659 replies to this topic

[sUper GeNius]

I am curious if you (and everyone else) have read the NIC's 2025 Global Trends Report?

Interesting read.

[eternaltraveler]

The Sun is cooling and we are slowing moving father away from it

Leaving aside for a moment any small variations that may be present in the short term, in the long term I'm afraid this point is factually incorrect. A star with approximately the sun's mass does indeed slowly exhaust it's hydrogen fuel supply and doesn't yet move on to helium fusion at this stage in it's development. There is less fusion in the core as a result. If this was the whole story you would be correct.

However because of the decreased fusion the result is less photon pressure which causes the core to contract actually resulting in more fusion and more output. The early Sun is estimated to only have had 70% of the output of the current sun [see 1]. The sun is expected to continue it's general increase in output trend until in as little as only a few hundred million years the earth will become unlivable (assuming we don't do something about it if we care to at that point or sooner). Indeed this terrestrial devastation is expected to happen long before the sun enters it's red giant stage which won't happen for billions of years.

It should be noted that the reason the stars like the sun inflate to red giants is because a dramatic increase in photon pressure due to the initiation of helium fusion in a very helium rich contracting core.

ref. 1 http://www.springerl...16383474k03835/

Edited by elrond, 24 January 2009 - 03:10 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

Also I want to thrown in the question of how much as a global society are we willing and able to develop true global weather control technology with all the geo-political and socioeconomic ramifications that implies. It probably will take the entire 21st century or more to fully develop and implement such technologies but it may be remarkably feasible to develop planetary wide climate control technology. However full blown weather modification tech is also not feasible for nation states as they presently exist.

Weather control is certainly feasible. I vote we thaw out Antarctica and free up a whole new continent. A few well placed texas sized mylar mirrors in space should do the trick. If we are going to try terraforming we may as well get some practice on the least hospitable lands on earth. Though it sure would be easier to modify ourselves to survive in different environments rather than going to all the trouble to change whole planets. I mean, I already heavily modify myself with various transhuman technologies that enable me to survive in even the harshest environments on earth. I can walk outside in bitter cold using completely synthetic outer skins, and sleep comfortably in the hottest environment by modifying only a few hundred cubic meters of air around me to be a temperature of my liking.

Edited by elrond, 24 January 2009 - 03:23 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

The Sun is cooling and we are slowing moving father away from it

Leaving aside for a moment any small variations that may be present in the short term, in the long term I'm afraid this point is factually incorrect. A star with approximately the sun's mass does indeed slowly exhaust it's hydrogen fuel supply and doesn't yet move on to helium fusion at this stage in it's development. There is less fusion in the core as a result. If this was the whole story you would be correct.

However because of the decreased fusion the result is less photon pressure which causes the core to contract actually resulting in more fusion and more output. The early Sun is estimated to only have had 70% of the output of the current sun [see 1]. The sun is expected to continue it's general increase in output trend until in as little as only a few hundred million years the earth will become unlivable (assuming we don't do something about it if we care to at that point or sooner). Indeed this terrestrial devastation is expected to happen long before the sun enters it's red giant stage which won't happen for billions of years.

It should be noted that the reason the stars like the sun inflate to red giants is because a dramatic increase in photon pressure due to the initiation of helium fusion in a very helium rich contracting core.

ref. 1 http://www.springerl...16383474k03835/

For the record Elrond I was being facetious but was referring to the fact that eventually the Sun goes into a Red Giant phase, when it is technically cooler though it won't feel that way to us, since the debate is still whether we are inside the corona or just outside at that point some 5 billion years from now.

Also the Earth is slowly moving farther out and recent measurements demonstrate it is moving out faster than previously thought so we are going to experience some cooling in relation to that trend but all of it was tongue in cheek because the time scale is geological at best and measured in hundreds of millions, when not billions of years.

The Sun's output specifically is highly stable and I will debate the issue of the minuscule amount of cooling versus heating argument in a different thread because the net of the other factors like the core cooling, rotational slowing, the orbit expanding and the atmosphere leaching into space all far and away trump the issue of the Sun's relatively minor fluctuations in long term output temperature for the next few hundred million years. You are correct that luminosity is expected to double by the time it exhausts its hydrogen supply in five billion years but other issues like low sunspot activity due to a calming photosphere could create a cooling effect like the Maunder Minimum.
[url="http://"%20<a%20href="http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html""%20target="_blank">http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html"</a>"]The Sun[/url]

Anyway let's get back to this subject in a few million years and cross check our facts and figures then. OK?

[Lazarus Long]

Also I want to thrown in the question of how much as a global society are we willing and able to develop true global weather control technology with all the geo-political and socioeconomic ramifications that implies. It probably will take the entire 21st century or more to fully develop and implement such technologies but it may be remarkably feasible to develop planetary wide climate control technology. However full blown weather modification tech is also not feasible for nation states as they presently exist.

