Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Yobarnacle]

did you leave?

[Yobarnacle]

catch you later

[Boston]

Phone call and then Dinner, sorry. Back in a bit.

cheers
B

[Boston]

ill stipulate to your dept energy figures

so lets figure out how many lbs are in a barrel of oil. Each barrel weighs in at about 300lbs, OK maybe a bit more but close enough.

90 million a day times 300lbs = 27 billion lbs of oil per day. for 365 days is 9.855 trillion lbs of oil burned every year

OK so how much coal

http://205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/images/2011.10.04/CoalProductionNations.png

about 8 billion short tons seems to be an average claim on world coal production. or 16 trillion pounds

so whats the carbon content of these fuels

If you go back to the US energy information link I provided your going to find that the average carbon content for coal lies somewhere between 60 and 80% so lets call it 70% just for fun.

the average carbon content of crude is about 85%
see
http://coe.uno.edu/meric/docs/OIL/Crude%20Oil%20Composition_Madhuri%20Mudragaddam_May%2027th%202010.pdf

the difference means we're going to calculate the two separately and then add em up. For the sake of our example I'd like to assume that all the oil and coal gets burned, granted we know it doesn't, various inefficiencies in the system forbid a 100% conversion as well as not all the oil is being processed into fuel. Some goes into other products but, and here's something that tends to be forgotten. Most trash in the world is either burned or dumped in the ocean. Not much ends up in a land fill. There's no real numbers on how much ends up where but the vast majority of our fossil fuels end up floating up a smoke stack. Very little even if it is made into plastics or textiles, tires or computer parts end up escaping the fire.

so we've got 16 trillion lbs of coal with 70% of that being carbon or 11.2 trillion lbs of carbon being converted by the combustion process each year.

add to that another 8.38 trillion lbs of carbon being converted by the combustion process of crude oil, again each year.

you end up with 19.58 trillion pounds of carbon available in the combustion process to combine with oxygen and produce our beloved CO2

so going back to our reference again each pound of carbon combines with 2.66 pounds of oxygen and we get 3.66 pounds of CO2

or

71.66 trillion pounds of CO2 just from these two sources alone, we could and probably should add in whats produced from natural gas.

but maybe your beginning to get the picture, we burn a lot of fossil fuels.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/assets/images/coal-chart.jpg

[hoytedow]

well I hit that nail right on the head now didn't I :D

Bamby, thats what the other thread is for, this ones to enlighten the deniers, and entertain the readers. Hows it working :P:P:P:P:P:P

Hoyt, something tells me you've a lot of road apples at your disposal, cause from way over hear you certainly appear full of something :D.

interesting, I wonder if you folks realize what your behavior must appear like to the readers

refusing to use peer reviewed citation. Insisting on ambiguous denial, while avoiding any discussion of even the most basic science one might have learned even in grade school.

Sorry peeps but your clinging to your denial with a death grip, and its not prettyWell, I do eat a lot of oats. :D

[hoytedow]

PS earth has cooled ?

You can't admit that burning fossil fuels produces CO2 as a byproduct but you want us to believe the earth has cooled?

Sorry but I'm not sure anyone's going to buy that one either Yobar

http://www.jonathanbwilson.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Avg_Temp_1900s.gif
That annual mean sure looks like its dropping.

[hoytedow]

can we agree that the world pumps about 90 million barrels of oil out of the ground every day and burns nearly all of it ?

as well as a yet to be determined amount of coal, just for fun lets call it 200 gigatonsOK, I'll stipulate I spilled a little. My hand was shaking from laughter. It's your fault really. :P

[hoytedow]

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

Fuel By mass [3] By volume [4] Percent fuel by mass
Gasoline 14.6 : 1 — 6.8%
Natural gas 14.5 : 1 9.7 : 1 5.8%
Propane (LP) 15.67 : 1 23.9 : 1 6.45%
Ethanol 9 : 1 — 11.1%
Methanol 6.47 : 1 — 15.6%
Hydrogen 34.3 : 1 2.39 : 1 2.9%
Diesel 14.5 : 1 0.094 : 1 6.8%

[Boston]

ya and thats going to be part of your problem Hoyt, your depending on Wikipedia for your information.

[Boston]

woops I did get that number wrong didn't I

Ok gotta fix that

one moment please

Ok edited

E gads Hoyt you were actually paying attention, must be all those oats :D

[hoytedow]

Have you told China? They burn a lot more than we do. Never mind. They won't listen any more than I will.

[Boston]

I think for the sake of accuracy you might want to quote the edited version of that post Hoyt.

After all it was you who pointed out the error wasn't it. And its your chance for that AHA moment you've been waiting for. Of course its also a great representation of how when some of us are shown to have made an error we readily admit it and are happy to correct it asap.

or is that a concept unfamiliar to your way of thinking :D

so lets add in natural gas ( thanks Hoyt for reminding me, almost forgot the noxious gasses :P:P:P:P:P:P)

[Lister]

Yes, who else? It is a normal evolution, and it doesn't mean its bad. So it will be not "Blame" but because off.
7 billions people will change the nature of the climate.
When I was born, the population was not 2 billions. So something has to give.
Lister

[Boston]

I already fixed em you just need to go back and cut and paste a little.

[hoytedow]

Aha moment: Aha!

[Boston]

looks like it, I'm pretty bleary from last night. Got in about 6am and might have got about 2 hours in before the dog decided it was time to get up. Its hard to get mad at him for being just to bloody happy.

anyway looks like world natural gas consumption is about 115 trillion cubic feet

http://205.254.135.7/forecasts/ieo/images/figure_40-lg.jpg

gotta look up the % of Carbon but thats a damn lot of cubic feet.

[Boston]

ok so we've got 115 trillion cubic feet and each 1000 feet produces 115lbs of CO2. ends up 13,225 trillion pounds of CO2

from
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

n the energy industry, however, 1 standard cubic foot (scf) of natural gas is defined at 60°F (= 15.6°C = 288.6°K) and 14.7 psia, rather than at STP (Handbook of Formulae, Equations and Conversion Factors for the Energy Professional, JOB Publications, Tallahassee, FL;). Solving again at this higher (relative to STP) temperature, we get:

n = (1 atm)(28316.85 L)/(0.08206 L atm/mole K)(288.6°K)
= 1196 moles CH4
That is, at the higher temperature, a given volume of gas will contain fewer moles, and less mass. Going again through the calculation for CO2 emitted, but using the value of 1196 moles of CH4, results in an answer of approximately 115 lb of carbon dioxide. [RMC]

so add that to the 71.66 trillion we came up with for oil and coal and you end up with 84.9 trillion pounds. We could add up a few other things but it might be becoming clearer just how much fossil fuels we produce each year.

the reason I went through all this is so that we could all see there's no BS involved. Its as plain as the nose on Frosty's face we burn an astronomical amount of fossil fuels each year and its only getting worse.

[Boston]

so lets check and see how well I did using just those three parameters, oil, gas, coal.

From
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.co2storage.org.uk/images/co2emiworld.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.co2storage.org.uk/&usg=__YQp2lPbZOeJkaB3LcwYJ-oSv3yw=&h=831&w=600&sz=62&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=Anqi8_WM1uKC5M:&tbnh=144&tbnw=104&ei=4JTuToPHKYni2AXPo9WmDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2BCO2%2Bemissions%2Bper%2Byear%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

http://www.co2storage.org.uk/images/co2emiworld.jpg

and from
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/mediafile/200912/02/P200912021515392118984617.png&imgrefurl=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/98666/99044/6830157.html&usg=__KXMCqgjIqEng-OwQZN7OG2Ds2jQ=&h=402&w=555&sz=17&hl=en&start=55&zoom=1&tbnid=-zjn3LrPqN8P9M:&tbnh=96&tbnw=133&ei=CJbuTraTLc242QX94N2lDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dworld%2BCO2%2Bemissions%2Bper%2Byear%26start%3D42%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/mediafile/200912/02/P200912021515392118984617.png

[CatBuilder]

Interesting. How much of the carbon is released as CO2 and how much is released as CO or other carbon containing compounds? This is relevant to the discussion as only CO2 is a green house gas, correct?

Also, CO is a very scary thing to have floating around everywhere in larger and larger amounts, though I have no idea what amounts we have, they should be spiking the exact same way as CO2 is, provided the CO2 spike is caused by burning fossil fuels.

And PS for Boston: You forgot that when garbage in a land fill decays, it also produces methane. Have you ever spotted a "full" landfill? They usually look like an unnatural hill of grass. They have a bunch of pipes sticking out of the hill that allow the methane from the decomposing garbage to escape. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas as well, correct?

[Boston]

yes methane is CH4 and is about 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2

I'm still working on the numbers, I've got to reduce my 100% conversion rate to something a little more reasonable. At which point I should fall somewhere in the realm of what everyone elses findings were. Of course I'm spending about an hour on it and you can bet these other studies lasted months if not years. So I'm bound to be off somewhere as I've no one but Hoyt checking my numbers, scary thought eh.

Seems like I come up with about 84.9 trillion lbs of CO2 from the three sources I've considered, these two studies I've quoted both come up with about 18 trillion although one of those studies doesn't run till present, so I kinda extrapolated the numbers out. My bet is I need to consider the combustion efficiency of each fuel. I might also need a bigger sampling of research to find the average findings of total CO2 production. I should also check my original data and see if I got a zero mixed up somewhere. pretty sure I have a factor of a hundred in there somewhere it doesn't belong. I'll figure it out.

damn and I'm supposed to be going out again tonight in a few hours. Ugh I'm going to be paying for it tomorrow I can see it coming.

[Yobarnacle]

ok I'm up from my siesta

[Yobarnacle]

use their numbers and reverse engineer

[Yobarnacle]

later

[Boston]

nah I found my error, it was in the second set of coal calculations, I used giga tons instead of megatons and I should have just used not let it confuse me and stick with billions of tons.

I think I've fixe it but frankly I'm dog tired and probably going to blow off my date for tonight.

I got about 42 billion tons and they got about 8 so my bet is the combustion efficiency and the % conversion to CO2 rather than soot, ash or CO brings that number down a lot. What I'm trying to do here is go through the numbers step by step and show that whats being reported is in general conservative estimates. Granted my methodology is going to be a lot more sloppy than in any of these studies but I should be able to get it close once I find all my errors and try and consider as many variables as they might have.

[Boston]

Ok well a little rather boring reading later and from what I can gather coal combustion is one very sloppy business. Very inefficient, but its hard to pin down an average. No one seems to have pulled the numbers together in a graph form for ease of presentation. but anything from 51% to 91% is realistic as far as I can see.

http://ufgscriteria.tpub.com/3_410_06/3_410_060050im.jpg

so I think I can safely drop say 30% off my total for coal just in combustion inefficiencies

which brings me down to 72.6 trillion lbs or 36 billion tons. So I'm thinking I could probably sneak up on this eventually.

how about if I subtract for the the combustion efficiency of oil. which as it turns out is really hard to calculate. I'd have to break down a barrel of oil into its most likely uses and then determine the efficiency of each, average out those and consider the % of each item. I think I'm going to use the efficiency of the two main components instead. more than 3/4 of it is fuel type liquids like gas diesel kerosene motor oil. Stuff like that. So I'll try and average out those and go from there. but before I do that I should subtract for the amount of oil thats goes to products not intended as fuel. Although we all know they are likely to end up fuel eventually.

hmmmm
girls wanting to go out so I'm going to split for a while
cheers
B

[Yobarnacle]

Boston,
If you want to do the calculations, by all means.
If it's a pain? don't fas yourself.

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

[hoytedow]

Boston, why do you hate us so? Don't be a hater. Embrace coal. It built this nation.


Oh, I get it. That's why you hate us.

http://www.coalcampusa.com/eastky/harlan/harlan.htm

[Pericles]

Great set of cartoons here.

http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/211/

[hoytedow]

More from the same place.

http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/the-huh-who-spoilt-christmas/

[Yobarnacle]

I have my own personal satelite. It has been following me for 10 years. I acquired it when I proposed that 2nd amendment rights weren't put in the constitution so us cowboys could swagger around packing. It was to guarantee the citizenry the means to over throw the government. Founding fathers had just accomplished a sucessfull revolution. Further more, smooth bore musket and canon were the army's arms and citizens as well. Parity was the intent. That meant private ownership of nukes. I got my satelite within the hour.

