quote:

Those are the causes. Man in the first, volcanos in the second, and man in the third. That is pretty solid science, if you expect absolutes written in stone you need a preacher, guru or political pundit for that, I am sure there are lots that will tell you exactly what to think on any given subject you care to name, with little or no time and intellectual effort on your part.

It isn't a matter of time and intellectual effort Larry. I simply think that the explanations are weak, and based more off of assumptions than real data. "The first hump is likely due to land us changes" That isn't exactly feeling too sure about anything, but ok, I will play. So the deforstation in Europe alone caused the the first hump. Fine. So why do we blame fossil fuels for the second hump? Why not the deforestation happening in South America or that which has happened world wide. Why the switch in causes?

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Those are the causes. Man in the first, volcanos in the second, and man in the third. That is pretty solid science, if you expect absolutes written in stone you need a preacher, guru or political pundit for that, I am sure there are lots that will tell you exactly what to think on any given subject you care to name, with little or no time and intellectual effort on your part.

It isn't a matter of time and intellectual effort Larry. I simply think that the explanations are weak, and based more off of assumptions than real data. "The first hump is likely due to land us changes" That isn't exactly feeling too sure about anything, but ok, I will play. So the deforstation in Europe alone caused the the first hump. Fine. So why do we blame fossil fuels for the second hump? Why not the deforestation happening in South America or that which has happened world wide. Why the switch in causes?

Of course the deforestation of Europe alone was not the only specific cause but likely a major proximal cause. Further the anthropomorphic production of CO2 is not the only factor of the current warming trend but once again it is the most proximal scientifically supported mechanism. While I am not going to go dig up a number to support it, I am fairly sure that the loss of forest in the Amazon does play a role in the current situation, in that it has as a whole a lesser ability to sequester CO2, as well as the increased human caused release of CO2 into the atmosphere do to the rather massive clearing and burning going on there now, which releases CO2 that has here to for been sequestered from the atmosphere.

Further the loss of forest in the northern latitudes may have a larger effect and or different type of effect than that type of lost does in the equatorial belt. Seems I have read some conjecture that human activities in the eastern portion of the equatorial belt of the African consentient may possibly have contributed to the creation of the deserts that run the whole width of that continent along the equatorial belt. The whole area was likely green 10 or 15 thousand years ago.

Frankly the most proximal cause has not changed, the specific mechanisms and the way they relate to one another and the environment may have changed, but in the end, we humans are the most direct root or proximal cause in both cases.

A classic experiment done in microbiology classes is to take a Petri dish and inoculate it with a small amount of bacteria put it in the incubator and watch what happens. In all cases where growth occurs, there is a massive growth phase, a plateau phase, and a crash phase, as resources are consumed and waste products are produced. While this is not an exact analogy it is what is and will roughly happen on earth unless we humans (bacteria) do not use the cognitive abilities we have developed to ameliorate the situation we are directly responsible for on earth (Petri dish).

We humans use and expend ENORMOUSLY more energy now than we did in the recent past, in non-biological ways and at non-biological rates, in extraordinary short spaces of time, in a biological system, the earth our little Petri dish, which is not capable of dealing with such industrial scale energy expenditures, producing CO2 as a byproduct, in a system that is fine tuned for biologically active participants on times scales of eons, not decades or centuries.

So the root cause of the current warming is our human industrial scale non-biological rate energy use, which releases enormous amounts of CO2, above and beyond that which a biological system typically produces, normally, or is capable of dealing with in an effective way. The specific result of CO2 buildup is more energy is held in our little Petri disk and our little Petri dish gets warmer, and if we just keep on pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere we will end up with a catastrophic outcome just like our Petri disk pals.

Here are some statements/questions based on real data, solid repeatable verifiable data.

A. Do you disagree that we humans are releasing to the atmosphere CO2 as a byproduct of our inducterial scale non-biological use of coal and oil?