Weather control is certainly feasible. I vote we thaw out Antarctica and free up a whole new continent. A few well placed texas sized mylar mirrors in space should do the trick. If we are going to try terraforming we may as well get some practice on the least hospitable lands on earth. Though it sure would be easier to modify ourselves to survive in different environments rather than going to all the trouble to change whole planets. I mean, I already heavily modify myself with various transhuman technologies that enable me to survive in even the harshest environments on earth. I can walk outside in bitter cold using completely synthetic outer skins, and sleep comfortably in the hottest environment by modifying only a few hundred cubic meters of air around me to be a temperature of my liking.

I agree on both counts, you know I have long advocated transformational nanotech and cybernetics that can provide us with individual life support and environmental adaptivity.

Don't you remember my idea of using chloroplast genes through mitofection to provide mitochondria with a better engineered structure that can replicate with fidelity millions of times more than it is presently capable of?

The side benefit is that we become green skinned light eaters and need to run around naked in the tropics, or can make deep space voyages with life support that offsets diet with ship lighting, greater radiation resistance and even exhale more O2 than CO2 during low periods of activity a little for help scrubbing the ship's air.

[eternaltraveler]

Also I want to thrown in the question of how much as a global society are we willing and able to develop true global weather control technology with all the geo-political and socioeconomic ramifications that implies. It probably will take the entire 21st century or more to fully develop and implement such technologies but it may be remarkably feasible to develop planetary wide climate control technology. However full blown weather modification tech is also not feasible for nation states as they presently exist.

Weather control is certainly feasible. I vote we thaw out Antarctica and free up a whole new continent. A few well placed texas sized mylar mirrors in space should do the trick. If we are going to try terraforming we may as well get some practice on the least hospitable lands on earth. Though it sure would be easier to modify ourselves to survive in different environments rather than going to all the trouble to change whole planets. I mean, I already heavily modify myself with various transhuman technologies that enable me to survive in even the harshest environments on earth. I can walk outside in bitter cold using completely synthetic outer skins, and sleep comfortably in the hottest environment by modifying only a few hundred cubic meters of air around me to be a temperature of my liking.

I agree on both counts, you know I have long advocated transformational nanotech and cybernetics that can provide us with individual life support and environmental adaptivity.

Don't you remember my idea of using chloroplast genes through mitofection to provide mitochondria with a better engineered structure that can replicate with fidelity millions of times more than it is presently capable of?

The side benefit is that we become green skinned light eaters and need to run around naked in the tropics, or can make deep space voyages with life support that offsets diet with ship lighting, greater radiation resistance and even exhale more O2 than CO2 during low periods of activity a little for help scrubbing the ship's air.

eh, I still find the idea of organic beings traveling in tin cans between stars to be a little far fetched. Or maybe you didn't mean that deep space. Subject for another thread in any case

[eternaltraveler]

when it is technically cooler though it won't feel that way to us

deeps what you mean by "cooler". The sun will be putting out much much more energy. Just less per unit surface area, and a correspondingly lower color temperature.

[valkyrie_ice]

Wow... 23 pages of religious zealotry.

I'm undecided on whether AGW is real or not, and I tend to think not. However, that does not mean I am against lowering emmissions or evironmentally friendly technology.

That being said, in reading the last 23 pages I have observed some disturbing trends.

This isn't science. It's a religion, and every bit as fanatical as islamic fundimentalism.

On the one hand you have AGW believers. Regardless of what evidence you present that their beliefs in AGW may not conform fully to reality, it will be derided, dismissed, ridiculed, and laughed at. Any report from a scientist will be dismissed as "BIG OIL PAID THEM OFF" or "IT'S RIGHT WING POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING" Charts and graphs and articles galore will be presented to "PROVE" their case, almost all from the same source, the IPCC. They are fighting a HOLY WAR against AGW and NOTHING CAN BE ALLOWED TO GET IN THEIR WAY!!!!

On the other hand, you have those who do not believe in AGW, WHO SEEM TO BE JUST AS GUILTY OF ALL THE SHENANIGANS BEING PULLED BY THE AGW ZEALOTS!!!

By the time I got done reading this thread, I was disgusted with the entire issue. This isn't a debate, it's a religious war.

As for me, the Jury is still out on AGW. Looks like I just have to wait and see, and in the meantime try to help humanity be a little greener. Either way, in the long run it's only going to be an issue for 15 to 30 more years tops, before we'll be mining the atmosphere for carbon, and building bodies that can withstand a few hundred degrees.

[JLL]

Considering how the fear of global warming is inspiring the world's politicians to put forward the most costly and economically damaging package of measures ever imposed on mankind, it is obviously important that we can trust the basis on which all this is being proposed. Last week two international conferences addressed this issue and the contrast between them could not have been starker.

