on the planet that has saved us enough to equal a net zero in carbon.

By that, I mean that it takes energy to design, manufacture, and build the windmill, and then more to transport and install it. This is the carbon "cost" that needs to be paid back before it can start saving carbon output.

This is especially true when you take into consideration that all the energy must be transported via power lines to the consumers. When all the costs are counted, it just isn't as good as everyone wants to believe.

Solar, by its every nature, can only be produced 50% of the time, and when it is produced commercially, it has to be located where there's a ton of space, so again, you run into the whole transmission line problem.

Now, on the household level, both of the options makes some sense when it comes to saving carbon, but not money. At a household level, energy produced via wind and electric could be stored in batteries and in some areas, that could be enough to power the lights and things like that, though not computers, microwaves, electric stove or dryer, and probably not a refrigerator or deep freeze.

For places like Phoenix and LA, it makes sense to have individual houses equipped to handle much of their electrical load, but it can't handle and AC unit. Fans, though -- it could handle fans no problem, and many fans to move the air around would help more than most people think (having live in Phoenix and visited in LA in August, as well as having lived in Las Vegas, and I know from experience that a great many new builders have completely overlooked ceiling fans in favor of fancy chandeliers. Ceiling fans are a much overlooked item when it comes to moving air -- hot or cold -- around to make the house more comfortable.


----------



## arabian knight

Narshalla said:


> For places like Phoenix and LA, it makes sense to have individual houses equipped to handle much of their electrical load, but it can't handle and AC unit. Fans, though -- it could handle fans no problem, and many fans to move the air around would help more than most people think (having live in Phoenix and visited in LA in August, as well as having lived in Las Vegas, and I know from experience that a great many new builders have completely overlooked ceiling fans in favor of fancy chandeliers. Ceiling fans are a much overlooked item when it comes to moving air -- hot or cold -- around to make the house more comfortable.


And that is why just West of Phoenix, there is the largest Nuclear Plant in the USA. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
There should be more plants like this in the US.


----------



## Heritagefarm

MushCreek said:


> The good news: There are free (for now) electric vehicle charging stations now in the Greenville/Spartanburg area.
> 
> The bad news: It takes FOUR HOURS to charge up for 40 miles worth of driving. I didn't see that catching on until the only other option is walking.


I guess it's not 3-phase? 3-phase chargers can charge the car up in about an hour for 100 miles, which seems somewhat more plausible. But what's that - about 10MPH? Hmm...


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Perhaps I was inexact with my words.
> 
> What I meant was, the carbon footprint needed to use coal to produce electricity is greater than the carbon footprint needed to use an IC engine to do the same work.



I guess at this point you'd really need to bring some numbers to the table.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Another interesting note...
> 
> ....



Let us know when you can deliver a body of evidence that supports your claims. A body of evidence that is close to the research that has been being done for the past century plus that basically says you are wrong in in your premis - CO2 not being the primary driver - as well as your arguments about the body of evidence that 98% of the scientists agree on.


Not to mention the claims of 'agenda', etc, etc......


----------



## Narshalla

Heritagefarm said:


> I guess it's not 3-phase? 3-phase chargers can charge the car up in about an hour for 100 miles, which seems somewhat more plausible. But what's that - about 10MPH? Hmm...


Unfortunately, I found this before I started bookmarking all my sources.

However, it was in one of the articles that was about the efficiency (or lack thereof) of adding ethanol to gasoline, and the fact that in order to make 1 gallon of ethanol, it takes 1.8 gallons of petroleum products.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Let us know when you can deliver a body of evidence that supports your claims. A body of evidence that is close to the research that has been being done for the past century plus that basically says you are wrong in in your premis - CO2 not being the primary driver - as well as your arguments about the body of evidence that 98% of the scientists agree on.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the claims of 'agenda', etc, etc......


98 percent of scientist agree to what exactly???

DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory




> In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view,"


the same research was conducted on the same database a few years later.


> Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
> 
> Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."


Analysis: New International Survey of Climate Scientists | Heartland Institute



> The relevant/interesting tables start at 11a. On a scale from 1 = âvery inadequateâ to 7 = âvery adequate,â scientists are asked to rank âdata availability for climate change analysis.â More respondents said âvery inadequateâ (1 or 2) than âvery adequateâ (6 or 7), with most responses ranging between 3 and 5. About 40% score it a 3 or less.
> 
> This roughly bell-shaped distribution is repeated in about a third of the 54 tables addressing scientific issues (as opposed to opinions about the IPCC, where journalists get their information, personal identification with environmental causes, etc.). The remaining two thirds are divided almost equally between distributions that lean toward skepticism and those that lean toward alarmism. (See my break-out below.)
> 
> What does this mean? For two-thirds of the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. There is certainly NO CONSENSUS on the science behind the global warming scare.


and then here was the actual study. 

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf

This is dramatically more comprehensive then a "study" that only included one section of climate science and from there only included people who wrote 20 papers or more. Not that Id necessarily call this all inclusive either, such a survey has never been done, but it certainly has a wider smpling then the one youve pointed to as proof. Proof of what I have no idea.


----------



## silverseeds

posted the wrong link


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Let us know when you can deliver a body of evidence that supports your claims. A body of evidence that is close to the research that has been being done for the past century plus that basically says you are wrong in in your premis - CO2 not being the primary driver - as well as your arguments about the body of evidence that 98% of the scientists agree on.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the claims of 'agenda', etc, etc......


Heartland Institute Responds to $5,000 Bounty for Climate Skeptics

by the way if you can prove your claim right there, some dude frm the heartland institute will give you 5k! Not to shabby!



> âThe true issue of contention between alarmists and skeptics is whether the Earth is likely to warm in such a rapid and catastrophic manner as to justify the economy-killing solutions advocated by global warming alarmists.* I will personally pay a $5,000 bounty to the first person who can deliver verifiable evidence that 95 percent of qualified American scientists believe human-caused global warming is occurring in such a rapid and catastrophic manner as to justify the economy-killing solutions advocated by global warming alarmists.â*


----------



## silverseeds

here is bit more to challenge the idea of consensus.

Do meteorologists count? If so... this particular poll was cast specifically to challenge an earlier one that included a wider range of meteorologists that arguably had less knowledge then this particular group. and just so people can ignore it I linked it through the heartland institute instead of another source. 

http://heartland.org/policybot/results/26794/Meteorologists_Reject_UNs_Global_Warming_Claims.html


> Objective Methods
> 
> The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists. A prior survey of all television weather forecasters--including ones without meteorological training--produced a heavy percentage of skeptics. The new survey was designed to determine whether the meteorologists held the same opinion as the broader group of all television weather forecasters.
> 
> The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.
> 
> Alarmist Claims Rejected
> 
> The AMS study found:
> 
> Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, &#8220;Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.&#8221;
> 
> Only 19 percent agree with the claim, &#8220;Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.&#8221;
> 
> nly 19 percent agree with the assertion, &#8220;Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.&#8221;
> 
> Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman&#8217;s strongly worded statement, &#8220;Global warming is a scam.&#8221;


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...Do meteorologists count?
> ....



Confusing weather with climate. Again.

And Expertise with Opinion.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...Meteorologists_Reject_UNs_Global_Warming_Claims.htm
> ....


And from the 2011 survey.....

"...
in
contrast
few
indicated
it
isnât
happening
(4%),
or
that
they
âdonât
knowâ
(7%).
Respondents
who
indicated
that
global
warming
is
happening
were
asked
their
views
about
its
primary
causes;
a
large
majority
indicted
that
*human
activity
(59%),*
or
human
activity
and
natural
causes
in
more
or
less
equal
amounts
(11%),
were
the
primary
causes.
Relatively
few
respondents
indicated
that
the
warning
is
caused
primarily
by
natural
causes
(6%),
although
a
substantial
minority
(23%)
indicated
they
donât
believe
enough
is
yet
know
to
determine
the
degree
of
human
or
natural
causation."

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

Guess they've been studying the science.

Might want to look at Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia also.


And, still, we have this pesky issue:

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Confusing weather with climate. Again.
> 
> And Expertise with Opinion.


I didnt confuse weather with climate.... and this conversation was actually ABOUT opinion. Interesting how you ignored the other link. I can definitely see you learned "science" from an advocate of AGW. 

Are you shooting for that 5k reward???


----------



## roberte

Well, we are getting a lot of opinion... From those who are attempting to deny the science.

Which reminds me:

Where is the hypothesis for Beck's magical 240 gigatons?

Where is the list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with the IPCC findings?

Where are the numbers from those 'almost all astrophysicists'?

Where is the wording in agenda21?

Where is the evidence of 'agenda'?

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe







silverseeds said:


> I didnt confuse weather with climate.... and this conversation was actually ABOUT opinion. Interesting how you ignored the other link. I can definitely see you learned "science" from an advocate of AGW.
> 
> Are you shooting for that 5k reward???


You do realize that attempts at personal attacks makes your arguments look even weaker, right?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And from the 2011 survey.....
> 
> "...
> in
> contrast
> few
> indicated
> it
> isn&#8217;t
> happening
> (4%),
> or
> that
> they
> &#8220;don&#8217;t
> know&#8221;
> (7%).
> Respondents
> who
> indicated
> that
> global
> warming
> is
> happening
> were
> asked
> their
> views
> about
> its
> primary
> causes;
> a
> large
> majority
> indicted
> that
> *human
> activity
> (59%),*
> or
> human
> activity
> and
> natural
> causes
> in
> more
> or
> less
> equal
> amounts
> (11%),
> were
> the
> primary
> causes.
> Relatively
> few
> respondents
> indicated
> that
> the
> warning
> is
> caused
> primarily
> by
> natural
> causes
> (6%),
> although
> a
> substantial
> minority
> (23%)
> indicated
> they
> don&#8217;t
> believe
> enough
> is
> yet
> know
> to
> determine
> the
> degree
> of
> human
> or
> natural
> causation."
> 
> http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf
> 
> Guess they've been studying the science.
> 
> Might want to look at Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia also.



This is hilarious!!!! Okay, so in response to the survey of ACTUAL METEOROLOGISTS you post one from the meteorological society, were a solid chunk of them do not have close to the level of schooling, AFTER telling me this was irrelevant anyway because of a lack of expertise. Sorry, but if either of these surveys matter, the one I linked is from people with much more knowledge on these related topics. 

By the way... this was the first survey by the same group you just linked.

Majority of Broadcast Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis | Heartland Institute
It had much different results, and this second one from them you link covered more respondents. Do you realize the survey I linked was literally taken out BECAUSE of the first one. This time they included only meteorologists. You know, the ones with actual expertise and training. *If we are to include any of the three surveys, the one I linked is from those with the most knowledge and scientific training. *



> Objective Methods
> 
> The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists. A prior survey of all television weather forecasters--including ones without meteorological training--produced a heavy percentage of skeptics. The new survey was designed to determine whether the meteorologists held the same opinion as the broader group of all television weather forecasters.
> 
> The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.


Majority of Broadcast Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis | Heartland Institute


> &#8220;AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,&#8221; D&#8217;Aleo said. &#8220;Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.
> 
> &#8220;This survey likely was conducted in an attempt to isolate a &#8216;more scientifically trained&#8217; subset of broadcast meteorologists that could be touted as more scientifically knowledgeable than television weathercasters as a whole. The survey shows, however, that such an attempt has backfired,&#8221; D&#8217;Aleo added.


----------



## roberte

Even E&E couldn't publish his 'research'. Given their history, that says volumes.



silverseeds said:


> www.dailytech.com



And, again, a blog..... Not the research, not the data, just a press release.

I guess we'll never find out:

Who has attempted to support Beck by showing some plausible explanation of those magical 240 gigatons.

The list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with the IPCC findings.

The number those 'almost all astrophysicists' have as evidence.

The papers written by 'almost all astrophysicists' ......

Why the UA data has been found in error yet again.....

The wording for 'agenda21' ....

etc


etc


etc...


"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun&#8217;s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven&#8217;t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## roberte

2011 survey was to members of AMS

"AMS
Members
are
a
diverse
group
of
professionals
from
throughout
the
weather
and
climate
enterprise.
Members
must
meet
at
least
one
of
the
following
professional
and/or
educational
requirements
(although
AMS
holds
a
broad
and
inclusive
interpretation
of
these
requirements):
hold
a
baccalaureate
or
higher
degree
from
an
accredited
institution
of
higher
learning
in
the
atmospheric
or
related
sciences;
or
hold
a
baccalaureate
or
higher
degree
from
an
accredited
institution
of
higher
learning
in
some
other
science
or
a
related
field
and
be
currently
engaged
in
a
professional
activity
in
which
his
or
her
knowledge
is
applied
to
the
advancement
or
application
of
the
atmospheric
or
related
sciences;
or
have
completed
at
least
20
semester
hours
of
college
level
coursework
in
the
atmospheric
or
related
sciences
and
have
at
least
three
years
of
professional
experience
in
the
last
five
years."

Show us exactly in the methodology how your 2010 survey was different.




silverseeds said:


> This is hilarious!!!!



BTW, from your survey. From the actual results. Not from a Heartland press release about the survey.

Over half of weathercasters
indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce
greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%).

http://www.climatechangecommunicati...teorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf

Wonder why that didn't get quoted at Heartland.

Or by you....


----------



## Heritagefarm

silverseeds said:


> I didnt confuse weather with climate.... and this conversation was actually ABOUT opinion. Interesting how you ignored the other link. I can definitely see you learned "science" from an advocate of AGW.
> 
> Are you shooting for that 5k reward???


Most mainstream science (real science) is indicative of AGW. Does this make them all "advocates" or are they simply scientists, doing their jobs.


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> 2011 survey was to members of AMS
> 
> "AMS
> Members
> are
> a
> diverse
> group
> of
> professionals
> from
> throughout
> the
> weather
> and
> climate
> enterprise.
> Members
> must
> meet
> at
> least
> one
> of
> the
> following
> professional
> and/or
> educational
> requirements
> (although
> AMS
> holds
> a
> broad
> and
> inclusive
> interpretation
> of
> these
> requirements):
> hold
> a
> baccalaureate
> or
> higher
> degree
> from
> an
> accredited
> institution
> of
> higher
> learning
> in
> the
> atmospheric
> or
> related
> sciences;
> or
> hold
> a
> baccalaureate
> or
> higher
> degree
> from
> an
> accredited
> institution
> of
> higher
> learning
> in
> some
> other
> science
> or
> a
> related
> field
> and
> be
> currently
> engaged
> in
> a
> professional
> activity
> in
> which
> his
> or
> her
> knowledge
> is
> applied
> to
> the
> advancement
> or
> application
> of
> the
> atmospheric
> or
> related
> sciences;
> or
> have
> completed
> at
> least
> 20
> semester
> hours
> of
> college
> level
> coursework
> in
> the
> atmospheric
> or
> related
> sciences
> and
> have
> at
> least
> three
> years
> of
> professional
> experience
> in
> the
> last
> five
> years."
> 
> Show us exactly in the methodology how your 2010 survey was different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, from your survey. From the actual results. Not from a Heartland press release about the survey.
> 
> Over half of weathercasters
> indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce
> greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%).
> 
> http://www.climatechangecommunicati...teorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf
> 
> Wonder why that didn't get quoted at Heartland.
> 
> Or by you....


Posts in this style shows your desperation and contempt for the information presented to you. The fact is that you really do not understand the dynamics of the earths climate and only parrot those that have been caught lying about their data. Some folks are feeble minded and believe wahtever they're told. Sad, really, really sad! Have a nice day!


----------



## JeffreyD

Heritagefarm said:


> Most mainstream science (real science) is indicative of AGW. Does this make them all "advocates" or are they simply scientists, doing their jobs.


No, it's not "most of". It's a small percentage. Do you have any numbers to back this statement up that are from a bi-partisan source, i'd like to see them. Thanks! Are these "scientists" doing their jobs, or trying to keep the funding for them?


----------



## roberte

You could increase you credibility by orders of magnitude if you actually showed us a site that points to all the science that makes the science showing ACC as a "small percentage".

That is, if you could actually do that.

It is the same request we've asked of others. 

And there isn't a response.......



JeffreyD said:


> No, it's not "most of". It's a small percentage.
> ....


----------



## roberte

Interesting that actually citing quality and widely accepted information to counter the unsupported claims being proffered by those attempting to deny the science is characterized as "..desperation and contempt..".

Interesting also that a request for information that supports the claims of those denying the science brings "feeble minded and believe wahtever (sic)" as a response.



JeffreyD said:


> Posts in this style shows your desperation and contempt for the information presented to you. The fact is that you really do not understand the dynamics of the earths climate and only parrot those that have been caught lying about their data. Some folks are feeble minded and believe wahtever they're told. Sad, really, really sad! Have a nice day!



Maybe you could increase your credibility by showing us the "...caught lying about their data."


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> You could increase you credibility by orders of magnitude if you actually showed us a site that points to all the science that makes the science showing ACC as a "small percentage".
> 
> That is, if you could actually do that.
> 
> It is the same request we've asked of others.
> 
> And there isn't a response.......


It's been shown to you ad nausium. You just refuse to except that more prominent scientists disagree with human caused global warming than agree with it. It's that simple. Do you aknowledge that YOU are part of the problem? That YOU distroy habitat and are a contributor to "the problem"? Just curious!


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> Interesting that actually citing quality and widely accepted information to counter the unsupported claims being proffered by those attempting to deny the science is characterized as "..desperation and contempt..".
> 
> Interesting also that a request for information that supports the claims of those denying the science brings "feeble minded and believe wahtever (sic)" as a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could increase your credibility by showing us the "...caught lying about their data."


Look at the East Anglia e-mails. That's enough right there to disprove anything that comes from the ipcc. Hansen(your idol) has been caught fudging numbers too. I can't post links from my phone, but you've been shown all this before!


----------



## roberte

Please do show us.

Maybe even quote some bits out of context.


And don't forget to report on the findings on the investigations.


Don't forget to show us the "caught fudging".

We can wait til you get back to a computer for the links.

Not that we'll see them anyway.....



JeffreyD said:


> Look at the East Anglia e-mails. That's enough right there to disprove anything that comes from the ipcc. Hansen(your idol) has been caught fudging numbers too. I can't post links from my phone, but you've been shown all this before!


"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sunâs output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they havenât even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
John P. Holdren 
Convincing the climate-change skeptics - The Boston Globe


----------



## silverseeds

Heritagefarm said:


> Most mainstream science (real science) is indicative of AGW. Does this make them all "advocates" or are they simply scientists, doing their jobs.


Im not even sure what you mean, or what your basing this on. I posted real science disputing most every major claim of AGW. Along with datasets you could verify for yourself the AGW folks cherry picked horribly. 

I can only assume you dont know what the IPCC actually uses to support their claims, and didnt study the links I gave, and data they linked in cases it wasnt directly on what I posted.


----------



## roberte

Here's a couple of lists:

Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
Palaeoclimate
Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Climate Models and their Evaluation
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Global Climate Projections
Regional Climate Projections

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

1 Observed changes in climate and their effects
1.1 Observations of climate change
1.2 Observed effects of climate changes
1.3 Consistency of changes in physical and biological systems with warming
1.4 Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change
2 Causes of change
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
2.2 Drivers of climate change
2.3 Climate sensitivity and feedbacks
2.4 Attribution of climate change
3 Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios
3.1 Emissions scenarios
3.2 Projections of future changes in climate
3.3 Impacts of future climate changes
3.4 Risk of abrupt or irreversible changes
4 Adaptation and mitigation options and responses, and the inter-relationship with sustainable development, at global and regional levels
4.1 Responding to climate change
4.2 Adaptation options
4.3 Mitigation options
4.4 Relationship between adaptation and mitigation options and relationship with sustainable development
4.5 International and regional cooperation
5 The long-term perspective: scientific and socio-economic aspects relevant to adaptation and mitigation, consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Convention, and in the context of sustainable development
5.1 Risk management perspective
5.2 Key vulnerabilities, impacts and risks â long-term perspectives
5.3 Adaptation and mitigation
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation
5.5 Technology flows and development
5.6 Costs of mitigation and long-term stabilisation targets
5.7 Costs, benefits and avoided climate impacts at global and regional levels
5.8 Broader environmental and sustainability issues
6 Robust findings, key uncertainties
6.1 Observed changes in climate and their effects, and their causes
6.2 Drivers and projections of future climate changes and their impacts
6.3 Responses to climate change

AR4 SYR Synthesis Report



silverseeds said:


> ....
> disputing most every major claim of AGW
> ....


What did you post about each?


----------



## roberte

btw:

Still waiting for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with IPCC

Still waiting for that number those astrophysicists consider more accurate

Still waiting for that scientist who agrees with Beck's magical 240 gigatons and has developed an hypothesis to explain it.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> What did you post about each?


Are you asking me to re post them??? I cant fathom what your asking, while seemingly pretending your serious.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> btw:
> 
> Still waiting for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with IPCC
> 
> Still waiting for that number those astrophysicists consider more accurate
> 
> Still waiting for that scientist who agrees with Beck's magical 240 gigatons and has developed an hypothesis to explain it.


hehe. Hilarious you think this is making a point. Still waiting for you to spend five seconds to prove why we should ignore almost all early direct measurements. Of course Ive pointed out this is irrelevant, either way, neither dataset supports AGW anyway. You seem to want to pretend I actually dont believe the mythology because of this when it has nothing to do with it. 

Still waiting for you to explain why the IPCC used a single solar expert who had to alter the data. Still waiting for you to even acknowledge let alone refute with science dozens of studies Ive linked. 

Are you expecting me to conduct my own poll of astrophysicists??? Ive pointed out the sillyness of your demand many times. You appear oblivious. You will indeed find many of them are skeptics. 

Of course you couldnt refute any of the data I posted on probably dozens of topics. Better you pretend I didnt post any!! Perhaps I should go back through and make a list, then speak from authority as you do. Of course it wouldnt change the reality. You ignore what you dont like just like the IPCC. 

By the way its HILARIOUS you quote hansen in your sig line. he is a complete charlatan. History will indeed remember him as such. just wait until the hysteria dies away.


----------



## arabian knight

No matter how many those charts are posted does not make them right. They have been proved false time and time again. Some ought to get a new cult to follow.


----------



## roberte

arabian knight said:


> They have been proved false time and time again.


Where?


----------



## roberte

Still waiting for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with IPCC

Still waiting for that number those astrophysicists consider more accurate

Still waiting for that scientist who agrees with Beck's magical 240 gigatons and has developed an hypothesis to explain it.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Still waiting for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with IPCC
> 
> Still waiting for that number those astrophysicists consider more accurate
> 
> Still waiting for that scientist who agrees with Beck's magical 240 gigatons and has developed an hypothesis to explain it.


Debate, debate, debate -- you're not going to change anyone's mind.

Still waiting for solutions -- laws. rules, and regulations -- that you'd put into place to fix the problem.

There was that one post were a bunch of people said we _should_ do something, and you've made "suggestions," but what laws would you put in place, backed up by force?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Still waiting for that list of 'almost all astrophysicists' who disagree with IPCC
> 
> Still waiting for that number those astrophysicists consider more accurate
> 
> Still waiting for that scientist who agrees with Beck's magical 240 gigatons and has developed an hypothesis to explain it.


Ive already told you many times now i dont believe such a list exist for the first question. why keep asking? what is your goal with that exactly? Keep demanding something I dont believe exists and never said did??? Ive asked this several times now. instead of answering or acknowledging you just ask me the question again? Ive also asked you since you started this little rant/question if you have a second astrophysicist to go with the IPCCs single soler expert? there have been a good number in everything Ive listed if youve been reading through everything. 

I literally just cite a study that includes the aspects the IPCC ignored in their last report. After asking for a response many times, you finally responded to it once and asked me how it was different. You could read it now perhaps??? 

I have no idea why you believe your making a point with beck. Ive pointed out many times I wasnt even the one who brought him up. heritagefarm is the one who brought him up. You claimed that in 5 seconds you could prove why the bulk of the early direct measurements should be ignored. That was the entire point of becks work in fact, try to get someone to use proof instead of belief in regards to why we should ignore said data. Ive told you from the beginning there may indeed be a reason why most of the data should be ignored, like beck it would be nice to see proof, rather then a vague explanation. Ive repeated this, and repeated this. Yet instead of answering, as you claimed you could do in 5 seconds, you ask me to prove where the co2 came and went??? Why? What do you hope to accomplish from continually demanding answers to questions I already answered? i dont know where it went, heck I dont know if it was accurately measured. However Id like science not belief to dictate how we relate to data. I never even brought beck up to make any point other then belief is used to alter data. This is an obvious clear case. So why ignore my repeated answer, heck for that matter why ignore pretty much all MY questions?, almost all my links?? then act coy and ask for it all over again?

heck Ive answered all these questions a few times now. If you dont like my answers, oh well. I still have given them to you many times. Why do you keep asking them? I did indeed point out most astrophysicists seem to be skeptics. you asked for proof, and I told you I wasnt even sure it was something I could prove but it seems true in my research. I also pointed out the IPCC only had one solar expert. which segways into the next, I did indeed say the IPCC didnt weight the sun as astrophysics does. i then posted a few links talking about the interrelated aspects they ignore, and a study the models it when you include those influences. What else do you want exactly? In a debate youd next show me how the IPCC DID include those things (which you cant because they didnt) or show me how they should have been ignored, (you cant because they are verified) or show me the study weighted it wrong, which may be an arguable point. For beck, yes I do indeed want proof as to why we should ignore the nulk of 90k direct measurements. Getting it to line up with the icecore, a record we cant be certain is accurate isnt exactly a scientific answer in my eyes. the fact this co2 would have had to come and go relatively fast, potentially means little, when we take into account that this is a fraction of a percent difference between natural sinks and sources in a given timeframe. In the context that we cant verify the icecore data which is a fact presently even if its widely accepted dismissing data to comply with the icecore is silly to me. So whats your point exactly?? I like science and proof over belief???


