What Do We Think About Climate Change

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

The cherry picking is being done by the AGW crowd. Besides, there is no proof that glaciers that have retreated did so because of fossil fuel use.

Balderdash, as Hoyte would say. The vast majority of glaciers are retreating; no one has to cherry-pick to find them.

And your flat statement about there being no proof is contradicted by the majority of scientists worldwide; it's rather presumptuous of you to be claiming to have the ultimate word.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

In another place the Norwegian website says "During the 1990s many Norwegian glaciers advanced substanially. They represented a major discrepancy compared to the global pattern. After 2000, the Norwegian glaciers behave in accordance with the global pattern. "

I suspected that post wouldn't stand up to a close look, and he may just have been copying and pasting something from a skeptic's site. It's a common ploy in such places: roll out an impressive number of links, quotes, facts and figures to make an argument look overwhelming, and hope no one checks them all..

Someone was trying to snow us, if you'll forgive the pun.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

So, I went to the Norwegian site you listed, which happens to be the very first example you listed. Here is the specific link.

http://www.nve.no/en/Water/Hydrology/Glaciers/

Here is what it says as first bold faced heading in the article: "The Norwegian glaciers are still retreating"

Then they had a link to follow up on the headline, and here is what it said:

" 2009 - the glaciers are retreating

Twenty-seven glaciers were measured in 2009. The on-going general retreat is continuing. Twenty-two glaciers retreated, three glaciers showed minor change, and two glaciers showed some advance. The measured glaciers constitute around 14 % of the glacier area in Norway."

Remember, this is from the link you posted. Clearly, when you try to use that link to convince us that Norwegian glaciers are generally growing you are misleading us.

whats really interesting is
who do the deniers think they are fooling ?

there sources are found out every time and yet they insist on continuing to present them anyway
they either are obviously oil and gas industry funded sites involved in a disinformation campaign or they are wildly misrepresented as you have just found out

whats also interesting is that no mater how obviously the information supports the theory of rapid climate change the deniers will just imagine there own data and cheerfully present it as if no one will notice its completely bogus

oh well
I had a feeling it would not take long for our newest contributor to this thread to notice deliberate misunderstandings turning into blind insistence

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Boston

whats really interesting is
who do the deniers think they are fooling ?

there sources are found out every time and yet they insist on continuing to present them anyway
they either are obviously oil and gas industry funded sites involved in a disinformation campaign or they are wildly misrepresented as you have just found out

whats also interesting is that no mater how obviously the information supports the theory of rapid climate change the deniers will just imagine there own data and cheerfully present it as if no one will notice its completely bogus

oh well
I had a feeling it would not take long for our newest contributor to this thread to notice deliberate misunderstandings turning into blind insistence

It's amazing how Boston thinks he has any credibility left.

[Boston]

and who was it that just misrepresented the data so badly

one of the deniers wasn't it ?

at some point the deniers efforts kinda look like cognitive dissonance from a purely psychological point of view

one of them gets caught blatantly misrepresenting data and then this last bit of spit and venom

why

was your cause found to be deliberately and deceitfully misrepresenting the data so now its back to the childish insults and accusations

instead of lashing out in frustration you might chalk it up to a learning experience and be the better for it
fat chance of that happening eh

please feel free to quote any data that I quoted as supporting my view that then turned out to directly refute my view, feel free to point out were I used industry pr to support my view or where I misquoted or misrepresented any of the papers or researchers I have cited

best of luck with that

B

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No. what's balderdash is the impression Marco is trying to give that overall worldwide, glaciers are not shrinking.

I suspect that like a lot of balderdash that skeptics post on here, his list wouldn't stand up to a close scrutiny to begin with. And even if it's a hundred percent accurate, so what? There are at least 160,000 glaciers worldwide; the fact that a relative handful may be growing proves nothing worth mentioning.

Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1850; only 26 remain. Which means more glaciers have melted just in Montana than there are on any skeptic's list of glaciers that are supposedly growing....

Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomenon, while 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 releases have a ~60 year history, with ~60% of the total anthropogenic emissions FOR ALL TIME released within the last ~30 years. The only warming period that could ever have been plausibly linked to anthropogenic emissions was ~1979-1995.

Please explain how anthropogenic emissions that were 1/1000 of present could have caused glacial retreat in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The warmers will never adopt a 'threshold of significance' just as they will never divulge what empirical data would falsify their narrative.

Please tell us what, short of observing another 200 years of perfectly OK climate (which no one alive can do) despite rising anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels, would falsify the AGW narrative?

