Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2011, 01:42 PM   #471 (permalink)
Pokémoderator
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,864

1999 Saturn SW2 - '99 Saturn SW2 Wagon
Team Saturn
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 439
Thanked 530 Times in 356 Posts
Arragonis -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
...

There are several levels of socialism just as there are several levels of Conservatism, Libertarianism and even AGW Skepticism - ranging from its all an evil conspiracy to we just don't know. Painting a whole continent as being socialist is far too simplistic.

...
I forget where I read it, but there was a study comparing political platforms in the USA and Europe. Their conclusion was that a "normal" USA Democrat is to the right of a "normal" European conservative.

I'm a Lefty in the USA. The sad part from my POV is that the Left and the Right *need* each other to keep the other honest. If you live in a political-monoculture you typically end up with a worst-case-scenario.

CarloSW2

__________________

What's your EPA MPG? Go Here and find out!
American Solar Energy Society
 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-10-2011, 01:55 PM   #472 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
I'm going to ignore your strawman arguments, and your personal insults.

The insulating effect of our atmosphere is what slows down the heat loss back out into space. The Moon lack any significant atmosphere, so it gets very cold.

It is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which is most responsible for insulating the Earth, and slowing down the heat loss to a point where the temperature is livable. By changing the level of carbon dioxide rapidly by a significant amount greater than at any time during human existence or indeed higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years -- can only mean that temperatures will increase to be hotter than at any time during that period of time.

We can look back at even earlier history to see what happened, and when, in relation to the carbon dioxide levels. At the point about 65 million years ago, when the island that became what we call India finished moving out of the southern hemisphere, and ran into the southern part of Asia -- the level of volcanic activity diminished, and the rate of weathering increased.

Carbon dioxide was at about 1,000PPM at the point -- and there was no permanent ice anywhere on Earth, and it was essentially tropical everywhere on Earth -- with alligators etc., living in the place we now call Alaska. Then the level of carbon dioxide began to drop, as the weathering process occurred. When carbon dioxide level reach about 450PPM, then Antarctica started to freeze up. Later, when the levels dropped lower, the Arctic froze up.

So, we know about what level these critical things happen. Those thresholds are what all the concern is about. Again, these things happen because of chemistry and physics, and they will occur whether or not all humans agree with it or not.

When the people who know the most about the climate get very concerned, then we should all be very concerned, too.

Do you think you can second guess Stephen Hawking on his area of expertise? How about a vulcanologist? Or, an oceanographer? Or, a geologist? Would you argue with Craig Venter about DNA?
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Old 01-10-2011, 02:08 PM   #473 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
I'm going to ignore your strawman arguments, and your personal insults.
So let me get this straight...

You somehow think that solar irradiance (defined as the amount of solar output that is delivered at a unit area per unit time) is some sort of a strawman argument? Especially when the solar irradiance data shown can easily be seen to be correlated to the rise in average temperature and the rise in average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration?

Are you now going to claim that increased solar output causing higher temperatures on Earth, is just a strawman argument?

It's not an insult if it happens to be correct, Neil. You are now directly ignoring direct scientific data showing a valid and credible cause of rising temperatures, from a reputable source, and are continuing to blame Mankind for global warming. Not an insult, just an observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
The insulating effect of our atmosphere is what slows down the heat loss back out into space. The Moon lack any significant atmosphere, so it gets very cold.
And very HOT, Neil. You forgot that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
It is the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere which is most responsible for insulating the Earth, and slowing down the heat loss to a point where the temperature is livable. By changing the level of carbon dioxide rapidly by a significant amount greater than at any time during human existence or indeed higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years -- can only mean that temperatures will increase to be hotter than at any time during that period of time.
WRONG!!!

It is water vapor that is most responsible for the greenhouse effect. Even real pro-AGW scientists agree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
We can look back at even earlier history to see what happened, and when, in relation to the carbon dioxide levels. At the point about 65 million years ago, when the island that became what we call India finished moving out of the southern hemisphere, and ran into the southern part of Asia -- the level of volcanic activity diminished, and the rate of weathering increased.

Carbon dioxide was at about 1,000PPM at the point -- and there was no permanent ice anywhere on Earth, and it was essentially tropical everywhere on Earth -- with alligators etc., living in the place we now call Alaska. Then the level of carbon dioxide began to drop, as the weathering process occurred. When carbon dioxide level reach about 450PPM, then Antarctica started to freeze up. Later, when the levels dropped lower, the Arctic froze up.