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Ive already told you many times now i dont believe such a list exist for the first question. why keep asking? what is your goal with that exactly? Keep demanding something I dont believe exists and never said did???



You made a claim. You made a claim you can't support.

If you 'knew' 'almost all astrophysicists disagreed with IPCC numbers, you'd have the information proving it.

You don't.

Because it is an untrue claim.

And it is important that someone reading your claims realizes that you don't have the facts on your side.

Hence the list of questions you refuse to respond to with data.


----------



## roberte

So, tell us how you know the IPCC used "only one solar expert'.

Let us know where we can find the names of all those astrophysicists.

Let us know what that number is.

Let us know what aspects " aspects the IPCC ignored ' in your opinion.

Tell us why we should believe the datasets Beck used. Be sure to explain why there aren't the spurious readings after the Mauna Loa series started. You know, the method of measuring you claim is inaccurate? Where are the 'direct method' numbers now?

And again, tell us how you know, what papers can you point to to explain "IPCC didnt weight the sun as astrophysics does."


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> Debate, debate, debate -- you're not going to change anyone's mind.
> 
> Still waiting for solutions -- laws. rules, and regulations -- that you'd put into place to fix the problem.
> 
> There was that one post were a bunch of people said we _should_ do something, and you've made "suggestions," but what laws would you put in place, backed up by force?



Yes, a rather odd thread since there was a lot of off-topic noise.....

I've listed my 'suggestions'. I'm pretty sure no one else has. Nor was there any response to my 'suggestions'.

So, laws? Policy? 

Maybe start with something like meeting EU mileage goals.

Maybe start with enforcing EPA effluent and emission standards.

Maybe start with exceeding world solar and wind production goals.

Maybe expand the home weatherization program.

Maybe improve the home and industry building codes for efficiency, recycling, environmental costs.

Maybe build up our public / mass transit.

Maybe review land use to facilitate localization.

Maybe make sure we aren't subsidizing extractive's environmental and health costs.

Heck, how about building out a K-12 educational program emphasizing how to make good environmental decisions, developing local sustainability, ....

Or you could bring your suggestions.......


----------



## roberte

Btw:


"...there is a strong correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its willingness to quote or use uncontested sceptical voices in opinion pieces; and that the type of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming are almost exclusively found in the US and UK newspapers. * Sceptics who challenge the need for robust action to combat climate change also have a much stronger presence in the media of the same two countries*."

Environmental Research Letters
Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007&#8211;10 Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007


----------



## roberte

Also see:

"Maybe it&#8217;s a good thing that the major political parties are not engaged in a pitched battle over climate change. Maybe this presents us with an opportunity to remove the political baggage from the scientific evidence. We can start thinking rationally about the problems we face and start considering those tough questions that really matter. Then maybe, in two or four years&#8217; time, we can leave behind the partisan extremist positions and start building the groundwork for common agreement rather than mutual distrust."

Is Silence Golden? | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Hence the list of questions you refuse to respond to with data.


Bizarre. In actual reality Ive already posted enough data for us to discuss for some time. Instead of responding to any of it the vast bulk was ignored entirely. the little you did acknowledge we talked about everything but the content of my links. why? (we both know the answer though dont we)

I literally had more data to add to most of the previous points, but my opening arguments so to speak havent even been acknowledged. 

and you say this?? Im not even sure what to say. i mean its clear political posturing works for you, but this hasnt exactly been a scientific discussion here. You appear to be in some type of vacuum where you are more important then all others. Where your demands must be met even a dozen times in a row while you ignore the same things over and over or even in cases outright lie about them. Im very capable of discussing the full depth of these things with honest people. You should have seen my geologist uncle and I get into this. We went back and forth for weeks in email before I convinced him. If he had played the games you do we never would have gotten far at all. Of course you know that very well it seems. Your very adept at controlling a conversation and re directing it from things you dont want to talk about. you could give most politicians a run for their money Id bet. 

Beyond that what I posted so far was apparently harder hitting then I thought, since you are unable to respond. Instead we get political posturing. Very telling indeed. 



roberte said:


> So, tell us how you know the IPCC used "only one solar expert'.


Oh wow. You were there when I found out! heck I sat there and listed the actual careers and training of all those on the solar section of the IPCC report. I went all the way down the line not surprised at all that none of them had any training with the sun. 

until I got to judith, and heard about judithgate. The IPCC and their single solar expert. The fact she had to alter data to make her claims. We went back and forth on that forum for weeks with me asking you to post data on their second solar expert. (that didnt exist no wonder we got posturing instead) Of course since an honest conversation is not on your radar you wont do so. 



> Let us know where we can find the names of all those astrophysicists.
> 
> Let us know what that number is.


Heck there are probably a dozen peppered through the links Ive given already. Im up to 12 times the IPCC. 



> Let us know what aspects " aspects the IPCC ignored ' in your opinion.


Many times I have told you this is all right in the study I had to repost several times and point out to you many more before you acknowledged it by asking me whats in it. Read the thing. what in the world?? It isnt "in my opinion"... They did indeed ignore entire aspects of the suns proven influence. 


> Tell us why we should believe the datasets Beck used. Be sure to explain why there aren't the spurious readings after the Mauna Loa series started. You know, the method of measuring you claim is inaccurate? Where are the 'direct method' numbers now?


Why in the heck would I do this??? You can re direct to beck all you like. I never even brought the guy up, and he cant add much at all to the conversation. I think we should use science to decide which data to ignore. You apparently like the others believe that belief with vague explanations never proven are enough. Hilarious you now think I should prove why we should include it, when I never made the case we should. I asked you to tell us why we should ignore it rather. I simply want facts to dictate it rather then belief. You claimed you could prove it was correctly ignored with 5 seconds. I kindly asked you to do so, because Ive looked for it and never found it. Instead of doing that, you keep bringing it up as if its relevant, all while ignoring everything I do post??? what is this exactly? It isnt a debate of science, that is clear. 


> And again, tell us how you know, what papers can you point to to explain "IPCC didnt weight the sun as astrophysics does."


:stars: Read the study. Read the IPCC section on the solar influence. Its very very basic and non debatable. A few minutes of reading and youll have your answer.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> my opening arguments so to speak havent even been acknowledged.



Because the claims were unsupported by you.

Until pressed for a source.

Then you brought forward press releases, blogs, etc, etc. etc.


If you had a significant body of evidence, then you wouldn't be protesting about being ignored, claiming to have brought evidence, but would be repeatedly bringing forward what you claim to have brought.

You know, actually proving your claims of having 'mountains of data' and proving that I was ignoring those 'mountains'.


You know, like a number that supports your claim the IPCC is using an invalid value for solar . The best we've gotten is a claim - the mythological 'almost all astrophysicists' - and that group you now acknowledge doesn't exist. 

But you still insist there are 'ignored aspects' in the IPCC reports.

But, no number. Just claims.

Endlessly repeated.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> If you had a significant body of evidence, then you wouldn't be protesting about being ignored, claiming to have brought evidence, but would be repeatedly bringing forward what you claim to have brought.
> 
> You know, actually proving your claims of having 'mountains of data' and proving that I was ignoring those 'mountains'.


Interesting. 

In actual reality I reposted most of them more then once. in actual reality you ignored many links to direct studies as well, and the "blogs" for the most part had links to the hard science making my case. In actual reality when I continually repost something and it is ignored or at best we talk about everything about a link besides the actual content, then we cant exactly have a discussion. 

considering Ive only just begun posting on most of these points (only can do it as i have time to dig it all up) I find it very telling you have to do this grandstanding instead of anything directly targeting the actual content of my posts and links. Notice we talk about everything but the content of anything I post in actual context. Even points I continually brought up. Youd talk about everything you could EXCEPT what i actually wrote or the data cited. Why?? Your seriously going to pretend it isnt true? 

Apparently I started out better then I thought I had.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> Interesting.
> 
> In actual reality I reposted most of them more then once
> ....


I think we've pointed out before it is that you are citing outlier data, blogs, press releases. And Beck. 

If you had actually posted what you consider the science, actually posted an explanation of why you consider a press release as the equivalent to a published paper, then we could talk about the paper or your level of criticality that lead you to accept it as valid.

You've already conceded that Beck might not be accurate, you've already conceded that you don't have an alternative number for solar. You've already conceded that you don't know the names of any astrophysicist who disagree with the IPCC findings.

So all we have from weeks of your claims is that you don't believe CO2 is the primary driver of the climate change we are seeing and having to react to.

But, other than a 'anything but anthropogenic CO2' and some vague claims of 'agenda' and 'IPCC ignored a lot of data' stances we are seeing no evidence from you that could support your claim.

No list of the data the IPCC ignored.

No plausible hypothesis.

No alternative numbers.

Nothing that effects the findings of the IPCC.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I think we've pointed out before it is that you are citing outlier data, blogs, press releases. And Beck.


This is hilarious. In actual reality most of my links, linked hard science sorry. I wasnt even the one that brought up beck, of course Ive pointed this out a dozen or so times. 

heritage farm brought up beck, but you think its a poor source and you still ramble on about it. which tellls me a LOT about how you related to the dozens of other links. most of which you ignored entirely the few you acknowledged we talked about everything but the content, and this is because they were worthless? So you will ramble on about a point I never even intended to make and literally take it out of context from the conversations I did bring it up, and there was nothing to anything I posted? really now?? 

Sorry, your "debating" style gives you away. Imo its very obvious you didnt know how to respond so you didnt. Made more obvious by the fact there was indeed hard science at the links I posted as science. (others were on other topics like the IPCC citing activist groups. for several of their claims)



> If you had actually posted what you consider the science, actually posted an explanation of why you consider a press release as the equivalent to a published paper, then we could talk about the paper or your level of criticality that lead you to accept it as valid.


When did I act like a press release was equal to a published paper? Sorry didnt happen. why the need to lie??? Im curious? You repeatedly say i brought nothing of value, yet routinely lie about what I did bring. So why? 

EDITED TO ADD actually did you mean the watts post on this?? If so, then yes I found value to the link. he linked to the LITERAL RAW DATA you can get yourself directly from the source, and do the math!!! Yes this is as valuable as a paper. More so actually, its the raw data. the raw data is clear, this last july was 2.1 degrees cooler then NOAA claimed if you go by a modern system built with multiple redundancy instead of the old system that they need to adjust all the data for various factors that affect the temps. I dont need a study to do basic math with the raw data to figure out the average tem for a month. 



> You've already conceded that Beck might not be accurate, you've already conceded that you don't have an alternative number for solar. You've already conceded that you don't know the names of any astrophysicist who disagree with the IPCC findings.


Dude, I told you beck might not be accurate the first time I ever brought gim up on an entirely different forum!! 

And no I didn "concede i didnt have an alternative number for solar"... In actual reality I linked a study that gave the alternative numbers. Why the need to lie?? I DID list astrophysicists that disagreed with the IPCC, I just didnt sit here and give a full list, heck the things I cited about the IPCC and their single solar scientist included TWO astrophysicist talking about how the IPCCs single solar expert altered data. Why the need to lie??? Three lies in that tiny paragraph. Why? 



> So all we have from weeks of your claims is that you don't believe CO2 is the primary driver of the climate change we are seeing and having to react to.
> 
> But, other than a 'anything but anthropogenic CO2' and some vague claims of 'agenda' and 'IPCC ignored a lot of data' stances we are seeing no evidence from you that could support your claim.


Opps! in actual reality I covered a whole range of topics the IPCC ignores. Like the bulk of the temp data for the meieval warm period for instance. the validity of the heat island effect, the validity of land use changes. Yes you pretended you proved those wrong by showing the IPCC "included" those by saying those factors were nearly meaningless. the studies on these things show they are very wrong however. Heck most land use changes show LARGER temp differences then we even officially consider our temp anomol;y for the globe right now! Obviously they are localized effects, but its major where we do have land changes, no doubt in the world. 

then of course we have the suns influence. I supported all of these of course. Much more data on all of them as well, no doubt but I indeed did support all of these with actual STUDIES, not blogs or opinion pieces as yor claiming. Others as well. So why lie???


> No list of the data the IPCC ignored.
> 
> No plausible hypothesis.
> 
> no plausible hypothesis??? are you serious? Of course I gave a plausible hypothesis.
> 
> No alternative numbers.
> 
> Nothing that effects the findings of the IPCC.


uh.. Not even sure what to say here, except your obviously not reading my posts (or are continuing on the outright lies you engaged in above) and I barely started. give me a few days Got some winter garden planting to do, I will re cite some past things and bury you under a new wave of data to ignore. Ive got several waves of data for you to ignore actually. just need to find the time at this point. I guess you can ignore my preliminary case, and reframe it as you did if you like, but it wont help you much as the rest of my case comes in. that much I can tell you. to date all I posted was simply to get the ball rolling on a good debate. that was far from the entire case if you happened to be confused on that point.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...
> In actual reality I linked a study that gave the alternative numbers...



And didn't / couldn't /wouldn't post the number........


----------



## roberte

Since this thread was supposed to be about solutions.......

WE ARE AS GODS AND HAVE TO GET GOOD AT IT

The shift that has happened in 40 years which mainly has to do with climate change. Forty years ago, I could say in the Whole Earth Catalog, "we are as gods, we might as well get good at it". Photographs of earth from space had that god-like perspective.

What I'm saying now is we are as gods and have to get good at it. Necessity comes from climate change, potentially disastrous for civilization. The planet will be okay, life will be okay. We will lose vast quantities of species, probably lose the rain forests if the climate keeps heating up. So it's a global issue, a global phenomenon. It doesn't happen in just one area. The planetary perspective now is not just aesthetic. It's not just perspective. It's actually a world-sized problem that will take world sized solutions that involves forms of governance we don't have yet. It involves technologies we are just glimpsing. It involves what ecologists call ecosystem engineering. Beavers do it, earthworms do it. They don't usually do it at a planetary scale. We have to do it at a planetary scale. A lot of sentiments and aesthetics of the environmental movement stand in the way of that.

Edge: WE ARE AS GODS AND HAVE TO GET GOOD AT IT : A Talk With Stewart Brand


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And didn't / couldn't /wouldn't post the number........


??? In actual reality I posted it several times. I even directly asked for a response to it many times, so far the only response was asking me to explain it.

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the general circulation climate models

Here you go again. This is just strange. Why the need to lie? seriously? Its been posted a few times, referenced many others, and you say this? Its all here in black and white in the forum. 



> Abstract
> 
> We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10â10.5, 20â21, 60â62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850â1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10â10.5, 20â21 and 60â62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700â2010 warming and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about 0.3â1.2 Â°C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0â3.6 Â°C projected warming. The results of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first approximation, can be forecast.
> Highlights
> 
> &#9658; The IPCC (CMIP3) climate models fail in reproducing observed decadal and multidecadal limate cycles. &#9658; Equivalent cycles are found among the major oscillations of the solar system. &#9658; A correction for the projected anthropogenic warming for the 21st century is proposed. &#9658; A full empirical model is developed for forecasting climate change for a few decades since 2000. &#9658; The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2 Â°C by 2100.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ??? In actual reality I posted it several times. I even directly asked for a response to it many times, so far the only response was asking me to explain it.
> 
> 
> sciencedirect.com/science...


Actually, I asked for the number, the solar irradiance number, the RF. Your claim was 'almost all astrophysicists disagreed with the IPCC RF value of .12 (.06-.30).

You've admitted you don't have a list of those 'almost all astrophysicists' and now you are pointing to a paper that doesn't have one either.

So, exactly what value range to those 'almost all astrophysicists ' agree on?

Scafetta's paper is proposing using a new climate model and discusses the results of that proposed new model in comparison to what is currently being used.

And the model "...assumes that the climate is resonating with, or *synchronized to a set of natural harmonics* that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the *solar system planetary motion*, which is *mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn*.". Not solar irradiance.

And, again, since we discussed the paper before, read the corrigendum. Where Scafetta rewords some of the findings in a more political bent trying to focus on climate cycles, not human activities.



But not a word about solar irradiance. No RF.


So, we are still looking for a number from you that needs to be at least an order of magnitude larger than the IPCC.

Or some seriously large amount of research showing the CO2 number is smaller than the solar number.

Then you'd need to show temp tracking solar at near 100%.

Ahhhh, the difficulties of the 'anything but anthropogenic CO2' crowd. Lots of ruminating, just precious little data to support any of a myriad of often conflicting claims.




silverseeds said:


> ...so far the only response was asking me to explain it.
> 
> 
> ....


So, if you thought that paper was a response that actually answered the question, it seems rather like we do need that explanation.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> The climate will likely stay steady until 2030/2040 and may warm by about 0.3-1.2 Â°C by 2100.


 from the abstract.


Convenient for the 'do nothing', the 'we aren't the problem' crowd, isn't it?

And that is based mainly on a assumption (based on the author's previous papers) that ""...assumes that the climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system planetary motion, which is *mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn*."


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Actually, I asked for the number, the solar irradiance number, the RF. Your claim was 'almost all astrophysicists disagreed with the IPCC RF value of .12 (.06-.30).


You should go reread the study. The part that is confusing you, is that there is more then one way the sun is involved. As i said. 

If you believe a second astrophysicist agrees with the IPCC feel free to link about them as well. I have lots more to post sometime soon on the topic stay tuned... 

actually I will leave you with just this for now. 
Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

It is a bunch of AGW believers explaining why we havent seen the claimed warming for over a decade. 

some interesting things to point out from this piece. It includes the IPCCs single solar expert! who hoo! Good ol hansen is in there also! 

here is what the IPCCs single solar expert said..



> Sunshine
> 
> The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star.
> 
> For decades, it has been known that the sun moves through irregular, 11-year cycles that see its magnetic activity wax and wane. During the solar minimums, the sun's surface is quiet and relatively still; during maximums, it is punctuated by salt and pepper magnetic distortions: dark sun spots, which decrease its radiance, and hot white "faculae," torches of light that increase its radiance. Overall, during maximums the faculae seem to win out, causing the sun's brightness to increase by 0.1 percent.
> 
> Only recently have climate modelers followed how that 0.1 percent can influence the world's climate over decade-long spans. (According to best estimates, it gooses temperatures by 0.1 degrees Celsius.) Before then, the sun, to quote the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, got no respect, according to Lean, a voluble solar scientist working out of the the space science division of the Naval Research Laboratory, a radar-bedecked facility tucked away down in the southwest tail of Washington, D.C.
> 
> Climate models failed to reflect the sun's cyclical influence on the climate and "that has led to a sense that the sun isn't a player," Lean said. "And that they have to absolutely prove that it's not a player."
> 
> This fading bias stems from the fervent attachment some climate skeptics have to the notion that the sun, not human emissions, caused global warming over the past few decades. As Lean notes, such a trend would require the sun to brighten more in the past century than any time in the past millennium, a dynamic unseen during 30 years of space observation. Yet fears remained that conceding short-term influence, she said, would be like "letting a camel's nose into the tent."


Hey wait, the IPCCs single solar expert still believes co2 is a driver, but is now saying much of the same things I said about the suns influence? Wow aint that weird??? I imagine youll just ignore this roberte instead of acknowledge it? (if a reviewer of the IPCC 5th report who posted on WUWT were honest the sun is downplayed even more despite all this by the way, not sure if they found a different solar expert or what the deal is there, guess we will see) 

Ut oh, if you read below you will see hansen acknowledging his work based the suns influence on this same single solar expert. (same one the IPCC based all theirs on) 

You might also notice the this same judith says that the suns hiatus IS enough to halt AGW while the suns energy dropped, and she believes as the sun intensifies through 2014 (this was written in 2011) we will see a spike in temp. Of course we now know that the sun is NOT intensifying, and weve had several recent studies suggest if the sun stays on this track we have a mini iceage headed this way. Many AGW folks tell us the sun will be overpowered by AGW, but it seems the IPCCs single solar expert disagrees. 


> NASA's Hansen disputes that worry about skeptics drove climate scientists to ignore the sun's climate influence. His team, he said, has "always included solar forcing based on observations and Judith's estimates for the period prior to accurate observations."
> 
> There has been a change, however, he added. Previously, some scientists compared the sun's changing heat solely to the warming added by greenhouses gases and not the combined influence of warming gases and cooling pollution. And if air pollution is reflecting more sunlight than previously estimated, as Hansen suspects, the sun will indeed play an important role, at least in the upcoming decades.
> 
> "That makes the sun a bit more important, because the solar variability modulates the net planetary energy imbalance," Hansen said. "But the solar forcing is too small to make the net imbalance negative, i.e., solar variations are not going to cause global cooling."
> 
> According to Lean, the combination of multiple La NiÃ±as and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that's needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases. Now that the sun has begun to gain in activity again, Lean suspects that temperatures will rise in parallel as the sun peaks around 2014.
> 
> There's still much to learn about the sun's solar cycles. Satellites are tricky. Lean spends much of her time separating what are changes in brightness versus instrument problems on satellites. (Her favorite error? Proteins accumulating on a camera lens, introducing spurious trends.) Meanwhile, she has also found that the past three solar cycles, confoundedly, each had similar changes in total brightness, despite the first two cycles being far more abundant in sun spots and faculae than the last.
> 
> This consistent trend has prompted Lean to take a rare step for a climate scientist: She's made a short-term prediction. By 2014, she projects global surface temperatures to increase by 0.14 degrees Celsius, she says, driven by human warming and the sun.
> 
> Will her prediction come true? Check back in with her in three years, she said.


Weird huh. here I am using people I disagree with, as citations for things I said. its a fun piece either way. 

among the things discussed are aerosols. We havent talked much about that. For the record I DO believe humans are likely affecting climate with them. As much as some claim? I dunno, ive waded through the data, and it doesnt seem conclusive to me beyond having a trackable effect. (unlike co2 which must be cherry picked out of the data)


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> from the abstract.
> 
> 
> Convenient for the 'do nothing', the 'we aren't the problem' crowd, isn't it?


Its convenient for ALL of us actually. Why? Well if you understand the REAL skeptics who do range a bit in thinking, then the skeptic argument is either proven or disproven over the next few years. 10-15 tops. most likely much sooner. 

Later I will be linking data on some of the climatic influences I only touched on earlier. All of these are proven contributors but we just dont know how much. the suns current actions give us the perfect opportunity to really sort out the two opposing mindsets. 

So yes imo this benefits us wall if we were wise. My personal take is no matter your stance we need to transition away from fossil fuels to something cleaner, but we have other issues also! Our relationship to water tables and our oceans being major enviro threats! 

keep in mind the linked solar study still included AGW as true, and STILL we have reason to believe a cooling trend for a few decades! I assure you in that time the skeptics will either truly be vindicated or reduced to a handful of people that dont have any idea of what they speak, which I understand you believe now but isnt the reality. 

We are told we must act NOW, and it is true this study is only one opinon on ehow to weight SOME (not all) of the solar variables not currently in models, but its a fact our models do not include these despite dozens of studies showing a clear role. 

All that said, the fact we are likely to have a few cool decades SAVES us AGW or not!!! If AGW is real, then we will KNOW it well before the temps start rising again! the last of the skeptic arguments having been fleshed out. If it isnt true? well then we didnt cripple ourselves over it prematurely. 

imo, AGW or not, wed be VERY wise to try to for instance make all new power plants thorium! not perfect, but it can solve a few issues at once. If we replaced all outdated plants as they needed replaced in this manner, I bet wed be well on our way to energy independence and if it matters balanced co2 levels. 

In the mean time imo the environmental movement would be wise to put more focus on farming. With the right methods not only to we account for up to 40% of our nations co2 output (according to a rodale study) we would also have a great impact on desertification and the "deadspots" in our oceans. 

Of course few probably care what I think, but there it is... thats my take.


----------



## silverseeds

here is another interesting study...