[Boston]

Boston,
If you want to do the calculations, by all means.
If it's a pain? don't fas yourself.

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this,

that is patently false as has been pointed out to our readers before

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

read it a few times if you have to Yobar, I'll even highlight a few things for you.





so coming from the guy who thinks he's got his own personal satellite, you also want us to believe that no amount of CO2 can alter the atmosphere "and" that "every" scientist knows this ?????.

Yikes

You may not have read the above citation but my bet is most of the other readers did. ( about ten times as many people read this as comment )

Even once I show that the CO2 estimates are conservative ( which I knew before I started ) and that in fact even more CO2 is going into the system than what is left over in the atmosphere ( by about 60% ) you've made it clear that no mater what, your not going to believe it. But you'd instead like to believe that " CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, " even when you've been shown numerous articles in respected publications from peer reviewed work that clearly indicates the exact opposite.

and yet you claimed "I'm" delusional.?????

Look up a psychological condition referred to as "projection" and get back to us on that.

Note to the readers
notice a pattern in the deniers diatribe. Once again they've circled back to an argument presented not more than five or so pages ago. Denying every logical response and reasonable explanation only to raise the same question over and over. This the essence of denial. To refuse all reasonable answers in preference of a lie. The idea that CO2 makes absolutely no difference and every scientists knows this but is afraid to say so is ludicrous in the extreme and has been proven so through multiple citation. Yet that is exactly what these guys insist on. Its called denial, its not based in reality, and it requires that the denier reject reality. Not pretty is it.

cheers
B

[Boston]

so lets see if I got this straight

even if we go through the numbers ourselves and see that the CO2 really does exist and really is flooding the system. your not going to believe it?

taking the energy dep numbers for fuel production and working the numbers ourselves, so no one can possibly miss that the CO2 exists, you still aren't buying it?

Cause I'm willing to show the readers in tangible absolute terms the truth of the climate change issue.

Are you seriously going to respond with "its a scam" and not so much as one peer reviewed work in support of your denial.

wow

but one good thing did come of it, no way the readers could possibly miss that your position is completely untenable.

[hoytedow]

Wir werden sehen.

[Boston]

or yours

[Yobarnacle]

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, BUT IT DOESN"T PAY TO SAY SO

you mistakenly left off an important part of the quote. I rectified it for you

[Boston]

I was just trying to save you the embarrassment

just wondering how anyone capable of bipedal motion can, well, just read it for yourself, not that it will make any difference whatsoever. Then realize that the rest of the scientific community ( you know the honest ones ) is scrounging by in poverty stricken anonymity.

Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies
From
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon&sa=U&ei=CubvTuDJDKqBsgLimv3lCQ&ved=0CBoQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHyj4OGrNdbXNLLpkYzAsDYUcwPaQ

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

I could go on and on about how much money the smear campaign is willing to dole out in an effort to save there hides from the litigation that is sure to eventually reach there doors

From
http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/behind_the_smears.cfm

Who’s Behind the Smears

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has a long track record of distorting the science and solutions of climate change. Its arguments tend to de-emphasize the environmental and economic risks of climate change, exaggerate the costs of addressing the problem and question the value of putting a policy in place at all, as this recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by AEI fellow Steven Hayward. In 2007, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that AEI was offering to pay scientists $10,000 to debunk global warming. AEI has received substantial funding from ExxonMobil and has received tobacco funding from Philip Morris.

Already infamous for its campaign featuring animated lumps of coal singing Christmas carols revised to tout coal's virtues, ACCCE's most recent embarrassment has blown into a full-fledged scandal: Bonner & Associates, Washington DC's most famous 'astroturf' consulting firms, was forced to admit that it had produced and sent forged letters to members of Congress opposing clean energy and climate legislation, on behalf of ACCCE. The scandal has resulted in Rep. Edward Markey's House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to investigate ACCCE's campaign.

I realize it will make absolutely no difference to you personally, but its important that our visitors and readers see that the site is a science and physics based site with rational people offering accurate and rational information

[hoytedow]

I would be proud to take oil money (they took plenty of mine). I know a guy who painted Communist Party USA posters, for money. Now that's capitalism!

[Yobarnacle]

GREENPEACE? Are you kidding me? Their credibility is LESS than ZERO! Nobody in their right mind believes the propaganda of those eco-nazis.

[Boston]

I posted several supporting articles and both are well documented, If you take the time to actually read the articles you will, as well as anyone else who cares to investigate there validity, quickly see that the articles are accurate and have provided ample information to prove themselves so.

Your entitled to your view Yobar but your not entitled to misinform the readers

It pays really well to sell out ones scientific credentials and take the deniers path to perdition

[Boston]

From

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/298288/rick-perry-big-oil-climate/

Denier Rick Perry Takes $11 Million From Big Oil, Then Claims Climate Scientists "Manipulate Data" For Money

So what does Perry do when a questioner points out that the National Academy of Sciences and observed data utterly disagree with his disinformation on climate change? He simply asserts with no evidence that a “substantial number” of climate scientists have “manipulated data” for money, as TP Green reports.

I got more info on the oil and gas industry paying off scientists and politicians than probably all other information combined

If you actually think that it "doesn't pay" to be a denier, well lets just revisit that comment about "me" being delusional.

your not going to fool anyone with this one either Yobar.

I'm just curious how anyone can cling to such patently false assertions with any form of straight face. I gotta wonder if your not just pulling my leg, cause some of this stuff is just ludicrous in the extreme. Tell me this is all some kinda joke, please, I'm begging ya. Ya just can't be serious.

[Boston]

Try reading this one and tell me that the makers of that movie weren't paid a fortune by the news media for not only airing that trash but for all the clips and interviews they generated

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

[Boston]

GREENPEACE? Are you kidding me? Their credibility is LESS than ZERO! Nobody in their right mind believes the propaganda of those eco-nazis.

wrong again Yobar, the evidence is irrefutable and the facts are against you yet again.

Apparently it pays really really well to be a denier on the take from big oil.

From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange



Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

[Yobarnacle]

no no, Boston. YOU are wrong. I say so. I have complete faith in my own good judgement. I've proved it in hazardess crisis after crisis for many decades. I've lived life to the fullest. I've squeezed the juice out of it. I raised my children to be sucessfull and competent. I have an excellent reputation and the highest credentials in my chosen profession. I've been to war, killed the enemy, saw my buddies die, and bled for my country. I've earned a right to my opinions. And IMHO you are wrong

[Boston]

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, BUT IT DOESN"T PAY TO SAY SO



and I respond with

I was just trying to save you the embarrassment

just wondering how anyone capable of bipedal motion can believe..... , well, just read it for yourself, not that it will make any difference whatsoever. Then realize that the rest of the scientific community ( you know the honest ones ) is scrounging by in poverty stricken anonymity.

Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies
From
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon&sa=U&ei=CubvTuDJDKqBsgLimv3lCQ&ved=0CBoQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHyj4OGrNdbXNLLpkYzAsDYUcwPaQ

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

I could go on and on about how much money the smear campaign is willing to dole out in an effort to save there hides from the litigation that is sure to eventually reach there doors

From
http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/behind_the_smears.cfm

Who’s Behind the Smears

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has a long track record of distorting the science and solutions of climate change. Its arguments tend to de-emphasize the environmental and economic risks of climate change, exaggerate the costs of addressing the problem and question the value of putting a policy in place at all, as this recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by AEI fellow Steven Hayward. In 2007, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that AEI was offering to pay scientists $10,000 to debunk global warming. AEI has received substantial funding from ExxonMobil and has received tobacco funding from Philip Morris.

Already infamous for its campaign featuring animated lumps of coal singing Christmas carols revised to tout coal's virtues, ACCCE's most recent embarrassment has blown into a full-fledged scandal: Bonner & Associates, Washington DC's most famous 'astroturf' consulting firms, was forced to admit that it had produced and sent forged letters to members of Congress opposing clean energy and climate legislation, on behalf of ACCCE. The scandal has resulted in Rep. Edward Markey's House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to investigate ACCCE's campaign.

I realize it will make absolutely no difference to you personally, but its important that our visitors and readers see that the site is a science and physics based site with rational people offering accurate and rational information

and your reply what ?

no no, Boston. YOU are wrong. I say so.

might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and go "na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na"

as I said

you are most certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are equally as certainly not entitled to misinform the readers.

Rapid Global Climate Shift is, unfortunately very real. If it weren't the deniers would be able to present some form of coherent rebuttal.

[Yobarnacle]

Exactly why I'm bothering with this thread, so the readers are correctly informed. More than just informing, I'm trying to give some peace of mind to folks stressed out over a fabricated horror scenario.
Life has enough stresses already. Financial worries, health problems, legal problems, family squabbles, job stress, marital problems, immigration problems, investment potfolio management concerns, worries about run-away government spending, unemployment, devalued dollar, worry about possible futures for children, worry about terrorists! Hey,pal! Proven fact! Stress is unhealthy and can even kill.
When the world finally finds out the scientists weren't just honestly mistaken but knowingly lied about global warming? They should be hauled before a world court, charged with crimes against humanity, and if convicted, executed. Not with some lethal injection recumbent on a gurney. Nope! Hang em high!

[Yobarnacle]

I posted a true life experience of mine over on http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/sea-stories-tall-tales-seas-forum-members-40853-new-post.html
Actually I was tempted to post it here, but...This thread was started about 6 years ago, and not by Boston. However, Boston seems to have comandeered it as his personal propaganda blog. Okay, whose ever it "belongs" to, it's not mine, so I posted elsewhere. Boston, I would be curious as to your take on the story though.

[Boston]

well your certainly an excellent example of denial. If you had any science to back up what your trying to foist off on the readers I'm sure you'd be a little more willing to support your position with it, but as it is. I say so is about the best you've come up with.

Its pretty obvious your opinion is wildly inaccurate

CO2 is a greenhouse gas by virtue of the size and shape of the molecule

are you actually denying that simple fact, discovered well over a hundred years ago. For Pete's sakes man its provable by experimentation to be so, yet your about to declare to the world that its all a scam, simply because "you say so"

Thats nuts dude
but you claim that I'm the delusional one ?

[Boston]

I gotta wonder what you think when you say something like, it doesn't pay to be a climate denier, and I come back with article after article about how the oil and gas industry is offering millions of dollars to deniers, you seem to just ignore it, but somewhere in there there's got to be some part of you that realizes you were obviously wrong about that.

every wonder why there is article after article concerning the oil and gas industry handing off money right and left to people who right antiscience papers.

[Yobarnacle]

sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You say I don't provide evidence, yet I have posted quotes from imminent scientists decrying global warming, and you ignore them or accuse them of being paid shills of the establishment. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick "your" scientists as credible, and denounce the opposition scientists. You can't make your facts more weighty than differing facts. If you want respect you have to give respect. I did post evidence as compelling as yours. Whose fault is it, if you are blinkered and can't see it?

[Boston]

3% of scientists who study global warming disagree with the theory, 97% agree. I most certainly commented on your post. You must have missed it.

Many deniers who are also credentialed scientists have been shown to be on the take. And many more have had there names fraudulently used by the deniers camp.

from
http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html

Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.

so please
shall we take a look at some of the scientists on your list and examine precisely what they say and think about climate change, where they get there funding from if its relevant and what field of study they are in.

It might come as a shock to you that the fraud in the denial camp is absolutely rampant but it will be another good point for the readers to realize

[Yobarnacle]

No, I don't want to encourage you to character assasinate dissenting scientists. You can do that all by yourself. It's just hot air. You can't make them uncredible just because you desperately want to. And you have only speculation and accusations they're on the take. Accusation isn't proof of guilt.
Let's look instead at raw data, which you earlier refused to do. You only want pre-digested and interpreted data, thats slanted your way.
Here is raw data.
Past earth warming periods as recorded encapsulated in antartic's ice record. This is the planet keeping records for us.


Look cyclic to you?


