Co2 Acquittal

[Turtle]

More from another perspective:

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization

Originally Posted by Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris

Thursday, September 13, 2007

...This is precisely what Al Gore, U.S. Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer and others want their nation to do. They expect Americans to accept on blind faith the thesis that human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Boxer, Gore and their allies readily resort to emotional bullying against anyone who dares question this dogma. Their pronouncements -- Boxer's juvenile "the American people have the will to slow, stop and reverse global warming" is a prime example - are merely displays of arrogance that expose their lack of basic science understanding (or their complete disrespect of public intelligence). The policies they advocate are wholly unjustified scientifically and have extraordinarily damaging economic implications for the developed world.

Here's another couple indictments. How can you measure gasses in ice that melted away during warming periods? (Trick question; you can't) The muds don't melt at least. How can you include CO2 output from underwater volcanoes you don't know about? Another trick question; you can't. Not Al, not anyone yet. What is the annual wordlwide output of CO2 and other gases from underwater volcanoes anyway? Which ones put out the most? The least? How variable are they? How old?

Meantime, we're screwing away treasure on the idea we can actually suck enough CO2 out to make a change on the assumptions that one variable is a ticket to ride in a complex system, while lounging in the cool comfort of central air conditioning plopped down in front of the big ol' plasma screen watching Al in HD & sucking a beer.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

More from another perspective:

Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization


Here's another couple indictments. How can you measure gasses in ice that melted away during warming periods? (Trick question; you can't) The muds don't melt at least. How can you include CO2 output from underwater volcanoes you don't know about? Another trick question; you can't. Not Al, not anyone yet. What is the annual wordlwide output of CO2 and other gases from underwater volcanoes anyway? Which ones put out the most? The least? How variable are they? How old?

Meantime, we're screwing away treasure on the idea we can actually suck enough CO2 out to make a change on the assumptions that one variable is a ticket to ride in a complex system, while lounging in the cool comfort of central air conditioning plopped down in front of the big ol' plasma screen watching Al in HD & sucking a beer.

Turtle - You're arguing the politics, not the science.

If you want to have a discussion on the politics of it all, that's a good discussion to be had, but you should open a new thread to do so in the Social Sciences forum.

This is the Environmental studies forum, so your attack on the politics is not relevant, nor have you shown any data I posted inaccurate.


I thought this was a science forum after all...

[InfiniteNow]

Here's an interesting article from Richard Black:


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

<...>

...if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject [of anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science] from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

"And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided."

...and another article regarding the IPCC itself:


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The IPCC: As good as it gets

The process of producing the IPCC assessments is a long, painstaking and sometimes painful process.

It is careful and controlled but, of course, it is not perfect.

The three 1,000-page volumes do not always make gripping reading. However, they represent by far the most comprehensive and authoritative statement that we have about climate change, its potential impacts and how we can respond to the challenge.

[Turtle]

Good clarification on the melted ice and underwater volcanoes,(none) so on to more heresey...

RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

... However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago). ...

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Good clarification on the melted ice and underwater volcanoes,(none) so on to more heresey...

RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

Turtle - Are you even reading the counter points, or do you just continue cherry-picking data and sharing it here, despite the fact that everything you've shared turns out to have already been debunked?


Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

He's of the same set of research as Nir Shariv, who we already saw was wrong above.


Big Cynic: For sale: scientists willing to debunk global warming

mathematician/physicist with a background in space science is more qualified to comment on climatology than, say, a climatologist is.

Now, an Israeli physicist, Nir Shariv, has jumped on the bandwagon, singing a familiar tune that includes such favorite lyrics as "junk science." He's even come up with his own whopper—that even doubling the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature."

Who cares if 99 percent of the scientific community accepts that global warming is really happening and that we're responsible? So what if all those high-fallutin' scientists were right about things like gravity and the atom? Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the oil industry pimps (actually, whores is a more accurate characterization) only need a couple of scientists on their payroll to justify their bluster denying global warming.

