• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 9 votes

Global Cooling


  • Please log in to reply
659 replies to this topic

#631 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:27 PM

*Random googling snipped*

Not a single Google search resulted in any of those citations, Zenob. I have a set of sites I peruse most every day and I read them too. I must admit I didn't include citations I have noted in my collections of the change in bird migration reflecting warming climes, or the extraordinary heat wave in South West Australia (nor the record flooding there recently). A recent study found that most climate extremes to 1998 were heat events but since then, appears that the majority of extreme events are cold.

climate change deniers have a habit of just googling shit at random


he thinks that since we have had hard winters or winter storms that this MUST refute global climate change.



You assume much Zenob. I really think we are seeing massive climate change. I don't know what will be the result but I do know the estimates by the IPCC have been found to be too conservative.

Zenob, I would appreciate your pointing out the evidence of a Telegraph reporter quackery. That could be valuable for me, TIA.

Platypus, take a look at that film I linked to earlier on the Hamaker hypothesis. I was glad to find it on the web because it is no longer for sale by the company that owns the rights, the organization and the person who made it are dead. That climate model, (which incidentally has some real-time experimental evidence shown in that film, unlike any other model) appears to fit the observations better than the general slow AGW theory. The Hamaker hypothesis as it was first stated appears to have been an overestimate as far as the timing goes but in general, it appears to fit observations better. Do a search on "Devil's Hole Studies." You can find reference to research designed to find the most accurate timing of past ice age cycles. It found that the ocean sediment timings are off by 17,000 years or so, about the extent of interglacials. Correlated with ice core studies, it suggests that peak CO2 concentrations immediately preceded rapid commencement of ice ages. I've got a citation from a climate scientist that relates the other research, basically coral deposits and past ocean levels, that corroborates the Devil's Hole study I'll see if I can post here soon too. Another study that has been removed from NOAA's web pages related on how the ocean sediment timing was adjusted to fit the Milankovich theory then used to support that theory, purely debased anti-science. Adding in the data on those noctilucent clouds seems to cinch the Hamaker hypothesis. First surface mirrors being created by greenhouse gases, mainly methane apparently, at a height above a vast majority of greenhouse gases (50 miles, the highest clouds) could very well negate any heat trapped by those gases. I mean, if you cut down on the total amount coming into the greenhouse trap, you are going to result in a net decrease in temperatures.

The problem with the Hamaker hypothesis is that it is even a more ardent anti-"Oilogarchy" premise than AGW. It is and has been actively suppressed. After a couple of years the Devil's Hole studies were hit with a barrage of propaganda fossil fuel interest funded studies that reasserted the Milankovich theory which does not hold fossil fuel interests as complicit in climate change at all. A web site that used to have the books and data on the Hamaker hypothesis has gone towards being politically correct and has pulled much of that data, www.remineralize.org .

Tell me something, has a majority of scientists, official organizations and the general populace ever been massively mistaken before?

#632 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 16 March 2009 - 06:54 PM

And Val adds completely random thought.

Climate change is happening, green technology is always preferred over pollution, but does it really matter? Don't most of these theories suggest this will take place between 50-100 years? And don't you think we'll have some sort of solution by then?

#633 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 16 March 2009 - 07:22 PM

Don't most of these theories suggest this will take place between 50-100 years? And don't you think we'll have some sort of solution by then?


John Hamaker when he first came out with his hypothesis in about 1980, thought we had maybe a decade or two before ice age conditions would be ensconced. He based that on studies of pollen deposits showing the change from heat tolerant plants to cold weather herbage was rapid. My own observation is that climate on Earth appears to be a damped harmonic oscillation with ice age conditions a 90 percent stronger attractor, to use a term from chaos theory. Interglacials are a precariously balanced state of conditions. Usually when an unstable set of conditions transition to a more stable state, the change is relatively rapid. From the record, and there is more since the studies Hamaker used for his timing predictions that suggest rapid change, interglacials come on slow, over thousands of years, ice ages start fast, with a hundred or so years with very rapid change at the end of those. The noctilucent clouds were first seen and recorded in 1885 and have been growing in persistence and spread since. Me thinks we are well at the end of those hundred years. I doubt if it will be as rapid as depicted in that movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" but I do expect the record cold across the N. hemisphere observed over the last couple of years, holds potential to accelerate dramatically. It can take time to build a house of cards but very little for it to collapse.

The predominance of theoretical predictions does not signify truth. If that were the case, we would still be living on a flat earth.

There is no West for the leery.

Edited to correct punctuation.