ASTROMETRIA

This is out of russia, they predict 100 years of cooling. 

here is an article on the same study linked above. By the way roberte, these are some more of the astrophysicists that I base much of my thinking on. How many am I up to now? Im not even sure how many worked on this study, it is several. Id have to go back through and count them up, but it would be over a dozen by now Im sure. Including the IPCCs single solar expert having validated parts of what I said even though she still believes in agw. hmmm. (by the way I barely started posting on the topic) 

Russian scientist predicts 100 years of cooling



> See their cooling graph for the next 100 years!
> 
> In a study of cyclic behavior of the Sun, Russian scientists now predict 100 years of cooling.
> 
> *These are not just any scientists. This forecast comes from astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.*
> 
> The Russian scientists began by looking at a paper published by J. A. Eddy* in 1976 that documented the correlation between sunspot activity and corresponding large &#8211; and disruptive &#8211; climate changes on Earth. Disruptive because the changes frequently lead to economic and demographic crises that affected the existence of entire nations.
> 
> Conducting research similar to Eddy&#8217;s, Russia&#8217;s Eugene Borisenkov** discovered a quasi 200- year cycle of global cooling during the past 7,500 years that correlates to times of sunspot minima similar to the Maunder minimum. (These were also times when any industrial influence was non-existent, Abdussamatov points out. )
> 
> Our planet warms and cools in predictable 200-year cycles corresponding to 200-year variations in the size and luminosity of the Sun, the scientists found. Previous global warmings &#8211; of which there have been many &#8211; have always been followed by deep cooling.
> 
> The 200-year variations in sunspot activity and total solar irradiance (TSI) are the dominating reason for climate change, says Abdussamatov. &#8220;In whole, the solar cycles are a key to our understanding of different cyclic variations in the nature and society.&#8221;
> 
> Existence of the 11-year and 200-year solar cycles of identical and synchronized variations of luminosity, sunspot activity and diameter of the Sun is one of the most reliably ascertained facts in solar physics, says Abdussamatov.
> 
> &#8220;The study of physical processes on the Sun not only gives us an understanding of a large number of astrophysical questions, but also of the questions of geophysics, meteorology, biology and medicine. All energy sources used by humanity are linked to the Sun. The heat and light of the Sun ensured the development of life on the Earth, formed the deposits of coal, oil, gas etc.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;All life on the Earth and its future conditions directly and almost in whole depend on the total solar irradiance (TSI).&#8221;


Considering the source, Im not sure you could call this "outlier" roberte... sorry. of course nothing else I posted was outlier either.


----------



## silverseeds

CO2 Science


> What was learned
> The two Chinese researchers determined that "the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability," and they report that the "relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations," noting that "between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years," which latter time interval represents the approximate temporal differential between the current Global Warming Period and the prior Medieval Warm Period.
> 
> What it means
> Very interesting is the fact that Qian and Lu needed no help from greenhouse gas emissions to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of earth's global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. As for the future, they predict that "global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s."


Here is another group of solar scientists. This time from china. who also find accounting for the suns influence in context explains our climate even ignoring co2. Weird huh? they talk of shorter cycles as well, but mention the same 200 year cycle the russian study mentioned. 

the studies do differ in future trending though. Likely having to do with the fact the china study including the smaller cycles as well. Both predict we are headed for colder temps in the near future however. the chineese study expects a rise in temps by 2060. 

By the way if you arent aware, you cant take the claimed value for co2 levels in regards to warming and plug it into the past and get the numbers to match up. Try it yourself. There is a reason the AGW guys havent done this to make their case, because it doesnt work. If it did, wed see it plastered all over the place. Yet the suns influence can. You might also note they didnt have to pretend the medieval warm period didnt exist to get their claims to match the data.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> also find accounting for the suns influence in context explains our climate even ignoring co2.
> ....


And their RF number is?


And what does "in context" mean in that context?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And their RF number is?
> 
> 
> And what does "in context" mean in that context?


The study is linked directly. Read it if you care if not im not sure why your asking me.


----------



## roberte

Here's another chart that has a bunch of numbers.


I wonder if someone could point to where in all those recently posted links there are definitive numbers that put these









FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

into question.



silverseeds said:


> The study is linked directly. Read it if you care if not im not sure why your asking me.



And again, I'm rather flummoxod by an inability to quote an RF number.

Or to cite anything directly from one of those links that 'proves' that data was 'ignored by IPCC'.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And again, I'm rather flummoxod by an inability to quote an RF number.
> 
> Or to cite anything directly from one of those links that 'proves' that data was 'ignored by IPCC'.


hmm, Im not sure I can help you honestly. If well over 100 links on a single topic, that is a proven climate driver over earths history isnt factored into the IPCC models and you cant see the obvious nature of this after all I posted there isnt much I can do. The study is right there to read. 

By the way this russian solar study your pretending you cant understand.... It comes out of some of the most prominent centers for astrophysics on the planet. Im not sure if that is the case with the chineese study that agrees with them. The IPCC having come along with their single solar expert doesnt exactly define an entire field of science. Funny you think it does. 

Oh well. Thanks for the laughs this morning!! I will head into some other realms of science for you to ignore as I find a few hours for some study...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> hmm, Im not sure I can help you honestly. If well over 100 links on a single topic, that is a proven climate driver over earths history isnt factored into the IPCC models
> .....



I'm wondering how you will prove that part of your statement.

Which "... well over 100 links..." doesn't do.

So:

1 - What is the "single topic"
2- How do your "... well over 100 links..." make this unnamed "single topic" "proven"?
3-Where is the evidence that the IPCC didn't 'factor' this unnamed "single topic" into its reports?
a- were they not included in the IPCC references / citations?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I'm wondering how you will prove that part of your statement.
> 
> Which "... well over 100 links..." doesn't do.
> 
> So:
> 
> 1 - What is the "single topic"
> 2- How do your "... well over 100 links..." make this unnamed "single topic" "proven"?
> 3-Where is the evidence that the IPCC didn't 'factor' this unnamed "single topic" into its reports?
> a- were they not included in the IPCC references / citations?


huh... What exactly is "unnamed".. Because I never posted 100 links on a "unnamed" topic. We are talking about cosmic radiations influence on climate of course. You knew that though. 

also the topic I posted on, I had posted the proof before I even posted the backround data that lead researchers to bother to look for said proof in the particle accelerators. 

You yourself proved the IPCC didnt factor this into their models. You cited them "explaining" why. Of course in face of the fact this is a proven climate driver over 100s of millions of years their explanation was a bit weak to put it mildly. 

Two groups are now pouring over all the data we have on this climate driver. One of the researchers for one of these groups believes it explains our entire climate history when factored in with other proven climate drivers. (co2 not among them being a theory backed by cherry picked datasets and ignoring most factors to leave room for it to have an effect) We will see. Either wy if yuo studied the links I gave its very obvious its a legit climate driver, and will account for some or even all of what is now attributed to co2. 

For the record science is supposed to include ALL known variables. The AGw folks will learn this the hard way i guess. You can pretend your confused if you like. Science will march forward anyway. 


Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net 
You might find this interesting. It is a few prominent AGW folks trying to explain why the temps have leveled off instead of doing what they had predicted. The science is "settled" except they still ignore proven climate drivers and cant agree on whats happening currently. LOL!!! Oh yeah, you will also see the IPCCs single solar expert verifying some things I said. Hansen verifies some things I said as well.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> huh... What exactly is "unnamed".. Because I never posted 100 links on a "unnamed" topic. We are talking about cosmic radiations influence on climate of course. You knew that though.


Ahhhh, "cosmic radiation"......

And the RF number is?


----------



## roberte

Now that we have a name....




silverseeds said:


> ...cosmic radiations influence on climate
> ...


And still no RF number.

I'd be really interested to see your - citing papers, of course - explanation of what constitutes these "cosmic radiations".

If there is more than one type, what is the RF number for each?

And, what is the total aggregated number?

Don't forget range and probability, of course.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> You yourself proved the IPCC didnt factor this into their models. You cited them "explaining" why.



Of course, if you were attempting to hold an honest debate, you'd be citing where I said what you are claiming I said.......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Now that we have a name....


lol!! you had the name the whole time of course. You couldnt figure it out from the dozens of links and my repeated explanations?

No matter. 

again you seem confused here, asking for the RF number. the main effect we are talking about is an influence on seeding clouds. there appear to be other ways it plays a factor, but that is the big one. this particular link (with cloud formation) has now been proven. 

This should help for further reading. 

Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....show that particles from space create cloud cover


OK.

Now, where is the study that proves that the cloud cover created by space particles (why does that sound like something from a 1950's 'b' movie) has a material influence on what we are observing in our climate?

Yes, I'm again asking for a number that you can link to from your cited research.

Not asking you to discuss your 'it can't be CO2' theory.

Just a number that can be plugged into a discussion of space particles' influence on global warming.

For example, on this chart, what would you plug in?











Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers


----------



## silverseeds

If you go back over the studies I linked, several of them gave estimates. Their work though for the most part simply helped establish a link, they were small studies without a lot of backing. At this point, now that this link is proven, we have atleast two international teams pouring over the data with more resources available so we should have more concrete numbers soon. 

This plausible deniability is what let the IPCC ignore this factor I guess. and we DO have some idea of where this goes (much less or even no room for AGW, now its just a matter of figuring out precisely) 

The interesting thing though, is an international group that claims to be about science wasnt calling for deeper study on this topic. Keep in mind we only know a little bit about clouds and for decades we knew cosmic rays played a role, but it was only studied on the side and virtually ignored by the rest of climate science. Yet plays a key role with clouds? which have a strong effect? this is telling by itself. 

the skeptics who for over a decade would point to this were mocked and laughed at. Yet the data was clear, there was almost certainly a connection and it seemed to account for literally all of our warming. (yes officially this is still being ironed out) We were told we denied the science, literally for thinking we should study a topic that we have data going back 100s of millions of years as playing a role!! You cant have an accurate view of climate science while ignoring known drivers!! You can pretend this works if you personally prefer, but it isnt science. this isnt even the only factor this is done with!! 

Here we are after over a decade of being mocked, now this link has been proven. (twice by two different groups) there is no doubt this will change our understanding of climate science. If you think it wont change things, your simply not reading what Ive posted. unlike the co2 theory, this is actually proven now, although officially we dont have numbers of the exact level, past work shows us it is significant and potentially explains it all. we will see.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> If you go back over the studies I linked, several of them gave estimates. Their work though for the most part simply helped establish a link, they were small studies without a lot of backing.
> 
> 
> ......




While you were copy pasting, why didn't you cite the "estimates"?

As in, what would you plug into the chart above?

Or, failing that, maybe just a rationale for why you've made a conscious choice to not do so.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....Keep in mind we only know a little bit about clouds
> ....


OK, take the "little bit about clouds" that we knew about by 1997:









FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science


And show us how your new research substantively changes that.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> While you were copy pasting, why didn't you cite the "estimates"?


They were in there. But I didnt make a case of it because I understand science. 

this was just a theory until recently. Now this link is proven, we have two groups (or more, two publicly doing it) working at going back over all the past data to give us a better perspective of the effects. something that should have been done long ago, if climate science wasnt about proving AGW. 

So while the data in the studies I linked shows us clearly which direction this will go (much less room for co2 to have played a role-and keep in mind the OTHER effect I just cited, the cyclical nature of the sun is a different topic, and one even the IPCCs single solar expert pointed out and I cited) I wouldnt want to estimate it myself. We will have official numbers before to long. 

In fact since we failed to make binding international agreements at copenhagen, and now rio+20, we will have a few years before such an attempt will be tried again. which means in the mean time this ignored and now proven factor will be more fully understood, and we will also have more satellite data out, potentially supporting past work showing the atmosphere simply isnt capturing the heat the models suggest it should. (nor do we have the hot spot in the atmosphere the models predict we should by the way-care to explain that roberte? you cant of course because no one in the field really tries, they just try to ignore it)

Its going to be an interesting few years for climate science to put it mildly.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> OK, take the "little bit about clouds" that we knew about by 1997:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
> 
> 
> And show us how your new research substantively changes that.


Im curious how you believe anything on your link is counter to understanding a variable that plays a key role in the level of cloud cover we have???


----------



## roberte

Your claim seems to be that some recent research effects our understanding on cloud formation.


And, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding your claim, that new understanding on cloud formation directly effects something about the global warming we are currently experiencing.

If those statements are accurate representations of your thinking, then it should be pretty easy to point to the bits of research that would change either the Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) numbers and or the IPCC attribution chart:





















silverseeds said:


> Im curious how you believe anything on your link is counter to understanding a variable that plays a key role in the level of cloud cover we have???


Or, if they don't, then why did you post all those bits?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Your claim seems to be that some recent research effects our understanding on cloud formation.
> 
> 
> And, unless I'm seriously misunderstanding your claim, that new understanding on cloud formation directly effects something about the global warming we are currently experiencing.


My "claim"... It isnt my claim. I merely showed it to you. this is where the science is taking us.

If you have no agenda, Im curious why your not happy we have a better understanding of what drives cloud formation??? 

Are you upset it leaves less room for co2 to have an effect, even if the precise level is still in question??

If so, how could you possibly be upset to find we are less likely to be causing warming? 

It isnt like we dont have several other major issues to deal with anyway environmentally speaking. We an use all the leeway we cant get frankly. 



> Or, if they don't, then why did you post all those bits?


these "bits" are a field of research that shows us more of the inner workings of the climate. This remains true co2 as a driver or not. To fully understand the climate, we have to understand all of the inputs, and ways they affect the climate system. 

We now have proof of one of the factors driving cloud formation, and this will indeed change our current modelling. Also, I touched on it, and will add ore later but the suns cyclical nature is another topic not correctly accounted for in the models used to support AGW. I will get into that deeper and several others as I find the time. If you remember I also posted the IPCCs single solar expert ALSO mentioning the fact the suns cyclical nature was ignored! interesting huh. Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net 

If this is all about the science for you, why arent you happy we are understanding climate better? Even if you still believe AGW is a major threat, I cant fathom why you wouldnt be happy to have a clearer understanding so we can face our issues in the best way we are able.


----------



## roberte

Because you haven't produced a credible line of evidence showing that "cloud formation" has a substantive effect on what we are observing happening in our climate.

You have a bit on making clouds. You have a bit on 'space particles' .

But you don't have anything that shows that either:









or










are fundamentally wrong.

Nor do you have a line of evidence that even shows a shift in those numbers. 



silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> If you have no agenda, Im curious why your not happy we have a better understanding of what drives cloud formation???
> ....



Show us how knowing more about clouds 'proves' that CO2 isn't the prime driver.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Because you haven't produced a credible line of evidence showing that "cloud formation" has a substantive effect on what we are observing happening in our climate.
> 
> You have a bit on making clouds. You have a bit on 'space particles' .
> 
> But you don't have anything that shows that either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are fundamentally wrong.
> 
> Nor do you have a line of evidence that even shows a shift in those numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us how knowing more about clouds 'proves' that CO2 isn't the prime driver.


By itself the fact we understand more about what forms clouds doesnt disprove co2 as a climate driver. Nor are your IPCC links even relevant. We know the effects clouds play, now we know part of what SEEDS clouds. This is the point you seem confused about...

Im really not sure why you think those IPCC links are relevant on this topic. Nothing you posted had conflicting data. Your posting on the wrong topic, unless you forgot to use the IPC link proving cosmic rays dont seed clouds as our actual body of research proves. 

Looking at past work in the field, its clear this accounts for a solid chunk if not all of our current warming trend. Although officially the details are still being worked out. So that leaves us wondering if co2 is having an effect, where is it? well presuming we do find out it accounts for ALL of our current warming instead of just part of it. Either way it leaves less room for co2 to have had an effect. We will know more soon, although soon in regards to studies like this can be awhile. They will get attacked form all angles no doubt, so the two groups working on this are going to be very thorough Im sure. 

We will see who the real climate deniers are as this evolves.


----------



## roberte

You didn't mean this, did you?

"Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous."


" The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. "

" Because of the difficulty in tracking the influence of one particular modification brought about by ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes, quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached."

2.7.1.3 Indirect Effects of Solar Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing




silverseeds said:


> ....
> *IPC link proving cosmic rays dont seed clouds *as our actual body of research proves.
> ....


 (my bolding)


So, show us the link to IPCC bringing support to your claim.


----------



## roberte

Quite the bold statement.

Esp. considering we haven't seen a number yet.....




silverseeds said:


> .... its clear this accounts for a *solid chunk if not all of our current warming trend*.
> 
> ....
> 
> So that leaves us wondering if co2 is having an effect, .....
> ....


(my bolding)


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You didn't mean this, did you?
> 
> "Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous."


Are you trying to prove right or wrong? I cant figure it out. 

By the way, it is no longer "ambiguous".. 



> " The presence of ions, such as produced by cosmic rays, is recognised as influencing several microphysical mechanisms (Harrison and Carslaw, 2003). Aerosols may nucleate preferentially on atmospheric cluster ions. "
> 
> " Because of the difficulty in tracking the influence of one particular modification brought about by ions through the long chain of complex interacting processes, quantitative estimates of galactic cosmic-ray induced changes in aerosol and cloud formation have not been reached."


Again, you literally made part of my case for me. 

It now HAS been proven. Of course we should have studied it in more depth looong ago, but focus was "elsewhere". we long had the indication that clouds were seeded by cosmic influences. Now we have the proof. Im rather baffled what part your confused about, or how you believe this IPCC link challenges anything I linked???




> (my bolding)
> 
> 
> So, show us the link to IPCC bringing support to your claim.


You just did that for me actually. 



roberte said:


> Quite the bold statement.
> 
> Esp. considering we haven't seen a number yet.....
> 
> 
> (my bolding)


You got several numbers actually. They are mixed through the studies I linked. You do realize of course I linked one of the lead study groups of this a few times now right? 

Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover

This is one of the two groups that is currently working at figuring out precisely what this now proven effect is causing. You can pretend we dont already have a body of data to draw from, but in reality we do. there was nothing "bold" about my statement. Ive studied the topic is all. If you study it, you will see the truth to what I said. Or you can remain biased. Its your life.


----------



## Narshalla

Roberte, I've noticed you've been very persistent asking for the numbers, which is admirable, and I respect you for it.

However, I've also noticed that you consistently dismiss the sun's contribution to global warming . . . and this is where you lose me.

Our sun is the reason that we are warm at all, but you try to tell me that it doesn't matter?

I don't get it -- the sun's output varies from year to year, and even a 0.1% change in output in any direction will have a huge change in our climate, but that doesn't matter?

You are demanding numbers from Silverseeds, I get that, and she (or he, or whatever) can't provide them, so you don't believe her, but the sources you are using for your data and conclusions have been proven to have an agenda, namely to _prove_ that man-made global warming is real, regardless of the facts, and you still believe your own sources?

How on earth can that work?


----------



## roberte

Solar variation doesn't cause "huge change in our atmosphere".

IPCC figures put solar at less than 1/10th of CO2. And that is for average output. What the 'it's the sun' proponents are claiming is the VARIATION in solar output -the various cycles of sunspots, etc - is what accounts for the current state of our climate.

And that VARIATION is on the order of one percent.

So, solar to start is less than a tenth, and you are asking for a one percent of that tenth to be the major driver.










Now, if you have a body of evidence that shows a significantly different number for solar irradiance or for Anthropogenic CO2, THEN you'd have made some case for your claim of "agenda".

That is, IF you can show that the IPCC authors purposefully ignored data that would change those numbers.







Narshalla said:


> Roberte, I've noticed you've been very persistent asking for the numbers, which is admirable, and I respect you for it.
> 
> However, I've also noticed that you consistently dismiss the sun's contribution to global warming . . . and this is where you lose me.
> 
> Our sun is the reason that we are warm at all, but you try to tell me that it doesn't matter?
> 
> I don't get it -- the sun's output varies from year to year, and even a 0.1% change in output in any direction will have a huge change in our climate, but that doesn't matter?
> 
> You are demanding numbers from Silverseeds, I get that, and she (or he, or whatever) can't provide them, so you don't believe her, but the sources you are using for your data and conclusions have been proven to have an agenda, namely to _prove_ that man-made global warming is real, regardless of the facts, and you still believe your own sources?
> 
> How on earth can that work?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> IPCC figures put solar at less than 1/10th of CO2.


Yet they ignore the cyclical nature of the suns influence. this is why I keep posting all these solar studies that disagree with the IPCC. the AGW folks try to focus on but one aspect of the suns influence. Its strange they do this while claiming others dent the science. 

Heck if you read this...

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

The single solar expert for the IPCC says the same thing. and basically outright says they have to ignore the suns influence, then hansen goes to rambling about ONE ASPECT of the suns influence. Its hilarious. This will all backfire though. 

then of course we have the indirect influences of the sun, which relate to cosmic rays and cloud seeding. You can pretend there werent numbers given in the studies linked but there were. Personally Im going to wait for the two groups studying the now proven factor though. Which Is a rather solid stance Id think considering the weight of the topic.


----------



## roberte

You claimed the IPCC 'ignored' cosmic rays and clouds.

They didn't. I cited from just one chapter dealing with them.

What you claim is that this new research 'proves' something that materially effects the way science should look at the causes of ACC.

Since you can't bring a number of any sort, you haven't made a connection between how variations in cosmic rays or whatever have a substantive effect on the observed climate changes.

Much less supported your claim that it 'pushes' CO2 out of the picture as the primary driver of the observed climate changes.



The research you cited (Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover) or rather the press release, doesn't give a number, btw. Perhaps you meant to quote another paper?




silverseeds said:


> Are you trying to prove right or wrong? I cant figure it out.
> 
> By the way, it is no longer "ambiguous"..
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you literally made part of my case for me.
> 
> It now HAS been proven. Of course we should have studied it in more depth looong ago, but focus was "elsewhere". we long had the indication that clouds were seeded by cosmic influences. Now we have the proof. Im rather baffled what part your confused about, or how you believe this IPCC link challenges anything I linked???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just did that for me actually.
> 
> 
> 
> You got several numbers actually. They are mixed through the studies I linked. You do realize of course I linked one of the lead study groups of this a few times now right?
> 
> Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover
> 
> This is one of the two groups that is currently working at figuring out precisely what this now proven effect is causing. You can pretend we dont already have a body of data to draw from, but in reality we do. there was nothing "bold" about my statement. Ive studied the topic is all. If you study it, you will see the truth to what I said. Or you can remain biased. Its your life.


----------



## silverseeds

Narshalla said:


> Roberte, I've noticed you've been very persistent asking for the numbers, which is admirable, and I respect you for it.
> 
> However, I've also noticed that you consistently dismiss the sun's contribution to global warming . . . and this is where you lose me.
> 
> Our sun is the reason that we are warm at all, but you try to tell me that it doesn't matter?
> 
> I don't get it -- the sun's output varies from year to year, and even a 0.1% change in output in any direction will have a huge change in our climate, but that doesn't matter?
> 
> You are demanding numbers from Silverseeds, I get that, and she (or he, or whatever) can't provide them, so you don't believe her, but the sources you are using for your data and conclusions have been proven to have an agenda, namely to _prove_ that man-made global warming is real, regardless of the facts, and you still believe your own sources?
> 
> How on earth can that work?


You might want to reread the linked studies there narshalla. I DID provide the "numbers"... I linked them right in this thread. I also repeatedly explained now that this is proven, we have two groups going back over all the data to give u more precise numbers. what we have already does make it clear this accounts for a large chunk of the warming we experienced. Its literally all in the links I gave. 

Why would I personally single out one or a few of those to wave around as factual when two groups of experts in this field are working on doing this??


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You claimed the IPCC 'ignored' cosmic rays and clouds.
> 
> They didn't. I cited from just one chapter dealing with them.


uh, sorry, you literally showed they DID NOT include this in their models. In their defense it wasnt proven at the time, but we had strong evidence and frankly it should have gotten more attention long ago. 




> What you claim is that this new research 'proves' something that materially effects the way science should look at the causes of ACC.


actually this has been researched for decades, it has recently been PROVEN though, so it isnt going to be ignored much longer. 


> Since you can't bring a number of any sort, you haven't made a connection between how variations in cosmic rays or whatever have a substantive effect on the observed climate changes.


If you say so. Its all linked right here. I also explained several times why I will wait for the two groups of experts in the field to assess the data before I wave around a single study on it. but several of them did indeed have numbers. 



> Much less supported your claim that it 'pushes' CO2 out of the picture as the primary driver of the observed climate changes.


If you say so. 



> The research you cited (Scientists at Aarhus University (AU) and the National Space Institute (DTU Space) show that particles from space create cloud cover) or rather the press release, doesn't give a number, btw. Perhaps you meant to quote another paper?


Nope, I meant to link that. Its clear your not understanding the relevance or ramifications of this.


----------



## roberte

I'm beginning to wonder what exactly you are doing or using to inform your thinking. Sure seems as though actually checking first isn't one of them.



silverseeds said:


> Yet they ignore the cyclical nature of the suns influence.


No, they don't:
*Solar-cycle warming in IPCC models
*"Unlike the previous generation of models, the coupled
atmosphere-ocean General Circulation Models used in the 4th IPCC
study (AR4) are capable of producing solar-cycle related variations
in the earth&#8217;s surface comparable to the observed."
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2007/TungSolar/Li_AGU07_KKTung_IPCC_2009Jul_revised.pdf


*Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes
*"*Natural forcings arise due to solar changes* and explosive volcanic eruptions. *Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing* (see Figure 2). *This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle.* Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo)."

FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I'm beginning to wonder what exactly you are doing or using to inform your thinking. Sure seems as though actually checking first isn't one of them.


Thats weird, because all the solar studies Ive posted that disagree entirely with the IPCC do include that an well they disagree with the IPCC.. Including studies from major solar science centers the world over. such as this one

ASTROMETRIA



Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net


> Climate models failed to reflect the sun's cyclical influence on the climate and "that has led to a sense that the sun isn't a player," Lean said. "And that they have to absolutely prove that it's not a player."


Do you know who this quote is from? It is from the IPCCs SINGLE solar expert they had on their last report. Maybe you should explain why she is so confused?? Your honestly cracking me up.


----------



## roberte

So, what is it in that paper?




silverseeds said:


> Thats weird, because all the solar studies Ive posted that disagree entirely with the IPCC do include that an well they disagree with the IPCC.. Including studies from major solar science centers the world over. such as this one
> 
> ASTROMETRIA
> 
> ....


Oh, since you won't....

"amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "


*0.07% *


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> So, what is it in that paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, since you won't....
> 
> "amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "
> 
> 
> *0.07% *


since I wont what exactly? I posted the literal study, acting like I wouldnt cite it is a bit silly. what is your point exactly? I assume you had one? surely you dont believe you can take a single number out of a complex study put together by a leader of astrophysics and prove anything right? You have to take the paper in context, and as I keep telling you and is obvious if your reading the solar studies Ive posted the IPCC folks only want to look at one aspect of the suns influence. Heck I quoted the IPCCs single solar scientist for their last report saying exactly that.


----------



## roberte

Might want to look at where that number was printed in the paper.

Of course, if you have a better number or a more important one ........ 



silverseeds said:


> since I wont what exactly? I posted the literal study, acting like I wouldnt cite it is a bit silly. what is your point exactly? I assume you had one? surely you dont believe you can take a single number out of a complex study put together by a leader of astrophysics and prove anything right? You have to take the paper in context, and as I keep telling you and is obvious if your reading the solar studies Ive posted the IPCC folks only want to look at one aspect of the suns influence. Heck I quoted the IPCCs single solar scientist for their last report saying exactly that.


----------



## silverseeds

Im very curious what point you believe your making? the study was from a top astrophysicist who made the case that is enough. Taking the number he himself used from his paper doesnt prove his work wrong by itself. youd have to prove his reasoning wrong as well. Weird how I was able to find so many other studies with the same conclusion. hmmm. He didnt even touch on cosmic rays influence anyway, which also makes up some of the warming by the way.


----------



## roberte

Ummmm. I'm not trying to prove the " top astrophysicist" wrong.


I am pointing out your claim is wrong on its face.


IF you take the .0.07%, if you accept that number, then it 'proves' that attempting to claim space particles, solar flux, cosmic rays, whatever aren't big enough to make the effects that you wish they could. The variation is too small to account for the changes we are seeing in the atmosphere.

If you don't like the 0.07%, then work with the energy level.



silverseeds said:


> Im very curious what point you believe your making? the study was from a top astrophysicist who made the case that is enough. Taking the number he himself used from his paper doesnt prove his work wrong by itself. youd have to prove his reasoning wrong as well. Weird how I was able to find so many other studies with the same conclusion. hmmm. He didnt even touch on cosmic rays influence anyway, which also makes up some of the warming by the way.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Ummmm. I'm not trying to prove the " top astrophysicist" wrong.
> 
> 
> I am pointing out your claim is wrong on its face.


Wow that was a bit of double speak. It isnt "my claim"... It is the "claim" of a top astrophysicist. And yes, you obviously are saying its wrong. I do agree though you arent trying to prove it, just proclaim it. weird how I was able to show so many others in the field agree. Perhaps you better talk to these guys.

Its funny you put "top astrophysicist" in quotations implying it might not be true presumably. Not only did I post other studies with the same conclusion from others in the field but he is head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He isnt exactly a newby.


----------



## roberte

No. I'm using the data from your "top physicist" and asking you to square it with your claims of how space particles, et al overpower any CO2 signal.

And find it quite interesting that you don't want to prove your own resource is a valid support for your claims.

You brought it to the table. Your support.

Data you are unwilling to defend.......




silverseeds said:


> Wow that was a bit of double speak. It isnt "my claim"... It is the "claim" of a top astrophysicist. And yes, you obviously are saying its wrong. I do agree though you arent trying to prove it, just proclaim it. weird how I was able to show so many others in the field agree. Perhaps you better talk to these guys.
> 
> Its funny you put "top astrophysicist" in quotations implying it might not be true presumably. Not only did I post other studies with the same conclusion from others in the field but he is head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He isnt exactly a newby.


So, if there are multiple studies with the same number, then you don't have to do the work over and over with different results. Pick a range that you feel fits the majority of the data and show us how that range 'proves' that space particles, et al have enough energy to overcome the signal from Anthropogenic CO2.

I've shown the IPCC numbers. Numbers that are well accepted by the vast majority of those with expertise.

You have a different number. Show us how it makes the IPCC number wrong.

Show us how it 'proves' any of the myriad claims you've made - CO2 not being responsible, Solar is bigger, whatever the claim de jour is.


Show us the math.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> No. I'm using the data from your "top physicist" and asking you to square it with your claims of how space particles, et al overpower any CO2 signal.


OPPS sorry, I never said space particles over power a co2 signal. In fact you said this before and I already corrected you. the cosmic radiation does however affect temp levels, which better explain our recent changes. 


> And find it quite interesting that you don't want to prove your own resource is a valid support for your claims.
> 
> You brought it to the table. Your support.
> 
> Data you are unwilling to defend.......


No need to support it. This is science, it stands with or without me explaining it to you. If you want to read a stud that helped me form my thinking there it and others are. If not Im not sure what we are talking about. 



> So, if there are multiple studies with the same number, then you don't have to do the work over and over with different results. Pick a range that you feel fits the majority of the data and show us how that range 'proves' that space particles, et al have enough energy to overcome the signal from Anthropogenic CO2.


why would I start making a case now I never tried to make before? (that an effect overpowers co2) I dont believe co2 is a driver of climate, but not because these other things already explain it. they are different topics. 

you can pretend I dont have science that offers an alternative explanation to co2 as a climate driver. Ive now shown you I DO. 



> I've shown the IPCC numbers. Numbers that are well accepted by the vast majority of those with expertise.


hilarious. expertise on what topic exactly? You DO realize science moves and shifts as we understand more right?? You DO realize i posted RECENT studies from leaders in this particular field that came out YEARS since the last IPCC report?? Im not sure the IPCC and their single solar experts stance over powers where our knowledge is going in the field of astrophysics. If you believe it does, I can only assume your biased or not reading the studies. You do your thing though. 



> You have a different number. Show us how it makes the IPCC number wrong.
> 
> Show us how it 'proves' any of the myriad claims you've made - CO2 not being responsible, Solar is bigger, whatever the claim de jour is.
> 
> 
> Show us the math.


Again. why take my word for it? Read the actual paper and let an expert in the field explain it to you. 

Its funny that when I posted blogs that linked hard science you didnt even acknowledge the science linked therein because the link has opinions of skeptics as well. Now here you want me to explain a study to you, when Ive posted more then one with the same conclusions, and you could instead read the studies direct. 

Clearly you just want to do some political posturing instead. thats what it seems like to me. either way read it yourself if you like. Mock it if you like, I dont care. i find this hilarious myself.

Here is a excerpt from the study.



> The most notable event of XX century's life of the Sun has been an irregularly high level and a century-long growth of the solar radiation flux (the TSI). A similar increase of the solar radiation flux as in XX century has not been observed for more than 700 years. However, its effect &#8213; the observed global warming &#8213; is not an abnormal, but a regular and natural event for the Earth. The climate of the Earth have always been periodically changing and our planet have already experienced several global warmings, similar to the one we observe. The global warmings have always been followed by deep coolings within regular 2-century cycles. Neither a deep cooling nor a global warming cannot last longer than they are permitted by the corresponding 2-century variations of the size and luminosity of the Sun.


yes it was indeed making the case I "claimed" it was. 

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

also



> Our calculations show that the maximum amounts of energy absorbed by CO2 (within the absorption bands 3.6 &#8211; 4.7 micrometers; 8.9 &#8211; 10.0 micrometers; 10.0 &#8211; 11.4 micrometers; 12.1 &#8211; 17.3 micrometers) and by H2O vapour (4.4 &#8211; 8.8 micrometers and more than 15 micrometers) account for approximately 80% of integral power of the Earth radiation. Of these 80% approximately 68% are absorbed by H2O vapour and only 12% by CO2. This proportion is caused by a partial overlap of the absorption bands of these gases and a constant humidity of the atmosphere for small variations of pressure and temperature. The atmosphere of the Earth releases approximately 10% of the Earth radiation to space, the remaining 10% are absorbed by clouds and by the molecules of other greenhouse gases, among which methane (CH4) within the absorption band 7.2 &#8211; 8.5 micrometers is probably the most active one. Thus, the atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth is defined mainly by the concentration of water vapour which is responsible for 68% of the absorbed radiation, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is less important.
> 
> If we imagine a hypothetical possibility to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric absorption would fall from 80% to 77%. But the increase of CO2 concentration, given its presently high level, will not lead to any considerable increase in atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth. It can be explained by the following circumstances. Within the band 4.7 &#8211; 12.8 micrometers carbon dioxide virtually very little absorb infrared radiation of the Earth. It is known that the main spectral window of the atmosphere is within 8&#8211;13 micrometers band and that the maximum of the Earth own radiation is around 10 micrometers. Outside the spectral window the Earth radiation is not released to space even with the current concentration of CO2. Only a minor change of absorption rate near the boundaries of the spectral window is possible.
> 
> It should be noticed that not only carbon dioxide does not help global warming, but it is also very useful as it stimulates the development of life on the Earth being a critically essential "food" for the plants &#8213; the major cleaners of the nature. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide accelerates the growth of forests and plants. The evidence of this fact is the so-called "green revolution" &#8213; a sharp and global increase in the productivity of agriculture all over the world in XX century. The direct proportionality of agricultural productivity and the concentration of CO2 is confirmed by a number of experiments. In case the supply of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere ceased, the plants would exhaust its reserve in approximately 10 years. After this, every living thing on the Earth may cease to exist. CO2 is not toxic! CO2 does not react with any substance within a human body and it is a harmless gas unlike CO. CO2 is very important for life.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> OPPS sorry, I never said space particles over power a co2 signal. In fact you said this before and I already corrected you. the cosmic radiation does however affect temp levels, which better explain our recent changes.


Yes, I confused your claim that space particles or cosmic rays or something is a better fit to the observed changes than CO2.

It is bad enough that you are attempting to claim that anything is a stronger forcing than the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.



silverseeds said:


> you can pretend I dont have science that offers an alternative explanation to co2 as a climate driver. Ive now shown you I DO.



However, the rest of the world - from scientists with expertise to the majority of the general public - do understand that the IPCC papers are sound science.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â

And those same scientists and the general public ( at least for the most part) can understand that a solar cycle variation, a 'the Earth going through a spiral arm', or that Jupiter just don't have the energy levels to account for that is happening.

The solar and cosmic research you are posting is orders of magnitude too small to make the effects we are seeing. You can't bring math, physics, or chemistry to the table to prove otherwise.

The "top astrophysicists" you are citing don't make that case either. If there was a quote, one of your resources or whatever you use that constitutes 'research' would have brought it forward by now.





silverseeds said:


> Neither co2 record supports the idea co2 drives climate. That was proven solely in a lab and verified with models the researchers themselves set parameters to, with no real world proof of it being true, and nothing in our records to make us believe it. Co2 would track with temps whether or not it is driving them because of PROVEN outgassing. In ALL records co2 follows not leads temp changes.
> 
> I will again point to this.... If accurate this is a real world measurement showing it simply isnt happening even close to the degree claimed.
> 
> New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes
> 
> this was a response study.
> 
> New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer | UW Today
> 
> to which the authors of the first study responded with...
> Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures Â« Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
> 
> They are about to release the next set of data. having apparently fixed the discrepancy int heir data rather then needing to adjust it.
> 
> If accurate this by itself puts AGW to the ropes.



Yeah, the 'one paper disproves everything' syndrome. In this case, even Dr. Popper would show you how that won't work. There are too many lines of evidence.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Yes, I confused your claim that space particles or cosmic rays or something is a better fit to the observed changes than CO2.
> 
> It is bad enough that you are attempting to claim that anything is a stronger forcing than the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.


"or something".... Hilarius! Funny how its only science if it agrees with what you want to believe. 

Yes you do indeed still seem confused about what I said and posted about cosmic rays. We are in full agreement there. 

the co2 theory doesnt fit the observed changes at all. (atleast weighting several factors as they do) We have had temps essentially level for over a decade. 


> However, the rest of the world - from scientists with expertise to the majority of the general public - do understand that the IPCC papers are sound science.


What wasnt sound science I posted exactly?? 



> "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â
> 
> And those same scientists and the general public ( at least for the most part) can understand that a solar cycle variation, a 'the Earth going through a spiral arm', or that Jupiter just don't have the energy levels to account for that is happening.


Weird how so many experts in this actual field disagree with the IPCC and their single solar expert who herself told us they have a veste dinterest to downplay the suns role. 



> The solar and cosmic research you are posting is orders of magnitude too small to make the effects we are seeing. You can't bring math, physics, or chemistry to the table to prove otherwise.
> 
> The "top astrophysicists" you are citing don't make that case either. If there was a quote, one of your resources or whatever you use that constitutes 'research' would have brought it forward by now.


LOL! I cited the work itself, in fact several studies with the same conclusions. sorry I did and will continue to bring it forward, your just not reading or understanding what your reading Im guessing. Notice the bulk I posted about the sun was published AFTER the last IPCC report.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Yes, I confused your claim that space particles or cosmic rays or something is a better fit to the observed changes than CO2.
> 
> It is bad enough that you are attempting to claim that anything is a stronger forcing than the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere.


"or something".... Hilarius! Funny how its only science if it agrees with what you want to believe. 

Yes you do indeed still seem confused about what I said and posted about cosmic rays. We are in full agreement there. 

the co2 theory doesnt fit the observed changes at all. (atleast weighting several factors as they do) We have had temps essentially level for over a decade. 


> However, the rest of the world - from scientists with expertise to the majority of the general public - do understand that the IPCC papers are sound science.


What wasnt sound science I posted exactly?? 



> "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â
> 
> And those same scientists and the general public ( at least for the most part) can understand that a solar cycle variation, a 'the Earth going through a spiral arm', or that Jupiter just don't have the energy levels to account for that is happening.


Weird how so many experts in this actual field disagree with the IPCC and their single solar expert who herself told us they have a veste dinterest to downplay the suns role. 



> The solar and cosmic research you are posting is orders of magnitude too small to make the effects we are seeing. You can't bring math, physics, or chemistry to the table to prove otherwise.
> 
> The "top astrophysicists" you are citing don't make that case either. If there was a quote, one of your resources or whatever you use that constitutes 'research' would have brought it forward by now.


LOL! I cited the work itself, in fact several studies with the same conclusions. sorry I did and will continue to bring it forward, your just not reading or understanding what your reading Im guessing. Notice the bulk I posted about the sun was published AFTER the last IPCC report. 



> Yeah, the 'one paper disproves everything' syndrome. In this case, even Dr. Popper would show you how that won't work. There are too many lines of evidence.


Interesting you brought those back up! These arent the "only line of evidence"... the co2 theory is a patchwork of cherry picked datasets. In fact the russian astrophysicist you assure us didnt earn his position (since you believe his stance is baseless) went over some of this. We can get deeper into the more complex stuff after I cover some of the simpler issues with the mythical co2 theory. Still need some time, its pretty complex. 


> Our calculations show that the maximum amounts of energy absorbed by CO2 (within the absorption bands 3.6 â 4.7 micrometers; 8.9 â 10.0 micrometers; 10.0 â 11.4 micrometers; 12.1 â 17.3 micrometers) and by H2O vapour (4.4 â 8.8 micrometers and more than 15 micrometers) account for approximately 80% of integral power of the Earth radiation. Of these 80% approximately 68% are absorbed by H2O vapour and only 12% by CO2. This proportion is caused by a partial overlap of the absorption bands of these gases and a constant humidity of the atmosphere for small variations of pressure and temperature. The atmosphere of the Earth releases approximately 10% of the Earth radiation to space, the remaining 10% are absorbed by clouds and by the molecules of other greenhouse gases, among which methane (CH4) within the absorption band 7.2 â 8.5 micrometers is probably the most active one. Thus, the atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth is defined mainly by the concentration of water vapour which is responsible for 68% of the absorbed radiation, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is less important.
> 
> If we imagine a hypothetical possibility to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric absorption would fall from 80% to 77%. But the increase of CO2 concentration, given its presently high level, will not lead to any considerable increase in atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth. It can be explained by the following circumstances. Within the band 4.7 â 12.8 micrometers carbon dioxide virtually very little absorb infrared radiation of the Earth. It is known that the main spectral window of the atmosphere is within 8â13 micrometers band and that the maximum of the Earth own radiation is around 10 micrometers. Outside the spectral window the Earth radiation is not released to space even with the current concentration of CO2. Only a minor change of absorption rate near the boundaries of the spectral window is possible.


----------



## silverseeds

Actually now that I think of it roberte, youd better get a hold of the folks at the Pulkovo Observatory and tell them their head of space research for their Sun Sector isnt going along with the IPCC and their single solar expert in regards to the suns influence?! (and all these other astrophysicists spread through the links). Might want to get a hold of the folks at the space station as well, being that he is head of the russian segment. Im sure all these folks will be happy you let them know he doesnt actually understand the science of his field.


----------



## roberte

Prove it.




silverseeds said:


> the co2 theory doesnt fit the observed changes at all. (atleast weighting several factors as they do) We have had temps essentially level for over a decade.
> 
> .


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Prove it.


Ouch.



> *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*
> 
> Read more
> 
> 
> *The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
> [*]This means that the âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996*
> 
> The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
> 
> The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
> 
> This means that the âplateauâ or âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
> 
> This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 â a very warm year.
> 
> Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
> 
> Read more


----------



## Narshalla

Oh, carp.

And until this post, I was so good at keeping to the intent of the OP, and only posting solutions.

Oh, yeah, and before you (plural you, not anyone in specific,) point out how hot this summer has been, let _me_ point out that, ahem, "Weather isn't Climate."


----------



## roberte

> The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago,...


So not only cherrypicking a dataset, someone - in an effort to find anything that can make a talking point - also cherrypicks the date range....










Probably addresses some of the 'it's the stars' claptrap also......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nothing you've posted PROVES *conclusively* it's anything more than *NATURAL* fluctuations.


----------



## stanb999

roberte said:


> So not only cherrypicking a dataset, someone - in an effort to find anything that can make a talking point - also cherrypicks the date range....
> 
> 
> Probably addresses some of the 'it's the stars' claptrap also......


1973... really? Why not 1900?


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> So not only cherrypicking a dataset, someone - in an effort to find anything that can make a talking point - also cherrypicks the date range....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably addresses some of the 'it's the stars' claptrap also......


But your graph does not take into account the cycles of the sun, even as it mimics them pretty much perfectly.

Also, the graph you just posted does not coincide with the graph I linked to.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> So not only cherrypicking a dataset, someone - in an effort to find anything that can make a talking point - also cherrypicks the date range....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably addresses some of the 'it's the stars' claptrap also......


Your charts depiction is hilarious! I never saw a single skeptic portray it as the chart claimed they do however. Some of us really do wonder about the 16 year lag at the end though. 

So you post a chart that wrongly suggests the way skeptics view the data, while it purposefully mis portrays our data to imply temps are still trending up rather then having leveled out for 16 years. 

What an amazing piece of propaganda! AGW or not, temps are simply not rising currently. Sorry. in fact they havent risen for as long as they rose that is currently attributed to AGW. which was mainly 1980-96 most of said warming happened. 

It is a bit bothersome that if you agree with science it cannot be questioned or that person is a "denier", but you dismiss entire fields of science as "claptrap"... Yet the dismissed field actually explains our current conditions more accurately then a theory that predicts a non existent hot spot in the atmosphere and is based on literally already failed feedback loops to account for most of the warming.


----------



## roberte

If you have evidence that the chart tracks "cycles of the sun", then actually bringing that support would make a lot more sense that expecting us to just trust your clalim....




Narshalla said:


> But your graph does not take into account the cycles of the sun, even as it mimics them pretty much perfectly.
> 
> Also, the graph you just posted does not coincide with the graph I linked to.


Obviously, it does however show how your graph wasn't telling the whole story.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> So you post a chart that wrongly suggests the way skeptics view the data, while it purposefully mis portrays our data to imply temps are still trending up rather then having leveled out for 16 years.
> 
> ,....


It shows the actual trend and it shows exactly how and why the '16 years' ploy that was just plays works


And you were the one complaining about not using 'all the data'..... Gee, wonder why you aren't complaining about the poster that posted the single database and limiting the data to a date that was advantageous to the claim.


----------



## roberte

BTW, when is someone going to address :

"amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "


*0.07%*
from: ASTROMETRIA


How does that fit to the claim that something other than Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the observed changes in our climate?


----------



## roberte

Here is one example why this thread on solutions can't stay on topic....


"....barrier issues like gay marriage and abortion but that won&#8217;t happen unless someone is willing to give ground. What would you give up on those issues and others? We could probably get very limited cross-aisle participation on very narrow and specific issues, but if you actually wanted to organize deep change, you&#8217;d have to figure out a way people who feel strongly on those issues can feel they&#8217;ve met in the middle somehow and can live with their compromises.&#8221;

De-Partisaned: What Would You Sacrifice to Save the World? &#8211; Casaubon&apos;s Book


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> It shows the actual trend and it shows exactly how and why the '16 years' ploy that was just plays works
> 
> 
> And you were the one complaining about not using 'all the data'..... Gee, wonder why you aren't complaining about the poster that posted the single database and limiting the data to a date that was advantageous to the claim.


Sorry. Your completely wrong. 

The actual trend wasnt anything like the graph you posted. It is the same .5 degree "anomaly" this year as it was 16 years ago. Picking an earlier date to chart that was lower so you can end on this year implying it was trending up doesnt change the reality that we havent had temps rising for 16 years. 

Its very telling you believe temps are trending up currently. Im also curious what you believe explains our current climate? You do realize it doesnt go along with the past prediction for co2 right? here are a few AGE folks scrambling for an answer, with studies from a few of them linked with vastly different conclusions. Heck hansen wants to rewrite the effect of impact levels of entire fields that were previously "settled"... http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1 All while the sun and other factors already fit what we observed. 



> BTW, when is someone going to address :
> 
> "amplitude of 11-year smoothed cyclic variations of the TSI at the maximum of the two century cycle was approximately equal to 1.0 W/m2 or 0.07% "
> 
> 
> 0.07%
> from: ASTROMETRIA
> 
> 
> How does that fit to the claim that something other than Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the observed changes in our climate?


You just linked--- astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, making the exact case you ask forum members to make?? 

Im totally confused, why would you want someone here to explain it when you have a distinguished member of that field of science doing it in the link??? If your having trouble understanding it, Im not sure anyone else could explain it to you. If you do understand it, then I guess your just being difficult??

EDITED TO ADD

your sig line...<<<<<<<< The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
F. Nietzsche>>>>>>> Is hilarious considering your two quoted posts above and many just like them.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> You just linked--- astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, making the exact case you ask forum members to make??
> 
> Im totally confused, why would you want someone here to explain it ......



Since that paper was cited as a piece of evidence that solar or cosmic rays or ionization addresses the climate changes we are observing better than Anthropogenic CO2, then it would be a rational deduction that you understand what the paper was saying.

And having been consistently unwilling to use your own words to explain why you made a conscious choice to include it raises the question of whether or not there was any basic understanding of what the paper was addressing.


Especially since it is almost exactly opposite of the point that was being attempted......

So, what about that *0.07%*?


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Heck hansen wants to rewrite the effect of impact levels of entire fields that were previously "settled"...
> ....


OK, I have the list of Hansen's papers. You probably do also.

So, show us the papers that support this claim.

What is his early number?
What is his "rewrite"?


----------



## roberte

BTW, yet another claim that was posted with no supporting evidence.




silverseeds said:


> ....
> Heck the claim our climate is even shifting at a speedy level is completely baseless in context of our climates past.
> ....


So for at least the second time:

why not bring forward evidence? Pretty simple; you have evidence, bring it.

If you don't, then say so.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> explain why you made a conscious choice to include it raises the question of whether or not there was any basic understanding of what the paper was addressing.


hmm. this post is hard to respond to being that it had no basis in reality the best I can tell. 

Im very curious why you would want me to explain it when you have an expert in the field doing it right in the link??? I mean Im flattered that you weight my opinion so highly ( ) but its a bit odd to say the least. 



> Especially since it is almost exactly opposite of the point that was being attempted......