The first in Copenhagen, billed as "an emergency summit on climate change" and attracting acres of worldwide media coverage, was explicitly designed to stoke up the fear of global warming to an unprecedented pitch. As one of the organisers put it, "this is not a regular scientific conference: this is a deliberate attempt to influence policy".

What worries them are all the signs that when the world's politicians converge on Copenhagen in December to discuss a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, under the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there will be so much disagreement that they may not get the much more drastic measures to cut carbon emissions that the alarmists are calling for.

Thus the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".

None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts.

What a striking contrast this was to the second conference, which I attended with 700 others in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute under the title Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?. In Britain this received no coverage at all, apart from a sneering mention by the Guardian, although it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade.

Led off with stirring speeches from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the acting head of the European Union, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the most distinguished climatologist in the world, the message of this gathering was that the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence.

Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.

Yet it is on this fundamental inability of the computer models to predict what has already happened that all else hangs. For two days in New York we heard distinguished experts, such as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, authoritatively (and often wittily) tear apart one piece of the scare orthodoxy after another.

Sea levels are not shooting up but only continuing their modest 3mm a year rise over the past 200 years. The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. Tropical hurricane activity, far from increasing, is at its lowest level for 30 years. The best correlation for temperature fluctuations is not CO2 but the magnetic activity of the sun. (For an admirable summary of proceedings by the Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter, Google "Heartland" and "Quadrant").

Yet the terrifying thing, as President Klaus observed in his magisterial opening address, is that there is no dialogue on these issues. When recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he found the minds of his fellow world leaders firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers. As I said in my own modest contribution to the conference, there seems little doubt that global warming is leading the world towards an unprecedented catastrophe. But it is not the Technicolor apocalypse promised by the likes of Al Gore. The real disaster hanging over us lies in all those astronomically costly measures proposed by politicians, to meet a crisis which in reality never existed.

Nobody listens to the real climate experts

[Zenob]

You righties got to learn to vet your sources.

Christopher Booker is a paid shill on par with Steven Milloy. Let's take a look at some of Booker's past "scientific" assertions. He claimed that asbestos was chemically identical to talcum powder and therefore harmless. He claimed that science had PROVEN that second hand smoke was harmless and couldn't give you cancer. He also supports Intelligent Design which is nothing but garden variety creationism in a cheap lab coat. He goes so far as to say that Darwnists(cuz it's impossible for a creationist to actually say the word evolution) "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". You can read more of this crackpot's exploits here: Link

And THIS is the kind of bullshit climate change deniers use to "prove" that climate change isn't occuring. At least it gives me something to mock and laugh at.

If any of the righties or other flavors of climate change deniers want to look at some of the REAL(as in not made up bullshit like the stuff in booker's article) data on global warming then I'd suggest reading some of this Link

Edited by Zenob, 14 March 2009 - 07:27 PM.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Found the video "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" on the web. The owners of the copyright are not offering the video for sale. The online video is bracketed by footage from the original site that had it and doesn't start until about 2 minutes into the flick and then lasts about 45 minutes. Though the timing does not fit up-to-date observations, it still may have some validity though add a decade or two. The noctilucent clouds that were first recorded as observed in 1885, at the start of the industrial revolution, near the North pole and have since spread to middle latitudes and in the Southern hemisphere as well appears to add some credibility to the Hamaker hypothesis. Noctilucent clouds are the highest clouds, basically small ice particles about 50 miles up, above a majority of the green house gases. It's been noticed that they are more reflective than ice alone and laboratory experiments show they probably attract and accumulate micrometeorite dust, predominantly sodium and iron molecules, that turns them into first surface mirrors. It's also been noticed that where they are present the amount of such dust decreases greatly. It's been suggested that a hydrogen economy would add to their build-up.

I don't see any way to embed the video on the Hamaker hypothesis here so you have to go to this site: http://www.archive.o..._COMING_ICE_AGE Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 versions are available there.

For a satellite view/video on noctilucent clouds go here: http://svs.gsfc.nasa...son_512x288.m1v

The first net increase in glaciers in Alaska's recorded history happened this last summer. Norway also recorded a net increase in glacier mass. The UK and Europe had some record breaking cold and snow that continues as well as the US this winter, Siberia too. The first Washington state of emergency for cold and snow happened in January and was partly at fault for my mom's death then. Western Canada just had 45 all-time cold records broken within the last week. Guess it would be rather numbing to discover that the greenhouse effect leads to rapid and catastrophic cooling. I think people don't like that idea, as I witnessed in communications with a Coolcities campaign manager in my area. She just couldn't seem to grasp the idea that the reason to embrace the green movement may be more important to avoid global cooling than warming. The recent gallup poll and another that found less are concerned now with climate change might be because the cooling people are witnessing seems to negate the global warming hypothesis, kind of like this subject being in the Politics and Law section of this forum. Me thinks data suggesting we have no homeostasis promoting governing system on our planet is taboo, very possibly why the first time collapse of sky scrapers in Sep. 2001 from fire is inconsiderable as anything other than a fluke by many.

