Climategate--The Final Chapter
04-04-2016, 03:48 AM
#741
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Flytolive
It's not just someone. That's the point.
NASA GISS: Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
He explained it in the article I posted.
NASA GISS: Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJJxn-gCdo
He explained it in the article I posted.
I don't see how you live with yourself considering every day at work you spew thousands of pounds of carbon into the air -- assuming you're an airline pilot.
04-04-2016, 04:26 AM
#742
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Flytolive
Actually, it does in layman's terms and is backed up by the overwhelming peer reviewed scientific evidence.
Sorry, but CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.
But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.
So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.
Sorry, but CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.
But carbon dioxide and other trace gases in the atmosphere do absorb the outgoing long-wave radiation.
So while their concentrations are miniscule, their effect is anything but: If the atmosphere didn't have those trace amounts of greenhouse gases, New York City would be covered in ice sheets – not sweltering – on a typical summer afternoon. The globe's average temperature would be almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit lower.
04-04-2016, 04:47 AM
#743
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
No he didn't.
Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.
Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.
It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.
It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.
With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.
And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.
Source: NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Source: Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming Misinformation - CO2 Lags Temperature
Source: Eric Steig, University of Washington
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore?s got it right.) « RealClimate
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
Nobody knows why we had mini ice ages even though CO2 was increasing significantly and why the warming was much much higher than the current 0.8C trend even though CO2 levels were flat compared to today.
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
04-04-2016, 05:21 AM
#744
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
I don't see how you (Flytolive) live with yourself considering every day at work you spew thousands of pounds of carbon into the air -- assuming you're an airline pilot.
He can do so for the same reason the hypocritical fear-mongering fascists have no compunctions about throwing those they call "deniers" in jail or killing them. They are soulless ghouls who aren't interested in the Earth's climate... for them "climate change" is a means to a ideological political end, nothing more.
They are EXACTLY and PRECISELY who we've always known them to be. And they are the real "deniers".
04-04-2016, 05:26 AM
#745
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
So for 20 bonus points what is the most abundant greenhouse gas and what is its impact on "climate". It is just not scary to talk about H2O.
PS. Here's my beef.....its doesn't bother me if people want to talk about what they think is going on with the climate, or if they have some data. My problem is the absolute fascist, controlling of the narrative, shunning and shaming of dissenting opinions and data, and the fact that this is an absolute political battering ram for one side. THAT is what really bothers me.
04-04-2016, 05:37 AM
#746
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
04-04-2016, 06:43 AM
#747
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by block30
Global Greening
Globally, the area which experienced gradual greening trends was found to decrease over time, while browning increased. This might indicate an overall reduction in global terrestrial vegetation activity, although an increasing trend was found in recent years.
04-04-2016, 07:37 AM
#748
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Flytolive
Claim: Measurements reveal that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not the cause. Temperature drives CO2 levels.
Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.
Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.
It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.
It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.
With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.
And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.
Source: NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Source: Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming Misinformation - CO2 Lags Temperature
Source: Eric Steig, University of Washington
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore?s got it right.) « RealClimate
Another red herring.
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
Assessment: True before 1800. But false today.
Some 800,000 years' worth of ice core records indicate that temperature rises did drive an increase in CO2 levels. But that was before humans started digging up huge quantities fossil fuels and transferring all that sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.
It is worth noting, however, that even in the past CO2 had an impact on temperatures, given its role as a greenhouse gas.
It's also worth noting that ancient temperature and CO2-level changes happened over thousands of years. The Earth needed, for example, 5,000 years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations up 80 ppm after the last glacial period.
With the onset of industrialization, the tables turned. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels almost 80 ppm in just 60 years. Now humans are the drivers of CO2 level, not temperature.
And what frightens climate scientists is that temperature hasn't caught up yet.
Source: NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Source: Scott Mandia, State University of New York, Suffolk Global Warming Misinformation - CO2 Lags Temperature
Source: Eric Steig, University of Washington
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore?s got it right.) « RealClimate
Another red herring.
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
In one sentence it says temperature drive CO2 levels. But then it says humans are now driving CO2. This DOES NOT mean CO2 is now causing warming.
Again, it's been warmer and colder before humans and after humans with various levels of CO2. CO2 isn't driving the temperature.
04-04-2016, 07:47 AM
#749
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by Flytolive
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...f15d000000.pdf
Globally, the area which experienced gradual greening trends was found to decrease over time, while browning increased. This might indicate an overall reduction in global terrestrial vegetation activity, although an increasing trend was found in recent years.
Globally, the area which experienced gradual greening trends was found to decrease over time, while browning increased. This might indicate an overall reduction in global terrestrial vegetation activity, although an increasing trend was found in recent years.
Don't listen to other's perspective and information....that shows weakness. Instead silence them and double down on your side's narrative.
04-04-2016, 08:53 AM
#750
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
I watch from the sidelines and make my own observations and evaluations.
1. Yes, a documented rise in average global temp (albeit very small).
2. Yes, a documented increase in carbon-based output from mechanical processes over the last 150 years.
3. Yes, global variations in temps, highs and lows, over unrecorded history, but shown by geological samples.
Is (1) directly caused by (2)? Maybe. Or maybe it is just a coincidental overlap with normal historic cycles.
While carbon output from modern fossil fuels is calcuable, the use of wood, leaves, twigs, and dried dung (a common fuel in the 3rd world) for heating use before the industrial revolution is a little harder to estimate.
For that matter, a significant portion (perhaps the majority portion) of the "dirty-burning" in China and India (the two largest contributing nations for carbon output) is due to "low-tech" burning.
It makes a carbon comparison with pre-industrial times to modern is almost impossible.