At this point your either simply lying and hoping people believe you without checking to verify your completely wrong, or you simply didnt read it. 

Id ask you to back your statement with quotes form the link, but we both know you wont and cant do that so youd ignore me anyway. 

Heck the guy like many other studies I linked is straight out predicting that we head to very cold periods and that we should prepare for such, and lays out a case as to why he believes the sun and other factors DO explain our climate, and why he doesnt believe co2 does. Literally to make the case we need to ignore AGW and focus on the fact the sun is set to take us cooler.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> BTW, yet another claim that was posted with no supporting evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for at least the second time:
> 
> why not bring forward evidence? Pretty simple; you have evidence, bring it.
> 
> If you don't, then say so.


In actual reality i DID support that, but you ignored and downplayed the links when I did. I will post more on that as I find the time. No worries. 

You might have also noticed many of the studies I have linked offhandedly mentioned they see nothing unusual about current climate. But I will indeed post more on this "soon".


----------



## roberte

Well, you posted it.

And it doesn't support any of your claims.

So, it seems rather that you are talking through your hat about your basic level of understanding of the science.

And that is additionally supported by your unwillingness to use your own words to explain what the paper was saying.

Your unwillingness to use your own words to explain why you made the conscious choice to include that paper.

Your unwillingness to use your own words to walk through the science being presented and tying it to your claims.




silverseeds said:


> hmm. this post is hard to respond to being that it had no basis in reality the best I can tell.
> 
> Im very curious why you would want me to explain it when you have an expert in the field doing it right in the link??? I mean Im flattered that you weight my opinion so highly ( ) but its a bit odd to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point your either simply lying and hoping people believe you without checking to verify your completely wrong, or you simply didnt read it.
> 
> Id ask you to back your statement with quotes form the link, but we both know you wont and cant do that so youd ignore me anyway.
> 
> Heck the guy like many other studies I linked is straight out predicting that we head to very cold periods and that we should prepare for such, and lays out a case as to why he believes the sun and other factors DO explain our climate, and why he doesnt believe co2 does. Literally to make the case we need to ignore AGW and focus on the fact the sun is set to take us cooler.


----------



## roberte

Where?

Gee, I can find your claims, why can't you prove them?



silverseeds said:


> In actual reality i DID support that, but you ignored and downplayed the links when I did. I will post more on that as I find the time. No worries.
> 
> You might have also noticed many of the studies I have linked offhandedly mentioned they see nothing unusual about current climate. But I will indeed post more on this "soon".


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Well, you posted it.
> 
> And it doesn't support any of your claims.


uh, sorry... It does support what Ive said.

Is this really the best you have? Pick one link out of many then claim it doesnt support my stance? You do realize anyone who reads it knows your lying right??? 



> So, it seems rather that you are talking through your hat about your basic level of understanding of the science.


This is pretty funny after some of the ways youve related to links Ive posted. 



> And that is additionally supported by your unwillingness to use your own words to explain what the paper was saying.


this is just silly. I could have never seen the link before and could put it in my own words as most any adult who speaks our language could. It tells us nothing...

Considering the nature of our talk, Im trying to keep this a semi scientific debate. So i figure letting the astrophysicist make his own case is the ideal here. 



> Your unwillingness to use your own words to explain why you made the conscious choice to include that paper.


 I was making the case the sun can explain current climate. the paper is an astrophysicist who explains how this could be argued, as well as calling for people to take note of the looming cold climate he and many other in the solar sciences tell us is looming. 

i believes its exceedingly obvious why I linked it. 


> Your unwillingness to use your own words to walk through the science being presented and tying it to your claims.


Why would I need to, when a respected member of the field does it for me in the link??? Your really not making points if you believe you are.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Where?
> 
> Gee, I can find your claims, why can't you prove them?



Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068 Â« JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Well this one has been posted. I posted a range of others as well. 

I can of course prove everything I said, its just a matter of finding the time. Have a bit of patience!! We have a long way to go in this, and finding a few hours for in depth study doesnt happen daily for me. 

You will have much more to ignore and downplay, have no fear!


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....this is just silly. I could have never seen the link before and could put it in my own words as most any adult who speaks our language could. It tells us nothing...
> 
> ....


Again, your unwillingness speaks volumes....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Again, your unwillingness speaks volumes....


As do your outright lies. Notice I pointed out you wouldnt back your lie that the link was counter to what I had said as you claimed. You simply went to the next topic as I said you would. This was obvious since you were indeed lying. 

what does this speak about exactly? 

to me the way you related to it was the telling thing. I guess your reduced to critiquing my presentation? and lying about content of links... 

and so no one is confused... 

ASTROMETRIA
Feel free to show me which parts are counter to what I have said as you claimed.


----------



## roberte

One study.

"blockbuster"
"..skeptics scoff at tree rings, and we do &#8212; sometimes &#8212; especially ones based on the wrong kind of tree..."
And she likes tree rings except when she doesn't.....

Got it.





silverseeds said:


> Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068 Â« JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
> 
> Well this one has been posted. I posted a range of others as well.
> 
> I can of course prove everything I said, its just a matter of finding the time. Have a bit of patience!! We have a long way to go in this, and finding a few hours for in depth study doesnt happen daily for me.
> 
> You will have much more to ignore and downplay, have no fear!


Ahhh, so your 'good stuff' is not yet been found. Good to know......


----------



## roberte

The author is the one making the cooling claims.

In a 'paper' that cites "our predictions" as their 'proof'

In a 'paper' that doesn't bother to include any measurements except what supports their claims; and then doesn't address the data.


It is that pesky 0.07% Note that after it is cited, they don't bother to defend how it can account for the changes they use as 'evidence'.






silverseeds said:


> As do your outright lies. Notice I pointed out you wouldnt back your lie that the link was counter to what I had said as you claimed. You simply went to the next topic as I said you would. This was obvious since you were indeed lying.
> 
> what does this speak about exactly?
> 
> to me the way you related to it was the telling thing. I guess your reduced to critiquing my presentation? and lying about content of links...
> 
> and so no one is confused...
> 
> ASTROMETRIA
> Feel free to show me which parts are counter to what I have said as you claimed.


Maybe you better start over:

Tell us what you are attempting to claim.


----------



## Larburlingame

The British weather people just released a report that Globe Warming ended 16 years ago! The earth temperature hasn't increased in 16 years!


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> .....
> ASTROMETRIA
> Feel free to show me which parts are counter to what I have said as you claimed.


An odd bit - not the only one by a long shot - in the paper is the author's use of ONE paper to base his claim of solar cycle and cooling.

ONE paper.

And a short list of other papers he doesn't address:


Publications

Solar Electromagnetic Radiation Study for Solar Cycle 22
Proceedings of the SOLERS22 Workshop held at the National Solar Observatory, Sacramento Peak, Sunspot, New Mexico, USA, June 17-21, 1996
Solar Total Irrandiance: A Reference Value for Solar Minimum
Ann T. Mecherikunnel, Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Total Solar Irrandiance Monitoring Programs
Claus FrÃ¶hlich, physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, CH-7260 Davos Dorf
An Assessment of the Sun-Climate Relation on Time Scales of Decades to Centuries: the Possibility of Total Irradiance Variations
S.L. Baliunas and W.H. Soon, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, CA 91023
Solar Variability and Climate Change
Sabatino Sofia, Center for Solar and Space Research, Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Exploring the Sun - Solar Science Since Galileo
Karl Hufbauer, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 701 West 40th Street, Baltimore, MD 21211
Back to the Top

References

Solar Total Irradiance
Eddy, J.A.; 1976, "The Maunder Minimum," Science 192, pp. 1189-1202.
Willson, R.C., Gulkis, S., Janssen, M., Hudson, H.S., Chapman, G.A.; 1981, "Observations of Solar Irradiance Variability," J. Geophys. Res. 87, pp. 4319-4324.
Willson, R.C., Gulkis, S., Janssen, J., Hudson, H.S., and Chapman, G.A.; 1981, "Observations of solar irradiance variability," Science 211, 700.
Willson, R.C.; 1982, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 4319.
Willson, R.C.; 1984, Space Sci. Rev. 38, 203.
Willson, R.C.; 1984, in J.M.Pap, C. FrÃ¶hlich, H.S. Hudson, and S.K.Solankii (eds), The Sun as a Variable Star; Solar and Stellar Irradiance Variations Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 54-62.
Kuhn, J., Libbrech, K., and Dicke, R.; 1988, Science 242, pp. 908.
Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1988, "Solar Luminosity Variations in Solar Cycle 21," Nature 332, No. 6167, pp. 810-812.
Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1988, Nature 332, No. 6167, pp. 810.
Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1991, Nature 351, 42-44.
Kyle, H.L., Hoyt, D.V., Hickey, J.R.; 1994, "A Review of the Nimbus-7 ERB Solar Dataset," Solar Phys. 152, pp. 1-8.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R.; 1997, "Radiative forcing and climate response," J. Geophys. Res. V. 102, No. D6, pp. 6831-6864.
Willson, R.C.; 1997, "Total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22," Science 277, pp. 1963-1965.
Total Solar Irradiance
Chapman, G.A., Cookson, A.M., Dobias, J.J.: 1996, J. Geophys. Res. 1-1, 1354.
Crommelynck, D.A., Domingo, V., Fichot, A., FrÃ¶hlich, C., Penelle, B., Romero J., Wehrli, Ch.: 1993, Metrologia 30, 372.
Crommelynck, D., Fichot, A., Lee III, R.B., Romero, J.: 1995, Adv. Space Res., 16, (8)17.
Crommelynck, D., Fichot, A., Domingo, V., Lee III, R.,: 1996, Geoph. Res. L. 23, 2293.
FrÃ¶hlich, C., Romero, J., Roth, H., Wehrli, C., Andersen, B.N., Appourchaux, T., Domingo, V., Telljohann, U., Berthomieu, B., Delache, P., Provost, J., Toutain, T., Crommelynck, D., Chevalier, A., Fichot, A., DÃ¤ppen, W., Gough, D.O., Hoeksema, T., JimÃ©nez, GÃ³mez, M., Herreros, J. Roca-CortÃ©s, T., Jones, A.R., Pap, J. and Willson, R.C.: 1995, Solar Phys. 162, 101.
FrÃ¶hlich, C., Andersen, B., Appourchaux, T., Berthomieu, B., Crommelynck, D.A., Domingo, V., Fichot, A., Finsterle, W., GÃ³mez, M.F., Gough, D.O., JimÃ©nez, A., Leifsen, T., Lombaerts, J., Pap, J.M., Provost, J., Roca CortÃ©s, T., Romero, J., Roth, H., Sekii, T. Telljohann, U., Toutain, T., Wehrli, C.: 1997a, Solar Phys. 170, 1.
FrÃ¶hlich, C., Crommelynck, D.A., Wehrli, C., Anklin, M., Dewitte, S., Fichot, A., Finsterle, W., JimÃ©nez, A., Chevalier, A., Roth, H.J.: 1997b, Solar Phys. 173 in press.
Hoyt, D.V., Kyle, H.L., Hickey, J.R., Maschhoff, R.h.: 1992, J. Geoph. Res 97 ,51.
Lee III, R.B., Barkstrom, B.R., Cess, R.D.: 1987, Appl.Optics 26, 3090.
Lee III, R.B., Gibson, M.A., Wilson, R.S., Thomas, S.: 1995, "Long-term total solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22," J. Geoph. Res 100, 1667-1675.
Romero, J., Wehrli, C., FrÃ¶hlich, C.: 1994, Solar Phys. 152, 23.
Exploring the Sun - Solar Science Since Galileo
Willson, R.C., C.H. Duncan, and J. Geist. 1980, Direct measurement of solar luminosity variation. Science 207:177-79.
Willson, R.C., and J.R. Hickey. 1977. 1976 rocket measurements of the solar constant and their implications for variation in the solar output in cycle 20. In White 1977, 111-16.
Willson, R.C., and H.S. Hudson. 1981a. Solar Maximum Mission experiment: Initial observations by the active cavity radiometer. Advances in Space Research 1, 13:285-88.

ACRIMSAT: MEASURING THE SUN'S ENERGY


So, we have an author cherrypicking. That is intellectual malfeasance.

So, we have that paper being cited as 'proof'. That is intellectual laziness. And malfeasance through countenancing the original author's efforts as accurate science.


----------



## roberte

" However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth.* Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth&#8217;s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."
*
Research | Research news | How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?


"employing reconstructions and measured records of relevant solar quantities as well
as of the cosmic-ray flux, we estimate statistically which fraction of the dramatic temperature rise after that date could be due to the
influence of the Sun. *We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been
significant."*  Solar variability and global warming: a statistical
comparison since 1850
" In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century." Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate

"Even small variations in the amount or distribution of energy received at Earth can have a major influence on Earth&#8217;s climate when they persist
for decades. *However, no satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the last 50 years.*2,3,4
Locally, however, correlations between solar activity and variations in average weather may stand out beyond the global trend; such has been argued to be the case for the El NiÃ±o-Southern Oscillation, even in the present day."

The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
A Workshop Report


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> An odd bit - not the only one by a long shot - in the paper is the author's use of ONE paper to base his claim of solar cycle and cooling.
> 
> ONE paper.
> 
> And a short list of other papers he doesn't address:
> 
> 
> Publications
> 
> Solar Electromagnetic Radiation Study for Solar Cycle 22
> Proceedings of the SOLERS22 Workshop held at the National Solar Observatory, Sacramento Peak, Sunspot, New Mexico, USA, June 17-21, 1996
> Solar Total Irrandiance: A Reference Value for Solar Minimum
> Ann T. Mecherikunnel, Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
> Total Solar Irrandiance Monitoring Programs
> Claus FrÃ¶hlich, physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, CH-7260 Davos Dorf
> An Assessment of the Sun-Climate Relation on Time Scales of Decades to Centuries: the Possibility of Total Irradiance Variations
> S.L. Baliunas and W.H. Soon, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, CA 91023
> Solar Variability and Climate Change
> Sabatino Sofia, Center for Solar and Space Research, Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, CT
> Exploring the Sun - Solar Science Since Galileo
> Karl Hufbauer, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 701 West 40th Street, Baltimore, MD 21211
> Back to the Top
> 
> References
> 
> Solar Total Irradiance
> Eddy, J.A.; 1976, "The Maunder Minimum," Science 192, pp. 1189-1202.
> Willson, R.C., Gulkis, S., Janssen, M., Hudson, H.S., Chapman, G.A.; 1981, "Observations of Solar Irradiance Variability," J. Geophys. Res. 87, pp. 4319-4324.
> Willson, R.C., Gulkis, S., Janssen, J., Hudson, H.S., and Chapman, G.A.; 1981, "Observations of solar irradiance variability," Science 211, 700.
> Willson, R.C.; 1982, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 4319.
> Willson, R.C.; 1984, Space Sci. Rev. 38, 203.
> Willson, R.C.; 1984, in J.M.Pap, C. FrÃ¶hlich, H.S. Hudson, and S.K.Solankii (eds), The Sun as a Variable Star; Solar and Stellar Irradiance Variations Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 54-62.
> Kuhn, J., Libbrech, K., and Dicke, R.; 1988, Science 242, pp. 908.
> Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1988, "Solar Luminosity Variations in Solar Cycle 21," Nature 332, No. 6167, pp. 810-812.
> Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1988, Nature 332, No. 6167, pp. 810.
> Willson, R.C. and Hudson, H.S.; 1991, Nature 351, 42-44.
> Kyle, H.L., Hoyt, D.V., Hickey, J.R.; 1994, "A Review of the Nimbus-7 ERB Solar Dataset," Solar Phys. 152, pp. 1-8.
> Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R.; 1997, "Radiative forcing and climate response," J. Geophys. Res. V. 102, No. D6, pp. 6831-6864.
> Willson, R.C.; 1997, "Total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22," Science 277, pp. 1963-1965.
> Total Solar Irradiance
> Chapman, G.A., Cookson, A.M., Dobias, J.J.: 1996, J. Geophys. Res. 1-1, 1354.
> Crommelynck, D.A., Domingo, V., Fichot, A., FrÃ¶hlich, C., Penelle, B., Romero J., Wehrli, Ch.: 1993, Metrologia 30, 372.
> Crommelynck, D., Fichot, A., Lee III, R.B., Romero, J.: 1995, Adv. Space Res., 16, (8)17.
> Crommelynck, D., Fichot, A., Domingo, V., Lee III, R.,: 1996, Geoph. Res. L. 23, 2293.
> FrÃ¶hlich, C., Romero, J., Roth, H., Wehrli, C., Andersen, B.N., Appourchaux, T., Domingo, V., Telljohann, U., Berthomieu, B., Delache, P., Provost, J., Toutain, T., Crommelynck, D., Chevalier, A., Fichot, A., DÃ¤ppen, W., Gough, D.O., Hoeksema, T., JimÃ©nez, GÃ³mez, M., Herreros, J. Roca-CortÃ©s, T., Jones, A.R., Pap, J. and Willson, R.C.: 1995, Solar Phys. 162, 101.
> FrÃ¶hlich, C., Andersen, B., Appourchaux, T., Berthomieu, B., Crommelynck, D.A., Domingo, V., Fichot, A., Finsterle, W., GÃ³mez, M.F., Gough, D.O., JimÃ©nez, A., Leifsen, T., Lombaerts, J., Pap, J.M., Provost, J., Roca CortÃ©s, T., Romero, J., Roth, H., Sekii, T. Telljohann, U., Toutain, T., Wehrli, C.: 1997a, Solar Phys. 170, 1.
> FrÃ¶hlich, C., Crommelynck, D.A., Wehrli, C., Anklin, M., Dewitte, S., Fichot, A., Finsterle, W., JimÃ©nez, A., Chevalier, A., Roth, H.J.: 1997b, Solar Phys. 173 in press.
> Hoyt, D.V., Kyle, H.L., Hickey, J.R., Maschhoff, R.h.: 1992, J. Geoph. Res 97 ,51.
> Lee III, R.B., Barkstrom, B.R., Cess, R.D.: 1987, Appl.Optics 26, 3090.
> Lee III, R.B., Gibson, M.A., Wilson, R.S., Thomas, S.: 1995, "Long-term total solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22," J. Geoph. Res 100, 1667-1675.
> Romero, J., Wehrli, C., FrÃ¶hlich, C.: 1994, Solar Phys. 152, 23.
> Exploring the Sun - Solar Science Since Galileo
> Willson, R.C., C.H. Duncan, and J. Geist. 1980, Direct measurement of solar luminosity variation. Science 207:177-79.
> Willson, R.C., and J.R. Hickey. 1977. 1976 rocket measurements of the solar constant and their implications for variation in the solar output in cycle 20. In White 1977, 111-16.
> Willson, R.C., and H.S. Hudson. 1981a. Solar Maximum Mission experiment: Initial observations by the active cavity radiometer. Advances in Space Research 1, 13:285-88.
> 
> ACRIMSAT: MEASURING THE SUN'S ENERGY
> 
> 
> So, we have an author cherrypicking. That is intellectual malfeasance.
> 
> So, we have that paper being cited as 'proof'. That is intellectual laziness. And malfeasance through countenancing the original author's efforts as accurate science.






roberte said:


> " However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth.* Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth&#8217;s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."
> *
> Research | Research news | How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?
> 
> 
> "employing reconstructions and measured records of relevant solar quantities as well
> as of the cosmic-ray flux, we estimate statistically which fraction of the dramatic temperature rise after that date could be due to the
> influence of the Sun. *We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been
> significant."*  Solar variability and global warming: a statistical
> comparison since 1850
> " In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century." Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
> 
> "Even small variations in the amount or distribution of energy received at Earth can have a major influence on Earth&#8217;s climate when they persist
> for decades. *However, no satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the last 50 years.*2,3,4
> Locally, however, correlations between solar activity and variations in average weather may stand out beyond the global trend; such has been argued to be the case for the El NiÃ±o-Southern Oscillation, even in the present day."
> 
> The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate:
> A Workshop Report


Might want to check the dates on everything you linked actually. Notice everything you posted was work BEFORE the last IPCC report. (2007) Everything I linked was AFTER. 

it is funny to see you respond with some actual science though! good job! I knew you could! It is hilarious you did this AFTER lying and pretending I hadnt posted studies from several in the field making the case that the sun is driving the changes. Even claiming linked items said the opposite of what they did. Why did you post this BEFORE you lied??? kinda curious. 

I of course already knew what the past work showed. Im more interested in what the emerging work is showing us. If your not, oh well we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> One study.
> 
> "blockbuster"
> "..skeptics scoff at tree rings, and we do â sometimes â especially ones based on the wrong kind of tree..."
> And she likes tree rings except when she doesn't.....
> 
> Got it.


So you respond solely to some opinions of those at the site the study is linked to? ooook. 



> Ahhh, so your 'good stuff' is not yet been found. Good to know......


This is a funny statement from the person who ignored the other links Ive posted on this thus far. No worries, i will post more as i have the time.


----------



## silverseeds

Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds - environmentalresearchweb

this might have been more interesting to post roberte. this recent study suggests the suns affect is even less then previously thought, not more, as some other works suggests.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> If you have evidence that the chart tracks "cycles of the sun", then actually bringing that support would make a lot more sense that expecting us to just trust your clalim....


Everyone know that the sun's sunspot cycles, but here's a chart, just to make you hapy.












roberte said:


> Obviously, it does however show how your graph wasn't telling the whole story.


No, only telling the last few years, which again, don't line up with you graph.


----------



## roberte

Let us know when you have a substantive body of evidence.

The cherrypicked stuff you've been posting with no commentary usually addresses very minor issues in measurement. Not the earth-shaking, change the science paradigms that you are attempting to claim.

And that is exemplified in why you won't address the *0.07%* that is in the paper you won't explain but keep jumping up to defend.

So I did your work for you.








silverseeds said:


> Might want to check the dates on everything you linked actually. Notice everything you posted was work BEFORE the last IPCC report. (2007) Everything I linked was AFTER.


Actually, no. Which kinda points out you don't read or keep up with the science. Wonder what your sources are......

And since your stuff has no reference standard, we go to the proven data. When your stuff has been analyzed and discussed and put into a cohesive whole, then we see if it is considered credible.



silverseeds said:


> it is funny to see you respond with some actual science though! good job! I knew you could! It is hilarious you did this AFTER lying and pretending I hadnt posted studies from several in the field making the case that the sun is driving the changes. Even claiming linked items said the opposite of what they did. Why did you post this BEFORE you lied??? kinda curious.
> 
> I of course already knew what the past work showed. Im more interested in what the emerging work is showing us. If your not, oh well we will have to agree to disagree.



Since you don't like the current science, you are now hanging your hopes on projected science. That's sciencey........


----------



## roberte

Except your chart doesn't defend your position.





Narshalla said:


> Everyone know that the sun's sunspot cycles, but here's a chart, just to make you hapy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, only telling the last few years, which again, don't line up with you graph.


Maybe you should take a shot at the 0.07%.....


----------



## roberte

Here's another chart that has a bunch of numbers.


I wonder if someone could point to where in all those recently posted links there are definitive numbers that put these









FAQ 1.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

into question.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Let us know when you have a substantive body of evidence.
> 
> The cherrypicked stuff you've been posting with no commentary usually addresses very minor issues in measurement. Not the earth-shaking, change the science paradigms that you are attempting to claim.
> 
> And that is exemplified in why you won't address the *0.07%* that is in the paper you won't explain but keep jumping up to defend.
> 
> So I did your work for you.


Sorry it wasnt me making the claims as you keep insisting. It was the various studies authors I had linked. 

what work did you do? Posts not even covering factors discussed in the links? hmmm... Notice all the links were studies on cycles we are finding within the suns influence. You havent posted anything on that yet actually. Not all in the field talk about this, very true, but obviously some are. To dispute it, youd have to address their actual work. 



> Actually, no. Which kinda points out you don't read or keep up with the science. Wonder what your sources are......


Actually yes, and the dates are all there in black and white. 

Im not sure how posting emerging work on the sun and cosmic rays, both of which you dismissed on their face based on your understanding of work on different topics, convinces you I dont keep up with the field. Clearly this shows I do. 


> And since your stuff has no reference standard, we go to the proven data. When your stuff has been analyzed and discussed and put into a cohesive whole, then we see if it is considered credible.


Literally what i told you. this is emerging work. As is the influence of the cosmic rays. the link has been verified and proven there now, its a matter of coming together to figure out the effect, with one of the two gorups working on this already telling us its fits like a glove with observed changes. We will see. Its funny you say this here as if I hadnt already pointed it out, and you wanted to downplay this same reality on the effects of cosmic rays. 

You really crack me up! 




> Since you don't like the current science, you are now hanging your hopes on projected science. That's sciencey........


its precisely how science works actually. Always has been. And yes what I posted was "current" work not "projected" work. which by the way will indeed be studied more. 

You might also be missing the fact that if we value the sun as the IPCC does, the sun cannot over power AGW to cool the earth. So by default many other links I gave predicting cooling of climate from the sun are also from folks who arent agreeing with the suns influence on climate.


----------



## roberte

Still waiting for your support for the following claim.