B. Do you disagree that there is a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere?

C. Do you disagree that CO2 in the atmosphere preferentially absorbs light energy from the sun?

D. Addition of energy to any system increases its temperature.

If you do, please provide evidence that definitively contradicts that these things are occurring.

These are as hard and as absolute as science facts get. These are hard facts, and are not assumptions, in science terms they have predictive value. They predict that more CO2 in the atmosphere captures more energy at a faster rate than it would if the added CO2 were not present and thereby increases temperatures in the system.

Prediction:
E. If you add more CO2 to a system that is absorbing light energy the systems temperature increases more and more rapidly than it would without the additional CO2.

This is what we see; it is being measured in a multitude of ways by a multitude of people as happening now.

So, here is a little truth table.

A B C & D are true statements of fact.
A B C & D taken together predict E.
E is demonstrably and repeatedly seen.
E is therefore a true statement of fact.

So to respond to your final question once again, the root cause has not changed (humans both cases), the mechanism by which it comes about has, greater energy absorptions by open lands (deforestation) prompting anomalous weather/climate patterns vs. greater absorption do to higher concentrations of CO2 (immense CO2 release do to combustion of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere. One was rather regional in nature and one is global in nature.

If this is still all just too "weak" for you to believe, please do point out exactly where and how it is weak, your specific objections and the errors you see would be nice.

quote:

Prediction:
E. If you add more CO2 to a system that is absorbing light energy the systems temperature increases more and more rapidly than it would without the additional CO2.

Larry,
I will play right along with the expected answers, and even agree that the result is an affect on our climate. How much of an affect is pretty hard to pin down though, and takes much in the way of assumptions. Is it significant? Or are the other influences on our climate much much more significant?

Spain has been the leader in alternative renewable energy installations! It was in Spain where it was discovered that each job created by the alternative fuel hoax destroyed 3 REAL jobs!
Now Spain has halted all subsidies for alternative energy projects because they have finally admitted it was a pie in the sky pipe dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Germay is following in Spain's footsteps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mean while "dyckhead obama bin lyin's'" regime is trying to double down on this pipe dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Koski:
Spain has been the leader in alternative renewable energy installations! It was in Spain where it was discovered that each job created by the alternative fuel hoax destroyed 3 REAL jobs!
Now Spain has halted all subsidies for alternative energy projects because they have finally admitted it was a pie in the sky pipe dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Germay is following in Spain's footsteps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mean while "dyckhead obama bin lyin's'" regime is trying to double down on this pipe dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're sorry folks our spanish reporter has been dipping into the vino and pills and now for those who are interested in the facts...

http://www.businessweek.com/ne...illion-of-debts.html

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:

quote:

Prediction:
E. If you add more CO2 to a system that is absorbing light energy the systems temperature increases more and more rapidly than it would without the additional CO2.

Larry,
I will play right along with the expected answers, and even agree that the result is an affect on our climate. How much of an affect is pretty hard to pin down though, and takes much in the way of assumptions. Is it significant? Or are the other influences on our climate much much more significant?

Implicit in all the graphs, I have previously provided, is that they are typically accurate to at least 5%, if not more so, or if less accurate they generally come with error bars showing the range of possible values, meaning that the values shown in the graphs are known to be accurate to +/- 5% of the shown value. In the case of the temp graph if we are looking at a 0.4 degrees value on the graph the range of values is 0.38 to 0.42.

I suppose if you wish to disregard the increase in instrumentally gathered temps over the last century, as well as the more pronounced increase in the last decade or two as insignificant even in the face of two millennia of previously stable temps, it simply points out that you, once again, don't understand or simply do not wish to accept, what climate science is saying, for irrational reasons that have nothing to do with the accuracy and significance of the data. There are no assumptions here, this is hard empirical data.

There are no, "much much more" or other highly significant yet unknown variables operating in the current climate situation, that have not already been seen and taken into consideration. The area of climate science with regard to the current warming is a fully internally consistent system.