Please offer a 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions; an emission level that will not affect the climate adversely as alleged. Is it 1/10 of present (.8Gt/yr) ? Or is it 1/100 present (.08Gt/yr)? Or how about 1/1000 of present (.008Gt/yr)? While you decide upon a threshold (not likely) or once again defer to more platitudes and balderdash (much more likely), keep in mind two things:

• Atmospheric CO2 was rising at the points in history when anthropogenic emissions were at each of these levels.
  
  
• We can NEVER return to even the 1/10 of present emissions standard, as humans now emit more CO2 simply by exhaling.

Jimbo

[Boston]

how about a point by point response

Jimbo
Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomenon, while 'climatologically significant' anthropogenic CO2 releases have a ~60 year history, with ~60% of the total anthropogenic emissions FOR ALL TIME released within the last ~30 years. The only warming period that could ever have been plausibly linked to anthropogenic emissions was ~1979-1995.

one simple graph proves you wrong on all counts



Jimbo
Please explain how anthropogenic emissions that were 1/1000 of present could have caused glacial retreat in the 18th and 19th centuries.

the premise of your question is inaccurate, please see previous

Jimbo
The warmers will never adopt a 'threshold of significance' just as they will never divulge what empirical data would falsify their narrative.

pick any spot in the last 800,000 years previous to the industrial age ( funny looking spike at the end of the graph ) and that will be just fine



Jimbo
Please tell us what, short of observing another 200 years of perfectly OK climate (which no one alive can do) despite rising anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels, would falsify the AGW narrative?

another 200 years ? we have actually developed accurate records going back nearly a million years and pretty good records but containing a slightly higher level of uncertainty going back hundreds of millions of years



Jimbo
Please offer a 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions; an emission level that will not affect the climate adversely as alleged.

please see previous

Jimbo
Is it 1/10 of present (.8Gt/yr) ? Or is it 1/100 present (.08Gt/yr)? Or how about 1/1000 of present (.008Gt/yr)? While you decide upon a threshold (not likely) or once again defer to more platitudes and balderdash (much more likely), keep in mind two things:

looks like about 280 would do nicely

Jimbo
* Atmospheric CO2 was rising at the points in history when anthropogenic emissions were at each of these levels.

uh huh, care to validate that within the data please

Jimbo
* We can NEVER return to even the 1/10 of present emissions standard, as humans now emit more CO2 simply by exhaling.

actually not
as our biomass increases we replace within the ecosystem other species and so total co2 from respiration is roughly a net zero, although if you want to include driving efficient species like buffalo to near extinction and replacing them with methane factories like cattle then yes our simple biological needs has added to the problem


love
B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

You did not answer even one of my points. All you did, all you EVER do, is bluff and bluster.

The graph YOU posted above shows that from 1751-1801, anthropogenic emissions were 1/1000 of present, yet as the Neftel, et al (Siple Cores) graphed data clearly shows, CO2 levels were rising, AT LEAST 100 years before the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions:






Is it your contentions that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels at that time was the result of those anthropogenic emissions? Most 'warmer' scientists say that the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions is ~1945. Look where that is on the Neftel, et al graph!

And since glaciers were retreating back then, is it your contentions that emissions 1/1000 of present caused that?

Answering the question of the threshold of significance with "looks like about 280 would do nicely " is just more childish silliness, since this is an atmospheric CO2 level, NOT an anthropogenic emission level. I'm asking what level of anthropogenic emission you believe is below the threshold of climatological significance and therefore acceptable. Your "280 ppm" answer is like someone saying "four o'clock" when someone asks you if a Cartier is a good wristwatch

The only biomass that reduces CO2 levels is plants, since all the animals (including us) are net emitters of CO2. Your warmer gurus even contend that plants are net emitters since their carcasses (wood) will rot and release CO2 at a much faster rate that they can sequester it. So again you offer only bluff and bluster instead of substance.

And what would falsify the narrative for you? You still won't answer that question.

Jimbo

[Marco1]

I must say you guys are rather disappointing.

Clearly the Norwegian web site does contain contradictory information and I should have spotted that.
However to say that I am trying to deceive you by posting that, is a joke.
First of all it would be a waste of my time since you do not represent any public opinion nor lobby group, only yourself and your own opinions, so we are debating at a personal level here.
Second, coming from a warmist side, to accuse of deception is rather odd.

This thread must contain at least 500 hokey stick graphs, that have been demonstrated to be false, fabricated with false data or a program that picks the data to produce the wanted hokey stick.
And I am only naming one demonstrated deception. Should I list them all, I think I would be rather bored by the time I hit the first 2% in the deceptions list.