Edited by Omega, 16 March 2009 - 07:35 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#634 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:01 PM

You failed horribly at attempting to reason. You are the last person in this thread that should be trying to explain anything. It's like you are riding the short bus or something. The entire article you quoted and then drooled all over yourself in your ignorance was an attempt to explain a common misconception by people regarding ice ages and co2 data from ice corp samples. You then went on to make the EXACT SAME ERROR they were pointing out. For some reason people tend to think that CO2 and temperature are joined at the hip so they think that there will be a 1 to 1 relationship. They then fail to grasp why there is a lag in ice corp samples regarding Co2(they think that if the temperature is going up then Co2 HAS to be going up as well). I explained the process behind how ice ages cause this increase in c02 on their downswing to you in simple terms. Your failure to understand it is nobody's fault but yours.


I fully understood your point (which is the same point made at realclimate.org), but I don't agree with it. Or rather, I don't agree that this is the conclusion to draw from the evidence. I'm not sure you understood my comparison, but I don't think it can be made any more simple.

Holy shit talk about stupid. The initial warming that occurs at the end of an ice age is NOT caused by co2. The initial warming CAUSES the release of the co2 which then creates a feedback loop that continues to drive the warming. Your X causes Y bullshit is just a bunch of ignorant hand waving. *insert frustrated scream here*


So, you see two variables, A and B, correlating with each other, with A occurring before B, and then your conclusion is that A occurs for "natural reasons" and then when B kicks in, it's B that begins to cause A. If this is an incorrect interpretation, do share your wisdom and correct it.

That conclusion may of course be valid, but it's not exactly Occam's razor, is it? When you're done with ad hominem attacks, can you provide evidence that it's a "feedback loop" between B and A instead of just A (temperature) causing B (CO2)?

Was Nasa using it to try and disprove climate change like you were doing?

No. That's the whole point.

Go ahead, explain to me how you use a chart to demonstrate something that only happened at the last .1% of the chart. lol


That chart shows that this is not the warmest period in history. That's all. Whatever else you think it shows (or whatever else you think I think it shows) is in your imagination. I pointed this out in my previous post, but perhaps it escaped you.

Are you brain dead?

No. Are you always like this?

Do you think global warming "doesn't count" unless we are warmer now then at any point in the past?


No (did you even read my post?), but it means that what AGW proponents need to prove for their hypothesis to be true is that the rate of increase is currently higher than it has been historically. Do you have evidence for this?

If you had half a brain you might actually wonder about these past rapid events and what caused them before you tried comparing them to modern day warming. Since you don't, I'm sure you won't. lol


What past rapid events? Can you be more specific or are you too busy lolling?

You haven't shown ANYTHING to be false. All you have done so far is demonstrate a staggering level of ignorance of everything involved. I don't think you are capable of using logic.


So either you think that this current period IS the warmest period in history or you've just contradicted yourself.


The entire reason you are talking about an obscure dialect is because you made an infantile --


Judging by your posting style, doesn't seem to me that you're in a position to call people "infantile".

It wasn't to prove anything, it was just to rub your nose in your denialism a bit. lol


I think I was just talking yesterday about how climate change deniers have a habit of just googling shit at random



#635 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:12 PM

That's exactly how science works. We have a good theory and model about how the climate system works. If you want to alter the bit related to the greenhouse-effeft, you have to provide us with a better theory and model on how that bit is supposed to work and we'll see. Just trying to pick holes on current climate models is not enough.


I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. Put it this way: if you had a very complex math equation and somebody pointed out an error in it, would that person need to rewrite the entire equation in order to be right? It's of course best to have an alternative model, but sometimes that's not the case, and often it's not needed to show that something is false.

But, if you forced me to give an answer, I would say that I think the "natural causes" theory is the simplest one, and so far there has been no evidence to suggest that there is something unnatural about the current climate.

Also, we're talking about models that attempt to predict the future, so evaluating how good they are is not all that simple.

Where did you get the idea that if humans have caused the current warming, the rate of the warming has to be abnormal??


From the fact that if the following are true:

1. The current climate is not something that has never been witnessed before
2. The current climate is not changing (i.e. has not changed up to this point) in a rate that has never been witnessed before

Then it follows that there is no need to explain the current climate by saying that there is some other factor (man) at play here. If you look at the sky for 20 years and every day it's more or less blue, you don't wake up one day thinking that today it's blue because somebody painted it blue, do you? That, however, appears to be the reasoning with AGW.

#636 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 March 2009 - 09:17 PM

And Val adds completely random thought.

Climate change is happening, green technology is always preferred over pollution, but does it really matter? Don't most of these theories suggest this will take place between 50-100 years? And don't you think we'll have some sort of solution by then?


This is exactly how I feel. In fact, I think the global warming trend (pun intended) will be out of fashion in 5-10 years, and the loudest proponents will claim that they knew all along we were headed towards an ice age.