And since it's cyclic, it's not a impetus for us to mend our ways, which I admit should be improved on and mended, but not under the gun of global warming.

[Boston]

OK readers

check out this ****

look at the graph Yobar posts and see the huge spike on the right hand side, the one thats rather deceitfully hidden by the lines of the time delineations and by some strange coincidence just happen to be the same color as the polynomial fit of CO2, then tell me if you think that spike going up to 390 ppm ( if 390 were on the side bar ) exists anywhere else on that graph. Now I ask you, how could a single event be cyclical. And why if he had a valid point would he use a graph that hides the relevant data like that.

No, I don't want to encourage you to character assasinate dissenting scientists. You can do that all by yourself. It's just hot air. You can't make them uncredible just because you desperately want to. And you have only speculation and accusations they're on the take. Accusation isn't proof of guilt.

but gee wiz Robar what if only 10% of the guys on that list are actually climate scientists. What if only 15% have ever published a peer reviewed article, what if 80% had no refereed publication on climate science at all, and what if Inhofe who made the list was sued by the guys he quoted to get there names off it ? would that be just a construct of my sordid imagination ?

I know its difficult but just take a look right here -----> http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf

and really, how many times does it have to be said


from
http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html

Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.



Let's look instead at raw data, which you earlier refused to do. That is patently false, I was in the middle of developing the raw data concerning the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and you stated catagoricly that no mater what the findings it didn't mater. So it would seem that its you who would prefer to ignore the raw data. Hell lets look at some more raw data while we're at it which proves the deceitful nature of your graph

You only want pre-digested and interpreted data, thats slanted your way. Wrong again, well at least your consistent. OK I was developing data from the energy information orifice, using credible techniques to develop it and then use the data to determine for all to see exactly that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been accurately reported. It was you who stated CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….

Here is raw data.
way wrong
that is developed data in the form of a graph, and a very deciieftul graph at that, notice how the time delineations were deliberately drawn in to hide the spike in CO2 right there at the end. the one that absolutely not cyclical
Past earth warming periods as recorded encapsulated in antartic's ice record. This is the planet keeping records for us.


Look cyclic to you?

um did you miss that huge spike on the far right or something, did you see any other spike going up to 380 ppm on that graph anywhere? Are you blind ?

And since it's cyclic, There is absolutely nothing cyclic about it, this is unbelievable, you have deliberately mislead the public by posting a graph that hides the last and the pertinent years of our records, very decietfully done Yobar, had to come out eventually but ya, good job allowing the readers to see straight through your deception. How about if we post a graph that doesn't hide the last few years dramatic rise in the CO2 levels and compare it to the one you posted. it's not a impetus for us to mend our ways, which I admit should be improved on and mended, but not under the gun of global warming.

http://www.thebiggestsecret.org/forum/images2/Temperature+CO2_levels-CO2.gif

now lets look at Yobar's graph

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/open-discussion/65200d1324359419-global-warming-humans-blame-historical-global-warming.jpg

Notice how the spike in CO2 is being hidden by the lines denoting time. Also notice how the side bar only goes up to 300ppm as if thats where the CO2 stops.

dude you just got caught deliberately misleading the readers. I think it only fair to give a chance to retract that graph and your statement concerning it.

or are you seriously going to try and tell us that the graph you have posted isn't hiding by its use of those time delineation lines the unique and unprecedented rise in CO2

foisting off the idea that present levels of CO2 are at ~300ppm is a blatant lie that it would appear you are trying to pass off to our readers. I believe we have a responsibility to at least speak truthfully on the forum.

[Boston]