Your source didn't cite any proof. 

And you accepted their statement without checking.

That's really sciencey......



silverseeds said:


> ....Heck hansen wants to rewrite the effect of impact levels of entire fields that were previously "settled"...
> 
> ....


But then, we also haven't seen:

1- What the 0.07% means 

2- any hypothesis for Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon


Both are claims from papers you've cited without examination or being willing to explain in your own words.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....Actually yes, and the dates are all there in black and white.
> 
> ....


"Publication Year:2012"


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Still waiting for your support for the following claim.
> 
> Your source didn't cite any proof.
> 
> And you accepted their statement without checking.
> 
> That's really sciencey......


OPPS, except they linked the actual paper. sorry, wrong again. 




> But then, we also haven't seen:
> 
> 1- What the 0.07% means
> 
> 2- any hypothesis for Beck's magical 240 gigatons of Carbon
> 
> 
> Both are claims from papers you've cited without examination or being willing to explain in your own words.


As best i can tell we arent even in the same conversation. You took the .07 number from the paper of a respected astrophysicist, yet seem to believe you havent seen what the .07 means. 

Ive explained the beck issue to you many times already. I cant help that your confused. My belief is science and facts should dictate which direct measurements we include, rather then belief. You also still seem to think this was somehow central to my stance even after I pointed out atleast a dozen times that I wasnt even the one who brought it up. 

You really do crack me up. Your clearly very intelligent. Yet either lie constantly or have severe reading issues. I think its pretty clear which one is accurate.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> "Publication Year:2012"


wait your right. a single link was after 2007. All the rest before. Still until any of them address the cycles discussed in the other works it doesnt matter. I never implied it was anything other then an emerging explanation. We will undoubtedly see more work either further confirming or disproving the work of those in the studies I linked. this type of thing happens all the time in science. 

but to pretend there are not people in the field who have working theories for the sun to account for all the changes is simply wrong as Ive shown. It is indeed true these theories havent been fully vetted yet. they will be vetted in time. considering their claims of that we can be assured. which by the way, looking at the sun in this manner not only explains current trends, both the warming and leveling off of temps, but also the 40s and other periods that dont fit terribly well with our other data.


----------



## roberte

Yet another example of your unwillingness to explain why the author - that "respected astrophysicist" - put that number in his paper.





silverseeds said:


> ....
> You took the .07 number from the paper of a respected astrophysicist, yet seem to believe you havent seen what the .07 means.
> ....



And that number is a %. And it is a well accepted number in the field so I'm really puzzled why you can't explain it in relation to the proposed research in that paper or the research you've posted.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Yet another example of your unwillingness to explain why the author - that "respected astrophysicist" - put that number in his paper.


This is strange. You literally answered your own question. Despite the answer already having been obvious. 




> And that number is a %. And it is a well accepted number in the field


yep, see you knew the answer already. So whats your point here? 



> so I'm really puzzled why you can't explain it in relation to the proposed research in that paper or the research you've posted.


what are you even talking about anyway? I keep repeating I have no need to, the astrophysicist in the link you tried to lie about the contents of did it already. 

im assuming you think your making a point with this. I cant fathom what point you believe your making though. Your going to have to explain yourself. 

why do you believe i should explain the explained? why would me summarizing a paper make a difference in light of a respected member of his field doing it??? 

No offense, but your opinions on a link of yours dont mean much to me. when you link something I look at its contents, and the data used to back it. etc. I look to see if others have different opinions and I look at the data and decide which I believe fits the data. there are actually more disagreements in these fields then most realize. Heck i found a recent paper the other day that suggests cosmic rays caused the ozone holes, co2 is near meaningless and CFCs caused global warming. This paper came out in 2012 or 2011 I believe. 

so I have no idea why youd care what I say about it? Read the astrophysicists arguments if you like. If not I have no idea what were talking about.


----------



## silverseeds

I posted this one already, but it was linked through a blog so you pretended it didnt exist, and we didnt discuss it. 

i wont be able to dig into this in depth right away, so maybe i can get your opinion on this. 

Keep in mind, some of these observed real world changes are counter to what we would expect if co2 was driving climate. 

ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature



> Abstract
> 
> Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, *but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. *In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
> Highlights
> 
> &#9658; The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. &#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11â12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. &#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. &#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. &#9658; Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. &#9658; CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.


----------



## roberte

Yet another example of your unwillingness - an unwillingness that is pointing to an inability - to discuss why that number is there....




silverseeds said:


> This is strange. You literally answered your own question. Despite the answer already having been obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, see you knew the answer already. So whats your point here?
> 
> 
> 
> what are you even talking about anyway? I keep repeating I have no need to, the astrophysicist in the link you tried to lie about the contents of did it already.
> 
> 
> ....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Yet another example of your unwillingness - an unwillingness that is pointing to an inability - to discuss why that number is there....


Ahh I finally see your point. Hilarious! In reality I see no need to explain the explained. 

So I "failed" to explain something we had an expert in the field to explain to us. 

And you straight out claimed the link didnt say what I had related despite it being obvious it had. 

hmm which one is more telling exactly??? One of us believes a link is self explanatory, one of us tried to lie about said links contents... hmmmm...


----------



## roberte

A summary:

IPCC says:










See that red bar for solar irradiance? 0.12 With a range of 0.06 -0.30.

See the red bar for LLGHG? Carbon Dioxide is 1.66 Over an order of magnitude larger. 

And then add the other LLGHG 0.98

All with narrower ranges and a high LOSU. (Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers)

What all the silverseeds hullabaloo is about is a vain attempt to claim that there will be some magical research that moves solar (and other drivers) from the domain of orders of magnitude too small to be the primary driver to being a major driver.


That was the purpose of claiming CO2 was being mismeasured.

This is the purpose of claiming that the citations posted 'prove' there is/are factors that will magically increase that bar's length over 10 fold.

Over ten times larger.

Yet none of the research posted shows anything much larger than a fluctuation of that 0.07% as cited by that "respected astrophysicist".


10 fold bigger + some

or 

0.07% or maybe an ion increase that might increase cloud cover or something.










Sciencey or "political posturing"?


"THE FEW climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all....The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed â and continues to delay â the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge.

....

First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun's output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong."
Convincing the Climate-Change Skeptics - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> An odd bit - not the only one by a long shot - in the paper is the author's use of ONE paper to base his claim of solar cycle and cooling.
> 
> ONE paper.


OPPS, i didnt catch this. in actual reality they cited and referenced much more then one study. You clearly didnt read it yet. Heck i posted a study out of an entirely different country with nearly the same results. 

since your apparently not reading it... here are some excerpts for you. Since the best I can tell your not even understanding the argument since you keep trying to argue against it entirely out of context. the excerpts below cover the basics of their argument. 




> * According to our calculations and to the calculations of our foreign colleagues, the direct influence of 2-century cyclic variation of the TSI accounts for only about a half of the amplitude of changes in the global Earth temperature. *However, it is the main and original source of energy, dictating the whole mechanism of climatic changes. The other half of amplitude of the global temperature change is the effect of influence exerted by 2-century variation of the TSI &#8213;* a secondary effect: the temperature change causes gradual changes in reflection power and absorption capacity of the underlying surface of the Earth and in the physical properties of the atmosphere: the concentration of water vapour (the main greenhouse gas), carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. These secondary effects comparable to the direct influence of the TSI variation additionally sharply accelerate the course of global temperature changes on the Earth.* Over the last decades the TSI value changed insignificantly, but these changes were accompanied by the rise of concentrations of water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the global warming caused by a prolonged growth of the TSI, and albedo of underlying surface has been gradually decreasing. Existing data point out the constant decrease of albedo of the Earth over the period 1984&#8211;2000. These secondary effects have led to an additional increase of temperature of the Earth.
> 
> The TSI has entered a descent phase of the 2-century cycle in early 1990s, but the thermal inertia of the ocean causes the global warming observed during the last years. Our planet had been receiving and collecting an anomalously high thermal energy from the Sun during almost whole XX century. Since the early 1990s it has been giving off the accumulated energy. Suddenly the climatologists found that in 2003 the upper layers of the ocean started to cool down. The heat, accumulated by oceans is unfortunately tailing off. This is an indisputable evidence of the fact that climate changes on the Earth are directly influenced by 2-century variations of solar energy supply and it directly confirms that the Earth has already reached in 1998&#8211;2005 the stage of maximal global warming mainly caused by an anomalously high and prolonged increase of the solar energy flux during almost whole XX century.


Notice, that they are saying the sun caused half the warming with feedbacks having caused the rest. Interesting to note the pushers of the co2 mythology give co2 credit with 1/3 of the temp rise and feedback as causing the rest. Of course they assume all positive feedbacks. this is why I said the data fits this stance better. In this context the feedback loops work much as we ACTUALLY see them work. In AGW water vapor for instance only rises. When in reality it does not. We had both water vapor and el nino buffering the influence of the sun. 

Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

back to the other work.


> Nowadays, a few years before the beginning of the upcoming global cooling, we are going through an unstable phase when the temperature will oscillate around the reached maximum without any substantial increase. In 2008 the global temperature on our planet not only did not rise but even fell down due to the decreasing (and record low over 30 years of observations from space) solar luminosity. The stabilization of the global Earth temperature in 1998&#8211;2005 and its downward tendency in 2006&#8211;2008 is an irrefutable evidence of the fact that our Sun is no longer able to warm the Earth the same way as in the past and that an anthropogenic global warming is a big myth. 1998&#8211;2005, being the warmest years for 150 years of weather observations, will stay on the peak of 2-century warming. By the middle of the ongoing century, the new (19th for the last 7500 years) little ice age similar to the Maunder one, will come. The global temperature will fall even without limitation of greenhouse gases emission by industrialized states. That is why the Kyoto treaty is useless so far and should be put off till at least 150 years later. However, climate changes on the planet will spread unevenly depending on the latitude. The fall of temperature will least affect the equatorial region of the Earth and will mostly influence the temperate climate regions. In whole, climate changes are not under the control of humans. A reasonable way to combat these changes is to maintain an economic growth in order to get prepared to alternating coolings and warmings. The coming global cooling will be replaced by a regular 2-century global warming only by the beginning of XXII century.





> Our calculations show that the maximum amounts of energy absorbed by CO2 (within the absorption bands 3.6 &#8211; 4.7 micrometers; 8.9 &#8211; 10.0 micrometers; 10.0 &#8211; 11.4 micrometers; 12.1 &#8211; 17.3 micrometers) and by H2O vapour (4.4 &#8211; 8.8 micrometers and more than 15 micrometers) account for approximately 80% of integral power of the Earth radiation. Of these 80% approximately 68% are absorbed by H2O vapour and only 12% by CO2. This proportion is caused by a partial overlap of the absorption bands of these gases and a constant humidity of the atmosphere for small variations of pressure and temperature. The atmosphere of the Earth releases approximately 10% of the Earth radiation to space, the remaining 10% are absorbed by clouds and by the molecules of other greenhouse gases, among which methane (CH4) within the absorption band 7.2 &#8211; 8.5 micrometers is probably the most active one. Thus, the atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth is defined mainly by the concentration of water vapour which is responsible for 68% of the absorbed radiation, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is less important.
> 
> If we imagine a hypothetical possibility to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric absorption would fall from 80% to 77%. But the increase of CO2 concentration, given its presently high level, will not lead to any considerable increase in atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth. It can be explained by the following circumstances. Within the band 4.7 &#8211; 12.8 micrometers carbon dioxide virtually very little absorb infrared radiation of the Earth. It is known that the main spectral window of the atmosphere is within 8&#8211;13 micrometers band and that the maximum of the Earth own radiation is around 10 micrometers. Outside the spectral window the Earth radiation is not released to space even with the current concentration of CO2. Only a minor change of absorption rate near the boundaries of the spectral window is possible.
> 
> It should be noticed that not only carbon dioxide does not help global warming, but it is also very useful as it stimulates the development of life on the Earth being a critically essential "food" for the plants &#8213; the major cleaners of the nature. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide accelerates the growth of forests and plants. The evidence of this fact is the so-called "green revolution" &#8213; a sharp and global increase in the productivity of agriculture all over the world in XX century. The direct proportionality of agricultural productivity and the concentration of CO2 is confirmed by a number of experiments. In case the supply of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere ceased, the plants would exhaust its reserve in approximately 10 years. After this, every living thing on the Earth may cease to exist. CO2 is not toxic! CO2 does not react with any substance within a human body and it is a harmless gas unlike CO. CO2 is very important for life.


This isnt exactly a case you can dismiss so easily as you seem to believe. 

This isnt some newby to the field. He is Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think its safe to say his theory has enough weight there will be further study, and indeed by how he words it, there indeed is. 

He does indeed make a case and back a case that the sun drove our changes, and that we would be wise to get ready for global cooling based on what his group interpret the data as. Keep in mind this is FAR from the only study I linked mentioning the coming cold because of the suns influence. All of these studies by default are arguing against what you seem to believe is settled.


----------



## roberte

Note the basic assumption your "respected astrophysicist" is working from is CO2 rise lagging temp.

So, your "respected astrophysicist" is pretty far out of the mainstream for current events in our climate.

And your "respected astrophysicist" doesn't explain why he chooses that assumption.

Basically, an attempt at stuffing a left foot into a too small right shoe, then relying on hoping they'll find a magic shoehorn.


Kinda like how Beck left it to other to come up with a hypothesis for his magical 240 gigatons of Carbon.







silverseeds said:


> OPPS, i didnt catch this. in actual reality they cited and referenced much more then one study. You clearly didnt read it yet. Heck i posted a study out of an entirely different country with nearly the same results.
> 
> since your apparently not reading it... here are some excerpts for you. Since the best I can tell your not even understanding the argument since you keep trying to argue against it entirely out of context. the excerpts below cover the basics of their argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, that they are saying the sun caused half the warming with feedbacks having caused the rest. Interesting to note the pushers of the co2 mythology give co2 credit with 1/3 of the temp rise and feedback as causing the rest. Of course they assume all positive feedbacks. this is why I said the data fits this stance better. In this context the feedback loops work much as we ACTUALLY see them work. In AGW water vapor for instance only rises. When in reality it does not. We had both water vapor and el nino buffering the influence of the sun.
> 
> Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card
> 
> back to the other work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt exactly a case you can dismiss so easily as you seem to believe.
> 
> This isnt some newby to the field. He is Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think its safe to say his theory has enough weight there will be further study, and indeed by how he words it, there indeed is.
> 
> He does indeed make a case and back a case that the sun drove our changes, and that we would be wise to get ready for global cooling based on what his group interpret the data as. Keep in mind this is FAR from the only study I linked mentioning the coming cold because of the suns influence. All of these studies by default are arguing against what you seem to believe is settled.


----------



## roberte

Ahhhh, that explains why.........




silverseeds said:


> ....co2 mythology
> ....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Note the basic assumption your "respected astrophysicist" is working from is CO2 rise lagging temp.


first of all irrelevant in regards to the suns impact. Second co2 DOES lag temps. Even now. 
ScienceDirect.com - Global and Planetary Change - The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature


> So, your "respected astrophysicist" is pretty far out of the mainstream for current events in our climate.


Nope sorry. see above. 



> And your "respected astrophysicist" doesn't explain why he chooses that assumption.


Uh actually he does. I even quoted it in the post right before this one from you. 


> Basically, an attempt at stuffing a left foot into a too small right shoe, then relying on hoping they'll find a magic shoehorn.


Are you back to describing the AGW mythology and its current attempt to figure out why temps leveled off for 16 years now? 



> Kinda like how Beck left it to other to come up with a hypothesis for his magical 240 gigatons of Carbon.


Of course???  he wrote his paper in hopes someone would explain with actual facts and science why we should ignore almost all early direct measurements. As is the current stance. You claimed in 5 seconds you could prove the reasons, but you havent taken that 5 seconds yet apparently. Why in the world would he try to explain why the levels were what they were? that had nothing in the world to do with the intent of his work. Ive asked many times why you even believe this is worth mentioning. apparently Im not allowed to know. You just keep repeating it as if its relevant. I cant fathom why you believe such though. 

neither of us can make a case from this either way. Yet you persist? (well actually YOU could if you used proof to show why we should ignore most early direct measurements, of course you cant actually do this you only claimed you could. because to date no one has tried Im aware of) this is VERY telling. 

Basically its political posturing. Heck I didnt even bring it up in this conversation, but you responded to this more then anything else I brought up in this conversation, and neither of us can make an acutal case out of it with available data beyond what was already discussed. 

So my take is you think this atleast makes it LOOK like there is a thorn in the arguments Ive given. It seems to suit you much better then discussing points I actually make in context. Oh well. interesting to watch.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Ahhhh, that explains why.........


really now? sorry, that was my wording, the paper gave its own of course. Interesting you constantly want to equate these studies as MY claims, and want to do anything you can to direct attention from whats in the actual works. 

Heck you claimed he didnt back his reasoning on co2, I pointed out is was quoted in the post directly before yours, and you lock onto MY wording... VERY VERY telling imo. 

maybe youd like to discuss what the actual paper said at some point??? 


> Our calculations show that the maximum amounts of energy absorbed by CO2 (within the absorption bands 3.6 â 4.7 micrometers; 8.9 â 10.0 micrometers; 10.0 â 11.4 micrometers; 12.1 â 17.3 micrometers) and by H2O vapour (4.4 â 8.8 micrometers and more than 15 micrometers) account for approximately 80% of integral power of the Earth radiation. Of these 80% approximately 68% are absorbed by H2O vapour and only 12% by CO2. This proportion is caused by a partial overlap of the absorption bands of these gases and a constant humidity of the atmosphere for small variations of pressure and temperature. The atmosphere of the Earth releases approximately 10% of the Earth radiation to space, the remaining 10% are absorbed by clouds and by the molecules of other greenhouse gases, among which methane (CH4) within the absorption band 7.2 â 8.5 micrometers is probably the most active one. Thus, the atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth is defined mainly by the concentration of water vapour which is responsible for 68% of the absorbed radiation, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is less important.
> 
> If we imagine a hypothetical possibility to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then the atmospheric absorption would fall from 80% to 77%. But the increase of CO2 concentration, given its presently high level, will not lead to any considerable increase in atmospheric absorption of the radiation of the Earth. It can be explained by the following circumstances. Within the band 4.7 â 12.8 micrometers carbon dioxide virtually very little absorb infrared radiation of the Earth. It is known that the main spectral window of the atmosphere is within 8â13 micrometers band and that the maximum of the Earth own radiation is around 10 micrometers. Outside the spectral window the Earth radiation is not released to space even with the current concentration of CO2. Only a minor change of absorption rate near the boundaries of the spectral window is possible.
> 
> It should be noticed that not only carbon dioxide does not help global warming, but it is also very useful as it stimulates the development of life on the Earth being a critically essential "food" for the plants &#8213; the major cleaners of the nature. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide accelerates the growth of forests and plants. The evidence of this fact is the so-called "green revolution" &#8213; a sharp and global increase in the productivity of agriculture all over the world in XX century. The direct proportionality of agricultural productivity and the concentration of CO2 is confirmed by a number of experiments. In case the supply of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere ceased, the plants would exhaust its reserve in approximately 10 years. After this, every living thing on the Earth may cease to exist. CO2 is not toxic! CO2 does not react with any substance within a human body and it is a harmless gas unlike CO. CO2 is very important for life.


So all this is said, you apparently didnt see it, then focus on me saying "co2 mythology".... your really cracking me up my friend. I cant wait until we get into the next topic Im going to get into. Considering how the AGW folks support their stance on the next topic I intend to get into this should prove funny.


----------



## roberte

I think you are confusing forcing and feedback.




silverseeds said:


> ....Second co2 DOES lag temps. Even now.
> 
> 
> .....


----------



## silverseeds

One thing is for sure. Lets thank the sun!!! Considering what it is doing right now, over the next few years, the sun will end one or the other main arguments in the field you see. Many in the fields of solar sciences are telling us the sun will take us cooler, and obviously the AGW folks, say warmer. 

If the sun had continued to trend up, this argument might never end! Well in my lifetime anyway. But since it is trending down and likely to continue to do so, we will indeed see which mentality was correct in pretty short order.

So lets thank the sun! No matter what any of us believe over the next several years, we will have a much clearer idea. As weighted as the IPCC does, the suns influence couldnt over power co2 and drive temps lower as many solar studies predict.


----------



## silverseeds

Do clouds disappear? Â« Calder's Updates

By the way, for anyone reading these thread that is looking to study these topics, this is a good link. 

The link goes over some of the mis conceptions about the work involving the cosmic ray influence. 


> The BBC showed this graph, saying it cast &#8220;further doubt on the notion that cosmic rays are a major influence on the Earth&#8217;s climate&#8221;. With the cloud amount apparently increasing after the cosmic rays went to a minimum, a fair-minded onlooker might well say, &#8220;There you go, the Svensmark hypothesis has failed the test again.&#8221;
> 
> But back in Copenhagen, Svensmark had been re-investigating Forbush decreases for himself, together with his young colleagues Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark. He not only found the impacts but knew exactly why neither Sloan & Wolfendale nor KristjÃ¡nsson & Co. could do so.





> As the graphs above show, all of these observational data sets showed much the same pattern of events after the strongest Forbush decreases since 1998, namely a decrease in liquid water clouds that reached its lowest point six to nine days after the mimimum count of cosmic rays.





> As for the magnitude of the impact on cloud cover, it was huge. A 7 % decrease in cloud water seen by SSM/I translates into 3 billion tonnes of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains there in vapour form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not block sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, the extent of liquid-water clouds measured by MODIS fell on average by 4 %, while ISCCP showed 5 % less cloud below 3200 metres over the ocean.





> Open-mindedness is often in short supply in climate physics and Svensmark trod, not for the first time, on the toes of the supporters of the man-made global warming hypothesis.* A loss of 4 or 5 % of low clouds may not sound very much, but strong Forbush decreases briefly boost the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watts per square metre &#8211; equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century. *





> Another falsification attempt came In February 2010. &#8220;Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover&#8221; is its title, once again in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Jasa Calogovic of the Hvar Observatory in Croatia, but it is the work of a Swiss-German collaboration of scientists from the University of Bern and EWAG led by Frank Arnold from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg. It inspired the &#8220;Forbush Puts Kibosh on Theory&#8221; headline quoted near the outset.
> 
> At the risk of discourtesy to the distinguished authors, I can report that Svensmark laughed when he read the paper from Arnold&#8217;s group. Where his own team studied three different satellite data sets and 26 Forbush decreases, Arnold&#8217;s took just one data set (ISCCP) and only six events &#8211; those ranking 4th, 10th to 13th, and 26th, in Svensmark, Bondo and Svensmark&#8217;s assessment of effects on cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere. In the Danes&#8217; plot of all their ISCCP results (see above) all but one of the Swiss-German selection have &#8220;strengths&#8221; between 33 % and 69 %, where any reduction in clouds is similar to the uncertainty. &#8220;Of course they couldn&#8217;t see anything,&#8221; Svensmark said to me.


anyway from there, it goes through the rest of the misunderstandings. Lots more at the link for those looking to study the topic.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> "Open-mindedness is often in short supply.....



Speaking of which, it is interesting both in the science and in the debate technique that you didn't quote the next paragraph.


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Except your chart doesn't defend your position.
> 
> Maybe you should take a shot at the 0.07%.....


Oddly enough, 0.07% was quoted by someone else, not me . . . 

And the chart _does_ defend that position, which is that my chart and your chart line up pretty darn well when it comes to a correlation between sunspot cycles and global temperatures, except for the last few years.

As for my other position, let me sate it again to make it perfectly clear . . .



> Most people who believe in man-made global climate change do not take the influence of the sun into account. They are so focused on CO2 that everything else falls by the wayside.


I think you've proven that for me, and this has been made especially obvious by your chart in post #718. It ignores completely the idea that a tiny but vastly more powerful source could have a greater effect than a huge but largely ineffectual source.

The fact is, a 0.01% increase or decrease in the output of the sun is vastly more powerful than even a 100% increase in CO2. (Though, admittedly, not a 100% decrease!)

It ignores, in fact, _everything_ in favor of CO2, including the sun, water vapor, and methane.

Out of curiosity, though, I have a question.

There is an 'optimal' parts per million (ppm) of CO2 -- I can't remember what it si -- that we're above right now.

My question is, how did they come up with that 'optimal' number?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Speaking of which, it is interesting both in the science and in the debate technique that you didn't quote the next paragraph.



I cant for the life of me figure out what you could mean?? 

There it is. What is interesting about this to you exactly??? I didnt quote most of the link. How does a paragraph that backs what I said in the past prove something to you as you imply here??? 



> Although they are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the Forbush decreases dramatize the cosmic climate mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle. When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events, and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world. That explains the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles. And the overall increase in solar activity during the 20th Century implies a loss of low clouds sufficient to explain most of the &#8220;global warming&#8221;.


Im curious roberte, what you believe caused the current 16 year hiatus in warming??? I think Ive made it pretty clear what I believe is going on, but you havent really said yet. Do you buy hansens new study on this? or one of the others? there are several theories flying around right now.