So like my grandmother use to say...if you live in a glasshouse don't throw stones.

And...after all...even if it were true that ALL glaciers are melting, and that the polar cap is ice free and that we are now able to grow corn in Antarctica, what does it matter? The only real and important issue is if it was caused by humans, not the wether patterns that have changed constantly for millions of years independently of who inhabited the planet.

But I suppose that such would be logic, and there isn't much of that left here.

I am off now to find a good Italian Ricotta Cake reciepe. A much more interesting subject to pursue.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

I must say you guys are rather disappointing.

No, we aren't disappointing. You were sitting and waiting for a response you could argue with, and we accommodated you.

Clearly the Norwegian web site does contain contradictory information and I should have spotted that.

Yes, you should have.

However to say that I am trying to deceive you by posting that, is a joke.
First of all it would be a waste of my time since you do not represent any public opinion nor lobby group, only yourself and your own opinions, so we are debating at a personal level here.

I didn't accuse you of attempting to deceive us; I commented that you probably copied and pasted info from a deceptive site. Which means you were the deceived (and gullible) one....

Second, coming from a warmist side, to accuse of deception is rather odd.

This thread must contain at least 500 hokey stick graphs, that have been demonstrated to be false, fabricated with false data or a program that picks the data to produce the wanted hokey stick.
And I am only naming one demonstrated deception. Should I list them all, I think I would be rather bored by the time I hit the first 2% in the deceptions list.

I don't even know where to start with that one; I'd have to write a book. So I won't touch it.

So like my grandmother use to say...if you live in a glasshouse don't throw stones.

Your grandmother sounds like a smart woman; you should follow her advice.

And...after all...even if it were true that ALL glaciers are melting, and that the polar cap is ice free and that we are now able to grow corn in Antarctica, what does it matter? The only real and important issue is if it was caused by humans, not the wether patterns that have changed constantly for millions of years independently of who inhabited the planet.

You're the one who made the post on the subject; evidently you thought at the time it was important. Have you suddenly changed your mind?

But I suppose that such would be logic, and there isn't much of that left here.

Well, I'll definitely agree with you on that one....

I am off now to find a good Italian Ricotta Cake reciepe. A much more interesting subject to pursue.

Am I right in assuming you actually know the difference between a good Italian Ricotta Cake recipe and a bad one? If so, I'd appreciate you sharing a good one when you find it.

In between working 12 hours a day (or night) and arguing with people on the internet, I do a fair amount of cooking. But unfortunately, my expertise with tasty, reasonably authentic Italian cooking begins and ends with being able to make a decent focaccia....

[Boston]

ya but that level of sloppy research invariably is found in the deniers claims over and over again

countless examples later and one can only suggest there is a pattern going on here

Jim
yes, I could have answered your question about what level of anthropomorphic emissions would be acceptable directly, but it was a trick question, because its premise was once again faulty

any level beyond the natural variability of the recent age is bound to be bad for any species evolved within the recent age
that level being consistently somewhere between 200 and 300 over the last 800,000 years

my suggestion is that we hold total co2 atmospheric concentration with in that range was perfectly sound advice although my reasoning may not have been as clear as you would have liked it

we should be on an ever decreasing diet of fossil based fuels
we should be ahead of the curve in terms of alternative fuels
we should be developing and profiting from technologies that make use of these new fuels
we should be kicking ass economically except for the piss poor politicians selling us out at every turn
there is no energy crisis there is only a self interest crisis
that and a desperate need for a revolution

simple reality is that we could be burning carbon neutral fuel sources and not have this issue of an ever increasing level of atmospheric co2

in short
I answered your questions
you just didn't like the answers

what I have noticed though is that you ignored most of the answers

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

ya but that level of sloppy research invariably is found in the deniers claims over and over again

countless examples later and one can only suggest there is a pattern going on here

Jim
although I could have answered your question about what level of anthropomorphic emissions would be acceptable directly, but it was a trick question, because its premise was once again faulty

any level beyond the natural variability of the recent age is bound to be bad for any species evolved within the recent age
that level being somewhere between 200 and 300

my suggestion is that we hold total co2 atmospheric concentration with in that range was perfectly sound advice although my reasoning may not have been as clear as you would have liked it

we should be on an ever decreasing diet of fossil based fuels
we should be ahead of the curve in terms of alternative fuels
we should be developing and profiting from technologies that make use of these new fuels
we should be kicking ass economically except for the piss poor politicians selling us out at every turn
there is no energy crisis there is only a self interest crisis
that and a desperate need for a revolution

simple reality is that we could be burning carbon neutral fuel sources and not have this issue of an ever increasing level of atmospheric co2

in short
I answered your questions
you just didn't like the answers

what I have noticed though is that you ignored most of the answers

cheers
B

Bluff, bluster and endless platitudes.