here's your raw data on CO2

read it and weep

the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 392.4

any deviation from that fact is a blatant attempt to deceive our readers

Year Month Decimal Date Average 1958 3 1958.208 315.71 1958 4 1958.292 317.45 1958 5 1958.375 317.5 1958 7 1958.542 315.86 1958 8 1958.625 314.93 1958 9 1958.708 313.2 1958 11 1958.875 313.33 1958 12 1958.958 314.67 1959 1 1959.042 315.62 1959 2 1959.125 316.38 1959 3 1959.208 316.71 1959 4 1959.292 317.72 1959 5 1959.375 318.29 1959 6 1959.458 318.16 1959 7 1959.542 316.55 1959 8 1959.625 314.8 1959 9 1959.708 313.84 1959 10 1959.792 313.26 1959 11 1959.875 314.8 1959 12 1959.958 315.59 1960 1 1960.042 316.43 1960 2 1960.125 316.97 1960 3 1960.208 317.58 1960 4 1960.292 319.02 1960 5 1960.375 320.02 1960 6 1960.458 319.59 1960 7 1960.542 318.18 1960 8 1960.625 315.91 1960 9 1960.708 314.16 1960 10 1960.792 313.83 1960 11 1960.875 315 1960 12 1960.958 316.19 1961 1 1961.042 316.93 1961 2 1961.125 317.7 1961 3 1961.208 318.54 1961 4 1961.292 319.48 1961 5 1961.375 320.58 1961 6 1961.458 319.77 1961 7 1961.542 318.58 1961 8 1961.625 316.79 1961 9 1961.708 314.8 1961 10 1961.792 315.38 1961 11 1961.875 316.1 1961 12 1961.958 317.01 1962 1 1962.042 317.94 1962 2 1962.125 318.55 1962 3 1962.208 319.68 1962 4 1962.292 320.63 1962 5 1962.375 321.01 1962 6 1962.458 320.55 1962 7 1962.542 319.58 1962 8 1962.625 317.4 1962 9 1962.708 316.26 1962 10 1962.792 315.42 1962 11 1962.875 316.69 1962 12 1962.958 317.7 1963 1 1963.042 318.74 1963 2 1963.125 319.08 1963 3 1963.208 319.86 1963 4 1963.292 321.39 1963 5 1963.375 322.24 1963 6 1963.458 321.47 1963 7 1963.542 319.74 1963 8 1963.625 317.77 1963 9 1963.708 316.21 1963 10 1963.792 315.99 1963 11 1963.875 317.12 1963 12 1963.958 318.31 1964 1 1964.042 319.57 1964 5 1964.375 322.24 1964 6 1964.458 321.89 1964 7 1964.542 320.44 1964 8 1964.625 318.7 1964 9 1964.708 316.7 1964 10 1964.792 316.79 1964 11 1964.875 317.79 1964 12 1964.958 318.71 1965 1 1965.042 319.44 1965 2 1965.125 320.44 1965 3 1965.208 320.89 1965 4 1965.292 322.13 1965 5 1965.375 322.16 1965 6 1965.458 321.87 1965 7 1965.542 321.39 1965 8 1965.625 318.8 1965 9 1965.708 317.81 1965 10 1965.792 317.3 1965 11 1965.875 318.87 1965 12 1965.958 319.42 1966 1 1966.042 320.62 1966 2 1966.125 321.59 1966 3 1966.208 322.39 1966 4 1966.292 323.87 1966 5 1966.375 324.01 1966 6 1966.458 323.75 1966 7 1966.542 322.4 1966 8 1966.625 320.37 1966 9 1966.708 318.64 1966 10 1966.792 318.1 1966 11 1966.875 319.78 1966 12 1966.958 321.08 1967 1 1967.042 322.06 1967 2 1967.125 322.5 1967 3 1967.208 323.04 1967 4 1967.292 324.42 1967 5 1967.375 325 1967 6 1967.458 324.09 1967 7 1967.542 322.55 1967 8 1967.625 320.92 1967 9 1967.708 319.31 1967 10 1967.792 319.31 1967 11 1967.875 320.72 1967 12 1967.958 321.96 1968 1 1968.042 322.57 1968 2 1968.125 323.15 1968 3 1968.208 323.89 1968 4 1968.292 325.02 1968 5 1968.375 325.57 1968 6 1968.458 325.36 1968 7 1968.542 324.14 1968 8 1968.625 322.03 1968 9 1968.708 320.41 1968 10 1968.792 320.25 1968 11 1968.875 321.31 1968 12 1968.958 322.84 1969 1 1969.042 324 1969 2 1969.125 324.42 1969 3 1969.208 325.64 1969 4 1969.292 326.66 1969 5 1969.375 327.34 1969 6 1969.458 326.76 1969 7 1969.542 325.88 1969 8 1969.625 323.67 1969 9 1969.708 322.38 1969 10 1969.792 321.78 1969 11 1969.875 322.85 1969 12 1969.958 324.12 1970 1 1970.042 325.03 1970 2 1970.125 325.99 1970 3 1970.208 326.87 1970 4 1970.292 328.14 1970 5 1970.375 328.07 1970 6 1970.458 327.66 1970 7 1970.542 326.35 1970 8 1970.625 324.69 1970 9 1970.708 323.1 1970 10 1970.792 323.16 1970 11 1970.875 323.98 1970 12 1970.958 325.13 1971 1 1971.042 326.17 1971 2 1971.125 326.68 1971 3 1971.208 327.18 1971 4 1971.292 327.78 1971 5 1971.375 328.92 1971 6 1971.458 328.57 1971 7 1971.542 327.34 1971 8 1971.625 325.46 1971 9 1971.708 323.36 1971 10 1971.792 323.56 1971 11 1971.875 324.8 1971 12 1971.958 326.01 1972 1 1972.042 326.77 1972 2 1972.125 327.63 1972 3 1972.208 327.75 1972 4 1972.292 329.72 1972 5 1972.375 330.07 1972 6 1972.458 329.09 1972 7 1972.542 328.05 1972 8 1972.625 326.32 1972 9 1972.708 324.93 1972 10 1972.792 325.06 1972 11 1972.875 326.5 1972 12 1972.958 327.55 1973 1 1973.042 328.55 1973 2 1973.125 329.56 1973 3 1973.208 330.3 1973 4 1973.292 331.5 1973 5 1973.375 332.48 1973 6 1973.458 332.07 1973 7 1973.542 330.87 1973 8 1973.625 329.31 1973 9 1973.708 327.51 1973 10 1973.792 327.18 1973 11 1973.875 328.16 1973 12 1973.958 328.64 1974 1 1974.042 329.35 1974 2 1974.125 330.71 1974 3 1974.208 331.48 1974 4 1974.292 332.65 1974 5 1974.375 333.16 1974 6 1974.458 332.13 1974 7 1974.542 330.99 1974 8 1974.625 329.17 1974 9 1974.708 327.41 1974 10 1974.792 327.21 1974 11 1974.875 328.34 1974 12 1974.958 329.5 1975 1 1975.042 330.68 1975 2 1975.125 331.41 1975 3 1975.208 331.85 1975 4 1975.292 333.29 1975 5 1975.375 333.91 1975 6 1975.458 333.4 1975 7 1975.542 331.74 1975 8 1975.625 329.88 1975 9 1975.708 328.57 1975 10 1975.792 328.35 1975 11 1975.875 329.33 1976 1 1976.042 331.66 1976 2 1976.125 332.75 1976 3 1976.208 333.46 1976 4 1976.292 334.78 1976 5 1976.375 334.79 1976 6 1976.458 334.05 1976 7 1976.542 332.95 1976 8 1976.625 330.64 1976 9 1976.708 328.96 1976 10 1976.792 328.77 1976 11 1976.875 330.18 1976 12 1976.958 331.65 1977 1 1977.042 332.69 1977 2 1977.125 333.23 1977 3 1977.208 334.97 1977 4 1977.292 336.03 1977 5 1977.375 336.82 1977 6 1977.458 336.1 1977 7 1977.542 334.79 1977 8 1977.625 332.53 1977 9 1977.708 331.19 1977 10 1977.792 331.21 1977 11 1977.875 332.35 1977 12 1977.958 333.47 1978 1 1978.042 335.09 1978 2 1978.125 335.26 1978 3 1978.208 336.61 1978 4 1978.292 337.77 1978 5 1978.375 338 1978 6 1978.458 337.98 1978 7 1978.542 336.48 1978 8 1978.625 334.37 1978 9 1978.708 332.33 1978 10 1978.792 332.4 1978 11 1978.875 333.76 1978 12 1978.958 334.83 1979 1 1979.042 336.21 1979 2 1979.125 336.64 1979 3 1979.208 338.13 1979 4 1979.292 338.96 1979 5 1979.375 339.02 1979 6 1979.458 339.2 1979 7 1979.542 337.6 1979 8 1979.625 335.56 1979 9 1979.708 333.93 1979 10 1979.792 334.12 1979 11 1979.875 335.26 1979 12 1979.958 336.78 1980 1 1980.042 337.8 1980 2 1980.125 338.28 1980 3 1980.208 340.04 1980 4 1980.292 340.86 1980 5 1980.375 341.47 1980 6 1980.458 341.26 1980 7 1980.542 339.34 1980 8 1980.625 337.45 1980 9 1980.708 336.1 1980 10 1980.792 336.05 1980 11 1980.875 337.21 1980 12 1980.958 338.29 1981 1 1981.042 339.36 1981 2 1981.125 340.51 1981 3 1981.208 341.57 1981 4 1981.292 342.56 1981 5 1981.375 343.01 1981 6 1981.458 342.52 1981 7 1981.542 340.71 1981 8 1981.625 338.51 1981 9 1981.708 336.96 1981 10 1981.792 337.13 1981 11 1981.875 338.58 1981 12 1981.958 339.91 1982 1 1982.042 340.92 1982 2 1982.125 341.69 1982 3 1982.208 342.87 1982 4 1982.292 343.83 1982 5 1982.375 344.3 1982 6 1982.458 343.42 1982 7 1982.542 341.85 1982 8 1982.625 339.82 1982 9 1982.708 337.98 1982 10 1982.792 338.09 1982 11 1982.875 339.24 1982 12 1982.958 340.67 1983 1 1983.042 341.42 1983 2 1983.125 342.67 1983 3 1983.208 343.45 1983 4 1983.292 345.08 1983 5 1983.375 345.76 1983 6 1983.458 345.32 1983 7 1983.542 343.93 1983 8 1983.625 342.08 1983 9 1983.708 340 1983 10 1983.792 340.12 1983 11 1983.875 341.35 1983 12 1983.958 342.89 1984 1 1984.042 343.87 1984 2 1984.125 344.59 1984 3 1984.208 345.29 1984 5 1984.375 347.36 1984 6 1984.458 346.8 1984 7 1984.542 345.37 1984 8 1984.625 343.06 1984 9 1984.708 341.24 1984 10 1984.792 341.54 1984 11 1984.875 342.9 1984 12 1984.958 344.36 1985 1 1985.042 345.08 1985 2 1985.125 345.89 1985 3 1985.208 347.49 1985 4 1985.292 348.02 1985 5 1985.375 348.75 1985 6 1985.458 348.19 1985 7 1985.542 346.49 1985 8 1985.625 344.7 1985 9 1985.708 343.04 1985 10 1985.792 342.92 1985 11 1985.875 344.22 1985 12 1985.958 345.61 1986 1 1986.042 346.42 1986 2 1986.125 346.95 1986 3 1986.208 347.88 1986 4 1986.292 349.57 1986 5 1986.375 350.35 1986 6 1986.458 349.7 1986 7 1986.542 347.78 1986 8 1986.625 345.89 1986 9 1986.708 344.88 1986 10 1986.792 344.34 1986 11 1986.875 345.67 1986 12 1986.958 346.89 1987 1 1987.042 348.2 1987 2 1987.125 348.55 1987 3 1987.208 349.56 1987 4 1987.292 351.12 1987 5 1987.375 351.84 1987 6 1987.458 351.45 1987 7 1987.542 349.77 1987 8 1987.625 347.62 1987 9 1987.708 346.37 1987 10 1987.792 346.48 1987 11 1987.875 347.8 1987 12 1987.958 349.03 1988 1 1988.042 350.23 1988 2 1988.125 351.58 1988 3 1988.208 352.22 1988 4 1988.292 353.53 1988 5 1988.375 354.14 1988 6 1988.458 353.64 1988 7 1988.542 352.53 1988 8 1988.625 350.42 1988 9 1988.708 348.84 1988 10 1988.792 348.94 1988 11 1988.875 349.99 1988 12 1988.958 351.29 1989 1 1989.042 352.72 1989 2 1989.125 353.1 1989 3 1989.208 353.64 1989 4 1989.292 355.43 1989 5 1989.375 355.7 1989 6 1989.458 355.11 1989 7 1989.542 353.79 1989 8 1989.625 351.42 1989 9 1989.708 349.83 1989 10 1989.792 350.1 1989 11 1989.875 351.26 1989 12 1989.958 352.66 1990 1 1990.042 353.63 1990 2 1990.125 354.72 1990 3 1990.208 355.49 1990 4 1990.292 356.1 1990 5 1990.375 357.08 1990 6 1990.458 356.11 1990 7 1990.542 354.67 1990 8 1990.625 352.67 1990 9 1990.708 351.05 1990 10 1990.792 351.36 1990 11 1990.875 352.81 1990 12 1990.958 354.21 1991 1 1991.042 354.87 1991 2 1991.125 355.67 1991 3 1991.208 357 1991 4 1991.292 358.4 1991 5 1991.375 359 1991 6 1991.458 357.99 1991 7 1991.542 355.96 1991 8 1991.625 353.78 1991 9 1991.708 352.2 1991 10 1991.792 352.22 1991 11 1991.875 353.7 1991 12 1991.958 354.98 1992 1 1992.042 356.08 1992 2 1992.125 356.84 1992 3 1992.208 357.73 1992 4 1992.292 358.91 1992 5 1992.375 359.45 1992 6 1992.458 359.19 1992 7 1992.542 356.72 1992 8 1992.625 354.77 1992 9 1992.708 352.8 1992 10 1992.792 353.21 1992 11 1992.875 354.15 1992 12 1992.958 355.39 1993 1 1993.042 356.76 1993 2 1993.125 357.17 1993 3 1993.208 358.26 1993 4 1993.292 359.17 1993 5 1993.375 360.07 1993 6 1993.458 359.41 1993 7 1993.542 357.36 1993 8 1993.625 355.29 1993 9 1993.708 353.96 1993 10 1993.792 354.03 1993 11 1993.875 355.27 1993 12 1993.958 356.7 1994 1 1994.042 358.05 1994 2 1994.125 358.8 1994 3 1994.208 359.67 1994 4 1994.292 361.13 1994 5 1994.375 361.48 1994 6 1994.458 360.6 1994 7 1994.542 359.2 1994 8 1994.625 357.23 1994 9 1994.708 355.42 1994 10 1994.792 355.89 1994 11 1994.875 357.41 1994 12 1994.958 358.74 1995 1 1995.042 359.73 1995 2 1995.125 360.61 1995 3 1995.208 361.6 1995 4 1995.292 363.05 1995 5 1995.375 363.62 1995 6 1995.458 363.03 1995 7 1995.542 361.55 1995 8 1995.625 358.94 1995 9 1995.708 357.93 1995 10 1995.792 357.8 1995 11 1995.875 359.22 1995 12 1995.958 360.42 1996 1 1996.042 361.83 1996 2 1996.125 362.94 1996 3 1996.208 363.91 1996 4 1996.292 364.28 1996 5 1996.375 364.93 1996 6 1996.458 364.7 1996 7 1996.542 363.31 1996 8 1996.625 361.15 1996 9 1996.708 359.41 1996 10 1996.792 359.34 1996 11 1996.875 360.62 1996 12 1996.958 361.96 1997 1 1997.042 362.81 1997 2 1997.125 363.87 1997 3 1997.208 364.25 1997 4 1997.292 366.02 1997 5 1997.375 366.46 1997 6 1997.458 365.37 1997 7 1997.542 364.1 1997 8 1997.625 361.89 1997 9 1997.708 360.05 1997 10 1997.792 360.49 1997 11 1997.875 362.21 1997 12 1997.958 364.12 1998 1 1998.042 365 1998 2 1998.125 365.82 1998 3 1998.208 366.95 1998 4 1998.292 368.42 1998 5 1998.375 369.33 1998 6 1998.458 368.78 1998 7 1998.542 367.59 1998 8 1998.625 365.81 1998 9 1998.708 363.83 1998 10 1998.792 364.18 1998 11 1998.875 365.36 1998 12 1998.958 366.87 1999 1 1999.042 367.97 1999 2 1999.125 368.83 1999 3 1999.208 369.46 1999 4 1999.292 370.77 1999 5 1999.375 370.66 1999 6 1999.458 370.1 1999 7 1999.542 369.1 1999 8 1999.625 366.7 1999 9 1999.708 364.61 1999 10 1999.792 365.17 1999 11 1999.875 366.51 1999 12 1999.958 367.86 2000 1 2000.042 369.07 2000 2 2000.125 369.32 2000 3 2000.208 370.38 2000 4 2000.292 371.63 2000 5 2000.375 371.32 2000 6 2000.458 371.51 2000 7 2000.542 369.69 2000 8 2000.625 368.18 2000 9 2000.708 366.87 2000 10 2000.792 366.94 2000 11 2000.875 368.27 2000 12 2000.958 369.62 2001 1 2001.042 370.47 2001 2 2001.125 371.44 2001 3 2001.208 372.39 2001 4 2001.292 373.32 2001 5 2001.375 373.77 2001 6 2001.458 373.13 2001 7 2001.542 371.51 2001 8 2001.625 369.59 2001 9 2001.708 368.12 2001 10 2001.792 368.38 2001 11 2001.875 369.64 2001 12 2001.958 371.11 2002 1 2002.042 372.38 2002 2 2002.125 373.08 2002 3 2002.208 373.87 2002 4 2002.292 374.93 2002 5 2002.375 375.58 2002 6 2002.458 375.44 2002 7 2002.542 373.91 2002 8 2002.625 371.77 2002 9 2002.708 370.72 2002 10 2002.792 370.5 2002 11 2002.875 372.19 2002 12 2002.958 373.71 2003 1 2003.042 374.92 2003 2 2003.125 375.63 2003 3 2003.208 376.51 2003 4 2003.292 377.75 2003 5 2003.375 378.54 2003 6 2003.458 378.21 2003 7 2003.542 376.65 2003 8 2003.625 374.28 2003 9 2003.708 373.12 2003 10 2003.792 373.1 2003 11 2003.875 374.67 2003 12 2003.958 375.97 2004 1 2004.042 377.03 2004 2 2004.125 377.87 2004 3 2004.208 378.88 2004 4 2004.292 380.42 2004 5 2004.375 380.62 2004 6 2004.458 379.66 2004 7 2004.542 377.48 2004 8 2004.625 376.07 2004 9 2004.708 374.1 2004 10 2004.792 374.47 2004 11 2004.875 376.15 2004 12 2004.958 377.51 2005 1 2005.042 378.43 2005 2 2005.125 379.7 2005 3 2005.208 380.91 2005 4 2005.292 382.2 2005 5 2005.375 382.45 2005 6 2005.458 382.14 2005 7 2005.542 380.6 2005 8 2005.625 378.6 2005 9 2005.708 376.72 2005 10 2005.792 376.98 2005 11 2005.875 378.29 2005 12 2005.958 380.07 2006 1 2006.042 381.36 2006 2 2006.125 382.19 2006 3 2006.208 382.65 2006 4 2006.292 384.65 2006 5 2006.375 384.94 2006 6 2006.458 384.01 2006 7 2006.542 382.15 2006 8 2006.625 380.33 2006 9 2006.708 378.81 2006 10 2006.792 379.06 2006 11 2006.875 380.17 2006 12 2006.958 381.85 2007 1 2007.042 382.88 2007 2 2007.125 383.77 2007 3 2007.208 384.42 2007 4 2007.292 386.36 2007 5 2007.375 386.53 2007 6 2007.458 386.01 2007 7 2007.542 384.45 2007 8 2007.625 381.96 2007 9 2007.708 380.81 2007 10 2007.792 381.09 2007 11 2007.875 382.37 2007 12 2007.958 383.84 2008 1 2008.042 385.42 2008 2 2008.125 385.72 2008 3 2008.208 385.96 2008 4 2008.292 387.18 2008 5 2008.375 388.5 2008 6 2008.458 387.88 2008 7 2008.542 386.38 2008 8 2008.625 384.15 2008 9 2008.708 383.07 2008 10 2008.792 382.98 2008 11 2008.875 384.11 2008 12 2008.958 385.54 2009 1 2009.042 386.92 2009 2 2009.125 387.41 2009 3 2009.208 388.77 2009 4 2009.292 389.46 2009 5 2009.375 390.18 2009 6 2009.458 389.43 2009 7 2009.542 387.74 2009 8 2009.625 385.91 2009 9 2009.708 384.77 2009 10 2009.792 384.38 2009 11 2009.875 385.99 2009 12 2009.958 387.27 2010 1 2010.042 388.47 2010 2 2010.125 390.07 2010 3 2010.208 391.19 2010 4 2010.292 392.43 2010 5 2010.375 392.94

[Yobarnacle]

yes co2 is up. Is temperature up to match it? Nope. I posted earlier thatscientist know co2 doesn't affect global warming, but they won't say it because other Bostons will jump down their throat. :) I'm paraphrasing. the quote was doesn't pay to say so.
yes co2 is a greenhouse gas.
No, it's not causing global warming.
weve been warming ever since last ice age, identically to other equaly spaced times. A natural cycle.
Scientists who jump to conclusion elevated co2 level is causal of elevated temperatures are doing bad science, and they know they are.