So, we know about what level these critical things happen. Those thresholds are what all the concern is about. Again, these things happen because of chemistry and physics, and they will occur whether or not all humans agree with it or not.

When the people who know the most about the climate get very concerned, then we should all be very concerned, too.
You are again confusing cause and effect, Neil. Just like I knew you would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Do you think you can second guess Stephen Hawking on his area of expertise? How about a vulcanologist? Or, an oceanographer? Or, a geologist? Would you argue with Craig Venter about DNA?
Why do you continue to persist with these pleas to authority, Neil? By your own logic, you should not question the thousands of climatologists who are skeptical of AGW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Here's the 160 years corresponding to the time we humans have been burning carbon fuels:



Carbon dioxide was ~270PPM at the beginning of this period, it reached ~300PPM in 1904, and it is ~389PPM now. Case closed.
Solar irradiation estimates from NOAA. First set here. (Are you going to claim that NOAA is now tainted?)


Total solar irradiance from 1855 AD to 1982 AD.

Diid Maankind caause the Suun to increase its ouutput duuring the tiime we weere buurning foossil fuuels, Neeil?

Second set here. (Well, Neil? Are you?)

Total solar irradiance from 1852 AD to 2007 AD.

Those curves above and below the main curve represent one standard deviation from the main curve.

Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun increased its output during the same time period as your precious graphs depicting the rise of carbon dioxide. Gee, Neil, looks like the two sets of graphs tend to track each other pretty well. Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun warmed up at about the same time carbon dioxide increased.

Gee, Neil, looks like AGW isn't proven.
You know, I think I'll just cut-n-paste this to every one of my responses to you about Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth, Neil. Strawman argument, indeed.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 02:18 PM   #474 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 865
Thanks: 29
Thanked 111 Times in 83 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Why do you continue to persist with these pleas to authority, Neil? By your own logic, you should not question the thousands of climatologists who are skeptical of AGW.
Ah, but they are the wrong kind of climatologists. Only politically correct ones are credible.

Quote:
You know, I think I'll just cut-n-paste this to every one of my responses to you about Eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarth, Neil. Strawman argument, indeed.
Not a bad idea. Being a professional activist, (and from what we've seen of the volume of his posting activity,) Neil probably has an archive full of videos and "sources" at his disposal and more time on his hands than you do.

Last edited by Thymeclock; 01-10-2011 at 02:24 PM..
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:04 PM   #475 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
So, what will it take for you to acknowledge the fact that we have rapid global climate change?

When the Arctic is ice free in the late summer?

When the Greenland largely melts into the ocean, raising the ocean level many feet?

When all the "perma-frost" melts and releases a torrent of methane?

When California and the southwest USA runs out of water?

When we have the hottest decade, after the hottest decade, after the hottest decade?

What if all those "crazy" IPCC scientists were right, and by the time that you decide to swallow your pride, we have already passed the critical threshold and we are having millions of climate refugees -- people, like you and me, having to leave their homes?
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:18 PM   #476 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Hm... let me try my own plea to authority. Neil uses it so much, so there must be some credibility associated with it.

Consensus? What consensus?
Quote:
Oreskes (2004) said she had analyzed "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change'." She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the "consensus" view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position...."

Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, conducted a search of the peer-reviewed literature on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. He found not 928 but more than 12,000 papers mentioning the phrase "climate change". ... According to Dr. Peiser, fewer than one-third of the papers analyzed by Oreskes either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the "consensus", contrary to Oreskes’ assertion that the figure was 75%. In addition, 44 abstracts focused on the natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes of climate change, and did not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human actitivies, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change. More than half of the abstracts did not mention anthropogenic climate change at all and could not, therefore, reasonably be held to have commented either way upon the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes.

Cao et al. (2005) point out that, without the ability to quantify variations in the terrestrial carbon sink both regionally and over time, climate projections are unreliable –

Quote:
To predict global climate change and to implement the Kyoto Protocol for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases concentrations require quantifying spatio-temporal variations in the terrestrial carbon sink accurately. During the past decade multi-scale ecological experiment and observation networks have been established using various new technologies (e.g. controlled environmental facilities, eddy covariance techniques and quantitative remote sensing), and have obtained a large amount of data about terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle. However, uncertainties in the magnitude and spatio-temporal variations of the terrestrial carbon sink and in understanding the underlying mechanisms have not been reduced significantly.
Gerhard (2004), discussing the conflict between observation, theory, and politics, says –

Quote:
Debate over whether human activity causes Earth climate change obscures the immensity of the dynamic systems that create and maintain climate on the planet. Anthropocentric debate leads people to believe that they can alter these planetary dynamic systems to prevent what they perceive as negative climate impacts on human civilization. Although politicians offer simplistic remedies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, global climate continues to change naturally.
Leiserowitz (2005) reports –