Broecker (the guy that coined the term global warming) predicated about 35 years ago very closely what we would have in terms of our current climate. Now at this juncture, by your reckoning, science should somehow be less well able to predict what will be happening a further 35 years hence, this simply because of your vague notions and hand ringing that there are too many assumptions being used or science has missed some variable so significant that it would invalidate the whole area of study, all this after nearly a half a century's worth of work? Please do provide specific examples of these assumptions and exactly how they would invalidate this whole area of scientific enquiry.

Man made climate change has been happening, is now happening, and will continue to happen in the future, there is no doubt, at least by those that can put two and two together and come with four as an answer. It is significant now and will be more significant in the future. To try and dismiss the whole concept because of minor aspects that are in question is to engage in simple foot dragging. For us not to do something about it now, simply because there are discussions as to whether we will have 2 feet or 3 feet or 5 feet of sea level rise in 50 or 100 years from now, or whether we will have 2 or 4 or 5 degrees of additional average temperature is utterly stupid. You quibble about motes in an ocean of data, the affects will all be uniformly bad at very least, and very possibly catastrophic at worst, whether 2 degrees or 5 degrees, in 50 years or 100. Doing nothing now will only insure worse affects and higher costs later.

The situation is exactly the same as if you were a type II diabetic and had a small sore on your big toe, medical science can tell you exactly what will inevitably happen if you do nothing. But no you are not going to admit there is a problem because the sore is so small, right now its only a little red spot hardly noticeable and only barely uncomfortable, it could just get better all on its own, who knows. Besides, the quack homeopath (pseudo science) that you read in the back of the National Enquirer says his $19.95 miracle cure (99.999% pure water and 0.001% frog spunk) will fix anything you got. Not to mention that it is a whole lot cheaper and easer than doing what the Doctor is telling you is needed. After all you're Doctor only has 6 or 8 years of advanced education and training, not to mention years of experience, to deal with exactly this type of problem, why the he11 would you listen to him, after all he is only in it for the money. The idea that the little red spot on your toe could be such a big problem or even kill you is all so vague and depends on so many assumptions on your Doctors part, it just can't be so, I'll just wait an see how it goes. So it is not until your whole foot is black and stinks badly enough to gag a maggot and the damn gangrene has nearly reached your knee, while you are now half a step from deaths door, before you admit there is a problem with your toe, much less that your leg needs to be amputated mid thigh. This will cost you 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of dollars, if you don't die all together, which would leave your wife and or the kids stuck with the bills. I see this exact thing happening all the time. While personal ignorance and stupidity of this kind is tolerated, in supposedly educated and informed adults, similar stupidity on a global scale, with a global outcome, should not be. This is exactly what you are advocating for, in the case of climate change; let's wait until a 1/5 of the planet has become uninhabitable because of sea level rise, major cities are inundated and the dead do to starvation in some parts of the world number in the hundreds of millions if not billions, while wars rage because of food, water and fuel shortages, before we start doing something about it.

Finely the only thing weak here is your ability to provide a strong and cogent fact based argument against anthropomorphic climate change, that is based on something besides vague notions and misgivings that the science supporting climate change is based on too many assumptions. Good science is done based on empirical data, not things that are accepted true without solid evidence or proof. That's kind of the definition of an assumption, to accept something without proof. That is not what science does.

quote:

Implicit in all the graphs, I have previously provided, is that they are typically accurate to at least 5%, if not more so, or if less accurate they generally come with error bars showing the range of possible values, meaning that the values shown in the graphs are known to be accurate to +/- 5% of the shown value. In the case of the temp graph if we are looking at a 0.4 degrees value on the graph the range of values is 0.38 to 0.42.