Naive innocent girl goes on a dinner date. Eats sushi for first time, drinks wine the first time, looses her virginity, and ends up pregnant.

Conclusion: sushi makes you pregnant.

Bad science.

coincidental is not causal, just happened at same time.
If you think there maybe causality, fine. Study it.
But it ain't ok to say hay everybody, stop making co2. you're causing global warming.

also notice previous periods spiked higher before falling. Currently, the spike seems blunted and prematurely plateuing. Maybe we are turning the corner for a down hill slide. Global cooling not warming.

[Boston]

Cute story
the banana logic isn't fooling anyone

Nor is that very deceitful graph you posted

Nor is the patently false claims that CO2 had spiked higher on that graph anywhere

Nor is claiming CO2 is a greenhouse gas but doesn't cause warming.

Nor is the fact that you accuse me of exactly what your doing, refusing to look at the raw data.

nor is the idea of you posting studies that ended up in court for plagiarism and fraudulent information, as well as defamation of character

Nor is ignoring basic physics, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas then increased concentrations of CO2 "must" result in warming.

Sorry but your efforts to deceive the readers with patently false information and then refusing to correct it is becoming very obvious

its equally as obvious you have no effective rebuttal to each and every one of your assertions being so wildly incorrect in post # 1551 to the point of being blatantly deceptive

speaking of which are you or are you not willing to correct that false depiction of our present levels of CO2 as proven by the raw data you seem to have ignored again

at which point I'd have to ask our readers if vigorously defending the truth constitutes some form of malicious attack. Which is something else I've been accused of. Apparently if one does not accept that 1+1=3 then one is being unreasonable around here.

[Yobarnacle]

Are you angry with me or the data? Can't stand information that refutes your mindset?
Best not to have a "set" mind. Leave a little room for mental adjustment.
I do not expect to convince you of anything.
If you suddenly flipflopped and cried "Eureka! I see the light!", I'd think you were just being sarcastic.
What I'd dearly love to see, is you being a bit, just a tiny bit, more tolerant of differing veiwpoints.
You are not the smartest person in the room. Nor am I.
I don't know all the folks here yet, but Pericles is a bright light.
Outshines me anyway.
It's inteligent and civilized, to be tolerant, respectful, and generously give credit where credit is due, even to an opposing point of veiw.

[Boston]

just the data

I'm never really all that angry at the person, just the idea that they could posibly believe in such drivel

[Boston]

maybe a little more of a detailed response

Are you angry with me or the data?

Just the data, I worked as a bouncer for years and its actually kinda hard to rattle my cage. Pretty much gotta take a swing at me before I really get tweaked, I do tend to get pissed off from time to time but its not generally on the net.

Can't stand information that refutes your mindset?

more like can't stand incorrect science, there are laws that govern how things work. For instance, CO2 is a greenhouse gas based not on some bizarre set of calculations but on direct experimental observation and also recently on various other methods

Best not to have a "set" mind. Leave a little room for mental adjustment.
I do not expect to convince you of anything.

um I think we've established that your grip of even the most basic science is miles off. Not sure you would have much you could "teach" without at least a rudimentary background.

If you suddenly flipflopped and cried "Eureka! I see the light!", I'd think you were just being sarcastic.

and your perfect streak of incorrect statements would be broken

What I'd dearly love to see, is you being a bit, just a tiny bit, more tolerant of differing veiwpoints.

Your asking me to believe that 1+1=3
how much tolerance can you expect

You are not the smartest person in the room. Nor am I.
I don't know all the folks here yet, but Pericles is a bright light.
Outshines me anyway.

He's a coal guy from Australia somewhere, hardcore denier with no taste whatsoever for the science that so clearly defined climate shift

It's inteligent and civilized, to be tolerant, respectful, and generously give credit where credit is due, even to an opposing point of veiw.

once again its a tad difficult when just about every trick in the book is thrown at you when your simply trying to explain the basics , literally things like 1+1= 2 instead of 3


For instance, if more greenhouse gasses exists, the atmosphere must respond by warming. If less exist the atmosphere must respond by cooling. Assuming no other major deviation from the "normal" conditions exist. Deal is no one has been able to identify any other source for the present levels of warming. Except for when you calculate for the added CO2 since the industrial age. Then it works out perfectly. Howd that happen eh. Might want to consider that one a bit longer.

How about this, I'll work on being a little less gruff ( which I can't deny I am ) and maybe you work on some of these basics. The simple reality is you've admitted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas now it might just be time to admit its getting warmer these last few years as well.

the data is overwhelming, even to the Kotch brothers funded Berkley study group

which by the way made it 4 for 4 major study groups that all found significant warming beyond the statistical probability

[Boston]

but your graph really was entirely deceitful and really should if your going to retain even the slightest glimmer of credibility be removed. Otherwise it would appear that you are deliberately trying to deceive the readers rather than just made an honest error in using a graph someone else fraudulently doctored.

[Yobarnacle]

The 2 graphs you displayed. They're the same graph, just separated the blue and red lines, right?

[Boston]

the one you showed has been doctored to hide the spike in CO2

If you look at the post in which I did a side by side you can pretty clearly see that although they display the same information one is detrended, most likely yours, although I'd have to look pretty close at the original data and then at the plot system each used to figure it out. But thats not realy the problem. The 100,000 year increments on the one you posted very obviously are intended to mask the spike in CO2 at the far right. Not only that but yours fails to even note the high of 390+

its clearly been doctored because no self respecting scientist no mater which side of the fence they were on would have tried to hide data like that.

That graph is either from the IPCC or NASA somewhere I can't remember but those lines that yours has in it were added later, I'm sure of it. Hell I'll go find the original and note its source and date, then you can check yours and see when it was doctored by finding its original poster. To do that your going to have to note where you got it.

[Boston]

Ok so here it is in its original form from the IPCC TARR 2001 if your still having difficulty believing this is the original you can always go look up the TARR report and probably find an even earlier date.

I think

iagain yours has been detrended so its hard to tell

lets lay them side by side and see what the data dispersal looks like

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/climate_change/global_co2_temp.png

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/open-discussion/65200d1324359419-global-warming-humans-blame-historical-global-warming.jpg

yup that was originally data compiled and turned into the IPCC. The IPCC itself doesn't do any research.

as you can see in the IPCC original the spike in CO2 is very clear and its also obviously not cyclical. In the graph you found the spike is hidden by the year delineation lines which were pretty obviously put there to do exactly that.

Pretty damn deceptive if you ask me

My bet is whatever site you got that from is fraught with that kinda fraudulent nonsense

its really pretty easy to spot crap like that, the graph was in F not C and they screwed up the conversions. Also they used as fat a lines as possible, never happens that way in an actual scientific graph. Screws up the resolution. Something else that tipped me off was that the time delineations were the same color as the CO2 polynomial fit, no self respecting scientist would have done that if he could have avoided it. Oh and I'd see that data set before so that graph was familiar, now that I can see its definetly the same data set its been wildly detrended from its original, probably to help hide the obvious spike in CO2

[pdwiley]

Deal is you can argue 1+1 doesn't equal 2 ten ways from Sunday but no mater how you slice it, 1+1 = 2


Not if you count in binary, it isn't.

Classic example of making assumptions there......

PDW

[Yobarnacle]

i doubt there would be a conspiracy to mask data that was readily available on similar charts but with slightly different arrangement.
The blue spike isn't obscured to me. I see it readily enough.
Having the two graphs superposed, is one of the advantages of graphing data.
It permits at a glance to see coincidence. Lines or numbers that coincide.
It appears that all previous warming or cooling periods, the co2 and temperatures roughly make the same amplitudes varying by a squiggle here and there.

The current graphed levels show the co2 much more elevated than the temperature.
I know that alarms you, because you expect a flare of heat to match it.
Isn't it curious that the lack of a similar elevated temperature spike is not there, on either graph? Neither the superposed nor the separated?
What does that mean? They normally move up and down together, but co2 left temperature behind this time.
Thought provoking isn't it? darned curious.

[Boston]

well you weren't doubting exactly that just a few posts ago.

and Not at all, the rise in CO2 is so rapid that the system hasn't had a chance to catch up yet and find the new equilibrium.

Its plain as day the temps are rising and the reason they are rising are equally as plain as day

can't admit that graph has been doctored eh. or that its about as non cyclical as it gets :D

thats grim
thats really grim

[Yobarnacle]

nope. grim is learning you have an incurable, untreatable, fatal desease.

All I see on the graph are the graphed levels of co2 and temperatures over millenia.
Am I missing something, an invisible ink graph of the hidden agenda or malicious intent, or evilness of the graphs assembler?

[Yobarnacle]

or are you jumping to conclusions again?

[Boston]

yes your most definitely missing something, are you seriously trying to tell us that you can't see a difference in the original graph and the one thats been doctored. Can't see how its been lengthened and shortened, IE detrended. So it looks like there is less of a spike than there really is ? Your the one who wanted to get back to original data sources and sets, OK then, how about practicing what you preach eh.

okie dokie then ya, maybe some glasses would help that massive case of denial

this is the original graph and this is your own question
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/climate_change/global_co2_temp.png

Look cyclic to you?

hell no that doesn't look cyclical to me
anyone else see a gigantic whopping spike in CO2 anywhere else but right there in modern times ?

how about if we then move on to the temp data and include the latest study from Berkley

Funded by the deniers by the way

if you go to page three you can clearly see they agree quite nicely with the previous three major studies all showing temp to be increasing.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf

[Boston]

and here's the temp response to all that CO2


http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg

[Yobarnacle]

In a post far back, I lamented you can't tell a significant trend in climatology over a few years or even a few hundred.

Referring again to any of the multi millenia charts you prefer. The slope of the spikes including the spike we are on is much steeper than current rise in temperature. Yes, things are warming up a couple average degrees every couple hundred years. But thats not what the controversy is about.
The global warming controversy is supposedly, an enormous upswing in rate of temperature climb. A dangerous anomaly that will frie the planet.

It's not there. Actually the increase is at a slower rate, a more gradual slope than you would expect from examing previous warming periods.

Co2 is elevated. No denying. You say temperature hasn't caught up yet!
Well, maybe it will catch up and maybe it won't.

In the USA, and (not alone other countries enjoy that freedom) we have freedom of speech. That does not allow yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in a crowded airport.
If you do and someone gets trampled to death in the panic, you will be charged with 2nd degree murder.

So, what kind of scientist would cry "pending doom" on a crowded planet? Even before the temperatures start catching up, but we will hold them responsible anyway. Are you a responsible person, Boston?

[Boston]

LMAO

holly **** dude you gotta be kidding me

In a post far back, I lamented you can't tell a significant trend in climatology over a few years or even a few hundred.

hell yes you can, there called milankovitch cycles, pretty basic stuff actually.

