And so it starts....
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
3. Climate change is just so much BS.
Climate Change' is not under discussion. Anthropogenic Global Warming due to CO2 is. In his paper: Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Santer, et al (Nature Geoscience 7, Feb. 2014) Dr Benjamin Santer adjusted the TLT satellite data of UAH and RSS, and a CMIP-5 climate model ensemble, to remove ‘natural variability’ - ENSO and Volcanic signals - from both. This reduced the warming trend of both the TLT data, and the CMIP-5 model ensemble. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html[^] Without 'natural variability', the TLT warming trend (1979 – 2014) was less than that of the multi-model average, and there was a period of no TLT warming (1994 to 2014) while atmospheric CO2 rose from ~360 ppm to ~400 ppm. Benjamin Santer is an IPCC author, as are several of the 'et al'. TLT - Temperature, Lower Troposphere UAH - University of Alabama in Huntsville RSS - Remote Sensing Systems CMIP-5 - Coupled Model Intercomparison Project - Phase 5 ENSO - El Niño–Southern Oscillation
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue - do you know how science is done? One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful. Here - let me explain this yet again: The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. Sunlight adds energy to the system on one side of the earth (daytime) and it radiates back into space on the other side. This reaches a steady state for overall planetary energy content. Now, we've been pouring old carbon back into the system (as CO2 for some time now, at an every increasing rate, and at the same time, have been removing those components of the environment that sequester it. We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents. Something's got to happen. Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen? * For example, when I wrote an application to take XPS data (Xray Photoelectron Spectroscopy) I had to take into account the "natural variability" of the odd cosmic ray passing through the detector an creating a spike of non-data. It had to be removed from the data in order to actually get the data. These events weren't common - but their effect on interpretation of the spectra was profound unless filtered out. Background Noise - you have to look beyond it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
pollution is simply something - introduced by man - that damages an environment. if the environment depends on the absence of water to be useful (a desert), water could certainly be a pollutant.
Why just man, how about bird shit: http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/01/62/016226_87d6eda3.jpg[^]
-
oh fer fuck's sake
BINGO! Its the original sin, man is not part of nature etc etc etc that Enviros believe. Man ate the apple and gained industry, and now has to give it up to be re-admitted to the garden of eden (nature/gaia/etc). We are part of nature, fully. Many animals use tools, many animals are intelligent, we arent that special, except by degree.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
then to plants no, it isnt.
are you a plant?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
0.8 C, a long way from 2C still
a long way for you. not for people born today.
Chris Losinger wrote:
are you a plant?
Since i consume them every day then yes, I am made of plant derived matter.
-
I've got way too much on my plate today and so need the procrastination. So: what about you got against Citizens Against Government Waste? Gimme the 30 second executive summary. Embellish as needed.
cheers Chris Maunder
If CO2's effect on temperature is minimal, ie about 1C, the bottom end of the IPCC range, then we should produce lots more of it since it is a huge benefit to the planet. So its not a question of waste, its a question of doing the wrong thing. And if we are heading to a new ice age we need all the warmign we can get....
-
Why just man, how about bird shit: http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/01/62/016226_87d6eda3.jpg[^]
are you a fucking bird? human-caused is implicit in the notion of pollution.
-
BINGO! Its the original sin, man is not part of nature etc etc etc that Enviros believe. Man ate the apple and gained industry, and now has to give it up to be re-admitted to the garden of eden (nature/gaia/etc). We are part of nature, fully. Many animals use tools, many animals are intelligent, we arent that special, except by degree.
are you trying to say that pollution can't exist because man is part of nature? really?
-
are you a fucking bird? human-caused is implicit in the notion of pollution.
Why? Why is it, according to you, that only man can pollute, where as every other animal, no matter what it does, can't?
-
are you trying to say that pollution can't exist because man is part of nature? really?
Are you tryimg to tell me 2 and 2 is 6? (just thought I would throw a totally irrelevant conclusion in there, as that seems to be the way this thread is going).