Quote:
results from a national study (2003) that examined the risk perceptions and connotative meanings of global warming in the American mind and found that Americans perceived climate change as a moderate risk that will predominantly impact geographically and temporally distant people and places. This research also identified several distinct interpretive communities, including naysayers and alarmists, with widely divergent perceptions of climate change risks. Thus, ‘dangerous’ climate change is a concept contested not only among scientists and policymakers, but among the American public as well.
Lai et al. (2005) offer an entirely new hypothesis to explain recent warming of the climate –

Quote:
The impacts of global warming on the environment, economy and society are presently receiving much attention by the international community. However, the extent to which anthropogenic factors are the main cause of global warming, is still being debated. … This research invokes some new concepts: (i) certain biochemical processes which strongly interact with geophysical processes in climate system: (ii) a hypothesis that internal processes in the oceans rather than in the atmosphere are at the center of global warming; (iii) chemical energy stored in biochemical processes call significantly affect ocean dynamics and therefore the climate system. Based on those concepts, we propose a new hypothesis for global warming.
Moser (2005) explores the assessment of rising sea levels and in state-level managerial and policy responses to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise in three US states –

Quote:
Uncertainties in the human dimensions of global change deeply affect the assessment and responses to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise.
Shaviv (2006) considers the cosmic-ray forcing posited by Svensmark et al. (2006), and concludes that, if the effect is real, natural climate variability rather than anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect has contributed more than half of the warming over the past century –

Quote:
The cosmic-ray forcing / climate link … implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced cosmic-ray forcing over the previous century should have contributed a warming of ~0.47K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.
Zhen-Shan and Xian (2007) say that CO2 forcing contributes less to temperature change than natural climate variability, that the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect –

Quote:
Could have been excessively exaggerated” … Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
So, what will it take for you to acknowledge the fact that we have rapid global climate change?

When the Arctic is ice free in the late summer?

When the Greenland largely melts into the ocean, raising the ocean level many feet?

When all the "perma-frost" melts and releases a torrent of methane?
...yawn...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
When California and the southwest USA runs out of water?

When we have the hottest decade, after the hottest decade, after the hottest decade?
The hottest year recorded in recent history was 1934. That implies all subsequent years were COOLER than 1934. ("NASA's ground-based temperature records for the past 120 years -- which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions -- have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.")

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
What if all those "crazy" IPCC scientists were right, and by the time that you decide to swallow your pride, we have already passed the critical threshold and we are having millions of climate refugees -- people, like you and me, having to leave their homes?
You mean, all of those lock-step consensus types, like the ones I showed above? And how will a worst-case estimate rise of 5 cm over 100 years cause me to leave my home here in Ohio?

Stop with the emotional pleas, already, Neil! I can't do emotional like you can.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:23 PM   #477 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
roflwaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,490

Camryaro - '92 Toyota Camry LE V6
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)

Red - '00 Honda Insight

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius

3 - '18 Tesla Model 3
90 day: 152.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 349
Thanked 122 Times in 80 Posts
For the love of Pete, is being polite and/or constructive really that bad? The increase in solar irradiance has probably increased the temperature but it probably hasn't been enough to account for all of the increases. If anyone has a problem w/ the data, for instance the IPCC's stuff, feel free to point out what specifically is wrong.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:26 PM   #478 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ˙
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post


umm... which NASA are we talking about, and were they measuring the globe or some points on a continent?
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever - ScienceNOW
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

Last edited by dcb; 01-10-2011 at 03:31 PM..
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:30 PM   #479 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 828
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by roflwaffle View Post
The increase in solar irradiance has probably increased the temperature but it probably hasn't been enough to account for all of the increases. If anyone has a problem w/ the data, for instance the IPCC's stuff, feel free to point out what specifically is wrong.
Neil will just ignore it or deride it. Hell, 70+ responses like this have shown this to be the case.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 03:36 PM   #480 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,907

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,950 Times in 1,844 Posts
Yes please -- show me this (new?) data on NASA's own web site.

As for the rest of it, I'm sure that if those papers have scientific merit, then the accepted science will acknowledge it, and the overall conclusions will be adjusted. This is how the scientific process works.

As I said before, are you in a habit of criticizing scientists outside of your field of expertise? What makes you think you can in this case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Neil will just ignore it or deride it. Hell, 70+ responses like this have shown this to be the case.
You need to reread the post you quoted.

__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com