[JLL]

You righties got to learn to vet your sources.

Christopher Booker is a paid shill on par with Steven Milloy. Let's take a look at some of Booker's past "scientific" assertions. He claimed that asbestos was chemically identical to talcum powder and therefore harmless. He claimed that science had PROVEN that second hand smoke was harmless and couldn't give you cancer. He also supports Intelligent Design which is nothing but garden variety creationism in a cheap lab coat. He goes so far as to say that Darwnists(cuz it's impossible for a creationist to actually say the word evolution) "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". You can read more of this crackpot's exploits here: Link

And THIS is the kind of bullshit climate change deniers use to "prove" that climate change isn't occuring. At least it gives me something to mock and laugh at.

If any of the righties or other flavors of climate change deniers want to look at some of the REAL(as in not made up bullshit like the stuff in booker's article) data on global warming then I'd suggest reading some of this Link

I'm not a right-winger (nor am I a left-winger).

Anyway, are you here to criticize the person or the article? Because it seems like you didn't touch on any one of his points. If you consider him a liar, that's fine, but wouldn't it be more productive to point out exactly what was wrong in his assertions in the above article?

Also, why is a blog by climate scientists who believe in AGW more real than blogs by climate scientists who don't believe in AGW? Your theory seems to be that scientists who don't believe in AGW have been corrupted by oil companies, so clearly being "a climate scientist" is not enough for you.

This, then, means that in order to qualify as a credible source for AGW, one must be a climate scientist who believes in AGW.

[Zenob]

I'm not a right-winger (nor am I a left-winger).

Fine. But that does nothing to change the fact that you fell for obvious bullshit and failed to fact check any of it.

Anyway, are you here to criticize the person or the article? Because it seems like you didn't touch on any one of his points. If you consider him a liar, that's fine, but wouldn't it be more productive to point out exactly what was wrong in his assertions in the above article?

Christopher Booker is a known fraud. Why should I bother responding to anything that a known fraud claims? He has a well known history of making bald faced lies, like his claims about asbestos, or that sea ice is increasing, or that global temps are decreasing(he thinks people can't tell the difference between summer and winter I shit you not). The entire article was basically a farce. All he is doing in the entire thing is tossing out more discredited bullshit while trying to make the claim that the actual scientists who study global warming are involved in some kind of money making scam. He's an idiot. And more importantly he thinks everyone else is an idiot too or else he wouldn't think he could fool them with such pitiful nonsense.

Also, why is a blog by climate scientists who believe in AGW more real than blogs by climate scientists who don't believe in AGW? Your theory seems to be that scientists who don't believe in AGW have been corrupted by oil companies, so clearly being "a climate scientist" is not enough for you.

Because the people that write that blog ARE real climate scientists as opposed to nutjobs like Booker or Milloy. They represent the consensus views of climate scientists. As for being "corrupted", who is more likely to have reason to lie to you, the guys that are getting fat checks to promote their positions or the guys that have no financial incentive? This isn't rocket science.

If you want to disprove global warming, then YOU find some credible science from an actual climate scientist and let's see it. Everytime some silly winger(or whatever) on here has tried to "prove" that climate change isn't real all they have done is gone to google, do a search and then post the first couple of things that pops up(most of the time without reading or vetting anything) and invariably it ends up being pseudoscientific trash from some con man like Booker or Milloy. Why don't you see if you can do any better.

This, then, means that in order to qualify as a credible source for AGW, one must be a climate scientist who believes in AGW.

To qualify they need to A) be a real climate scientists and B) not be lying dumbasses. If someone on RealClimate made the claim that smoking didn't cause cancer, or that asbestos was chemically the same as talcum powder or that global warming isn't true because it's colder in the winter then in the summer, then I would dismiss them as cranks as well. I also can't help but point out the irony/hypocrisy involved here either. You are essentially attempting to say that the link I provided isn't a "credible source" while at the same time the entire global warming denialist movement constantly attacks the IPCC as being in some kind of "conspiracy" to promote "global warning alarmism". The IPCC is THE authority on global climate change AND they represent the consensus view of the worlds scientists on the matter. There simply is no more credible source then them(which is why they draw the wrath of the climate change denialists). Basically, in the world of the climate change deniers credibility isn't determined by data or evidence or scientific consensus or anything like that. It's determined by whether or not it supports their position. If something supports their position, then to them it's "credible". Whether or not it's demonstratably false doesn't matter.

[JLL]

I think you may want to reconsider your posting style.

[JLL]

To put things back into perspective:



It seems the folks at realclimate.org have their own way of determining causation:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

I think we need to take a closer look at science in general if this is the right way to do calculations. You might have thought that when you eat a banana and halfway through your insulin levels spike, it's the banana causing the spike, but really, it could also be that it's the insulin spike causing you to keep eating the banana.