Larry, you are hereby awarded a 10 on a 10 scale for your cerebral analysis. But it's mostly mental masturbation. We have been experiencing "global warming" since the end of the ice age (graph that!). The earth was once covered in water, ice and fire. What glorious arguments you could have made to prevent/alter those events. And what a campaign you could have mounted to save the dinosaur. The earth is a place of change and it is ludicrous and pompous to think man can control the earth. Yes we need to be good Samaritans and do the right thing to the extent we can. But to think you're going to change the course of the earth is laughable. Flame on!

little man larry heathen and duped boob RETARD #3 are on the same page of colossal ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
duped boob RETARD #3 posts a link to exactly what I posted claiming he has the "real story"!
The only thing missing from the link is the fact that each alternative energy job in Spain has cost three (count 'em, 3) real jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The United States of America is on the same path Spain was on before they crashed and burned and rapidly gaining on the crash and burn scenario!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL,

Just stirring the pot, trying to air out the stench!

Dave

The coming ice age !! LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:

quote:

Implicit in all the graphs, I have previously provided, is that they are typically accurate to at least 5%, if not more so, or if less accurate they generally come with error bars showing the range of possible values, meaning that the values shown in the graphs are known to be accurate to +/- 5% of the shown value. In the case of the temp graph if we are looking at a 0.4 degrees value on the graph the range of values is 0.38 to 0.42.

Larry, you are hereby awarded a 10 on a 10 scale for your cerebral analysis. But it's mostly mental masturbation. We have been experiencing "global warming" since the end of the ice age (graph that!). The earth was once covered in water, ice and fire. What glorious arguments you could have made to prevent/alter those events. And what a campaign you could have mounted to save the dinosaur. The earth is a place of change and it is ludicrous and pompous to think man can control the earth. Yes we need to be good Samaritans and do the right thing to the extent we can. But to think you're going to change the course of the earth is laughable. Flame on!

If you will look at the graph above, seeing how you asked for one, you will notice, referencing the bold black line, that as we came out of the last glacial period, average temperatures warmed pretty abruptly on this time scale, at about 11500 years ago and then pretty much stabilized about 10000 years ago. Then between roughly 8000 and 4000 years ago maintained a +/- average temp that did not vary more than about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees, then at about 4000 years ago we see a very slight downward trend of oh say about 0.3 degrees until the present. So never the less when it's all said and done over the last 10000 years the average global temperature has not varied more then +/- 0.5 degrees on this long timescale plot of the various proxy data. So apparently you don't know what you are talking about when you say, "We have been experiencing "global warming" since the end of the ice age"; care to provide some sort of empirical data to support this rather bald faced assertion of yours?

"The earth was once covered in water, ice and fire."

I really do hope by the above assertions you are not trying to backhandedly claim that the bible non-sense of a global flood is true. The ice and fire assertions do have reason to support them, but the completely covered in water bit, particularly do to the "biblical flood", is only supported by the ignorant ranting and ravings of a bunch Bronze Age goat fornicators. One need only look at the current crop of religious zealots in the areas where this delusion was cooked up to see exactly the type mentality and thought process needed to dream this kind of buffoonery up. Should we go into the present day buffoon's in our own neck of the woods that ought know better?

"The earth is a place of change and it is ludicrous and pompous to think man can control the earth."

The earth is a place of change I agree, but it is not ludicrous or pompous to say that man does affect the place in which he lives, what it really is, is ignorant and or stupid to say that we do not do just that, particularly in the face of the masses of evidence that supports the fact that we do just that, most especially the anthropomorphic climate change of the last 125 years or so.