-
Why? Why is it, according to you, that only man can pollute, where as every other animal, no matter what it does, can't?
no, not according to me. that's what the word means. Pollution | Definition of Pollution by Merriam-Webster[^] Definition of pollution 1 : the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted face it, if you're trying to redefine words, you've already lost the argument.
-
Are you tryimg to tell me 2 and 2 is 6? (just thought I would throw a totally irrelevant conclusion in there, as that seems to be the way this thread is going).
ok then. have a nice day.
-
no, not according to me. that's what the word means. Pollution | Definition of Pollution by Merriam-Webster[^] Definition of pollution 1 : the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted face it, if you're trying to redefine words, you've already lost the argument.
Just asking you what your deffinition is. Search Results contamination kənˌtamɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ noun noun: contamination; plural noun: contaminations the action or state of making or being made impure by polluting or poisoning. "the risk of contamination by dangerous bacteria" So since CO2 does not contaminate or poison at the levels predicted to be released by man, for ever (there isnt anough oil and coal) it isnt a pollutant. By your new web based deffinition that is. What was that you were saying abotu losing arguments? ;P
-
Its certainly a topic you are familiar with. ;P
Touché.
-
If CO2's effect on temperature is minimal, ie about 1C, the bottom end of the IPCC range, then we should produce lots more of it since it is a huge benefit to the planet. So its not a question of waste, its a question of doing the wrong thing. And if we are heading to a new ice age we need all the warmign we can get....
That's it? That's the best you've got? I also tend to believe click bait fringe media instead of the consensus of peer reviewed science from dozens of different disciplines that have built up data over the course of decades. Misrepresenting others' research and cherry picking results is way, way easier than actually doing the research yourself. C'mon mate - that wasn't even a good try.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
That's it? That's the best you've got? I also tend to believe click bait fringe media instead of the consensus of peer reviewed science from dozens of different disciplines that have built up data over the course of decades. Misrepresenting others' research and cherry picking results is way, way easier than actually doing the research yourself. C'mon mate - that wasn't even a good try.
cheers Chris Maunder
The best I have for what? I didnt think your quesiton was that demanding. :)
Chris Maunder wrote:
I also tend to believe click bait fringe media instead of the consensus of peer reviewed science from dozens of different disciplines
I tend to not believe the peer review, since it hasnt generally been done (when it has, the papers have been found to be fundamentally flawed), and I dont believe 'group think'. I believe the facts, and weigh the opinions of all scientists, particularly those who DO publish their data and materials so it can be properly critiqued. (Unlike Hansen, Mann and Jones for example). And when you do weigh it all up, take a look at the physics, and what knowledgebale scienrtists have to say, you are forced to conclude that sensitivity to CO2 is on the low side, and therefore it is not a concern. It really is that simple Chris. :)
-
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue - do you know how science is done? One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful. Here - let me explain this yet again: The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. Sunlight adds energy to the system on one side of the earth (daytime) and it radiates back into space on the other side. This reaches a steady state for overall planetary energy content. Now, we've been pouring old carbon back into the system (as CO2 for some time now, at an every increasing rate, and at the same time, have been removing those components of the environment that sequester it. We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents. Something's got to happen. Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen? * For example, when I wrote an application to take XPS data (Xray Photoelectron Spectroscopy) I had to take into account the "natural variability" of the odd cosmic ray passing through the detector an creating a spike of non-data. It had to be removed from the data in order to actually get the data. These events weren't common - but their effect on interpretation of the spectra was profound unless filtered out. Background Noise - you have to look beyond it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue
Nope. "This is end for the CAGW bullshit" quoth Munchies Matt in his first post, not 'Climate Change'.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
do you know how science is done?
Outside of Climatology and Medicine? Yes.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful.
Jolly good. Now, Santer removed ENSO and Volcanic signals from the data and the models. The TLT remained pretty flat for 20 years, in spite of the continuing increase in CO2. Whatever CO2 was contributing to warming, it appears to have been overwhelmed by the remaining forcings. (Or, possibly, 'background noise'?)
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Here - let me explain this yet again:
So gracious of you to condescend to do so, oh Wise One.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. ... We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents.