Even if abnormal global warming was happening and even if it was due to man, there wouldn't be much at the moment we could do about it. However, in those 5-10 years we can do enormous damage by restricting progress under the banner of environmental issues and thinking we can stop the climate from changing by buying organic soy milk and wearing hemp clothes.

#637 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:02 AM

That's exactly how science works. We have a good theory and model about how the climate system works. If you want to alter the bit related to the greenhouse-effeft, you have to provide us with a better theory and model on how that bit is supposed to work and we'll see. Just trying to pick holes on current climate models is not enough.


I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you here. Put it this way: if you had a very complex math equation and somebody pointed out an error in it, would that person need to rewrite the entire equation in order to be right? It's of course best to have an alternative model, but sometimes that's not the case, and often it's not needed to show that something is false.

We have very good reasons to believe that greenhouse gases have a warming effect and this is corroborated laboratory tests and by climate models in hindcasting. What do you have to offer?

But, if you forced me to give an answer, I would say that I think the "natural causes" theory is the simplest one, and so far there has been no evidence to suggest that there is something unnatural about the current climate.

What natural causes? Show me the model please. Saying "natural causes" is not a theory.

#638 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:05 AM

And Val adds completely random thought.

Climate change is happening, green technology is always preferred over pollution, but does it really matter? Don't most of these theories suggest this will take place between 50-100 years? And don't you think we'll have some sort of solution by then?


This is exactly how I feel. In fact, I think the global warming trend (pun intended) will be out of fashion in 5-10 years, and the loudest proponents will claim that they knew all along we were headed towards an ice age.

Would be nice if that was the case but the current science predicts that will not happen. We'll see.

Even if abnormal global warming was happening and even if it was due to man, there wouldn't be much at the moment we could do about it. However, in those 5-10 years we can do enormous damage by restricting progress under the banner of environmental issues and thinking we can stop the climate from changing by buying organic soy milk and wearing hemp clothes.

We could also do enormous damage by driving the climate over tipping points that might be avoided with a bit of foresight.

Edited by platypus, 17 March 2009 - 10:09 AM.


#639 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:43 AM

We have very good reasons to believe that greenhouse gases have a warming effect and this is corroborated laboratory tests and by climate models in hindcasting. What do you have to offer?


Are you talking about greenhouse gases in general or carbon dioxide? Because the latter is mainly what AGW proponents are trying to reduce. I'm no expert on physics, but I've seen some interesting criticism of the greenhouse gas theory.

Laboratory tests and climate models like this are kind of like in vitro tests; they might give us a clue but it's not necessarily how it all functions in vivo. These models are far from perfect even in explaining past events - how well they will predict the future remains to be seen.

In other words, the link between the model (which says that CO2 drives temperature) and reality (which only says that temperature rises before CO2) is too weak to make the case for drastic reductions in CO2 production. The negative effects of meaningful reductions in CO2 production, however, are very tangible. Keep in mind also that man-made (including farmed animals) CO2 emissions are a drop in the bucket. This whole idea of "tilting the balance so carefully crafted by Mother Nature" is strange, because there really is no CO2/temperature equilibrium in nature; things have varied wildly and will very likely continue to do so, regardless of what we do.

But, if you forced me to give an answer, I would say that I think the "natural causes" theory is the simplest one, and so far there has been no evidence to suggest that there is something unnatural about the current climate.

What natural causes? Show me the model please. Saying "natural causes" is not a theory.


You're right, "natural causes" is not a theory. That was a mistake on my part. I don't have an alternate theory that can explain all the variations in temperature, but I also don't think that's relevant here. Because as I said earlier, a theory can be disproven without providing an alternate theory.

Nevertheless, one thing we know that affects temperatures is the sun. Looking at the ice core data, there are clear observable cycles in global temperatures, ice ages being the norm and interglacial periods being the exception. Considering that these coincide with changes in the distance between the sun and the earth, among other things, my guess is that sun would be a major part of any alternate theory of temperature change.

All in all, the fact that these cycles have existed before man proves that there are causes of temperature change that are not man-made. I don't need to have an explanation for just what these causes are to make that statement, but following basic logic, it is a valid statement nonetheless. The question is not whether temperatures can change without the influence of man; we know that it can. The question is whether the changes seen in the last 100 years are unusual enough to hypothesize that man has had something to do with it. Because if they're not unusual, then the whole idea of AGW rests of very shaky grounds. Would you agree with this?

#640 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:50 AM

We could also do enormous damage by driving the climate over tipping points that might be avoided with a bit of foresight.


Let's assume for a minute that there is such a point, and that what humans are currently doing in terms of carbon dioxide emissions is going to push us over it. What kind of changes do you think would be necessary to change this crash course? Can you give any calculations of what kind of reductions in CO2 emissions are feasible in reality? What are the costs of those reductions? Applying the potential reductions to the model, what level of reduction would result in an optimal cost/benefit ratio?

