What Do We Think About Climate Change

385 pages to demonstrate or prove exactly what? the sun still shines the clouds occasionally deliver some form of precipitation and the wind blows, cow or other farts or not... Ho Hummmmm

 

Like I said earlier in this thread . . . . . . . . .

Here is a new one


My shift is done, good day

Cheers!
Angel

 

a = straight relationship in the "missionary" position?
b = Marriage? (co-sign)
c = Love over kisses?
d = 69 as a binary activity?
e = "free love"?

 

You trivialize probably the most crucial *missing* foundational principle of the entire AGW narrative as a "pet demon" ?

No wonder so many people have bought into this load of crap.

WONDER B may be the "Master of ********" but you get to be the "Master of Idiocy"

Jimbo

 

Yep; pet demons. I never spoke their names, but the first thing you did was to summon them in response anyway.

I'm sorry, Jimbo. But they're your obsessions, not mine. you'll have to deal with them without me.....and you'll also have to deal with the fact that most scientists think you're blowing smoke out your fundament when you discuss either of them.

 

thats humorous
I wasnt aware I was required to comment on each and every post

you might check post 5707, 5676, and most importantly 5679 and make comment since you must have also "forgotten"

Just saying

love
B

 

let's see:

Post 5707: NOT A PAPER. Just your blah, blah, blah and a graph you have taken from an opinion article from Nature, not a paper.

Post 5679: NOT A PAPER. Just a piece of opinion written by....and taken from....?

Post 5679 http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...-about-climate-change-21390-7.html#post356776: NOT A PAPER but an Nature's article from Mason Inman. There we can find a Cook's statement with no support of what he says and some quotes from the Real Climate frequent contributors Caldeira & Archer, talking about their speculative models and simulations in which they claim long time residence but not showing the data sustaining such modelings.

Don't you realize the article talks MODELS all the time?

And probably you are aware that "residence time" or "timelife" means the duration of time for 63% of athmospheric CO2 to be tranformed or eliminated of the system. So, to just say a "fraction" of CO2 remains for hundreds or thousands of years is misleading and malicious.


Now let's see the references Mason cites (realize: NOT YOU) at the bottom of his article:

1. Flannery, T. The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change 162 (Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2005).

A book (http://www.theweathermakers.org/), not a peer reviewed paper we can check. Anyhow I would like to read it.

Interesting from an interview with Tim Flannery:

TIM FLANNERY: Well, the first thing's a bit esoteric, but what I want to look at is the reasons there's so little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the height of the warm period, this current warm period, as compared with previous warm periods. It's a sort of a technical issue, but it's a very important one, because it'll tell us a lot about what the big inputs are into our atmosphere, and how it responds to increases in carbon dioxide.

NANCE HAXTON: So is this one of the unanswered kind of causes of climate change to some degree?

TIM FLANNERY: I think so. I think it's one of the great unanswered questions, and it will teach us a great deal.

(bolded is mine)


2. Archer, D. et al. Ann. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc. (in the press).

Unable to investigate this. Not info on the title of the work.


3. Archer, D. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8719.html

Archer models and simulations speculating on the future, NOT MEASURED EVIDENCE


4. Tyrrell, T., Shepherd, J. G. & Castle, S. Tellus 59, 664–672, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00290.x (2007).

ABSTRACT
"Fossil fuels will have large impacts on ocean chemistry and climate during the period while they are being burnt (and carbon dioxide emitted) in large amounts. It is frequently assumed that these impacts will fade away soon thereafter. Recent model results, by contrast, suggest that significant impacts will persist for hundreds of thousands of years after emissions cease. We present a new analysis that supports these model findings by elucidating the cause of this 'fossil fuel hangover' phenomenon. We explain why the carbonate compensation feedback is atypical, compared to other feedbacks, in the sense that convergence is back towards a new steady-state that is distinct from the starting state. We also calculate in greater detail the predicted implications for the future ocean and atmosphere. The post-fossil fuel long-term equilibrium state could differ from the pre-anthropogenic state by as much as 50% for total dissolved inorganic carbon and alkalinity and 100% for atmospheric pCO2, depending on the total amount of future emissions."

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118533123/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

(bolded is mine)

This is NOT A PAPER ON MEASURED EVIDENCE, but a work trying to explain the physical processes that could support the long time residence.


5. Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388 (2008).

Caldeira's modeling See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032388.shtml


6. Archer, D. & Brovkin, V. Climatic Change 90, 283–297 (2008).

Here the work: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206

Archer MODELLING, not measurements: "The models agree that 20–35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2–20 centuries)."


So, these ARE NOT works on CO2 residence time measurements but one book we cannot read and whose author states present athmospheric CO2 is low, models and simulations and just ONE supporting (not measurements) analysis.