Referring again to any of the multi millenia charts you prefer. The slope of the spikes including the spike we are on is much steeper than current rise in temperature. Yes, things are warming up a couple average degrees every couple hundred years. But thats not what the controversy is about.


there is no controversy and the rise in temp is exactly what the concern is all about. That 2 degree rise over only several hundred years is miles outside the norm. Obviusly you ignored your history classes. In the high Permian extinction event it took 1 million years for the siberian traps to raise temps 4°C which destabalized the organic carbon ( CH4 primarily ) which released and brought temps up another 5~6°C over about a 40,000 year period of time. Killed off everything down to about 2lbs.

you just admitted the temps are changing about 4000 times faster than in one of the greatest mass extinction event history ever saw. But you think its nothing to worry about. I'm sorry but I have to ask and with all the love and concern I can muster, are you daft man, I mean seriously. How can you possibly just have said that and still not get it. I might be able to understand this if you have some kinda learning disability of something like that. If thats the case then OK i owe you an apology and you just go ahead and believe whatever floats your boat. But seriously to actually try and spread this crap on a physics based forum in just unconscionable

The global warming controversy is supposedly, an enormous upswing in rate of temperature climb. A dangerous anomaly that will frie the planet.

its not a controversy and its not supposedly, its definitely about both the cause of change and the rate of change. Its only controversial among people who simply don't understand it.

It's not there. Actually the increase is at a slower rate, a more gradual slope than you would expect from examing previous warming periods.

what? and you have some data to support that claim or is this just another completely wild claim

Co2 is elevated. No denying. You say temperature hasn't caught up yet!
Well, maybe it will catch up and maybe it won't.

maybe it won't ? are you serious? what makes you think that an increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere can have any result but to increase temps?

In the USA, and (not alone other countries enjoy that freedom) we have freedom of speech. That does not allow yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in a crowded airport. But it does allow you to lie threw your teeth
If you do and someone gets trampled to death in the panic, you will be charged with 2nd degree murder.

So, what kind of scientist would cry "pending doom" on a crowded planet? Even before the temperatures start catching uput we will hold them responsible anyway. Are you a responsible person, Boston?

what kinda person wouldn't cry fire when the theater is on fire, but instead just run out the door. Well in this situation we can't just run out the door, we've all got to put out that fire together. And the sooner the better. :D


another cute story
does absolutely nothing to prove your point

I gotta admit even Hoyt and his vindictively taking hundreds of points from me while I turn the proverbial cheek ( wasn't a face cheek I turned Hoyt ) didn't surprise me as much as the mindless denial I'm hearing now. Its mind numbing to hear the illogic.

I am seldom rendered speechless by a denier. Most have at least some ability to comprehend the basics, but I gotta admit

wow
just wow

and you don't even recognize how much you've embarrassed yourself with this complete lack of comprehension.

Sorry I'm just stunned

absolutely stunned

wow

[Yobarnacle]

Have you ever taken a class in logic?
It's one of the math disciplines and a required class to graduate with a degree in math.
So is statistics, probability, both integral and differential calculus, analytical geometry, trigonometry, and algebra. Though most math majors test out of algebra cause most had 2 or 3 years of it in high school

[Boston]

Sure have and aced it as a mater of fact. whats that got to do with anything. Your not suggesting your refusal to put 2 and 2 together is logical are you ?

couldn't help but notice your on to another distraction rather than stick with one subject, determine whats correct and what isn't, and then move on, in a "logical" manor

Jumping from one topic to another in any science discussion without building a proper base of understanding with which to continue is a classic tactic of denial. Means we've gotten nowhere.

[Boston]

so far you've admitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its rising in the atmosphere. You've still not admitted that the present rise is not represented in any cyclical pattern found in any of the data sets developed to date. But who knows, maybe some day. And you've just now admitted that temps have risen about 2°C over the last 200 years. Although without any supporting data at all you'd like to think thats normal.

now lets see if we can't put it all together

CO2 is a greenhouse gas

greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmospher.
more greenhouse gas = more heat trapped = warmer average temps
CO2 is rising
Temps are rising

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
wonder whats causeing the temps to rise like that eh

anyone

anyone at all just sing right out if you know this one :P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[Yobarnacle]

nope. was curious you called me illogical, and I thought, 3 posibles. You don't know what logic is. you forget whom you're adressing. you're frustrated and petulant.
Thanks for clearing it up.

[Boston]

or a fourth
your completely illogical in your views towards climate science

lovely distraction tho, can't help but notice you do that every time your on the ropes

care to actually address the subject at hand or are you just going to dive into some other litany of complete nonsense again

have you noticed yet that on the rare occasion that you do try and cite supporting information that information turns out to be either blatantly fraudulent, like Inhofes list of 700. Or a detrended and doctored graph. Just as a couple of examples. Kinda smacks of a failure to establish credible criteria for a belief system doesn't it. And if not why not. How can you justify building a belief system on clearly flawed information. And better yet how can you justify mindlessly sticking to it rather than simply admit when your mistaken and incorporate the new information into your belief structure>

or is that to illogical

or is clinging with a death grip to the denial really all that appealing

[Yobarnacle]

Your eyes must work different from mine. When I read this chart, I see this phenomenon in the attachment. I chopped out pcs so it was clear where to I was referring. Use the chart complete, just look at the nodes I've singled out.

[Boston]

thank all the Gods for they do

this is the original graph

http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/climate_change/global_co2_temp.png

it does not have the resolution to show the temp change in recent times but it does have the resolution to show the CO2 spike over the last few hundred years.

The graph your still trying to foist off on us is a detrended version of the former. Which means its no longer a reasonable visual representation of the original.

The thickness of the lines and the resolution of the graph obscure the sudden rise in temps but at this resolution it can show the sudden rise in CO2

now is that really so hard to understand Yobar,

[Boston]

this is the accompanying spike in temps

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--LxGGpqSSo0/TaDj60EPQII/AAAAAAAABdc/A35BVdnORHo/s1600/2000-year-temp-800.jpg

[Yobarnacle]

I said any multi millenial chart you choose. and none of them show that steep slant upwards today. I believe this a natural cycle of the planet. A cycle that takes millenia to complete. We are near pinacle, and indeed may have passed over. Your insistance that a few centurys data is relevant is ridiculous. Look at the scale of the event. 100,000 years intervals.The last 200 years is just local weather by comparison.
You don't want me to quote you on the importantance of local weather do you?

[Boston]

Once again you only embarrass yourself. Had you looked into the issue a bit before just blurting out what you've been told to say by the deniers camp you would know the multi mllenial charts of which you speak are derived from ice core data taken at a number of different sites around the globe. The ice takes a while to form. In the last say 100 years or so ice has been melting pretty darn fast. Kinda hard to bring up a reading thats only say twenty years old when the youngest ice available it only maybe at best 1000 years since is locked its atmospheric sample.

Its called the permeability issue and its again so simple I even covered it in a lecture series I did a while back for a public group, lots of children in that group by the way as well as adults, I think maybe a few of the adults didn't want to hear it but the kids all had a light-bulb going on look to them. The snow might fall this year. but it takes a while for it to compact and trap the ice bubbles. Untill it does there is a constant exchange between the air in the snow and the atmosphere. Depending on location the process of locking can actually take up to 7K year. Which is why the argument that CO2 proceeds temp in the paleo climate record is bunk. The ice that traps the atmospheric sample is a lot older than the trapped atmosphere is.

CO2 is measured by virtue of trapped atmosphere. so its damn hard to get a reading closer than maybe a thousand years ago depends on where the ice core is from. Temp on the other hand is taken from the H2O molecule and the surface of the ice core sample reads that just fine.

So in the end we are looking at an ice core sample data set which can include data on CO2 that is very up to date. However it cannot show data on temp earier than about 1k years ago.

Therefore you aren't going to find any ice core data sets with todays temp spike depicted

If you had spent the time to research this kinda stuff for yourself before you had formed such a block headed opinion maybe you might save yourself some of the embarrassment of blurting out such a ridiculous demand.

We have multiple sources of data each with its own virtues and draw backs. Some depict data up to present and some are not able to.

Nice try tho, I actually had to think on that one.

[Yobarnacle]

well. WELL! I congratulate both of us. You more than me. I got you to think about what I said. :)

[Boston]

life is a two way street


you'd save yourself a lot of heartache if you'd just do a little research over at say Realclimate's web site. Some actual science based site rather than the nonsense sites that are so well funded by oil and gas. Educate yourself a little. Maybe learn a few new things :D

You might just learn what exactly the connection between CO2 and temp is and why its a physical impossibility to raise CO2 in the atmosphere without also raising temp .

[Yobarnacle]

so what do you do for a living? presentations on the dinner speaker circuit?

[Boston]

I'm like the vast majority of people who entered the sciences, broke, not working in my field, and still mostly doing what I did when I was working my way through school. I'm adamantly apposed to taking loans and proudly carry a credit score of, get this, zero. Insufficient information is what comes up. So I am cheerfully carrying no debt at all. Makes life a lot more pleasant let me tell you.

I've worked occasionally in various scientific fields and wrote a few papers, but none of that really maters as I've made it a point to remain anonymous on the net. To many whack jobs floating around and I deal with enough of those moonlighting at the clubs downtown.

I got lucky and did a lecture series about two years ago and one about five years ago.

Doesn't mater who I am or am not, I hate the academic arrogance anyway. What matters is that we maintain a site that provides valid and accurate information to all. I'm just here to figure out what kinda boat I should retire to. I just do this on the side. Sorta my thanks for such a great site. Thankless as it is I feel its kinda an obligation to the readers.

Kinda surprised Hoyt hasn't found it in his heart to snag as many points as the system will allow lately given that I've demolished more than the average number of deniers lately, blatant abuse of the system but I decided to make it a point to be a better "nonchristian" and turn the other cheek, I never respond in kind. Did I mention ass cheek. Oh well doesn't mater. As long as I maintain enough points to keep posting and keep learning

[hoytedow]

In almost every chart noted the temperature spiked before the CO2.
The occupants of the greenhouse would be dead without CO2. That is why its called a greenhouse gas.
Without CO2 plants wouldn't grow and all the vegetarians would starve to death.
I don't allow vegetarians on my property. They scare my plants.

[Boston]

a complete failure to comprehend post 1581 eh Hoyt ole been

[hoytedow]

Je comprends tout !

Bean! The word is bean!

[Yobarnacle]

hi Hoyt
Well, Boston, I'm sorry you're not working in your chosen field. Congrats on debt free. Me too. Always pay cash.We don't live ostentatiously. I discovered long ago, envy is the cause of lotsa troubles. Working in 3rd world countries as I frequently do, it's unwaise to display wealth. They already think I'm rich just because I'm american and a captain. We live comfortable, but not the life style most americans strive for.

[Yobarnacle]

I have some raw land. I posted it, "Never mind the dog, beware the owner. Trespassers will be violated"

[Yobarnacle]

the greatest producer of oxygen is the oceans. The microscopic plants on the surface. Since they produce oxygen, obviously absorb CO2. The oceans are more resilient than the alarmist believe

[Yobarnacle]

frijol amigo

[Boston]

Nor do I live any form of ostentatious life style. My big goal these days is to get a retirement boat built and do eco tours up on the inside passage. I got plenty of years left so I can have some fun with it as well. Can't wait to actually get started. Deal is our world is changing so fast, our oceans are in big trouble.

Oh well
I'll make use of it eventually
but until then I'm just a glorified carpenter trying to get published again.

Anyway so whats the deal, obviously Hoyt didn't comprehend the reason recent temp doesn't show up in the ice core data.

[Yobarnacle]

Hoyt
Are you mad at me?

[Boston]

ah how could I have missed it, another change of subject, on the ropes again eh.

classic, no wonder you hold such outlandish ideas, your never going to learn anything if you just run from ever admitting when someones made a perfectly valid point.

[Boston]

Hoyt
Are you mad at me?

you could be Hitler himself and as long as you don't believe in climate change and believe in the same god Hoyt does he'd be on your team.

[hoytedow]

Hoyt
Are you mad at me?No! I'm not even angry at Boston, just dismayed he refuses to see the light.
"En todas partes cuecen habas!"

[hoytedow]

Boston, no free hole means you must buy dinner and a movie first.