I realize these estimates are difficult, but isn't this exactly the kind of thing AGW proponents should be asking? It just seems to me global warming people are less interested in boring calculations like this and more interested in posting pictures of drowning polar bears.

#641 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:24 PM

We have very good reasons to believe that greenhouse gases have a warming effect and this is corroborated laboratory tests and by climate models in hindcasting. What do you have to offer?


Laboratory tests and climate models like this are kind of like in vitro tests; they might give us a clue but it's not necessarily how it all functions in vivo. These models are far from perfect even in explaining past events - how well they will predict the future remains to be seen.

Climate sceptics are free to figure out the interactions and to run and publish climate models where an increase of CO2 does not lead to an increase in global temperatures. As far as I know they have been unable to produce such a model and all climate models point to the direction that increasing greenhouse gases also increases temperature.

The question is whether the changes seen in the last 100 years are unusual enough to hypothesize that man has had something to do with it. Because if they're not unusual, then the whole idea of AGW rests of very shaky grounds. Would you agree with this?

No I wouldn't. The best available models explain the development of the climate in the past 100 years and according to them CO2 is changing the temperature. That's the best explanation available at the moment.

#642 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 March 2009 - 03:26 PM

We could also do enormous damage by driving the climate over tipping points that might be avoided with a bit of foresight.


Let's assume for a minute that there is such a point, and that what humans are currently doing in terms of carbon dioxide emissions is going to push us over it. What kind of changes do you think would be necessary to change this crash course? Can you give any calculations of what kind of reductions in CO2 emissions are feasible in reality? What are the costs of those reductions? Applying the potential reductions to the model, what level of reduction would result in an optimal cost/benefit ratio?

I don't know but I hope it will not be too costly. Didn't Stern do some calculations about this in his report?

#643 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 19 March 2009 - 06:27 PM

More snow than usual and more is coming for mid US. 3/19
http://www.accuweath...n=midwestusnews

More Great Lakes ice fuels global warming debate. 3/18
http://www.examiner....-Global-Warming

Waste vegetable oil fuel: illegal in many US states. 3/17
http://auto.howstuff.../grease-car.htm

Copenhagen: climate change at worst case scenario predicted. 3/14
http://www.journal.c...=...2&aid=87839

Antarctica ocean plankton declining, more CO2 released. 3/13
http://www.boston.co...cting_plankton/

Gallup poll: less concerned about climate change. 3/13
http://www.cjr.org/t...ns_think_me.php

Record flooding predicted for North Dakota's Red river. 3/13
http://www.usatoday....ng_N.htm?csp=34

Zenob, when you make false accusations do you try to ignore it and think that makes it so it didn't happen? That would be about par for this forum. Kind of like the inconvenience of global cooling evidence being shuffled off to this section.

#644 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 March 2009 - 08:16 AM

About climate tipping points:

http://www.scienceda...90317095450.htm

#645 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:09 AM

"Strong global warming of more than 4°C by the year 2200 so far does appear to be a clear possibility,” Kriegler says.


That's almost 200 years away from now. I think the world will be much different in that time. If an increase of 4 degrees in 2200 is still a global threat, frankly, we're all screwed anyway, because it clearly means there's no way we'll have solved aging by then.

Should we really pour massive resources to reducing the possibility of a 4 degree increase in 200 years? I assume this would mean drastically reducing CO2 emissions, which will mean progress and science in general will have to take several steps back - there's just no way that driving an eco-friendly car will make the difference. The price seem extremely high to me.

#646 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 20 March 2009 - 09:24 AM

"Strong global warming of more than 4°C by the year 2200 so far does appear to be a clear possibility," Kriegler says.


That's almost 200 years away from now. I think the world will be much different in that time. If an increase of 4 degrees in 2200 is still a global threat, frankly, we're all screwed anyway, because it clearly means there's no way we'll have solved aging by then.

What has aging got to do with it?

Should we really pour massive resources to reducing the possibility of a 4 degree increase in 200 years?

It depends on if you're planning to be around at that time.

I assume this would mean drastically reducing CO2 emissions, which will mean progress and science in general will have to take several steps back - there's just no way that driving an eco-friendly car will make the difference. The price seem extremely high to me.

It would require a big leap in science, not backward steps.