We humans do affect, in essence "control" this environment, the earth, everywhere we go on it, and nearly everything we touch in it, and in places man has never set foot, unfortunately most times adversely. Examples you say, well here in Florida we have a number of lakes in the center of the state, that are for all intents and purposes dead, if not yet totally sterile, because of the actions and or inactions, that a relatively few of us have brought about in that area, in a time span of decades. Look at the Cod fish populations in the Northeast, essentially for all intents and purposes non-existent, in less that roughly 200 years, over fished to commercial extinction, if not total extinction, yet. Good estimates say that 100's of difference ocean fish populations have declined by about 85% from historic levels. Care to think about the large areas, almost 10000 square miles, of so called "dead zones" off the coast of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi; do to man made effluents coming down the Mississippi river causing hypoxic/anoxic zones basically nothing can live in? Care to think about the roughly 30 Billion Tons of CO2 we currently reject into the atmosphere yearly, and going up? At STP that is roughly 4000 cubic miles. A significant percentage of which will still be in the environment 100 years from now, much of which will end up in the earths oceans, causing acidification which is already killing earths coral reefs and adversely affecting many fish populations above and beyond the direct results of fishing pressures. Why all that CO2 is not doing a damn thing, right?

I will add some fuel to the bonfire here, some, meaning people way the he11 more intelligent and informed, than you and I, say we are likely in the beginnings of the greatest mass extinction event the earth has ever seen, including the great Permian extinction of roughly 250 million years ago. Cause? Likely man and his industrial activities, as we haven't been hit by any massive bolides from space lately and we don't seem to be having any truly massive volcanism. Volcanism such as resulted in the formations called the Siberian Traps, though to responsible for the Permian extension event. This was likely a run away, wait for it, that's right, global warming event. While you chew on that, think of the Zager & Evans tune "In the year 2525" softly playing in the background.

So, maybe you ought to stop and have a little think, before, you continue to make so obviously ludicrous statements of your own, such as we don't or can't control the earth. It seems apparent, given the number of facts available and your apparent wish to disregard them altogether, that your ignorance is on display for all to see.

It stunned me to see FOMOCO withdraw from participation in some global warming hoax scam. Bill Ford was gung-ho about the subject not that long ago?
He must have read the East Anglia University E-mails that proved the hoaxers were collaborating and making up data! By the way the duped boob hoaxees here claim there were never any incriminating E-mails!
Now that the main data manipulator has lost control at East Anglia they just came out with the FACT that there HASN'T been ANY warming in 15 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On top of that the prediction now is we may be heading into a mini ice age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am laughingly amazed at Larry's constant portrayal of theory as fact.

And sadly amazed at his incessant need to immediately apply biblical reference to someones comments. Which in turn leads to his ranting about the lunacy (as perceived by him) of religious beliefs... whether topic oriented or not. Especially when his own belief in man-made global warming borders on religion or cult.

In his post above, Larry asserts the Butterfly Effect which is part of Chaos Theory to substantiate the arrogance that man does in fact control the earth.

Graphs that postulate to track the exact average temperature of the earth 10' or 100's of thousands of years before recorded history are all based on theory and speculation... not actual temperature data. Why don't these graphs include an accuracy tolerance? Because if they did, the margin for error would be outside the acceptable realm to support the theoretical values their BELIEFS are based on.

Yes, scientist can take core samples and make hypothesis and marginally accurate predictions of what the climate was like during those periods. But once again, it is arrogant to believe they can provide the kind of accuracy they or Larry asserts.

And Larry has always conveniently avoided the subject of how the "man-made" global warming supporters abruptly changed from CO to CO2 as the scourge of the planet a few years ago. Or how they are now moving on to other "green house" gases as the reason.

The biggest problem with Larry and those like him is that they completely ignore or minimize more influential forces, like solar activity, or tectonic plate activity, or polar axis shift.

Should man do all we can to be good stewards of the environment. Absolutely!! But to continue to have delusions of grandeur about our ability to control the planet is just laughable!

Bitter cold records broken in Alaska – all time coldest record nearly broken,

Jim River, AK closed in on the all time record coldest temperature of -80°F set in 1971, which is not only the Alaska all-time record, but the record for the entire United States. Unfortunately, it seems the battery died in the weather station just at the critical moment

but Murphy’s Law intervenes









Gene Simmons Military Tribute

Zell/Granny 2012

Project Augusta


Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most
Grandpa Bob
Professional Fence Hanger / Spectator
Former Crew Chief
Grandma's Rocking Chair

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Grandma / Gpa,

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:
I am laughingly amazed at Larry's constant portrayal of theory as fact.