Are these the HUNDREDS of papers you had cited with evidences to support the long residence time? YOU ARE JUST A LIAR thinking all of us are as idiotic as you are.

 

Guillermo

are you serious

way wrong again
that piece I mentioned about ten times comes from this PAPER that has actually been PUBLISHED numerous times
It took me five seconds to look it up again from its tittle
have you ever had your comprehension level checked
or maybe your just not reading what gets posted
sorry but it seems your really haveing a hard time following the subject mater
there is simply no way anyone could come off reading my posts and have missed the detailed PAPER presented and even linked to in post 5684 and quoted in many subsequent posts along with multiple references

link to published work --------> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=13&ved=0CBMQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeosci.uchicago.edu%2F~archer%2Freprints%2Farcher.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf&rct=j&q=atmospheric+longevity+of+co2&ei=HGW_S5PYNIaJnQetjfSXCg&usg=AFQjCNEoXXkSrhx6royQrk3w-lwF_Qm_Mw&sig2=farExDWD9r1gtPFej9eYKQ


the publication information is right at the top there mate
dude
get some glasses or learn how to read or something
but accusing me of lying and then pulling a stunt like that last is just another perfect example of the hypocrisy deniers are willing to stoop to

 

Angel...what is your point?
It rains instead of snowing. So? Perhaps this winter was milder? Who cares? How many times has the weather "changed" in your lifetime? Why do you suddenly care now?
The ONLY possible debate is if changes are caused by man or not. And if they are BY HOW MUCH.
Nothing else matters because we can not change a dam thing. The Penguins have been around much longer than you and me ad I can guarantee they will "adapt" to any change the sun can throw at them. If they do not, then they will cark it, kick the bucket, die, good luck to them, it is called extinction and it is perfectly natural. And the same goes for the polar bear, and the koala, and that "extinct" green frog they found 40 years after it was supposed to be extinct. Etc etc.

The "planet" does not need "saving". It is man who needs to be saved from a new wave of megalomaniacs.
Greens tell us that all human kind is a pest, a desease that needs a cure. Them.
Good greef.

 

When cutting the rain forest to piece, cutting trees like no tomorrow for toilet paper is just one contibution of the unbalance of the nature and the human.
I am born in 1944 we where 2 billions, now we are 6.5 billions, the ressource of the planete need to be redistributed in a other way.
I think it that the green try to tell us.
As for the culprit on the global warming? I don't know, but I love my Polar Bear, so be nice with them
As for Hitler, honnestly I will not put his name. My parents had some bad encounter with his police. So I am biaised and don't like to see is name.
But as you teach me long time ago, it is just a forum, don't get to personal.
And I always remember when somebody teach me something true
Daniel

 

Are you going from financial politic posting to teaching sexual behavior?
I prefer by far the latter
I will answer you very interresting question:
a yes
b yes
c yes
d yes
e yes
f yes (surprise, surprise, you didn't know this one )
Daniel

 

What the sexual behavior has to do with:

Nothing, but its fun
Daniel

 

Just an example of your unjust denial of human influence.

The koala was hunted almost into extinction in the early twentieth century.

Learn your history Marco, gee, you're from Oz . . . . . :?:

Good luck!
Angel

PS

‘‘ The koala was hunted almost to extinction in the early 20th century, largely for its fur. Millions of furs were traded to Europe and the United States, and the population has not fully recovered from such decimations. Extensive cullings occurred in Queensland in 1915, 1917, and again in 1919 when over one million koalas were killed with guns, poisons, and nooses. The public outcry over the cullings was most likely the first wide-scale environmental issue that rallied Australians. Despite the growing movement to protect native species, the poverty brought about by the drought of 1926–28 led to another 600,000 koalas being killed during a one-month open season in August 1927. ’’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koala

https://www.savethekoala.com/koalashistory.html

 

What you actually say here is that the Greens are worse than Hitler because he 'only' murdered Jews and the Greens want to bring everyone to a different thought about the environment.

You can disagree with people but you cann't say that people are worse than Hitler only because they do not adhere to your favorite ideas.

This happend far to often by You, Jimbo1490, and others in this thread.

I will ask Jeff for that reason to close this thread.

Godwin's law has to be respected.

Good luck!
Angel

 

Jimbo seems to have a 'thing' about Hitler and Nazis. He's brought them up more than once to tell us how loved, admired and respected they were before the war. He thinks that somehow relates to climatologists and environmentalists today. His reasoning seems to be that people liked Hitler, and Hitler turned out to be a scumbag. Therefore, since people like climatologists, climatologists must be scumbags too.....