What else would we expect from the

Master of ********



My questions were very straightforward. If you expect to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels by cutting emissions, because it is your contention that humans have cause all or most recent CO2 rise, then what level is acceptable? What achievable emission level (we know that a 90% reduction IS NOT achievable by any means) corresponds to what CO2 level and trend in the past? Why will you not answer these questions? In the end, the answers are in the graphs above for all to see, so you can go on being coy about it all you want, the truth is in the numbers:

CO2 levels were rising long before anthropogenic emission could have possibly been a factor in that rise.

And still no answer on what would falsify the narrative. If it's a bona fide hypothesis, as you contend, then it must be falsifiable under some set of circumstances. So what are those circumstances?


Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

ya but that level of sloppy research invariably is found in the deniers claims over and over again

Really? Name one.

Jimbo

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Clearly the Norwegian web site does contain contradictory information and I should have spotted that.
However to say that I am trying to deceive you by posting that, is a joke.

I will own up to being the one who accused you of trying to mislead us. It is hard to see how it could be otherwise, since the very first thing that showed up in the Norwegian link that you posted was a headline that the Norwegian glaciers are melting... really impossible to miss in my opinion.

However, if you truly and legitimately missed it, then I apologize for the accusation.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

.....
Am I right in assuming you actually know the difference between a good Italian Ricotta Cake recipe and a bad one? If so, I'd appreciate you sharing a good one when you find it.

In between working 12 hours a day (or night) and arguing with people on the internet, I do a fair amount of cooking. But unfortunately, my expertise with tasty, reasonably authentic Italian cooking begins and ends with being able to make a decent focaccia....

There must be several dozen italian cheese cake recipe, some good some not so good.
The difficulty in the ricotta cake is to achieve the pastry base and cover to remain moist yet cooked.
I have been doing the same ricotta cake for a long time and wanted to see if someone had a better idea to achieve the said results.
Basically the one that seem to be good, are more or less the same as the one I do. I found a german one that does not use pastry base but incorporates the flower and almond flower in the ricotta cream and poors it all in a mold...hum...wasn't game to try that one.

To do a good Ricotta Cake, (Crostata di ricotta) you must start with the base, that is pasta frolla.
The traditional recipie for pasta frolla is very easy to remember.
4,3,2,1
That goes for
400g of flower
300g of sugar
200g of butter
100g of egg yolk

I change the flower up a bit and the sugar down a bit to make it less heavy.
So 450/250/200/100. 100 grams of eggs is 2 yolk and one whole egg.

take the butter cold from the fridge (no don't soften it up, disregard the hundred of reciepe that say so) and place the butter in cubes and the flower in a food processor, and work it to crumbs.
Put the flower/butter in a circle on the table and add the sugarin a circle on top and the eggs in the center.
Work it the lest time possible to get an even consistency, roll it in a ball and wrappet it in plastic wrap and put in the fridge for 2 hours or overnight.

The ricotta filling goes like this:

One kilo fresh ricotta, (possibly not the one they sell in pots in the supermarket)
4 eggs
250g sugar
one lemon zest
one orange zest
1/2 spoon of cinamon
1/2 spoon of vanilla essence
If you don't hve anything against sultanas, add 40 grams washed and dried after the filling is done.

Add all the ingerdients for the filling in your food processor ( minus the sultanas) and work into a cream. Those who now say they need to boil the mixture need their head examined.

Get your pasta frolla out of the fridge. Get a ten inch dismontable mold and cut baking paper to cover it inside...base and walls of course. Yes it will crumble. You won't get it perfect. Place the paer cut out on the table and stretch half your pasta frolla with a rolling pin over the paper. This will allow you to pick the base up and put it in the mold without swearing.
Tuck the base in with the paper and all round. If necessary cut stripes of pasta and fill in the sides pressing with your fingers.
Poorthe mixture in the cake base.
With the remaining frolla, make either another circle to cover it all, or thin strips to make a lattice and cover it that way.

Preheat oven at 180C or 170 if fan forced. Cook for aprox 60 minutes.
Keep an eye on it because it may turn dark too quickly before the inside is cooked. If so turn the heat down a tad. You will also need to find the best position for the shelf in your oven.
You will know it is cooked inside by using a skewer. It is cooked when the skewer comes out clean.

It is an easy cake to make but it takes practice to get it good every time.
Usualy as with any dish, the say is that it takes 20 goes at it.