What bothers me is that the focus is almost solely on the "evils" of modern technology, while, ironically, simpler means are often far dirtier.
Further, the "solution" seems to fall into two categories:
1. Frequently touted "alternative energy," usually by politicians or "activists" who have very little education or expertise in the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry, or
2. Taxation, for carbon use.
Alternate energy sources have their place. I think wind is economically viable, while large-scale solar is not (it only works when the sun is up; the wind blows day or night in many locales). The much-trumpeted bio-jetfuels are enjoying success not so much because they are cheap to make (they aren't; about 3-4 times the cost of regular fuel), but rather, big cities that are promoting them (LAX now, SJC soon) are running out of landfill space for garbage. By subsidizing the syn-fuel refineries, it reduces their trash costs....and they get to boast of "saving the environment."
I think wave-power will soon become a significant source; the first large-scale facilities are being built.
But riddle me this, Batman: do people ever ask what kind of polluting processes were required to build the solar cells? If you trade your gas-guzzler in for a Prius, did it go away? Or are there TWO cars now, where there was once one? How much carbon did it take to make that electric car?
How does taxing carbon make it go away?
If there was a global treaty on carbon, and lightning caused a massive forest fire, who pays the fine? That country? Mother Nature? The country that the air-mass formed in?
In my middle-age, I've become very cynical about almost everything. But I have noticed this: government, the media, and popular entertainment are constantly hawking some new thing that you must have. Phone, computer, car, house, credit card, prescription drugs....you name it.
"Needs" seem to be created, then reinforced by a message Blitzkrieg from the above.
And it makes me wonder if capitalism isn't the biggest ponzi-scheme ever, except now, it seems more overt that government is working in concert with industry.
I'm old enough to remember when "The Next Ice Age" was being forecast by the experts, so I take "expert" testimony with a grain of salt.
And I wonder: could it be that the rise in temperature is due to the fact that there have never been 7.5 Billion people on the planet before?
What if the real cause was "Well, there's just too many people.....we need to cull the herd." Where do we make those cuts?
Finally, what would YOU be willing to give up? Your Job? Home? Mobility (car)? iphone? (The industrial processes therein are quite bad for the environment; mining for critical semiconductor elements for screens technology happens in the poorest countries in the world).
Would you be willing to go back to living in a home with a kitchen stove to heat the entire house, a horse to ride to work, and your circle of experience limited to about 3 miles from your home?
....knowing that people in other countries were NOT doing so?
1. Yes, a documented rise in average global temp (albeit very small).
2. Yes, a documented increase in carbon-based output from mechanical processes over the last 150 years.
3. Yes, global variations in temps, highs and lows, over unrecorded history, but shown by geological samples.
Is (1) directly caused by (2)? Maybe. Or maybe it is just a coincidental overlap with normal historic cycles.
While carbon output from modern fossil fuels is calcuable, the use of wood, leaves, twigs, and dried dung (a common fuel in the 3rd world) for heating use before the industrial revolution is a little harder to estimate.
For that matter, a significant portion (perhaps the majority portion) of the "dirty-burning" in China and India (the two largest contributing nations for carbon output) is due to "low-tech" burning.
It makes a carbon comparison with pre-industrial times to modern is almost impossible.
What bothers me is that the focus is almost solely on the "evils" of modern technology, while, ironically, simpler means are often far dirtier.
Further, the "solution" seems to fall into two categories:
1. Frequently touted "alternative energy," usually by politicians or "activists" who have very little education or expertise in the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry, or
2. Taxation, for carbon use.
Alternate energy sources have their place. I think wind is economically viable, while large-scale solar is not (it only works when the sun is up; the wind blows day or night in many locales). The much-trumpeted bio-jetfuels are enjoying success not so much because they are cheap to make (they aren't; about 3-4 times the cost of regular fuel), but rather, big cities that are promoting them (LAX now, SJC soon) are running out of landfill space for garbage. By subsidizing the syn-fuel refineries, it reduces their trash costs....and they get to boast of "saving the environment."
I think wave-power will soon become a significant source; the first large-scale facilities are being built.
But riddle me this, Batman: do people ever ask what kind of polluting processes were required to build the solar cells? If you trade your gas-guzzler in for a Prius, did it go away? Or are there TWO cars now, where there was once one? How much carbon did it take to make that electric car?
How does taxing carbon make it go away?
If there was a global treaty on carbon, and lightning caused a massive forest fire, who pays the fine? That country? Mother Nature? The country that the air-mass formed in?
In my middle-age, I've become very cynical about almost everything. But I have noticed this: government, the media, and popular entertainment are constantly hawking some new thing that you must have. Phone, computer, car, house, credit card, prescription drugs....you name it.
"Needs" seem to be created, then reinforced by a message Blitzkrieg from the above.
And it makes me wonder if capitalism isn't the biggest ponzi-scheme ever, except now, it seems more overt that government is working in concert with industry.
I'm old enough to remember when "The Next Ice Age" was being forecast by the experts, so I take "expert" testimony with a grain of salt.
And I wonder: could it be that the rise in temperature is due to the fact that there have never been 7.5 Billion people on the planet before?
What if the real cause was "Well, there's just too many people.....we need to cull the herd." Where do we make those cuts?
Finally, what would YOU be willing to give up? Your Job? Home? Mobility (car)? iphone? (The industrial processes therein are quite bad for the environment; mining for critical semiconductor elements for screens technology happens in the poorest countries in the world).
Would you be willing to go back to living in a home with a kitchen stove to heat the entire house, a horse to ride to work, and your circle of experience limited to about 3 miles from your home?
....knowing that people in other countries were NOT doing so?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