#647 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 20 March 2009 - 07:47 PM

My 1978 Mercedes has 212,000 miles on it and should be able to go another 300,000 w/ decent maintenance. It gets 35 miles per gallon in the city and you can see crash tests on youtube that show it to be at least close to as safe as cars with air bags. I paid $1200 for it, got $800 of work done and then another $300 to install biodiesel/wvo ready fuel lines and a heavy duty filter system. I got about 5 gallons of used peanut oil from a turkey fry (free) and when my tank was empty, put it in without filtering, only letting it settle. The engine ran smoother and with more power than with diesel. A guy within a few blocks of me filters WVO from restaurants and provides it cheaper than diesel, $2.00 a gallon. Accross the bay a guy is advertising it for $1.00 a gallon. I just responded to an ad on Craigs List for 4 gallons within a mile of me of used vegie oil, free. Just as an experiment, I placed an ad on Craigslist for used oil and got a reply quick from a restaurant that was willing to supply me with all I would ever need plus some at no charge. In the state of California WVO users are supposed to pay for a certificate to transport fuel, $400 a year and you can see from a link I provided recently, WVO use is illegal altogether in many states. Other states also require a fee for a certificate, a recent court case is seeking thousands from one guy every year to use WVO in his Mercedes. My car has more room than a hybrid, decent cargo space and comfortable seating for five. If the use of WVO were not being actively suppressed in many states it would provide for decent carbon neutral transportation for many. As things stand, WVO makes its way into water systems and gives treatment plants a headache. Restaurants have to pay to have it hauled away in most cases.

Ever see the video "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Did you know that Westinghouse reported making a version of the Edison Alkaline cell in 1976 that was larger power to size ratio than ever expected for lead-acid batteries with no plans for commercial development? That approaches being an ideal battery, lasting for thousands of years with an occasional replacement of the electrolyte and very little environmental pollution as compared to the lead-acid batteries and lithium cells.

The science has been around for quite some time to have a carbon free lifestyle with liberty and freedom. The one science that really needs upgrading is sociology.

Climate change is already happening. It just killed my ma this last January. It will kill folks you know in the very near future too. It was just predicted that within a couple years we will see an all time record high for the incidence of starvation on the planet. It is and will motivate wars and terrorism besides the impact on our affairs that is already directly killing people increasing.

A forum is not the social science we need, ha.

#648 donjoe

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 3

Posted 21 March 2009 - 01:11 PM

The science has been around for quite some time to have a carbon free lifestyle

Stop talking nonsense, all known life on this planet is carbon-based, there's no such thing as "carbon-free life", only "carbon-free death". ;)

Climate change is already happening.

Just like shit, climate change always happens, because - guess what - the climate is a chaotic system, it's never at equilibrium. But is it suddenly changing catastrophically? There's no reliable evidence to prove that it is.

It was just predicted that within a couple years we will see an all time record high for the incidence of starvation on the planet.

Yeah, especially if we do our damnedest to artifically suck out all the crop-nurturing CO2 from the atmosphere under the false assumption that this gas is the major driver of (catastrophic) climate change. :rolleyes:


- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

Edited by donjoe, 21 March 2009 - 01:15 PM.


#649 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:56 PM

The science has been around for quite some time to have a carbon free lifestyle

Stop talking nonsense, all known life on this planet is carbon-based, there's no such thing as "carbon-free life", only "carbon-free death". :)


Total spin to straw man argument. If meant as a joke it is mean-spirited.

Climate change is already happening.

Just like shit, climate change always happens, because - guess what - the climate is a chaotic system, it's never at equilibrium. But is it suddenly changing catastrophically? There's no reliable evidence to prove that it is.


Depends if you are willing to look at the evidence which appears beyond your bias. The climate cycles periodically and regularly from ice age to interglacial. It is not a purely random process, it is not a chaotic system in the big picture though your comments certainly are.

It was just predicted that within a couple years we will see an all time record high for the incidence of starvation on the planet.

Yeah, especially if we do our damnedest to artifically suck out all the crop-nurturing CO2 from the atmosphere under the false assumption that this gas is the major driver of (catastrophic) climate change. :rolleyes:


CO2 levels are at an all time record high, 392 PPM. Other greenhouse gases are within our means to limit release. It was recently found that CO2 induced plant growth speeds depletion of essentil growth trace elements leading to fast curtailing of plant growth.

Your not citing any data supporting your blabbering is par for an "anarchy" institute that masquerades as the never provable "Immortality" institute. Those who do not have the gumption to research and only want to mouth inanities are attracted to anarchic enterprises. What a bunch of fun, promoting discord, ignorance and accepting death dealing in the name of immortality.

#650 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:43 PM

CO2 levels are at an all time record high, 392 PPM.


According to this graph, they've been higher a few decades ago:

http://www.wlym.com/...ioxide_w550.jpg

And here's a larger perspective:

http://upload.wikime...bon_Dioxide.png

Your not citing any data supporting your blabbering is par for an "anarchy" institute that masquerades as the never provable "Immortality" institute. Those who do not have the gumption to research and only want to mouth inanities are attracted to anarchic enterprises. What a bunch of fun, promoting discord, ignorance and accepting death dealing in the name of immortality.