You can't make this stuff up, kids.

[JLL]

Man, I'm loving this realclimate.org blog. Speaking of lying, how's this bit:

The Sámi are keenly aware about climate change, and are thus concerned about their future. Hence, the existence of the International Polar Year (IPY) project called EALÁT involving scientists, Sámi from Norway/Sweden/Finland, as well as Nenets from Russia. The indigenous people in the Arctic are closely tuned to the weather and the climate. I was told that the Sámi have about 300 words for snow, each with a very precise meaning.

Well, I'm here to tell you that they don't. I guess this means we shouldn't take anything else these guys post on their blog seriously.

[niner]

Man, I'm loving this realclimate.org blog. Speaking of lying, how's this bit:

The Sámi are keenly aware about climate change, and are thus concerned about their future. Hence, the existence of the International Polar Year (IPY) project called EALÁT involving scientists, Sámi from Norway/Sweden/Finland, as well as Nenets from Russia. The indigenous people in the Arctic are closely tuned to the weather and the climate. I was told that the Sámi have about 300 words for snow, each with a very precise meaning.

Well, I'm here to tell you that they don't. I guess this means we shouldn't take anything else these guys post on their blog seriously.

"Lying"? The guy said "he was told that"... At worst it's an irrelevant factoid that might be incorrect. So what? How is that "lying", and how does it cast any doubt on the rest of the web site?

[Zenob]

To put things back into perspective:



It seems the folks at realclimate.org have their own way of determining causation:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

I think we need to take a closer look at science in general if this is the right way to do calculations. You might have thought that when you eat a banana and halfway through your insulin levels spike, it's the banana causing the spike, but really, it could also be that it's the insulin spike causing you to keep eating the banana.

You can't make this stuff up, kids.

Just curious, but can you see what you are doing from where your head is right now?

Did you not notice that the very first sentence you copy/pasted says that the public often misunderstands how co2 lags temperature, and then you turned around and misunderstood what they were saying? lol

Essentially if you look at the ice core data what you see is an increase in temperature first and then at some point(about 800 years after the first bit of warming) you see a gradual increasing of CO2 followed by MORE warming. I'll baby you through the process since you seem kind of slow. The CO2 isn't released right off the bat. It does not cause the initial warming as you are coming out of an ice age(that's part of the normal solar cycle). What happens is at some point you reach a critical point/temperature where certain chain reactions begin to occur that lead to CO2 building up/being released. As the oceans warm, they become less of a carbon sink(they absorb less CO2) as frozen tundras thaw they release stored CO2, etc. All of this CO2 then increases the temperature more, which drives these carbon forcing processes, which releases more CO2, etc. According to ice core samples this threshold is usually reached about 800 years into the cycle. This is why you don't see CO2 at the beginning of the warming trend. The events that trigger it's release and build up don't occur until AFTER warming has already taken place. As I said earlier, it ain't rocket science.
How's that banana tasting now?

Also, did you fail to understand the range of that little chart you posted? An ice age covers roughly 100k years(and I suspect the range of that chart is even greater then that). How do you expect to see anything releated to the warming of the past 100 years on a 100k year chart? All of our presently recorded warming takes place in .1% of that chart(if it is only 100k years). Charts like that are designed by climate change denialists to fool people who have a poor understanding of the subjects involved. In your case it clearly worked. lol

Well, I'm here to tell you that they don't. I guess this means we shouldn't take anything else these guys post on their blog seriously.

Well bud, you would be wrong. Just like you've been wrong about well, pretty much everything.

http://www.everycult...ussia/Sami.html
http://www.esec-manuel-fonseca.rcts.pt/e-culturas-musica/recursos/lappish-sami-language.pdf
Hell, you can buy a book with them in it right here: Link You'll just have to learn swedish or scan it through babblefish.


It looks like you need to back up and punt bud. You couldn't have botched that last post up any worse if you'd tried.

Update: Just to toss some more salt on the wounds. http://www.scienceda...90315092035.htm

Edited by Zenob, 16 March 2009 - 04:42 AM.

[platypus]

This isn't science. It's a religion, and every bit as fanatical as islamic fundimentalism.

AGW is based in solid science, it might not be infallible but the evidence for AGW is orders of magnitude better than what the sceptics have.

On the one hand you have AGW believers.

The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly for AGW, so it does not take much faith to believe in it.

This isn't a debate, it's a religious war.

The dogs bark but the caravan of science is making progress. There will always be AGW disbelievers in the same way that there are cre(a)ti(o)nists (evolution disbelievers) today.

[platypus]

to criticize the person or the article? Because it seems like you didn't touch on any one of his points. If you consider him a liar, that's fine, but wouldn't it be more productive to point out exactly what was wrong in his assertions in the above article?