One of the so-called critiques parroted by the Fox zombies (like that idiot in Washington State) is that scientists who claim that global warming is real are only in it for grant money. In actuality, however, it's scientists like Messrs. Abdusamatov and Shariv who can count on a lot of grant money and other forms of favorable treatment from now on—from the AEI and other corporate PR firms disguised as think tanks.

It just goes to show that in America today, there's more money in denying the truth than in telling the truth—especially when ExxonMobil is ponying up the cash.

It has NOTHING to do with heresy... It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that their claims are all debunked!


Please read post #33, and look up "denialist tactics."

[InfiniteNow]

No wonder people get confused with global climate change. There seem to be an awful lot of intellectually dishonest people about who troll forums and share debunked claims as if they were truth...

[Turtle]

More heresey:

&lsquo;Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet&rsquo; - Times Online

Originally Posted by LewisSmith

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be greater than scientists suspect after experiments showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover....

[InfiniteNow]

That answers my question.

You are not reading what I've shared. You go ahead and maintain your intellectual dishonesty. Hopefully one of the staff members will recall that this is a science site and prevent you from sharing claims that have been debunked and other such falsehoods.

[Turtle]

Q:Why should temperatures rise as human population does?
A:Because the weather stations taking the readings get surrounded by urbania.

Meteorologists have this, and other major disagreements with the climatologists. No small part of which is that the best computer weather models simply can't go beyond 7-10 days with useable accuracy, and as climatology is the study of weather patterns this doesn't give a boost of confidence for climatological computer models.

Originally Posted by BrentBaker

...The CBS Evening News skipped, as Rush Limbuagh predicted the media would, a new study in which, as outlined in a press release, “the widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The posting on the university's site summarized the study published in a scientific journal: “Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.”

More skeptical views: >> OPB News · Forecast Cloudy

How many underwater volcanoes are there?
Underwater - Submarine Volcanoes

Originally Posted by crystallinks

...Currently there are over five thousand active volcanoes underwater varying from ones larger than any on the surface to cones no larger than an automobile. The net reslut of this action is thermal heating of the oceans, at key positions, which in turn reaches the surfaceto be carried aloft into the atmosphere to become part of our surface weather pattern system. As the oceans are heated winds of a high velocity are created and driven over the land areas due to temperature differential.

In the Pacific Ocean there are ocean basins - volcanoes, of which there are estimated to be about 20,000 on the ocean bottoms of the world.

So not only don't we not know exactly how many underwater volcanoes, before or now, we don't know how much CO2, or any other gases, they emit or what their contribution is to the heating via the oceans. So in fact, the heating may be bottom up in addition or instead of top down.

We have a lot more scientific reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuels than CO2.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Meteorologists have this, and other major disagreements with the climatologists. No small part of which is that the best computer weather models simply can't go beyond 7-10 days with useable accuracy, and as climatology is the study of weather patterns this doesn't give a boost of confidence for climatological computer models.

It may not be obvious to you, but it's obvious to me. You're confusing two separate measures.

The basic claim you are making is, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead, yet we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future. Isn't this ridiculous?"

Let me give an example to show the two measures to which I refer.


You are at the beach, and the waves coming off the choppy waters hit a wall on the shore at that beach. None of us would be able to place a line on that wall that predicts the exact height or surface level of the next incoming wave at any specific point on the wall 30 seconds in advance. This is akin to predicting the weather of the coming week.

However, we could absolutely place a line on the wall that accurately predicts the mean surface level (+/- chop) four hours in advance as long as we knew know the state of the tide when we'd arrived. That is akin to predicting the future state of the climate, and it is based on measurable trends.

Here's another.
Just because I cannot tell you the exact outcome of a specific coin flip does not mean I cannot tell you what the average outcome of coin flips will be over 1,000 tosses (and that includes allowing for the possibility that the coin lands on it's edge).



They are two very different measurements, and I hope you realize why.



Also, I've already shown the relative forcing factors... volcanoes included. PLEASE read the previous posts and links if you are serious about this conversation. If you are not serious, then why participate?