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium. Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen?
I have seen no evidence of CO2 being the cause of 20th [edit: century] warming, or the cause of 21st century non-warming. So, anthropogenic it isn't.
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Now that you've finished trying to divert from the issue
Nope. "This is end for the CAGW bullshit" quoth Munchies Matt in his first post, not 'Climate Change'.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
do you know how science is done?
Outside of Climatology and Medicine? Yes.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
One needs a baseline to make measurement - and ultimately, to take into account variations from sources external to the experiment*. There is what can fall into the category of "background noise". If you don't consider it's effect on data you'll never see anything - or more correctly, anything useful.
Jolly good. Now, Santer removed ENSO and Volcanic signals from the data and the models. The TLT remained pretty flat for 20 years, in spite of the continuing increase in CO2. Whatever CO2 was contributing to warming, it appears to have been overwhelmed by the remaining forcings. (Or, possibly, 'background noise'?)
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Here - let me explain this yet again:
So gracious of you to condescend to do so, oh Wise One.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The earth's atmosphere is essentially a closed system, chemically. ... We have changed the contents of this test-tube we call the atmosphere. It will now strive to reach a new equilibrium. So - drop the smoke-and-mirrors - and explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents.
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium. Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Humans are adding the carbon (sources); humans are cutting down the forests (sinks); and the sun still shines as brightly as before - so anthropogenic it is. Do you really think that nothing at all will happen?
I have seen no evidence of CO2 being the cause of 20th [edit: century] warming, or the cause of 21st century non-warming. So, anthropogenic it isn't.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium.
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless. If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
That remark is, at best, idiotic. Really. You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need? The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Outside of Climatology and Medicine?
Well aren't you special! Maybe you should have spent some time with thermodynamics and kinetics. They don't give a sh*t about politics . . . ever. Or, for that matter, what anyone "reckons".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
The atmosphere is always in everlasting 'strife' to reach the unattainable - equilibrium.
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless. If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
That remark is, at best, idiotic. Really. You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need? The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
NoNotThatBob wrote:
Outside of Climatology and Medicine?
Well aren't you special! Maybe you should have spent some time with thermodynamics and kinetics. They don't give a sh*t about politics . . . ever. Or, for that matter, what anyone "reckons".
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Alas, that's proof positive you're apparently clueless.
It weakens the positivity of your statement. After all, appearances can be deceptive.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
If the planet were not in equilibrium (i.e., energy coming in = energy going out) then it would heat up or cool, appropriately.
As it does, or are you saying that, without anthropogenic forcings, and in spite of weather, forest fires, volcanoes, oceans, etc., etc., the planet remains in equilibrium?No warming, no cooling? Static? Really? Nope. It is dynamic, constantly 'striving' to attain equilibrium in response to various natural and anthropogenic forcings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
That remark is, at best, idiotic.
My remark was: Increased CO2 not being the cause of warming, I reckon the planet will cope with this warming much as it has with past warmings and coolings.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
You "reckon" - well, what more proof can anyone need?
You asked me to "explain how the atmosphere will react to the new contents". I had already opined that the Santer paper showed that the increase in CO2 is not the cause of the current warming, any effects being overwhelmed by 'natural variability'. Consequently, I reckoned that the planet would cope with this warming much as in the past, I also reckoned you would be well up on that matter. As for being a 'proof', nobody can provide you with a 'proof' of how "the atmosphere will react to the new contents".
W∴ Balboos wrote:
The planet coping with warming much as it has with paste warmings and coolings? Sure, brilliant. So long as you don't worry about silly little things like a time-scale for the problem.
We could be well on our way to the solution of this non-problem, were it not for the fixation on 'renewables'. Solar Panels and Wind Farms? Environmental Vandalism to no good purpose. But there is sufficient time to correct these mistakes, fortunately.
W∴ Balboos wrote:
Well aren't you special!
No. It is acknowledged that at least half the published papers in Medical Science are flawed (well, just plain wrong). Most Climate Science papers, if subjected to the same scr