It's pointless to comment articles of known cretinists, they've obviously left reality and will believe anything their agenda requires them to believe. Seriously, cre(a)ti(o)nism = FAIL.

[JLL]

Did you not notice that the very first sentence you copy/pasted says that the public often misunderstands how co2 lags temperature, and then you turned around and misunderstood what they were saying? lol

Yes, I did notice. But I didn't misunderstand what they were saying; I was pointing out that what they are saying is ridiculous.

Essentially if you look at the ice core data what you see is an increase in temperature first and then at some point(about 800 years after the first bit of warming) you see a gradual increasing of CO2 followed by MORE warming. I'll baby you through the process since you seem kind of slow. The CO2 isn't released right off the bat. It does not cause the initial warming as you are coming out of an ice age(that's part of the normal solar cycle). What happens is at some point you reach a critical point/temperature where certain chain reactions begin to occur that lead to CO2 building up/being released. As the oceans warm, they become less of a carbon sink(they absorb less CO2) as frozen tundras thaw they release stored CO2, etc. All of this CO2 then increases the temperature more, which drives these carbon forcing processes, which releases more CO2, etc. According to ice core samples this threshold is usually reached about 800 years into the cycle. This is why you don't see CO2 at the beginning of the warming trend. The events that trigger it's release and build up don't occur until AFTER warming has already taken place. As I said earlier, it ain't rocket science.
How's that banana tasting now?

Really, where else in science do we use this kind of reasoning?

1. There is an increase in X
2. The increase in X is followed by an increase in Y
3. Both X and Y continue to increase

You could not be certain based on this data that X causes the increase of Y, but it would be a better hypothesis than the one that says Y is really the cause of increase in X but that X got a headstart without Y. It just does not make sense.

Also, did you fail to understand the range of that little chart you posted? An ice age covers roughly 100k years(and I suspect the range of that chart is even greater then that). How do you expect to see anything releated to the warming of the past 100 years on a 100k year chart? All of our presently recorded warming takes place in .1% of that chart(if it is only 100k years). Charts like that are designed by climate change denialists to fool people who have a poor understanding of the subjects involved. In your case it clearly worked. lol

Designed by climate change denialists? I think that one was from Nasa (could've been another government organization, though). Are they climate change denialists? Their website certainly didn't have a denialist attitude.

The point of that graph is not to show waming in the last 100 years, it's to show that this is not the warmest period we have seen. That's the first part of the question.

The second part is whether the warming we are seeing now is more rapid than it has historically been. It's not.

With these crucial parts of the hypothesis of AGW being false, trying to explain the lack of causation between CO2 and temperature is grasping at straws; even if it was true (which it does not appear to be), it would still not prove the following logic:

Man increases CO2 production --> global temperatures increase to unnatural levels

http://www.everycult...ussia/Sami.html
http://www.esec-manuel-fonseca.rcts.pt/e-culturas-musica/recursos/lappish-sami-language.pdf
Hell, you can buy a book with them in it right here: Link You'll just have to learn swedish or scan it through babblefish.

Here's another take on it:

http://www.nordicway...search/Sami.htm

There are ten or more words to describe snow and the characteristics of snow cover. On the other hand, the paucity of words that describe the phenomena of modern society is a problem that naturally occupies Sami linguists today.

I'm sceptical about the claim in the link you provided, but would have to read the actual book to know what the words are. I do speak Swedish, and the description of the book says it contains "words related to snow", not "words for snow", which is a bit vague. Something like 100 actual words for snow seems very high but more plausible than 300.

Update: Just to toss some more salt on the wounds. http://www.scienceda...90315092035.htm

What does that have to do with proving your hypothesis?

Edited by JLL, 16 March 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[JLL]

Christopher Booker is a known fraud.

Al Gore is also a known fraud.

If you want to disprove global warming, then YOU find some credible science from an actual climate scientist and let's see it.

Actually, I don't have to disprove global warming (assuming you mean AGW); you have to prove it. Note that it's not sufficient to show that global temperatures are rising.

The IPCC is THE authority on global climate change

Yes, it is. Are you a firm believer in authorities? The church was THE authority on science back in the day, and look how well they did.

As for being "corrupted", who is more likely to have reason to lie to you, the guys that are getting fat checks to promote their positions or the guys that have no financial incentive?

The scientists at IPCC have no financial incentive? That's pretty thick, considering that scaremongering has always made better headlines than coming up with results that say "we didn't find anything too scary". So first, there's publicity for those who say doomsday is coming. There's no denying this.

Second, where do you think the money for scientists comes from? It's either private companies or the government. According to you, only the first one is corrupting. But what if the government has an agenda to promote something as the truth - would that make government-funded science suspicious? Do you think it's unreasonable to think that the government might have an agenda of its own?