[Yobarnacle]

There you go again. The thread is 6 years old. It's been abandoned and revived several times. The poll is Do you believe humans responsible for global warming OR that its natural causes (and thrown in with it Not believe in global warming at all)
I have admitted that we are still warming after last ice age. I see no data to indicate an alarmist stance is warranted or appropriate. I think those who are alarmists are dangerous. More dangrous than catastrophic warming if it existed.

Co2 levels are high. Nobody knows why. Lots CLAIM they know why and bombard you with their propaganda.

The scenario that heightened CO2 will cause high temperatures from green house effect is unsubstantiated. Laboratory experiments aren't realistic because they don't include the earths biosphere. Perhaps more CO2 will stimulate more plant growth. Then we'll have an oxygen rich crisis where everything will want to spontaneously combust.

I'm a wait let's see guy. I admonish others to do likewise

[Yobarnacle]

samo samo fubar

[hoytedow]

samo samo fubarPor seguro.

[Yobarnacle]

Boston,
If you don't already have a thread for your retirement boat, why not start one? I have an unusual concept that may not have been tried before, but isn't outlandish looking. In fact could be as classy has you'd like.
And not cost a fortune and be green to boot.

[Boston]

Co2 levels are high. Nobody knows why. Lots CLAIM they know why and bombard you with their propaganda.

the mass isotopic balance studies as well as many other methodologies have clearly established that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is the direct result of the burning of fossil fuels

The scenario that heightened CO2 will cause high temperatures from green house effect is unsubstantiated.

It is a physical impossibility that an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere not result in warming.



from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79


and from

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question746.htm

we get a very basic understanding of the greenhouse effect

[Yobarnacle]

ok. We agree on something. I have long believed that increased CO2 levels were primarily from burning off large tracts of timber. Both intentional land clearing burning, and forest fires. Like the droughty summer we just had, forest fires everywhere in the west. Millions of acres up in smoke.

[Yobarnacle]

the folks burning off the rain forrests in south america, you can't stop them. It's a shame it's happening, but they're poor farming folk trying to make a subsistance living. They aren't going stop trying to survive for benefit of somebody in the future.

[Boston]

ok. We agree on something. I have long believed that increased CO2 levels were primarily from burning off large tracts of timber. Both intentional land clearing burning, and forest fires. Like the droughty summer we just had, forest fires everywhere in the west. Millions of acres up in smoke.

wow
you really are trying to misrepresent the data aren't you, or is it that you have selective comprehension skills, which is something else I notice about some folks desperate to cling to certain beliefs, What it says is CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests
so quite clearly its not just the burning of timber. If once again you'd done some research before jumping to conclusions you'd have found that its pretty easy to calculate the amount attributable to the burning of timber and the amount attributable to burning fossil fuels.

You might study up on the basic combustion reaction ----------->http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/

It was however a nice opportunity to show the readers who is in fact jumping to conclusions and who is depending entirely on the science for the pertinent information

[Boston]

This isn't the best graph in the world, but it does show the % of CO2 that is fossil fuel based and the % that is timber based

http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg

So again the wildly inaccurate belief

I have long believed that increased CO2 levels were primarily from burning off large tracts of timber.

or your jumping to the conclusion that we agree on that wildly inaccurate statement

obviously again the primary source of increases in CO2 concentrations is the burning of fossil fuels. Not the burning of timber, although timber is a distant second

But I give you credit for at least beginning to read the information provided. Its progress, albeit your selectively processing the information but it is progress

[Yobarnacle]

I didn't say there wasnt engine and power plant exhausts contributing..you know something?..you continually misrepresent my words, attack any data I post...I am tired of it. I don't need or deserve your abuse. I'm ignoring you from now on

[Boston]

ok. We agree on something. I have long believed that increased CO2 levels were primarily from burning off large tracts of timber. Both intentional land clearing burning, and forest fires. Like the droughty summer we just had, forest fires everywhere in the west. Millions of acres up in smoke.

Or you could just admit you had it all wrong again

what happens with most hardcore deniers is they eventually get tired of getting there asses handed to them every time they open there mouths.

It just gets pretty silly and its hard not to be overly sarcastic when dealing with blatant denial

[hoytedow]

This isn't the best graph in the world, but it does show the % of CO2 that is fossil fuel based and the % that is timber based

http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg

So again the wildly inaccurate belief



or your jumping to the conclusion that we agree on that wildly inaccurate statement

obviously again the primary source of increases in CO2 concentrations is the burning of fossil fuels. Not the burning of timber, although timber is a distant second

But I give you credit for at least beginning to read the information provided. Its progress, albeit your selectively processing the information but it is progressThat graph makes no mention of volcanic belching.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death."

[Boston]

well thats because the volcanic contribution is so small it just doesn't show up very well. That resolution thing I mentioned earlier :D Lets go look up exactly how much that volcanic contribution is shall we.

From
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

any other questions Hoyt ole "bean"

[hoytedow]

Or you could just admit you had it all wrong again

what happens with most hardcore deniers is they eventually get tired of getting there asses handed to them every time they open there mouths.

It just gets pretty silly and its hard not to be overly sarcastic when dealing with blatant denial
Feel better soon, Boston.

[Yobarnacle]

i'm unsubscribing this thread. see yall other threads. adios amigos

[Boston]

Its a lot more conducive to the learning process to just admit when you've been mistaken about something and move forward from there.

Running away is no way to further ones understanding of our present issues

I'm sure you'd like to think it was my level of frustration in communicating the science behind the theory however that might have had something to do with people who blindly refuse all logic and reason in preference to mindlessly denying the simply science behind the fact that Rapid Global Climate Shift is very real and very scary.

Little things like there's no correlation between spiking levels of CO2 and rising temp. Who dreams that **** up anyway. I mean really. When did anyone add insulation to there house and have it end up using more energy to heat.

[Boston]

If you want or need a more detailed analysis of the volcanic contribution you can find it here

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

[hoytedow]

I don't, but thanks anyway.

[Frosty]

I like to look at big pictures. I wonder if anyone might consider the orbit of the earth in relation to the sun. Would this not increase or decrease aquatic activity or synthesis of the Earth flora and fauna? might account to for numbers not measuring up to your expectations

When is the first flight to Keppal 8 anyway

[eyschulman]

While global worming is an important issue whatever the cause, it kind of distracts from some big human related problems that we could have a lot more controll over. Overpopulation and polution. I think we should put the corrective effort where it would get the best bang. Unfortunatly many people,human nature,and some major religions are against birth control. With polution humans are closely related to pigs in many ways.

[Boston]

I like to look at big pictures. I wonder if anyone might consider the orbit of the earth in relation to the sun. Would this not increase or decrease aquatic activity or synthesis of the Earth flora and fauna? might account to for numbers not measuring up to your expectations

When is the first flight to Keppal 8 anyway

called Maclkovitch cycles and yes this has been considered and no, unfortunately is not directly related to the recent dramatic spike in global temps.

[Frosty]

called Maclkovitch cycles and yes this has been considered and no, unfortunately is not directly related to the recent dramatic spike in global temps.

Ah the answer I was hoping for. So if its been considered and accepted as being contributory then why is it not included. It does not say on the graphs that this information is inaccurate due to what was it? Macldovich theory.

You see this is my point --although I stick my nose in just occasionally it seems to me the information you have or any one in the world has is inconclusive which is why the pig governments take little notice of it too.


However who am I to tell people what to believe or not.

Like flees talking about who's gonna wash the dog.

[Boston]

because that type of cycle is reasonably stable, and the recent warming isn't. IE the Milankovitch cycles have been around for eons and are an integral part of the system. Whats going on now is absolutely unique. Humans are digging up fossil fuels and burning them as fast as possible. The excess CO2 is a byproduct of that combustion

[Boston]

speaking of which this article from just the other day describes the situation perfectly

NASA
http://www.livescience.com/18255-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html

They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.)

"The fact we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system," lead researcher James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a statement. "But it's worth noting, because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming."

About the only thing thats surprising about all this information coming forward is that the science is still not able to cut through all the disinformation out there. In the US the denial rate among Joe public is about 50/50 although it is slowly improving

[CatBuilder]

They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per squaremeter during a solarminimum,than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.)

I still say one if the largest factors (which for some reason is being completey ignored) is the change in the planet's color from green to black.

It happens on roofs, parking lots and roads.

[Boston]

albedo change is definitely being considered, The urban island effect and the melting of the ice caps is changing the average albedo of the planet considerably. Partly its a feedback and partly its another man made forcing agent but its definitely not being ignored, I could probably find a pile of articles on it if your interested.

What this article isn't really touching on is that once the solar radiation is up to +0.25 watts ( height of the solar cycle ) rather than -0.25 then we'll see an increase of 1.08 watts per square meter, which is huge. At which point we're going to be really into the next big jump in temps. It should follow the Milankovitch cycles to some degree but what this article is pointing out is that the atmospheric CO2 is so high its overwhelming even that.

[michael pierzga]

I got snow covered Palm trees outback the boat. Newspaper reports the first time since 1956.
Very cold

[Boston]

the theory predicts a lot of extreme weather due to the fact that there's more energy available in the system. But overall there is a warming trend. Denver just got hit with a big up slope weather pattern. Its cold, snowy, got a couple feet actually but its not all that unusual.

the key thing is weather VS climate. Climate shift is an average of worldwide weather events. This is just one small event in among a tidal wave of events. Thats why they always wait to years end when they can average everything out till they announce how that years climate stacked up to all the other data

[rasorinc]

There is no global warming. The earth has not had a rise in temp since 1997.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/04/us-europe-weather-idUSTRE8130NK20120204

[Boston]

Ah ya gotta love the op ed pieces. Couldn't help but notice that it starts with improperly identifying our position in the syn cycle and goes on to focus on the HADcrut3 data set. Rather than engage in science and average all data sets, remove the highs and the lows and move forward from there. Clearly that was another opinion piece cherry picking the data.

Sorry but I wish you were correct on this one, unfortunately we are most definitely screwing up our atmospheric chemistry by altering the balance of greenhouse gasses

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

I still say one if the largest factors (which for some reason is being completey ignored) is the change in the planet's color from green to black.

It happens on roofs, parking lots and roads.It isn't green or black in Boston's town now.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/weather/index.html

How deep is the snow? The real snow.

[Boston]

well this one is heating up, and might just turn out to be something interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16901106

Apparently the EU is initiating some much needed carbon pollution reform, China being the bastion of environmental concern that it is, doesn't want to play. So China has banned its airlines from paying the carbon tax. Something I'm not sure will work anyway. The EU is likely to ban Chinese air line/s from entering EU air space. Which will cause a whole host of issues down the road. If we're lucky it will initiate the long needed collapse in this free trade farce.

In the end its the best thing that could be happening, if the EU starts using bio kerosene to fly on then its likely to be the start of an industry switch to the new and carbon neutral fuel. Assuming they can get it fired up soon enough to make a difference.

Long story short this might just be the fight that turns the oil and gas stranglehold over the fuels industry.

[hoytedow]

well this one is heating up, and might just turn out to be something interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16901106

Apparently the EU is initiating some much needed carbon pollution reform, China being the bastion of environmental concern that it is, doesn't want to play. So China has banned its airlines from paying the carbon tax. Something I'm not sure will work anyway. The EU is likely to ban Chinese air line/s from entering EU air space. Which will cause a whole host of issues down the road. If we're lucky it will initiate the long needed collapse in this free trade farce.

In the end its the best thing that could be happening, if the EU starts using bio kerosene to fly on then its likely to be the start of an industry switch to the new and carbon neutral fuel. Assuming they can get it fired up soon enough to make a difference.

Long story short this might just be the fight that turns the oil and gas stranglehold over the fuels industry.You wish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/weirdnewsvideo/9071531/Woolly-mammoth-caught-on-video-in-Siberia.html

[sdowney717]

The argument should have been over ever since the hockey stick chart was shown to be a lie.

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/07/als-scientific-consensus-collapses.html


http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2007/07/global-warming-solution.html

[RayThackeray]

Ahem. Those of us who are British know the Daily Mail for what it is - a fanatical far-right hack rag little more credible than The Inquirer. I wouldn't put too much faith in their reporting. But reading this article, I'm astonished at the total fabrication of accepted data.