What does anarchy have to do with this?

#651 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 24 March 2009 - 12:41 AM

Where is that first graph from? I got my data from http://www.enn.com/p...n/article/39308 I went and looked at what appears to be the longest known consistent record of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that appears reliable, available on the major wikipedia on carbon dioxide, and it too suggests we are seeing, by far, the largest concentrations in not only the history of humanity but since the first Homo saps. walked the earth.

As far as that 2nd graph, I really can't tell where it is from either. I tried playing with the URL but it gives me no further information of where it came from. Let me clarify what seems to be the case, we are witnessing the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in recorded history.

There were many mitigating factors concerning levels more than 500 million years ago. Looking at the time humans have been on the planet seems a great deal more cogent to understanding what the levels portend for us today. This covers about five major glaciation periods and the cycles of carbon dioxide are in step with these apparently, at least for the last two according to the Devil's Hole studies which was designed to give the most accurate timings.

Anarchy is the idea that no rules apply, even to discourse. An open forum is conducive to this as people who do not back up their claims and stretch, spin and aim to deceive are given free reign, essentially. People without a clue are promoted to management of such concerns and plenty of evidence exists that this anarchy institute has some quite inept people in positions of authority in its highest levels. Anarchy is our legacy, we've never known a viable social governance system so many if not most default to seeking to form their own power group or gang as appears to be the case with this forum, less attention to the supposed cause, even its somewhat salient features, and more attention to lauding the importance of individuals manifests. Though not totally applicable all the time, in general, Marshall McLuhan was right, the medium is the message. Imminst is a forum formed around an illogical impossible goal so those who come here and participate in major fashion are without respect for accuracy, logic or truth in general. It is just another anarchy game like so many other human social experiments that describe themselves with rich flowing holier than thou sounding rhetoric but when it comes right down to what actions are being furthered, often the opposite to the supposed broadcast propagandized reasons are promoted.

#652 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 24 March 2009 - 08:41 AM

Where is that first graph from? I got my data from http://www.enn.com/p...n/article/39308


First graph is from here: http://www.freerepub...s/1806245/posts

Second picture is from globalwarmingart.com.

Here's one more (from here: http://www.pnas.org/.../4167.abstract)

Posted Image


And a quote from the paper: "The most recent cool periods correspond to relatively low CO2 levels, as is widely expected. However, no correspondence between pCO2 and climate is evident in the remainder of the record, in part because the apparent 100 My cycle of the pCO2 record does not match the longer climatic cycle."

Which is what I mean when I say that the current models that attempt to predict the future can't even explain the past properly.

Here's some more pieces to the puzzle:

http://www.sciencema...t/292/5525/2310
http://adsabs.harvar...AGUFMPP23E..01F

I went and looked at what appears to be the longest known consistent record of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that appears reliable, available on the major wikipedia on carbon dioxide, and it too suggests we are seeing, by far, the largest concentrations in not only the history of humanity but since the first Homo saps. walked the earth.


What's the difference between "the history of humanity" and the time "the first Homo saps. walked the earth"?

And yes, from what I've seen, the current CO2 is the highest in the last ~500,000 years. But that's not the beginning of humanity. And if it was, why pick that as some kind of starting point? Why not look back further? I'm sure the first cavemen didn't produce a whole lot of CO2.

As far as that 2nd graph, I really can't tell where it is from either. I tried playing with the URL but it gives me no further information of where it came from. Let me clarify what seems to be the case, we are witnessing the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in recorded history.


Yes, well, the actual recorded history only goes back a few decades, which is far too short a period to see any meaningful cycles. The rest is based on things like the Vostok ice core data.

#653 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 29 March 2009 - 11:56 PM

another bit of Val's randomness.
http://www.nytimes.c...mp;ref=magazine

Freeman Dyson does not believe in AGW.

#654 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 31 March 2009 - 12:46 AM

First seen near N. pole in 1885 at start of industrial revolution, these are probably the key to why we can expect the Hamaker hypothesis to manifest, like in the next couple of years. They have spread since then to the mid-latitudes and are in the S. hemisphere too. Seen "Day After Tomorrow?" Well, besides the possibility of ocean thermal currents shutting down as depicted in the film, here is a possible explanation for the record snow and cold recently and happening right now. Greenhouse gases lead to more moisture in atmosphere, more methane, more of these clouds. The record shows increasing earthquakes and volcanic activity. Some studies have found it reasonable that shifting masses of water and ice due to greenhouse gases are stressing the tectonic plates. Earthquakes have been found to lead to cracks that vent methane into the atmosphere and volcanos vent both methane and water, Mt Redoubt in Alaska is ejecting such up to about at least 10 miles high right now. It is thought that methane, a relatively light gas, goes up high and then dissociates and the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form the water that leads to these clouds. At 50 miles up and negative 123 degrees celsius they are ice particles. They attract micrometeorite dust ("like flypaper") that makes them 1st surface mirrors. Greenhouse gases lead to reflecting incoming solar radiation and cooling the planet, so much for the Coolcities campaign and the hanging of the green movement on stopping global warming. Folks are experiencing cold and rejecting the danger of greenhouse gases altogether. Check out the graph in the following of when noctilucent clouds first appeared and their increase.