It's also not very hard for me to see ways to make money from promoting global warming. You could, for example, tell the world that it's going to be doomed unless something is done, quickly, and that you have the solution but if costs a lot of money. Or if you were a government official, you could convince the public that more taxes are needed to solve the issue; you could even blame the problem on big multinational companies and say that taxing and restricting them is the answer. There are endless ways of benefiting from global warming, and those in or close to the government are in a good position to do just that.

Your hatred for the private sector has apparently blinded you to the errors of the public sector.

Edited by JLL, 16 March 2009 - 08:56 AM.

[platypus]

Actually, I don't have to disprove global warming (assuming you mean AGW); you have to prove it. Note that it's not sufficient to show that global temperatures are rising.

Actually climate sceptics have to provide us with their own theories and computer models that explain the current warming better than AGW. At the moment AGW is by far the best scientific theory on what is going on with the climate, i.e. the best available science and the best models all point to the conclusion that AGW is real. Sceptics have nothing tangible to offer to replace AGW, they're mainly trying to pick holes in AGW. Incidentally this is also what cretinists are trying to do with the theory of evolution.

The scientists at IPCC have no financial incentive?

If one could show that AGW is not real might well earn that scientist a Nobel. There's some incentive for you.

Edited by platypus, 16 March 2009 - 11:02 AM.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

45 cold temperature records set across Western Canada. 3/12
http://www.theweathe...er_bottom_title

3 Great Lakes freeze over: "extreme rarity" 3/4
http://islandturtle....reeze-over.html

US: "worst winter storm in several years" 3/3
http://www.dailymail...east-coast.html

Global temps. not rising since 2001 confound scientists. 3/2
http://dsc.discovery...ming-pause.html

Record snow storm moves into NE US, delays flights. 3/2
http://abcnews.go.co...=6987638&page=1

Most snow in a winter for North Dakota. 2/26
http://talkingaboutt...2009/02/26/146/

New Brunswick, Canada, record snow. More coming. 2/24
http://www.cbc.ca/ca...ds.html?ref=rss

Record cold & double average snow fall in Switzerland. 2/24
http://www.swissinfo...o...03000&ty=st

Faulty satellite sensors led to Arctic ice underestimate. 2/20
http://www.bloomberg...id=aIe9swvOqwIY

Heavy snow & severe frost isolates 10,000 in Albania. 2/19
http://www.radioneth...y-snow-and-cold

More record cold for Florida? Crop damage expected. 2/19
http://www.srh.noaa....rdColdFeb21.pdf

Climate change to kill most of humanity this century? 2/16
http://www.telegraph...the-planet.html

Cold kills 60% of early blooming plants in UK. 2/15
http://www.telegraph...ng-flowers.html

CO2 lessening useless? Prepare for climate change. 2/13
http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/7888994.stm

Air's CO2 levels reach new maximum peaks. 2/12
http://www.enn.com/p...n/article/39308

Record cold, 50F degrees below zero, in Maine. 2/10
http://news.mainetod...tes/039516.html

Alaska suffers record cold & long lasting winter. 2/9
http://www.cnn.com/2...ages/index.html

Record snow in Colorado & more is coming. 2/6
http://www.vaildaily.....0January snow

UK roads become death traps as cold continues. 2/6
http://www.dailymail...avel-chaos.html

Juneau, Alaska, got record January snow. 2/4
http://ap.juneauempi...383989877.shtml

Britain's largest snowfall in 18 years to continue, cost £3bn. 2/3
http://www.dailymail...conomy-3bn.html

Cold & snow cause travel chaos in Europe. 2/3
http://newsinfo.inqu...chaos-to-Europe

Kentucky ice storm: biggest disaster in state's history. 2/1
http://www.cnn.com/2...=rss_topstories

Snow covers UAE mountain for first time in history. 1/25
http://www.alarabiya...1/25/64949.html

[platypus]

...[stuff deleted]...

So what's your point? Anecdotes rule over science?

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Comes a time after the anecdotes outnumber the incidences of theoretical predictions when they are not called anecdotes anymore, unless one be crazily head-strong. Did you know one of the first reporters of the flights at Kitty Hawk was fired because heavier than air flight was, as we all knew then, impossible?

Global temps. not rising since 2001 confound scientists. 3/2
http://dsc.discovery...ming-pause.html

Evidence schmevidence, you got theory!

[JLL]

Actually, I don't have to disprove global warming (assuming you mean AGW); you have to prove it. Note that it's not sufficient to show that global temperatures are rising.

Actually climate sceptics have to provide us with their own theories and computer models that explain the current warming better than AGW.

No, that's just not how science works. Consider these points:

1. We know that periods of cooler and warmer temperatures have happened historically
2. We know that the current temperature is not the warmest nor the coldest in history

These two points alone put the burden of proof on those who say that we have arrived at this current temperature because of something man-made. We can even exclude the predictive computer models at this point; we are simply talking about what the temperature is now.