----------



## roberte

Narshalla said:


> ....
> The fact is, a 0.01% increase or decrease in the output of the sun is vastly more powerful than even a 100% increase in CO2. (Though, admittedly, not a 100% decrease!)
> ....


Prove it.

What evidence do you have?


----------



## roberte

BTW,

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change


----------



## Narshalla

roberte said:


> Prove it.
> 
> What evidence do you have?


And if the sun suddenly went out, all global warming would cease, and eventually, we would all freeze to death . . . 

Bet you want me to prove that, as well . . . 

And despite the fact that you cut most of my response out, you did still prove my point, that most people who believe in man-made global climate change do not take the influence of the sun into account. They are so focused on CO2 that everything else falls by the wayside.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> BTW,
> 
> ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change


Look at the first picture under the abstract in your link. 


> Fig. 1. Correlation of cosmic rays *(Climax Neutron Monitor Rate)*, high cloud (HCC)+middle cloud (MCC)+low cloud (LCC), and MCC+LCC. The cloud data are from the analysis of Erlykin and Wolfendale (2010). Symbols b and c in the right panels relate to the ratio of relative variations of CC and CR: (b) (see text) and to the correlation coefficient between them: c.



In fact the link I gave dispelling the misunderstandings of their work, it covered the same study you linked.... the Svensmark group say they can show is false. This was explained in the link i gave. I will quote the relevant part below... there are corresponding graphs on the link. 

Do clouds disappear? Â« Calder's Updates


> Bringing the Earth&#8217;s magnetism into the story
> 
> Both Wolfendale&#8217;s and Arnold&#8217;s teams repeated a different complaint going back to Sloan and Wolfendale in 2008, about clouds at different latitudes. In promising to return to it later, I was saving the neatest rebuttal till last. Here, for example, is how Laken, Wolfendale and Kniveton expressed their concern.
> 
> &#8220;An analysis of the latitudinal distribution of the [low cloud fraction] variations reveals that this decrease is predominately located at mid to low latitudes, whereas if the phenomenon were related to variations in the [cosmic ray] flux it should be predominately located at high latitudes.&#8221;
> 
> What this is all about is the influence of the Earth&#8217;s magnetic field on the influx of cosmic rays. As a shield of sorts, it works much better in the tropics than towards the magnetic poles. So with more cosmic rays coming in at higher latitudes, and varying more, shouldn&#8217;t there be a bigger effect on clouds there, than at at low latitudes?
> 
> The argument was most clearly illustrated by Sloan & Wolfendale, with a diagram that related not to sudden Forbush decreases but to long-term variations in cosmic rays over Solar Cycle 22 (1983-96) and to an earlier report on their effects on clouds by Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark in 2000. I&#8217;ve replaced rather technical labels on the axes of the graph with simpler ones of my own.
> 
> The line NM is the variation in cosmic rays at different latitudes, which Sloan & Wolfendale say should be followed by any variation in low cloud cover if the Svensmark effect is real. The various symbols show the actual variations in the clouds according to an analysis of ISCCP data, which are obviously missing the target line completely.
> 
> Test failed? Not a bit of it. Here is the same graph with a red line added by Svensmark, showing how he computes that the cloud effect should vary with latitude. It fits the Sloan & Wolfendale data surprisingly well, when you remember how &#8220;noisy&#8221; the ISCCP data are.
> 
> Test passed. We have come to the nub of the misconception, where the critics haven&#8217;t grasped an elementary point about Svensmark&#8217;s physics. For ten years he has said the clouds most affected by cosmic rays are low clouds. So the cosmic rays that matter are charged particles (mainly muons, heavy electrons) that penetrate low into the atmosphere. They&#8217;re generated mostly by very energetic protons from the Galaxy on which the Earth&#8217;s magnetic field has little influence. Hence the much reduced slope of the red curve, compared with Sloan & Wolfendale&#8217;s NM slope.
> 
> *NM stands for neutron monitors, and there&#8217;s the blunder. Neutrons are very handy for showing changes in cosmic ray intensities, whether in a Forbush decrease or during a solar cycle. But as high-school students know, neutrons are uncharged. They don&#8217;t ionize the air or affect the clouds. To rely on neutrons to tell you what the clouds should do is as rash as expecting tigers to have smoke coming out of their heads.
> *
> *The overriding importance of the muons is the reason why Svensmark&#8217;s team went to so much trouble to compute the ionization of the lower air for many Forbush decreases. None of the critics cited here used the same reckoning to lead them to the effects on clouds. This is what lay behind Svensmark&#8217;s remark to the BBC back in 2008, that Sloan &#8220;simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds&#8221;.*


EDITED to add. 

actually it looks like you linked a later study from the same group, but from the data we can see and the explanation given to past works from the same person you link the Svensmark group is still finding the effect, while explaining why others are not.


----------



## roberte

That doesn't support your previous claim:

"The fact is, a 0.01% increase or decrease in the output of the sun is vastly more powerful than even a 100% increase in CO2. (Though, admittedly, not a 100% decrease!)"




Narshalla said:


> And if the sun suddenly went out, all global warming would cease, and eventually, we would all freeze to death . . .
> 
> Bet you want me to prove that, as well . . .
> 
> And despite the fact that you cut most of my response out, you did still prove my point, that most people who believe in man-made global climate change do not take the influence of the sun into account. They are so focused on CO2 that everything else falls by the wayside.



Nope, the IPCC report covers solar and other natural drivers.


----------



## roberte

Svenmark, et al 's numbers show an influence. 
What hasn't been shown is the comparison of cosmic and solar energy levels to CO2.

So, until you can point to how a forcing that is orders of magnitude too small can become a primary driver, there really isn't much point in bringing up science that ultimately has little to do with what is going on.

The real issue is why you have to have three different driver claims going in an effort to disprove CO2. You've brought up water vapor, solar, and cosmic rays. 

You've also attempted to claim various political 'agendas'.

But have not brought up any evidence that ultimately disproves or even disagrees with :











Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers






silverseeds said:


> Look at the first picture under the abstract in your link.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the link I gave dispelling the misunderstandings of their work, it covered the same study you linked.... the Svensmark group say they can show is false. This was explained in the link i gave. I will quote the relevant part below... there are corresponding graphs on the link.
> 
> Do clouds disappear? Â« Calder's Updates
> 
> 
> EDITED to add.
> 
> actually it looks like you linked a later study from the same group, but from the data we can see and the explanation given to past works from the same person you link the Svensmark group is still finding the effect, while explaining why others are not.


----------



## roberte

Oak Leaf said:


> I'm in Canada and really don't know a whole lot about the USA, so help me out here. Am I correct in assuming that the question of human influenced climate change is divided along political lines? That republicans generally believe it's false and democrats believe it's true?
> 
> Why is it attached to politics? A recent poll showed 98% of Canadians believe in climate change, but you won't find 98% voting conservative! lol


Good questions, and more related to the actual topic of the thread.

Start here:



















More Say There Is Solid Evidence of Global Warming | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Svenmark, et al 's numbers show an influence.
> What hasn't been shown is the comparison of cosmic and solar energy levels to CO2.


Why would they compare it to co2? that doesnt make the slightest bit of sense. 


> So, until you can point to how a forcing that is orders of magnitude too small can become a primary driver, there really isn't much point in bringing up science that ultimately has little to do with what is going on.
> 
> The real issue is why you have to have three different driver claims going in an effort to disprove CO2. You've brought up water vapor, solar, and cosmic rays.


WOW. How many times now have you falsely tried to say data on this topic or another is an attempt to disprove co2 as a driver? Your really not understanding whats going on... and yes Ive brought up many climate drivers. LOL You kept repeating there wasnt an alternative explanation, yet there is. 

and sorry, according to those working in the field who are leaders in this study it IS enough to explain most of the warming. they explain why other groups arent finding the influence because they arent using the full range of data. 






> You've also attempted to claim various political 'agendas'.
> 
> But have not brought up any evidence that ultimately disproves or even disagrees with :


Uh sorry, your not even reading what Ive posted if you believe I havent shown things that disagree with that completely. In fact even all the solar studies who see cold coming are by default telling us the IPCC weights the sun incorrectly in their view. 

You can keep ignoring all the data the disagrees with you if you like though. Oh well!


----------



## roberte

MJsLady said:


> ....The only reason to push gw is money.
> 
> ....


Been awhile since that was posted and MJsLady was asked for evidence.

And seemed to have not wanted to support the claim.....


----------



## roberte

Well, to start with, they isn't a convincing case that cosmic rays, solar, or whatever is the claim de jour is the primary driver.

Second, since the biggest issue with the IPCC synthesis is the large range ascribed to solar, all the research you've brought forward helps in narrowing that range. Narrow the range, not show how its paltry by comparison energy level can account for what is observed.

Just as the research has done with virtually every other aspect of Anthropogenic Climate Change.





silverseeds said:


> Why would they compare it to co2? that doesnt make the slightest bit of sense.
> 
> 
> WOW. How many times now have you falsely tried to say data on this topic or another is an attempt to disprove co2 as a driver? Your really not understanding whats going on... and yes Ive brought up many climate drivers. LOL You kept repeating there wasnt an alternative explanation, yet there is.
> 
> and sorry, according to those working in the field who are leaders in this study it IS enough to explain most of the warming. they explain why other groups arent finding the influence because they arent using the full range of data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh sorry, your not even reading what Ive posted if you believe I havent shown things that disagree with that completely. In fact even all the solar studies who see cold coming are by default telling us the IPCC weights the sun incorrectly in their view.
> 
> You can keep ignoring all the data the disagrees with you if you like though. Oh well!


----------



## roberte

Some real and well established science:

If you seriously want to learn what is going on, I'd suggest a primer:


* Basics | Climate Change | US EPA
*Our Best Posts on the Basic Science of Global Warming
* The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

* Climate Kids: How do we know the climate is changing?

Longer lists of beginner resources are at


* RealClimate: Start here
&
* Newcomers, Start Here


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Of course???  he wrote his paper in hopes someone would explain with actual facts and science why we should ignore almost all early direct measurements.
> 
> .....


I think you have Beck's purpose about 180 degrees wrong. Otherwise using his work would be to support the accuracy of ice core and Mauna Loa .

But the fact that no one has tried to support his claims gives a pretty good view of his 'research'.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Well, to start with, they isn't a convincing case that cosmic rays, solar, or whatever is the claim de jour is the primary driver.


Actually there is, you just havent read it I guess. In fact thus far they have disproven all criticisms, and continue to add to their work and knowledge of the impacts. In fact enough of a case was made, that even while many downplayed it, they tested the theories ultimate claim in two particle accelerators. One of those groups fully intended to shut down this pesky issue once and for all, and instead confirmed it. Which is why a second group is now working on figuring out the effects. None of this happens for theories with no weight in the field. 


> Second, since the biggest issue with the IPCC synthesis is the large range ascribed to solar, all the research you've brought forward helps in narrowing that range. Narrow the range, not show how its paltry by comparison energy level can account for what is observed.
> 
> Just as the research has done with virtually every other aspect of Anthropogenic Climate Change.


"paltry"... yep your not reading the link works. accounting for most of our warming isnt paltry by my count. 

this far the only criticisms failed to include all the datasets needed to see the effects. There have to date not been any unanswered criticisms. It is true there will be more study on this, and we might find the first group studying it weighted it incorrectly, only time will tell, but its very obvious this played a major role. 

This is an interesting piece...

NOAA&#8217;s &#8217;15 year statement&#8217; from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office &#8216;insignificance&#8217; claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years | Watts Up With That?

In it several AGW advocate sources such as NOAA and others are pointed out to have told us years ago that 15 years of no warming (rather then 10 or so it was at the time) would be significant and worrisome to current understanding....

One group linked had previously said 15, and now says 20.... Which is funny to someone like me who knew the work on the cosmic ray influence and others, and was waiting for this period for the debate to change. It hasnt. Its hilarious honestly. All though not as funny as people thinking you need to disprove a theory that is currently disproving itself. 

A few others in there also. 

Posted this one before, but its a few strong AGW advocates who all have different ideas to explain the current flatline trending. 

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net


----------



## roberte

IF there were a coherent case to be made for cosmic rays, cloud ionization, sunspots, etc, etc, etc, it would be fairly easy to write up a review of the literature as it now stands.

What your list of links show is some data that helps narrow the range shown in the IPCC reports.






silverseeds said:


> Actually there is, you just havent read it I guess. In fact thus far they have disproven all criticisms, and continue to add to their work and knowledge of the impacts. In fact enough of a case was made, that even while many downplayed it, they tested the theories ultimate claim in two particle accelerators. One of those groups fully intended to shut down this pesky issue once and for all, and instead confirmed it. Which is why a second group is now working on figuring out the effects. None of this happens for theories with no weight in the field.
> 
> 
> "paltry"... yep your not reading the link works. accounting for most of our warming isnt paltry by my count.
> 
> this far the only criticisms failed to include all the datasets needed to see the effects. There have to date not been any unanswered criticisms. It is true there will be more study on this, and we might find the first group studying it weighted it incorrectly, only time will tell, but its very obvious this played a major role.
> 
> This is an interesting piece...
> 
> NOAAâs â15 year statementâ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office âinsignificanceâ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years | Watts Up With That?
> 
> In it several AGW advocate sources such as NOAA and others are pointed out to have told us years ago that 15 years of no warming (rather then 10 or so it was at the time) would be significant and worrisome to current understanding....
> 
> One group linked had previously said 15, and now says 20.... Which is funny to someone like me who knew the work on the cosmic ray influence and others, and was waiting for this period for the debate to change. It hasnt. Its hilarious honestly. All though not as funny as people thinking you need to disprove a theory that is currently disproving itself.
> 
> A few others in there also.
> 
> Posted this one before, but its a few strong AGW advocates who all have different ideas to explain the current flatline trending.
> 
> Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> IF there were a coherent case to be made for cosmic rays, cloud ionization, sunspots, etc, etc, etc, it would be fairly easy to write up a review of the literature as it now stands.
> 
> What your list of links show is some data that helps narrow the range shown in the IPCC reports.


If you say so. Yet our data actually suggests this accounts for most of the observed warming that ended 16 years ago. Im not sure that relates to simply narrowing the range as you suggest. Id love to see you back that. The study you linked literally didnt include all the data needed. So thus far all you offered is the opinion it isnt a big deal. The data disagrees with you though. 

Do you have an opinion on why the AGW advocates want to move the goalpost? Used to be they told us 10 years of no warming was nothing, when its 15 that will be worrisome for the theory. We are at 16 currently. Im aware of no additional data that warrants the goalpost being moved. Perhaps you are? 

Its kinda a big deal here, we have solar scientists telling us cooling is coming. which is much harder to deal with then warming. So if moving the goalpost is un warranted and again I see no reason to justify it, then some of the AGW devout might want to think of looking at these other factor in new light. 

NOAA&#8217;s &#8217;15 year statement&#8217; from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office &#8216;insignificance&#8217; claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years | Watts Up With That?


----------



## roberte

Might want to strive for scientific accuracy rather than spouting talking points developed through political posturing:










''Noughties' confirmed as the warmest decade on record - Met Office


"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ÂºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 Â« Met Office News Blog









Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)



silverseeds said:


> If you say so. Yet our data actually suggests this accounts for most of the observed warming that ended 16 years ago. Im not sure that relates to simply narrowing the range as you suggest. Id
> ....


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Might want to strive for scientific accuracy rather than spouting talking points developed through political posturing:


ah huh. Except only one of us is doing what your describing. You have no proof to offer yet keep assuring people the cosmic influence is minimal. Based all on past work, and incomplete works. If you read the links Ive given you see that every criticism thus far has been accounted for. 

There are still popular AGW folks dismissing it as your doing. They literally are purposely choosing not to understand the physics and data. 

this was funny... and just one example of your posturing. you said...




> Speaking of which, it is interesting both in the science and in the debate technique that you didn't quote the next paragraph.


to which i said...



> I cant for the life of me figure out what you could mean??
> 
> There it is. What is interesting about this to you exactly??? I didnt quote most of the link. How does a paragraph that backs what I said in the past prove something to you as you imply here???
> 
> 
> *Although they are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the Forbush decreases dramatize the cosmic climate mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle. When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events, and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world. That explains the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles. And the overall increase in solar activity during the 20th Century implies a loss of low clouds sufficient to explain most of the âglobal warmingâ.*
> 
> 
> Im curious roberte, what you believe caused the current 16 year hiatus in warming??? I think Ive made it pretty clear what I believe is going on, but you havent really said yet. Do you buy hansens new study on this? or one of the others? there are several theories flying around right now.


You of course didnt answer, because like most of your posts you had no real point beyond political posturing. 

Have an explanation for the moved goalpost??? or just gonna ignore that also??? Used to be we were told if we got to 15 years with no warming then it would be telling, 10 years wasnt enough. Now the goalpost is changed to 20 apparently. Have any data that shows us we should be moving this goalpost? I havent seen it. 

NOAA&#8217;s &#8217;15 year statement&#8217; from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office &#8216;insignificance&#8217; claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years | Watts Up With That?


----------



## roberte

We note that you aren't addressing the claim you posted.....





silverseeds said:


> ah huh. Except only one of us is doing what your describing. You have no proof to offer yet keep assuring people the cosmic influence is minimal. Based all on past work, and incomplete works. If you read the links Ive given you see that every criticism thus far has been accounted for.


Svenmark making comments isn't proof that "..every criticism thus far has been accounted for."

That would be like you claiming you are 'accounting for everything' in your posts.

And in this one, you haven't even addressed the topic.




silverseeds said:


> There are still popular AGW folks dismissing it as your doing. They literally are purposely choosing not to understand the physics and data.


So you jump to another claim.

Unsupported.

As usual.

Maybe just some more "political posturing"....


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> Have an explanation for the moved goalpost???
> 
> ....


Not really a "moved goalpost". Except by Watts, et al...

The Rose comment was based on the oft used 'pick the best start and end date' ploy.

Cherrypicked data set and a cherrypicked start and end date.

And a newspaper article.

That was picked up by a blog.


Wow, that's real sciencey.........


----------



## silverseeds

http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

This is a recent study of past temp levels. It includes the highest number of source data proxies im aware of. 

It seems they agree with what the IPCC USED to say, that the medieval warm period was as warm or slightly warmer then today. a stance the IPCC later changed. 

Personally I think this is somewhat moot. the last interglacial period was several degrees warmer then we have today. one might wonder why temps are trending down in geological time.


----------



## roberte

I wonder where the research is that supports this huge leap that is more rhetoric than logic.

"
Although they are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the Forbush decreases dramatize the cosmic climate mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle."


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> We note that you aren't addressing the claim you posted.....
> 
> .


actually i did. 



> Svenmark making comments isn't proof that "..every criticism thus far has been accounted for."
> 
> That would be like you claiming you are 'accounting for everything' in your posts.
> 
> And in this one, you haven't even addressed the topic.


Clearly you didnt read the explanations. 




> So you jump to another claim.
> 
> Unsupported.
> 
> As usual.
> 
> Maybe just some more "political posturing"...


hmm. in actual reality I did support it. They are basing their stance on outdated and incomplete data. Ignore it all you like though. 



roberte said:


> Not really a "moved goalpost". Except by Watts, et al...
> 
> The Rose comment was based on the oft used 'pick the best start and end date' ploy.
> 
> Cherrypicked data set and a cherrypicked start and end date.
> 
> And a newspaper article.
> 
> That was picked up by a blog.
> 
> 
> Wow, that's real sciencey.........


Hilarious! So it isnt a moved goalpost when several in the field tell us 15 years, and switch it to 20 once weve exceeded 15 years of no warming. 

A "newspaper article" a "blog"... sorry man, that doesnt change the fact the goalpost was moved. absolutely hilarious for you to imply it does. 

Cherry picked??? nope sorry. We were told 15 years, once we got to 16 the goalpost has changed to 20. what was there to cherry pick exactly? Of course you cant and wont answer, just un backed assertions. 

So your stance is what exactly? since you just jumped through logical hoops instead of giving a direct honest answer I can tell. I take it you believe... 

15=20??? and anyone who questions it "cherry picked"... and since the opinions of the many who gave us that timeline were written in blogs and newspapers their opinions lost all meaning once in print in such mediums???


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> I wonder where the research is that supports this huge leap that is more rhetoric than logic.
> 
> "
> Although they are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the Forbush decreases dramatize the cosmic climate mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle."


So you believe its telling that i didnt quote a paragraph that supports what I said. (still never explained that strange logic) then you pick out a single sentence and arent even reading it in the context of the piece and believe your making a point?? hilarious!!!


----------



## roberte

And newly posted by Watts.....

And shown to not be the "confirm" early in the comments.

Also see Are temperature reconstructions regionally biased?





silverseeds said:


> http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
> 
> This is a recent study of past temp levels. It includes the highest number of source data proxies im aware of.
> 
> It seems they agree with what the IPCC USED to say, that the medieval warm period was as warm or slightly warmer then today. a stance the IPCC later changed.
> 
> Personally I think this is somewhat moot. the last interglacial period was several degrees warmer then we have today. one might wonder why temps are trending down in geological time.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> And newly posted by Watts.....
> 
> And shown to not be the "confirm" early in the comments.
> 
> Also see Are temperature reconstructions regionally biased?


your link didnt work for me. 

Also, you might want to read the linked study. It accounted for the regional nature of the various included datasets. or they make the case they do anyway. They also talk a bit about how others ended up with different results. 

I know, i know it doesnt agree with the IPCC so it isnt science. (well in earlier reports the IPCC USED to agree, they changed their mind later)


----------



## silverseeds

Abrupt change in atmospheric CO2 during the last ice age

Here is another study for you to ignore roberte...


> Abrupt change in atmospheric CO2 during the last ice age
> Key Points
> 
> Half of CO2 increase during a 1500-year cold period occurred in < 200 yrs.
> Abrupt CO2 rise is synchronous, or slightly later than,a rapid Antarctic warming.
> * C-cycle-climate modeling doesn't capture all of the processes for CO2 variations.*
> 
> Authors:
> 
> Jinho Ahn
> 
> Edward Brook
> 
> Andreas Schmittner
> 
> Karl J Kreutz
> 
> During the last glacial period atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in Antarctica varied in a similar fashion on millennial time scales, but previous work indicates that these changes were gradual. In a detailed analysis of one event we now find that approximately half of the CO2 increase that occurred during the 1500-year cold period between Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events 8 and 9 happened rapidly, over less than two centuries. This rise in CO2 was synchronous with, or slightly later than, a rapid increase of Antarctic temperature inferred from stable isotopes.


----------



## roberte

[1204.5871] Are temperature reconstructions regionally biased?

Discusses the shortcomings of the paper that Watts claims 'confirms' something 



silverseeds said:


> your link didnt work for me.
> 
> Also, you might want to read the linked study. It accounted for the regional nature of the various included datasets. or they make the case they do anyway. They also talk a bit about how others ended up with different results.
> 
> I know, i know it doesnt agree with the IPCC so it isnt science. (well in earlier reports the IPCC USED to agree, they changed their mind later)


Quite the oversimplification.

One could say oversimplification based on "political posturing" and rhetoric.....


But not real sciencey.


----------



## JeffreyD

roberte said:


> [1204.5871] Are temperature reconstructions regionally biased?
> 
> Discusses the shortcomings of the paper that Watts claims 'confirms' something
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the oversimplification.
> 
> One could say oversimplification based on "political posturing" and rhetoric.....
> 
> 
> But not real sciencey.


I agree with you sig line! Your not defending your cause very well!


----------



## roberte

Try reading the conclusion. Pages -9-11.

And tell us why you think this paper is important to what point you are trying to make.



silverseeds said:


> Abrupt change in atmospheric CO2 during the last ice age
> 
> Here is another study for you to ignore roberte...


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> [1204.5871] Are temperature reconstructions regionally biased?
> 
> Discusses the shortcomings of the paper that Watts claims 'confirms' something
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the oversimplification.
> 
> One could say oversimplification based on "political posturing" and rhetoric.....
> 
> 
> But not real sciencey.


First, Im not sure why your bringing up Watts? Care to explain??

Second, Im not sure how you believe the link you gave relates to the study I gave??? The study I gave included a wide range of datasets, not solely tre ring data which this piece is talking about... 

You notice your link wasnt even published?? If you read the link i gave you will see the efforts they went to, to bypass issues with regional data. Ive read whats available from each, I have no idea how you believe this is relevant. 


This was from your link below. 