#655 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 01 May 2009 - 04:34 PM

Recent research pertaining to the Hamaker hypothesis:

Sea ice spread linked to ozone layer, 4/23/09: http://www.theaustra...7-30417,00.html

SEA ice around Antarctica has been increasing at a rate of 100,000sq km a decade since the 1970s, according to a landmark study to be published today.

The study by the British Antarctic Survey, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, says rather than melting as a result of global warming, Antarctica continues to expand.

The fact that Antarctic ice is still growing does not in itself prove that global warming is not happening. But the BAS says increased ice formation can be explained by another environmental concern, the hole in the ozone layer, which is affecting local weather conditions.

The Weekend Australian reported on Saturday that the results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicated there was no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica. Drilling in the fast ice, a type of sea ice, off Australia's Davis Station last year showed the ice was 1.9m thick, its densest in 10 years.

BAS project leader John Turner told The Australian yesterday that cooling had been recorded at the Australian bases and elsewhere in east Antarctica. He said satellite images indicated the ozone layer had strengthened surface winds around Antarctica, deepening storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean. This had resulted in a greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea, leading to more ice production.

"While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic, human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice," he said. As the ozone hole repaired itself as a result of measures in place to reduce chlorofluorocarbons in the stratosphere, the cooling in Antactica was expected to be reversed.”

A little reading leads to understanding that 80% of Antarctica has experienced net ice accumulation while the other 20% just South of S. America is experiencing melting, iceberg calving, and breakage of ice shelfs.

This may be a good thing, Hamaker's predictions for ice age by the mid 1990s appears to have been slowed by the ozone hole. Instead of just a 10 to 20 year transition, it might be 30 to 50 years from 1975. According to this recent study, the last ice age started just after significant polar ice melt, "New warning over 'catastrophic' sea level rise," 4/15/09: http://www.telegraph...ists-claim.html

Dr Paul Blanchon, a marine scientist of the National University of Mexico in Cancun, said his study shows there was a spell of swift melting during the warmest part of the last interglacial. “We constrain this jump to have occurred 121,000 years ago and conclude it supports an episode of ice-sheet instability during the terminal phase of the last interglacial period."



#656 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 03 May 2009 - 11:23 PM

Global recession worsening climate change? 5/2
http://www.usatoday....nt_N.htm?csp=34

Conserving forests: key to slowing climate change. 5/1
http://www.ohio.com/news/44109402.html

Record late Montana snow impacts wheat crop. 4/30
http://www.kfbb.com/...l/44091417.html

Australia bureau rescinds Antarctica global warming claims. 5/2
http://www.theaustra...1-30417,00.html

Early taste of winter breaks records in Australia. 5/2
http://www.theaustra...0-30417,00.html

32,000 US wildfires since start of year. 5/1
http://www.usatoday....es_N.htm?csp=34

Highest temperature on record for Boston. 4/29
http://www.examiner....y-April-29-2009

Cold records broken in Australia. 4/29
http://www.weatherzo...-in-april/11794

CO2 needs be cut much more than current plans. 4/29
http://dsc.discovery...ut-warming.html

Ice sheet South of S. America destabilizing. 4/28
http://www.esa.int/e...TF_index_0.html

Climate change to hit SE Asia more than other regions? 4/27
http://www.newsday.c...0,5814727.story

Lowest record sun-spot & solar wind affect climate? 4/27
http://www.independe...ll-1674630.html

Earliest Australia snow in more than a decade. 4/26
http://news.theage.c...90426-aj9z.html

Melting ice/permafrost forces Alaska village evacuation. 4/24
http://www.cnn.com/2...=rss_topstories

Greenhouse gases prevent ozone hole repair. 4/23
http://dsc.discovery...zone-layer.html

Ozone hole has increased ice mass in Antarctica. 4/23
http://www.theaustra...7-30417,00.html

Warmest UK April in a decade? 4/23
http://www.independe...ds-1672713.html

Record heat predicted for W. US. 4/22
http://www.usatoday....tern-heat_N.htm

Climate change bringing unusual high rain to Philippines? 4/22
http://newsinfo.inqu...-global-warming

Lowest sun spot activity in 100 years. 4/21
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/8008473.stm

Natives of 80 countries unite against climate change. 4/21
http://www.newscient...ref=online-news

Oh heck, I have these and more archived at my news portal, http://www.mindsing....NewsPortal.html

There's no West for the leery.