We don't know everything that affects temperature, but it would be strange indeed to say that by default it must be man, and that the burden of proof is on those who doubt this, because we already have evidence of warming and cooling happening without man's influence, but we don't have conclusive evidence of warming and cooling happening through man's influence.

Also, there's a third important point:

3. It seems that the rate of increase in temperature in the last 200 years is not unusually high.

The first two points alone shift the burden of proof on AGW proponents, and combined with this third point, they really need to come up with strong evidence that has two things going for it:

a) The rate of increase in temperature we are currently seeing is abnormal
b) There is some kind of mechanism that explains how humans affect temperature

Before we even touch the second one, do you have any proof for the first one? Because if not, there is really no argument here.

[Zenob]

Yes, I did notice. But I didn't misunderstand what they were saying; I was pointing out that what they are saying is ridiculous.

Everything they said was accurate you just failed horribly to grasp what they were saying. I even walked you through it but either you are still ignorant or are acting willfully ignorant(I'm betting willfully ignorant at this point).

Really, where else in science do we use this kind of reasoning?

1. There is an increase in X
2. The increase in X is followed by an increase in Y
3. Both X and Y continue to increase

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.

You could not be certain based on this data that X causes the increase of Y, but it would be a better hypothesis than the one that says Y is really the cause of increase in X but that X got a headstart without Y. It just does not make sense.

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*

Designed by climate change denialists? I think that one was from Nasa (could've been another government organization, though). Are they climate change denialists? Their website certainly didn't have a denialist attitude.

Was Nasa using it to try and disprove climate change like you were doing or was that chart built for something else then? Go ahead, explain to me how you use a chart to demonstrate something that only happened at the last .1% of the chart. lol

The point of that graph is not to show waming in the last 100 years, it's to show that this is not the warmest period we have seen. That's the first part of the question.

Are you brain dead? Do you think global warming "doesn't count" unless we are warmer now then at any point in the past? We got a long way to go then being as how the surface of the planet was molten at one point in the past. lol

The second part is whether the warming we are seeing now is more rapid than it has historically been. It's not.

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

With these crucial parts of the hypothesis of AGW being false, trying to explain the lack of causation between CO2 and temperature is grasping at straws; even if it was true (which it does not appear to be), it would still not prove the following logic:

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.

Here's another take on it:

http://www.nordicway...search/Sami.htm

I'm sceptical about the claim in the link you provided, but would have to read the actual book to know what the words are. I do speak Swedish, and the description of the book says it contains "words related to snow", not "words for snow", which is a bit vague. Something like 100 actual words for snow seems very high but more plausible than 300.

The entire reason you are talking about an obscure dialect is because you made an infantile and wildly off the mark attempt to discredit the authors of the RealClimate website. Now you are stuck trying to parse different meanings out of the word "snow" in a vain attempt to reduce the number of words used in that language. Kind of pathetic isn't it?

Update: Just to toss some more salt on the wounds. http://www.scienceda...90315092035.htm

What does that have to do with proving your hypothesis?

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

[Zenob]

*Random googling snipped*

I think I was just talking yesterday about how climate change deniers have a habit of just googling shit at random and then posting it without reading it or understanding anything contained in the results and low and behold we get a google farmed link list. I also note he couldn't even be bothered to filter out the results that linked back to that quack at the Telegraph. lol

Here comes the funny part, basically he thinks that since we have had hard winters or winter storms that this MUST refute global climate change. What he fails to understand is that the average global temperature has only gone up about 3/4s of a degree(that's a massive amount of new energy in the system though). Is 3/4s of a degree going to stop us from having winters? Or even really bad winters? Of course not . I can remember back when I was a kid having winters as cold as -20 to -30 below zero. So just from my limited past experience we add the increase in global temeratures to the lowest temp I can remember and that means we can still get down to -29.25 degrees here where I'm at(and it could go lower being as how we are talking about an average not a hard set number).

[platypus]

Actually, I don't have to disprove global warming (assuming you mean AGW); you have to prove it. Note that it's not sufficient to show that global temperatures are rising.

Actually climate sceptics have to provide us with their own theories and computer models that explain the current warming better than AGW.

No, that's just not how science works.

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.

We don't know everything that affects temperature, but it would be strange indeed to say that by default it must be man, and that the burden of proof is on those who doubt this, because we already have evidence of warming and cooling happening without man's influence, but we don't have conclusive evidence of warming and cooling happening through man's influence.

I repeat, please provide us with a better model of the climate then. It's not enough to say that maybe there are unknown effects as one can always claim that.

The first two points alone shift the burden of proof on AGW proponents, and combined with this third point, they really need to come up with strong evidence that has two things going for it:

a) The rate of increase in temperature we are currently seeing is abnormal
b) There is some kind of mechanism that explains how humans affect temperature

Before we even touch the second one, do you have any proof for the first one? Because if not, there is really no argument here.

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