> Are temperature reconstructions possibly biased due to regionally differing density of utilized proxy-networks? This question is assessed utilizing a simple process-based forward model of tree growth in the virtual reality of two simulations of the climate of the last millennium with different amplitude of solar forcing variations. The pseudo-tree ring series cluster in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere and east Asia. Only weak biases are found for the full network. However, for a strong solar forcing amplitude the high latitudes indicate a warmer first half of the last millennium while mid-latitudes and Asia were slightly colder than the extratropical hemispheric average. Reconstruction skill is weak or non-existent for two simple reconstruction schemes, and comparison of virtual reality target and reconstructions reveals strong deficiencies. The temporal resolution of the proxies has an influence on the reconstruction task and results are sensitive to the construction of the proxy-network. Existing regional temperature biases can be attenuated or accentuated by the skill of the reconstruction approach.
> 
> Comments: 14 pages, 4 Figures,* unpublished*
> Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
> Cite as: arXiv:1204.5871 [physics.ao-ph]
> (or arXiv:1204.5871v1 [physics.ao-ph] for this version)


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> First, Im not sure why your bringing up Watts? Care to explain??


You posted a paper.
Watts cited it about two hours previously.



silverseeds said:


> Second, Im not sure how you believe the link you gave relates to the study I gave??? The study I gave included a wide range of datasets, not solely tre ring data which this piece is talking about...


Your paper was specifically addressed. I'm really flumoxxed by your claim of "solely tre ring data"



silverseeds said:


> You notice your link wasnt even published??


In Press.
BTW, the writing by the "respected astrophysicist" wasn't even a paper. And also unpublished.



silverseeds said:


> If you read the link i gave you will see the efforts they went to, to bypass issues with regional data. Ive read whats available from each, I have no idea how you believe this is relevant.


Yes, they tried. One or both of the authors have been trying to make that case for a few years now.

But the errors in their efforts are pointed out in the paper I cited as well as in the comments at Watts posting.


----------



## roberte

*Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts*
Stefan Rahmstorf
_*The Observed Climatic Warming
*_"It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This
can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This
is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so
we deal with it only briefly.32 The two leading compilations of data measured
with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate
Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different
data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures,
they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8Â°C since
the late nineteenth century." http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

*Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
*
*9.7	Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change
*
"The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system and the pattern and amplitude of warming in the different components, together with evidence that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest in 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6) indicate that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely to be the result of internal processes alone. The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significant human influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperature and ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range of climate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent with observational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system (as used in Figure 9.5), is it possible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed (Figure 5.4)."
9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
*Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, &#8220;As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change&#8221; (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: &#8220;Human activities &#8230; are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents &#8230; that absorb or scatter radiant energy. &#8230; [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations&#8221; [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: &#8220;Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise&#8221; [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: &#8220;The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue&#8221; [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords &#8220;climate change&#8221; (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You posted a paper.
> Watts cited it about two hours previously.


didnt know that. How exactly is this relevant???



> Your paper was specifically addressed. I'm really flumoxxed by your claim of "solely tre ring data"


I see, i had only seen the abstract. I couldnt however quote the section of the study i linked that addressed the claims of your unpublished paper before it had even come out. If you read it, they explain how they came to their conclusions. 



> In Press.






> Yes, they tried. One or both of the authors have been trying to make that case for a few years now.
> 
> But the errors in their efforts are pointed out in the paper I cited as well as in the comments at Watts posting.
> 
> 
> This was from your link below.


hmmm, your bias is sticking out as far as Im concerned. I read both works entirely now. Oh well, we can get more into it later. I find it interesting that despite having records from a large number of global spots including both hemispheres and humans growing food on what is now permafrost there are many who believe said warming was somehow regional, and sustained for hundreds of years. All without ever trying to show how such a thing could be possible. the climate would have had to have had much different mechanisms in place during the MWP for this to be true.

Are you aware of anyone who tries to explain how humans were growing things so much farther north? how people were growing grapes on what is now permafrost in greenland? how were these "regional" major temp shifts sustained for so long if it wasnt global? especially in light of "regional" data from all over the globe which shows the same warming???


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> In Press.
> BTW, the writing by the "respected astrophysicist" wasn't even a paper. And also unpublished.


Yeah i noticed that later, but we were well into discussing it. Of course I posted published work with the same conclusions as well...

I find it hilarious you put "respected astrophysicist" in quotes as if it is in question. The guy is head of the Russian segment of the international space station, and head of space research of the sun sector at the pulkovo observatory of the russian academy of sciences. I highly doubt you get to such positions with having the respect of other members of your field. 

another thing we will have to agree to disagree on I guess.


----------



## Larburlingame

A report from the UK says that global warming ended 16 years ago!

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
> 
> This is a recent study of past temp levels. It includes the highest number of source data proxies im aware of.
> 
> It seems they agree with what the IPCC USED to say, that the medieval warm period was as warm or slightly warmer then today. a stance the IPCC later changed.
> 
> Personally I think this is somewhat moot. the last interglacial period was several degrees warmer then we have today. one might wonder why temps are trending down in geological time.


Well we have an additional paper with similar templines, both from this year. 

Both showing warmer periods in recent times then currently. Neither showing anything unusual about the speed of todays temp changes or anything else of that nature as many imply. Not even vaguely actually. Of course in the early IPCC reports they had similar charts. These arent the only two to show this of course, but both are from this year. 

Also.... One of the "hockey stick" temp graphs was retracted entirely and will not be published. 


Gergis et al hockey stick paper withdrawn &#8211; finally | Watts Up With That?


----------



## silverseeds

So roberte and the rest? I guess we arent going to finish the debate? I cant exactly just keep posting by myself.


----------



## arabian knight

Thats because all they got is a over used charts that are misleading. And now that the new evidence is that GW stopped over 16 years ago. That is all they got, to drag out old studies and "Fixed" Charts. LOL


----------



## roberte

Waiting with bated breath for you to fulfill your promise.

That would be the 'more later when I have time'. As in you actually bringing something substantive, esp. something that has been discussed in the literature, cited in following papers, and providing something in the order of actual evidence that focuses on your claims.

And, of course, some sort of explanation in your own words as to why those papers support your claims. You know, like a number that shows the energy levels that your claims need.



IF you want to post "the basics", do so. If you want to post "the complex stuff", then do so.

Just make sure to explain why you think the particular source is valid and important.

You know, not something from a "respected astrophysicist" who hasn't published in 3+ years and even then wasn't published on the topic you cited.

You know, not something from a highschool teacher whom you had to back off your support when you couldn't answer the basic questions about statistics that he didn't bother with either.

Or a 'paper' that makes claims without any numbers showing energy levels of what they think is a major driver.

Or from people who think Saturn or Jupiter have a strong influence on our climate.


----------



## silverseeds

How about we try something new roberte. Try responding to the actual content of the links I give. You know as if this was about science rather then political posturing.


----------



## silverseeds

silverseeds said:


> http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
> 
> This is a recent study of past temp levels. It includes the highest number of source data proxies im aware of.
> 
> It seems they agree with what the IPCC USED to say, that the medieval warm period was as warm or slightly warmer then today. a stance the IPCC later changed.
> 
> Personally I think this is somewhat moot. the last interglacial period was several degrees warmer then we have today. one might wonder why temps are trending down in geological time.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we have an additional paper with similar templines, both from this year.
> 
> Both showing warmer periods in recent times then currently. Neither showing anything unusual about the speed of todays temp changes or anything else of that nature as many imply. Not even vaguely actually. Of course in the early IPCC reports they had similar charts. These arent the only two to show this of course, but both are from this year.
> 
> Also.... One of the "hockey stick" temp graphs was retracted entirely and will not be published.
> 
> 
> Gergis et al hockey stick paper withdrawn â finally | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...

On this quoted post I had meant to post a second study in line with the other I had linked then quoted. Forgot to for some reason. 

http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC


----------



## roberte

It is patently obvious that you are attempting to make this an argument about how you perceive this discussion is going rather than take the time to actually come up with a substantive hypothesis and the data to support it. 


So, again. WHEN you post what you consider substantive scientific argument - a hypothesis based on some well researched data - we can discuss the science.

Until then, here is a short list of some basic science; well established, well researched, well analyzed.


Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Climate Research

Climate Change (2007) The Physical Science Basis, a report accepted by 
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Frequently Asked Questions

Climate - Met Office

Stanford University - The Global Climate and Energy Project - energy research, climate change, global climate, global warming, greenhouse emissions, greenhouse gases, hydrogen economy, hydrogen power, renewable energy

RealClimate: Start here

Climate Impacts Group

Climate and Society - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Weather and Climate Basics


*Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts*
Stefan Rahmstorf
_*The Observed Climatic Warming
*_"It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This
can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This
is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so
we deal with it only briefly.32 The two leading compilations of data measured
with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate
Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different
data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures,
they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8Â°C since
the late nineteenth century." http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

*Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
*
*9.7	Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change
*
"The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system and the pattern and amplitude of warming in the different components, together with evidence that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest in 1.3 kyr (Chapter 6) indicate that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely to be the result of internal processes alone. The consistency across different lines of evidence makes a strong case for a significant human influence on observed warming at the surface. The observed rates of surface temperature and ocean heat content change are consistent with the understanding of the likely range of climate sensitivity and net climate forcings. Only with a net positive forcing, consistent with observational and model estimates of the likely net forcing of the climate system (as used in Figure 9.5), is it possible to explain the large increase in heat content of the climate system that has been observed (Figure 5.4)."
9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
*Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, &#8220;As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change&#8221; (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: &#8220;Human activities &#8230; are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents &#8230; that absorb or scatter radiant energy. &#8230; [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations&#8221; [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: &#8220;Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise&#8221; [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: &#8220;The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue&#8221; [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords &#8220;climate change&#8221; (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> It is patently obvious that you are attempting to make this an argument about how you perceive this discussion is going rather than take the time to actually come up with a substantive hypothesis and the data to support it.


coming from a person who has outright ignored most of the content in the links Ive posted and mis portrayed most you actually responded to, this is a bit funny. 

Ive done what you suggest of course. Anyone actually reading and understanding the content of studies I posted knows this. Your call to authority rather then science only works on the biased. or perhaps those not able to take the time to study. 

Anytime you like feel free to explain which of the emerging theories you believe exlains our current hiatus in temps. We were told years ago that at 15 years we might question AGW theory by those pushing the theory itself, we are at 16 years now. Now we are hearing the goalpost was moved to 20 years. Your stance that 15=20 and the goalpost was not moved isnt really legit if you believe it was...

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

Im really curious if you subscribe to one of the explanations for this hiatus in warming given above? There is NO consensus stance on this to date by the way.... Its completely counter to the models.


----------



## roberte

You do realize your source says it needs to be 17 years.... right?

And it seems rather odd that you want us to accept that hodgepodge of claims and often spurious papers as proof because they are 'new' and now are insinuating that research into factors of natural variability needs to be looked at askance. 

And, the attempt those denying the science doesn't pass basic 'sniff tests'


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You know, not something from a "respected astrophysicist" who hasn't published in 3+ years and even then wasn't published on the topic you cited.


ouch, another lie! I should go back through these threads and figure out how many direct lies youve had now. 

I didnt even bother to look for where he was published yet, just happened across one of them in my saved links... So there might be more. 

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age | Abdussamatov | Applied Physics Research

Ouch and it DOES cover the topic cited. He is predicting a coming cold period just as he did in the other piece we were discussing. 

for those not following this we were talking about astrophysicist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

As the other link I gave shows he believes the sun accounts for our recent warming and then stagnation of temps, and further predicts we head much cooler from here. I posted probably about a dozen studies showing the case for a cooling trende because of the sun now, all of which by default disagree with the IPCCs stance, the sun couldnt cause this is its as weak of an effect as the IPCC claims (for which they admit is based on low consensus and low level of understanding)


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You do realize your source says it needs to be 17 years.... right?


Ouch, another mis representation! OPPS. honest mistake Im sure... 

Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

I guess you didnt notice the 17 was one of the ways AGW folks are explaining the fact temps havent risen AFTER the fact. the linked article that mentions this, mentioned a YET to be released study as of 2011 when the article was written. 

The 15 year stance came from NOAA and other sources in 2008 whn we had 10 years of no warming. Other sources as well. 

NOAA&#8217;s &#8217;15 year statement&#8217; from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office &#8216;insignificance&#8217; claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years | Watts Up With That?

Im sure youll notice they also list the study that references 17 years, but again this came out after we were past the 15 year mark. 





> And it seems rather odd that you want us to accept that hodgepodge of claims and often spurious papers as proof because they are 'new' and now are insinuating that research into factors of natural variability needs to be looked at askance.


Id say its more odd that even after I pointed out that the IPCC gives LOW level of scientific understanding and consensus on the topics covered about natural influences, you still dismiss whatever you dont agree with as "hodge podge" and "spurious" without offering actual science to back it. 




> And, the attempt those denying the science doesn't pass basic 'sniff tests'


hilarious. Your stance on most things Ive posted is we should ignore it. 










This graph is just strange. If this isnt obvious to you roberte, skeptics do not actually view it anything like this. None of them I encountered anyway. Its weird they literally in the same graph mis represent the data and suggest we are still trending up. while apparently trying to propagandize the opinions of others. It fits you though. 










Relevant in what way exactly? Temps have essentially flatlined for 16 years now. contrary to the models, with aGW folks scrambling to explain it. We have many studies of the sun telling us we should expect colder temps from here. 

By the way multiple periods in the last 2k years were warmer, and the last interglacial was several degrees warmer. 










point? we all know this.


----------



## roberte

Yes, I missed that journal. But I didn't miss much.


Might want to look at the journal and its sponsors ....... Also, show us its ISI. Show us who has cited your "respected astrophysicist" 's paper. Actually, show us much of anything from that journal that also supports your contentions.





silverseeds said:


> ouch, another lie! I should go back through these threads and figure out how many direct lies youve had now.
> ....


Please do so. 


Now, on the basis of ONE PAPER written by a "respected astrophysicist" who has written nothing in the field, is rarely cited as positive evidence in any other publications beyond Marc Morano and blogs, and whose paper is mainly a prediction based on a dodgy assumption, are you saying we should stop any efforts to cut back on our emissions of Anthropogenic CO2?

Because that is basically your argument.

A hodgepodge of claims, no substantive data, no consistent hypothesis. 

Or a mountain of evidence, solid consensus, a long history of increasing accuracy of modeling and observations.


Oh, wait; maybe you do have a hypothesis - Anything, anything but Anthropogenic CO2 because that means I'm partly responsible.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Or a mountain of evidence, solid consensus, a long history of increasing accuracy of modeling and observations.


Most of your post was just... well, no words for it...

This part is funny though. In actual reality the AGW folks are scrambling to even keep their theory alive, specifically because their models were completely in accurate. the link I keep giving on this covers several different running theories to explain this lack of warming. No consensus yet. 

So what in your mind convinces you we have increasingly accurate models showing co2 as a driver??? Heck just since the last report new data on most of the major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening. many other factors as well...


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ...
> The 15 year stance came from NOAA and other sources in 2008 whn we had 10 years of no warming. Other sources as well.
> ....


You would do yourself a favor (and factcheck Watts) by actually reading the paras around the truncated quote.....


Not an unusual technique for him and his sycophants, btw.


----------



## roberte

I think you need a few more days doing some research......




silverseeds said:


> ....So what in your mind convinces you we have increasingly accurate models showing co2 as a driver??? Heck just since the last report new data on most of the major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening. many other factors as well...


Maybe we should start a new thread - SS's unsupported claims -


I've asked for weeks for a number.

And now, almost by magic, we get "..major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening."


Really? Where?

Feel free to quote where you've made the claim before or where you found the information that you think supports that claim.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> You would do yourself a favor (and factcheck Watts) by actually reading the paras around the truncated quote.....
> 
> 
> Not an unusual technique for him and his sycophants, btw.



http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

The paragraph out of NOAA watts cited, was indeed quoted accurately. It is on page 24 of this report. Feel free to explain how you believe the paragraphs surrounding it or anywhere else in the text dis qualify it. For reference here is the paragraph you seem to believe watts used incorrectly...



> âNear-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the modelâs internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.â





roberte said:


> I think you need a few more days doing some research......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we should start a new thread - SS's unsupported claims -
> 
> 
> I've asked for weeks for a number.


This is funny. I supported all my "claims". I gave you studies with the "numbers" in them. You demanded I explain the studies or they dont count. What can I do? 

And this is all in response to a post where I asked you to show that our models are more accurate today. You decided not to support that. 


> And now, almost by magic, we get "..major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening."
> 
> 
> Really? Where?
> 
> Feel free to quote where you've made the claim before or where you found the information that you think supports that claim.


Magic? no magic. I have discussed this with you on another forum, but havent gotten to far into it here yet. I believe I only posted on the failed water vapor feedback loop thus far. No worries we will get there.


----------



## roberte

Let us know when you can explain ""..major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening."


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Let us know when you can explain ""..major feedback loops that were to account for 2/3 of the warming have proven this isnt happening."


huh, and here I was waiting for us to finish this point. You were just about to explain how watts had mis represented what NOAA had said. You claimed it was disqualified by surrounding paragraphs. which is clearly false to anyone who read it. I linked the relevant paper for you again, and even gave you the page number so you could back your claim. You want me to jump to the next topic...

Ok, no matter youve failed to respond in context to most everything posted thus far, I shouldnt expect this to change. 

I will move on to the failed feedback loops here soon. For you to downplay and ignore... which will be hilarious, because we went through this before, and you wanted to hang your hat on PAST MODELS, while the studies I linked about the failed feedback loops were assessing what actually happened. Feel free to make fun of this now, and then we can all watch you do it, as I post the studies on the failed feedback loops.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> I will move on to the failed feedback loops here soon.
> ....


Another attempt of 'let's throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks' 

Hasn't worked with 'it's been 10 years, 15 years....', it's 'space particles', it's 'all the CO2 science is backward', 'it's natural', 'it's cosmic rays', 'it's the sun', 'there was a spike in CO2 a half century','it's water vapor' 'it's clouds', 'in the 70's they were predicting an ice age', etc, etc, etc.........

I'm waiting with bated breath......


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Another attempt of 'let's throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks'
> 
> Hasn't worked with 'it's been 10 years, 15 years....', it's 'space particles', it's 'all the CO2 science is backward', 'it's natural', 'it's cosmic rays', 'it's the sun', 'there was a spike in CO2 a half century','it's water vapor' 'it's clouds', 'in the 70's they were predicting an ice age', etc, etc, etc.........
> 
> I'm waiting with bated breath......


hilarious! You made false claims and failed to support them. then demand I cite the next topic in line. Now you claim I cited the science backing other theories to see what sticks, when every response you give to data I post amounts to mis directions you hope stick...

Feel free to back the lies you said about watts. You claimed he mis represented what NOAA said. He did not. 

You still have yet to tell us which of the conflicting theories of the various AGW folks you believe explains the current lag in warming as well.

By the way you seem confused why Ive covered these topics as I have. You kept saying there is NO alternative explanation to co2. There indeed is. I covered some of them. I know very well several of these topics are still being ironed out among their respective fields. I said this myself!! point is, there ARE explanations in our peer reviewed work.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Or a mountain of evidence, solid consensus, *a long history of increasing accuracy of modeling and observations.*


another un backed claim Im sure you hoped sticks. I asked for the proof, instead you lied about watts, I called you on it then you jumped to another topic and wonder outloud when I thought I backed the failed feedback loops. which I had never said I did entirely. 

Oh well. Nothing new. This is how youve "debated" the whole time. 

Feel free to back the claim above though...

In ACTUAL reality temps havent warmed for 16 years and the field is scrambling to explain it through a wide range of theories, with no consensus yet on the lack of warming. you have your work cut out for you.


----------



## roberte

Look at the level of research and probability ranges in the first, second, third, and fourth Assessment Reports.Which, if your claim about having 'studied the science' is accurate, you would know.

It basically boils down to you and the small group of noisemakers are making claims that the 'new stuff' will overturn everything.

Except for each piece of 'new stuff' you cite, there are orders of magnitude more being published that improves on that history of the first, second, third, fourth....

I keep asking you for numbers.

You can't bring them. You claim they are in the papers yet can't cite them.





silverseeds said:


> another un backed claim Im sure you hoped sticks. I asked for the proof, instead you lied about watts, I called you on it then you jumped to another topic and wonder outloud when I thought I backed the failed feedback loops. which I had never said I did entirely.
> 
> Oh well. Nothing new. This is how youve "debated" the whole time.
> 
> Feel free to back the claim above though...
> 
> In ACTUAL reality temps havent warmed for 16 years and the field is scrambling to explain it through a wide range of theories, with no consensus yet on the lack of warming. you have your work cut out for you.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....I havent even covered the pathetically weak case for co2 as a driver yet.
> ....
> .


Lots of unsupported asinine claims in that post, but let's look at that one more closely.

Really, what have you read that lead you down that path?

What data can you bring forward?


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Lots of unsupported asinine claims in that post, but let's look at that one more closely.
> 
> Really, what have you read that lead you down that path?
> 
> What data can you bring forward?


Nice dodge I guess...

I will be waiting for you to back your claims about watts mis representing what NOAA said. I linked the source and gave the page number. You were wrong, nothing in the surrounding paragraphs dis qualifies the paragraph he had quoted. In 2008 noaa did indeed say that at 15 years we have reason to really question the models. 

I also asked you to back your claim about increasingly accurate models. You keep changing the subject. 

You keep forcing the conversation to the next topic, and I keep letting you slide on your delusions. We can stop that now. So lets get the answers to the above, and we can move forward....

debates are TWO WAYS roberte.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> 
> I also asked you to back your claim about increasingly accurate models. You keep changing the subject.
> .....


I've cited the data. Go read it.


----------



## roberte

The quote by Watts is truncated and by that conscious choice gives an impression that is out of context.

There is a reason why the paper Watts quoted from uses at least two paragraphs to discuss that point.

Reading up on the data and statistical analysis and the references might give you a fuller picture of the issue.





silverseeds said:


> Nice dodge I guess...
> 
> I will be waiting for you to back your claims about watts mis representing what NOAA said. I linked the source and gave the page number. You were wrong, nothing in the surrounding paragraphs dis qualifies the paragraph he had quoted. In 2008 noaa did indeed say that at 15 years we have reason to really question the models.
> 
> I also asked you to back your claim about increasingly accurate models. You keep changing the subject.
> 
> You keep forcing the conversation to the next topic, and I keep letting you slide on your delusions. We can stop that now. So lets get the answers to the above, and we can move forward....
> 
> debates are TWO WAYS roberte.


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> The quote by Watts is truncated and by that conscious choice gives an impression that is out of context.
> 
> There is a reason why the paper Watts quoted from uses at least two paragraphs to discuss that point.
> 
> Reading up on the data and statistical analysis and the references might give you a fuller picture of the issue.


Sorry, I linked the source for the paragraph he quoted.



> &#8220;Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model&#8217;s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.&#8221;


http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf


this comes from page 24...

Anyone who goes to read it, can see VERY obviously, nothing said dis qualifies the 15 year timeline given. If you believe otherwise, use actual proof not claims. The data is right on the link for anyone who cares. You lied. You were called on it. Please admit it now, or back your claims with actual proof.

No more games please, the debate will get more complex from here. We cannot have anything resembling intelligent conversation if you continually mis portray the content of posts. this is VERY basic, and in black and white and still you persist.


----------



## roberte

silverseeds said:


> ....
> So temps leveled out for 16 years...
> ....



According to one newspaper article with a cherry picked date range based on a cherry picked database.

And while the blogs that feed those who attempt to deny the science were all agog with that 'revelation', the MET walked through how many different ways Rose was wrong with his 'analysis'

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 Â« Met Office News Blog


----------



## silverseeds

The data speaks for itself, despite the newspaper article. you have yet to back your claim watts mis represented what noaa said. He did not.


----------



## roberte

Watts misrepresented the claim by his implying that using ONE database stood as a representative for all the available data.

Cherrypicked dates.

Cherrypicked database.


Typical behavior from those attempting to deny the science.

And note that this is a talking point posted in a newspaper, not a scientific paper.

A newspaper article that was picked up by a blog.

And thus spread out to those who don't want to take the personal responsibility for their actions.







silverseeds said:


> The data speaks for itself, despite the newspaper article. you have yet to back your claim watts mis represented what noaa said. He did not.



Then reconcile the truncated quote from Watts with:

The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999â2008 trend (&#8722;0.05Â° to 0.05Â°C decadeâ1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999â2008 are statistically consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades (Fig. 2.8c). http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf


----------



## silverseeds

roberte said:


> Watts misrepresented the claim by his implying that using ONE database stood as a representative for all the available data.


You claimed he misrepresented what NOAA said. He did not. Its there in black and white and linked more then once with the page number listed... You made false claims and now refuse to back them, while talking about "denying the science"... 

You might want to go back and look into your claims of cherry picked data. there indeed was no warming over 16 years. the met office verified it after having tried to claimed cherry picked data.

Then reconcile the truncated quote from Watts with:


> The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999&#8211;2008 trend (&#8722;0.05Â° to 0.05Â°C decade&#8211;1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999&#8211;2008 are statistically consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades (Fig. 2.8c). http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...008-lo-rez.pdf


I guess you were trying to prove nothing in the surrounding paragraphs dis qualified the paragraph watts quoted that said at 15 years of no warming the models are in question?? Otherwise Im confused, nothing in this disputes the other paragraph.


----------