#657 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 28 May 2009 - 05:33 AM

A few right-wing atheists.

A Czech string physicist gives his opinion.

You know, cars emit something like 150 grams of CO2 per kilometer. About one half of it, or 0.08 kilograms of CO2, remains in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. The total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3 x 10^{15} kilograms. About one quarter of it, let's say 0.8 x 10^{15} kilograms, was added by the humans since 1800, and it has warmed the planet up by 0.8 °C or so.

So 10^{15} kilograms of CO2 adds about 1 °C to the temperature. You can see that one kilometer with a car, or 0.08 kilograms of CO2, adds roughly 8 x 10^{-17} °C. Let me write the number in the non-scientific notation because it is more revealing. If you drive your car and add one kilometer, you should feel as a mass killer because you raise the temperature of the Earth by

Delta T = 0.00000 00000 00000 08 °C.

Especially if you realize that this warming could actually be a (tiny) good thing, you must really feel like another Adolf Hitler who is building new concentration camps by using the car, as James Hansen "teaches" us. In the text above, we had a lot of fun with those 10^{-12} °C that a different color of your roof may subtract from the global mean temperature.

But once we have looked at the CO2 numbers, this picodegree of cooling (or warming) suddenly looks like a gigantic temperature change. You must drive 12,500 kilometers with your car to warm the Earth by the same picodegree that you "save" by painting your roof white. Indeed, painting the roofs seems as a more efficient way to cool the planet than attempts to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.


Al Fin also weighs in. Carbon Hysteria Threatens World Economies.

Yes, it's true. Carbon hysteria in Europe, Australia, the US, and elsewhere threatens to shut down businesses and industry, eliminate many millions of jobs, and raise the living costs of average people to an alarming degree. In the US:

The tragedy of these governmental policy blunders is that they are all totally unnecessary. There is no climate catastrophe brewing. The likely sea level rise between now and the year 2100 is approximately 3 1/2 inches. Antarctica is not losing ice -- in fact Antarctica is gaining sea ice at a startling rate. The far more realistic threat is global cooling, with deadly cold winters, shorter growing seasons and less rainfall leading to more global hunger.

And yet the idiot governments of the world insist upon shooting their citizens in the pocketbooks and in their livelihoods. Here is a short and incomplete list of the damaging effects of misguided government energy and climate policy:

1. Cap and Trade Is a Massive Energy Tax
2. It Will Not Make A Substantive Impact on the Environment
3. It Will Kill Jobs
4. It Will Cause Electricity Bills and Gas Prices to Sharply Increase
5. It Will Outsource Manufacturing Jobs and Hurt Free Trade
6. It Will Make You Choose Between Energy, Groceries, Clothing or Haircuts.
7. It Will Be Highly Susceptible to Fraud and Corruption
8. It Will Hurt Senior Citizens, the Poor, and the Unemployed the Worst
9. It Will Cost American Families Over $3,000 a Year
10. President Obama Admitted “Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket” under a cap-and-trade program.


Edited by Futurist1000, 28 May 2009 - 05:39 AM.


#658 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 28 May 2009 - 08:24 AM

A little reading leads to understanding that 80% of Antarctica has experienced net ice accumulation while the other 20% just South of S. America is experiencing melting, iceberg calving, and breakage of ice shelfs.

According to estimates from satellite-data Antarctica has clearly been losing mass at least since the mid-nineties. Sea-ice extent and glacier-mass should never be confused BTW!

Edited by platypus, 28 May 2009 - 08:24 AM.


#659 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 30 May 2009 - 11:55 PM

From: http://www.bloomberg...id=a5EI1Y8ZCL9Y

"Ozone Hole Causes Antarctic Sea Ice to Expand, Slows Warming" April 23, 2009

The human-induced depletion of the protective ozone layer has altered wind patterns and caused temperatures in most of the southern continent to fall so that more cold air flows over the Southern Ocean, freezing the water, the scientists said today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The cooling has led to an increase in ocean ice cover in the southern hemisphere of about 1 percent per decade for the past 30 years, a marked contrast to the other pole, where Arctic sea ice shrank to its lowest recorded level in 2007.



#660 Imminst = pro murder (omega)

  • Guest
  • 238 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Silicon Valley

Posted 03 June 2009 - 03:52 PM

Here's an article that came out yesterday on noctilucent clouds:

http://www.newscient...ref=online-news

Although amateur astronomers last week snapped photos of the Northern hemisphere's first noctilucent clouds of the season, AIM caught the first hints of the new cloud season the previous week, on 22 May. The hints came from the subtle dimming of sunlight passing through the Earth's atmosphere.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users