And sadly amazed at his incessant need to immediately apply biblical reference to someones comments. Which in turn leads to his ranting about the lunacy (as perceived by him) of religious beliefs... whether topic oriented or not. Especially when his own belief in man-made global warming borders on religion or cult.

In his post above, Larry asserts the Butterfly Effect which is part of Chaos Theory to substantiate the arrogance that man does in fact control the earth.

Graphs that postulate to track the exact average temperature of the earth 10' or 100's of thousands of years before recorded history are all based on theory and speculation... not actual temperature data. Why don't these graphs include an accuracy tolerance? Because if they did, the margin for error would be outside the acceptable realm to support the theoretical values their BELIEFS are based on.

Yes, scientist can take core samples and make hypothesis and marginally accurate predictions of what the climate was like during those periods. But once again, it is arrogant to believe they can provide the kind of accuracy they or Larry asserts.

And Larry has always conveniently avoided the subject of how the "man-made" global warming supporters abruptly changed from CO to CO2 as the scourge of the planet a few years ago. Or how they are now moving on to other "green house" gases as the reason.

The biggest problem with Larry and those like him is that they completely ignore or minimize more influential forces, like solar activity, or tectonic plate activity, or polar axis shift.

Should man do all we can to be good stewards of the environment. Absolutely!! But to continue to have delusions of grandeur about our ability to control the planet is just laughable!

Well said.

Where are all the climate change haters?
Didnt we have almost 3000 records set last month?
Last year you guys were running the flag up the pole about the record amount of snow?Ignoring the fact that climatologists have said again and again we will have more severe weather more often.

Just like the record severe storms we have already had again last month?

YOU ran the flag up the pole about temps? where are you now?

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers: Last year you guys were running the flag up the pole about the record amount of snow?

It was sarcasm in response to the man-made global warming cultist pointing to the a handful of recent years being proof of global warming!

I don't know a single person on this board that doesn't believe in climate change. It's whether or not man is the cause that is the issue.

If any of you had worked in as close a proximity to the man-made global warming cultist as I have, you'd know where their agenda comes from and the lengths they will go to protect their interest.

When the Federal Government is dolling out BILLIONS of dollars to push an agenda that is self-serving and affirming for many, the line forms right over there... and don't dare try and get in the way!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: stanman,

Help me understand why China is going to spend BILLIONS to try to curb it there?

Heck when did the commies become concerned about what they are putting into the air?

Maybe it has something to do with the THICK SMOG they have over every city they have that has smoke stack after smoke stack thats blocking out the sun during the day?

quote:

Help me understand why China is going to spend BILLIONS to try to curb it there?

Heck when did the commies become concerned about what they are putting into the air?

One can, of course, impact their immediate enviornment. If you have been downtown in a big third world city lately you know the reality of choking on exhaust fumes.
But to control the destiney of the plant.... pleeeease.

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:

quote:

Help me understand why China is going to spend BILLIONS to try to curb it there?

Heck when did the commies become concerned about what they are putting into the air?

One can, of course, impact their immediate enviornment. If you have been downtown in a big third world city lately you know the reality of choking on exhaust fumes.
But to control the destiney of the plant.... pleeeease.

CV ol buddy ever hear of acid rain?
What happened to it?
I know!
Do a little fact checking on it and let me know what you find.

We caused acid rain,we changed our policys and it went away.

would that be proof of our impact on the enviroment?

Look into it and let me know!

quote:

Do a little fact checking on it and let me know what you find.

Greeting Chief! My research shows that our King and the Pope continue to declare the earth is flat and all subjects will adhear to this decree, to include Chicken Little, until which time Columbus signs his contract and can prove to the contray.
Good humor intended with a smattering of truth.