There is no global warming. The earth has not had a rise in temp since 1997.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/04/us-europe-weather-idUSTRE8130NK20120204

[Boston]

There really wasn't ever an argument, at least not if your following the science. Its been a slow and inexorable move in one direction since CO2 was first described in the early 1600s. A discovery which was made incidentally by the burning of coal in controlled conditions.

Arguing that a decades old individual graph representing smoothed data is somehow flawed or fake is a pretty good example of how week the arguments against the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift really are.

What might be convincing, assuming it ever happens, is if someone comes up with an alternative theory which incorporates as much or more of the information to date, into a working theory capable of making as accurate or better predictions as the present theory. As of yet not even a competing hypothesis has ever been forwarded within the scientific process.

Sure crackpots push some rubbish or other on the net quite regularly but there's a reason they circumvent the peer review process, there "work" simply wouldn't survive it. Mans graph on the other hand has survived the peer review process numerous times and given the lack of alternative theories or even a competing hypothesis, I'm just not seeing any reasonable argument being made to the contrary.

cheers
B

[CatBuilder]

Ah! I meant to post this a couple days ago here.

I was listening to the BBC and they has a PhD meteorologist on to explain the cold snap in Europe.

He said it was a once in 10 or 20 years situation.

There is some oddball high pressure system up in the arctic, between Europe and North America. That system is responsible for the odd weather on both sides of the Atlantic.

The high pressure system is pulling Siberian air down over continental Europe. That's why it's so cold.

The same system is allowing warmer air to stay more north in North America, which explains our mild winter.

He said the two odd weather patterns are the result of the single rare high pressure over the Arctic.

Thought maybe that would be relevant to this thread, since the extreme cold and extreme warm, in his words, are "weather events, not climate events."

[Boston]

yup
its called the arctic oscillation and its a cyclical "weather" event.

If you average it all out, then you get "climate"

Good call Cat

[hoytedow]

We went camping up in the Florida panhandle this weekend. It dropped to 24 degrees, not Celsius but Fahrenheit. We released a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in an effort to warm this small part of the globe. We failed. To avoid hypothermia we retreated to the LHB and turned the space heater on high, burning coal indirectly through the electrical wires.

[CatBuilder]

Brrr! What a cold front that was for camping! Wow!

[hoytedow]

We spent 2 wonderful nights at Florida Caverns State Park. I turned on my wipers this morning as we left the campsite and gave it a squirt of windshield fluid to clean it and the fluid froze on the glass, blocking my view of the road.

At the boat ramp, Chipola River on SR 166 just outside the park:

[Dushan]

I got snow covered Palm trees outback the boat. Newspaper reports the first time since 1956.
Very cold

You guys keep voting in the greens, keep making cars with lawn mower engines, and keep harping on how everything we do is bad. The result is snow, first time since 1956.

Is this really what you wanted? I say fire up he SUVs and keep us nice and cozy. Global warming couldn't come fast enough.

[Yobarnacle]

Global warming is a myth
Vote is believers 90, deniers 84

Back at post #1390 the votes were 88 to 80.

[hoytedow]

Global warming is a myth
Vote is believers 90, deniers 84

Back at post #1390 the votes were 88 to 80.Back at post #1639 the votes were 88 to 84. Two voted between 6:56pm and 10:59pm.

1.8 million dead people are still on the active registered voters list. 2.7 million people are registered to vote in 2 states and over 2,000 voters are registered in at least 4 states.

Would any of you squirrels out there like to take a bite out of an ACORN?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49060

[Yobarnacle]

now it's 90 to 85.
When the voting is done, will it affect the climate?

[RayThackeray]

Your logic leaves a vast amount to be desired if you think that votes equal science.

Global warming is a myth
Vote is believers 90, deniers 84

Back at post #1390 the votes were 88 to 80.

[Yobarnacle]

Your logic leaves a vast amount to be desired if you think that votes equal science.

:D Obviously my question "does votes affect the climate" was tongue in cheek! :D It is illogical to think I meant it seriously! :D
There is far too much evidence that the data for global warming is flawed, slanted, and in some cases fraudulent.
The proponents of global warming all seem to believe fervently, in almost a fanatical religious dedication, that anyone not believing their philosophy is illogical or stupid.
:cool:

[Leo Lazauskas]

The proponents of global warming all seem to believe fervently, in almost a fanatical religious dedication, that anyone not believing their philosophy is illogical or stupid.

And the fanatical deniers have a similar point of view.

[RayThackeray]

Since no evidence has been presented so far "the data for global warming is flawed, slanted, and in some cases fraudulent" that hasn't been thoroughly debunked, either you haven't been following it or your logic is still failing you.

There is far too much evidence that the data for global warming is flawed, slanted, and in some cases fraudulent.
The proponents of global warming all seem to believe fervently, in almost a fanatical religious dedication, that anyone not believing their philosophy is illogical or stupid.

[Yobarnacle]

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present
alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” -
Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is
something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of
the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate
may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former
Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha,
Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored
more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack
Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological
Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at
the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone
man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data
refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G
LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full
quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

I posted this back in post 1426
Simply ignoring these scientists or dismissing them, isn't debunking them. I give them more credence than I credit any member of this forum. Their credentials are superior.

[hoytedow]

Your logic leaves a vast amount to be desired if you think that votes equal science.Someone here needs to grow a sense of humor.

[tugboat]

....unless people believe that there is no such thing as the second law of thermodynamics or conservation of mass- and that a system can destroy matter- but not recreate it somewhere else...if you think that these massive man made byproducts dont exist- if you think they do exist but cant possibly hurt anything--
if u believe detonating a hundred nukes in the atmosphere, water and earth, creating ten thousand years of effects-radiation etc. is "natural" or burning trillions of gallons of fuels -or burning coal, damming rivers, cigarette smoke(think of the trillions of cigarettes that are burnt over the course of the last 100 years too)! if u believe that there can be no cause and effect to those actions- that there are absolutely no consequences to doing any of this stuff--then yea its all natural...and we had nothing to do with climate change..

[hoytedow]

Hogwash. You must think you have been put on Earth just to tell other people how to live their lives. You must be miserable that no one obeys you.

[tugboat]

I still say one if the largest factors (which for some reason is being completey ignored) is the change in the planet's color from green to black.

It happens on roofs, parking lots and roads.

Great point!- its been sung about and warned about by prophets-teachers, guru's, scientists, philosophers, poets, survivalists, quantum theorists, and the common observant man...

".....you dont know what you've got till its gone, paving paradise, puttin' up a parking lot!"
Joni Mitchell 1970

[tugboat]

Hogwash. You must think you have been put on Earth just to tell other people how to live their lives. You must be miserable that no one obeys you.

talking in the voice of Robert Deniro: yo ...you talkin' to me?:D

my take on it is people dont want to accept responsibility--which then means they gotta clean up thier act. its easier to deny than to admit they have been at fault...like those kids in that book "lord of the flies"- they just go and do whatever they want there are no consequences --till they regrettably go too far!...

[hoytedow]

Talk to the hand. I make a very small impact on my environment, leaving the places I go cleaner than I found them, unlike the Occupy movement. What a bunch of mrorns.

[tugboat]

Talk to the hand. I make a very small impact on my environment, leaving the places I go cleaner than I found them, unlike the Occupy movement. What a bunch of mrorns.

hoyte im with you on this one...i try to do the same- in fact this is one of the reasons i like steam...it may still not be a clean energy but with wood its renewable - i love the water-so it bothers me when i see the great lakes- 3 ft lower than normal..where does trillions of gallons of water go anyway?
this tells me something is wrong when it does not return after ten years...

[hoytedow]

The Earth is constantly changing but it is natural and not man-made. It is hard to define "normal" for the Great Lakes because before the Ice Age scoured the area there were no Great Lakes. Maybe they were an extension of the Great Plains? Water level dropping means evaporation or drainage in other ways. Evaporation combined with movement to colder areas results in precipitation. When this happens in very cold environment the result is frozen water. Look north. You will find it is accumulating there. Sea levels will also fall and exposed land mass will result from this. Crops will be harder to grow as it grows colder and areas distant from ice caps will get less rain while areas near ice will get more. The lakes will re-fill but with ice instead of water. Only the most suited for the conditions will survive or else be forced to move away or perish. Warmer is better.

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

"Winter 2009–10 was somewhat mild, the precipitation was below normal for the Great Lakes Basin. Mean lake levels are thought to be slightly below or at their levels of 2009. An ice jam in February 2010 dropped the level in Lake St. Clair. Since the jam was removed the level has come back to its average. As of March 2010, the lakes were at the level, or slightly below, where they were in March 2009.[11]"

Land on the Canadian Shield is still rebounding from the glacial period, but that process may not have completed prior to the onset of new glaciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_reboundhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png/776px-PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png

[tugboat]

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=67347&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1329493312

The Earth is constantly changing but it is natural and not man-made. It is hard to define "normal" for the Great Lakes because before the Ice Age scoured the area there were no Great Lakes. Maybe they were an extension of the Great Plains? Water level dropping means evaporation or drainage in other ways. Evaporation combined with movement to colder areas results in precipitation. When this happens in very cold environment the result is frozen water. Look north. You will find it is accumulating there. Sea levels will also fall and exposed land mass will result from this. Crops will be harder to grow as it grows colder and areas distant from ice caps will get less rain while areas near ice will get more. The lakes will re-fill but with ice instead of water. Only the most suited for the conditions will survive or else be forced to move away or perish. Warmer is better.

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

"Winter 2009–10 was somewhat mild, the precipitation was below normal for the Great Lakes Basin. Mean lake levels are thought to be slightly below or at their levels of 2009. An ice jam in February 2010 dropped the level in Lake St. Clair. Since the jam was removed the level has come back to its average. As of March 2010, the lakes were at the level, or slightly below, where they were in March 2009.[11]"

hope your right--i think the great lakes r the ultimate place for boaters...

but - i grew up on the lakes and - never has the lakes been so low for so long-- there were times the docks used to become awash... but now that never happens--you cna see the waterline marks where the water was and should be..its still down at least a foot--they are changing--i believe man made-- but- regardless of why--its occuring...we get rain here in february now- we NEVER had that till i was in my late 20's now its a regular occurance--this winter was warm again..not much snow--this is like the last three winters--snowfalls have been almost nothing--this is the north! not supposed to happen--not the old timers not me not anyone i know can remember when it rained in february or t-stormed here in march like it did a couple winters ago...rain in feb was unheard of--

[hoytedow]

Be careful what you ask for. You may get more snow than you bargained for.

[Yobarnacle]

tugboat
Everything is cyclic. You know this. Lake levels are result of winter ice & snow. Theres been less recently. Lake levels are also result of manmade controls such as locks, reservoirs, flood gates. More demand for electricity and water means more rapid draining.
If you want to make a case that the Army Corps of Engineers is causing problems while solving others? They are aware of it too!
http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/docs/MRIndependentReviewPanel.pdf
The rocky mountauns had more snow and rain in 2011 than ever recorded since the 1800s. So the missouri river flooded in 2011.
Localized phenomenon over a ten or even 50 year period doesn't indicate climate change.
It's called weather.
Now! Just because I refuse to be panicked by the global warming doomsayers doesn't mean I'm an ostrich with my head in the sand. I'm exploring alternative energy for my motorsailer project.
Also I walk to the stores and markets to shop. Of course here in Mexico they are within walking distance. Suggest to your zoning boards small business in residential neighborhoods is good ecology.

[Boston]

mass extinction isn't cyclic, its caused by a number of different things and in the past its been triggered by events some of which can be measured and studied, those extinctions which do have known causes are well enough understood to know the why and how of it. Today we're going to add even more CO2 to the atmosphere. Add enough and we know in the past its resulted in mass extinction. We can also measure the amount of change it took to initiate those past mas extinctions, and many scientists ( yup with the best imaginable credentials ) are saying that we're at the tipping point NOW.

Its pretty obvious whats going on, in case no one noticed there is no debate and very very few detractors within the scientific community. But the oil an gas companies PR machine is alive and well within the public sector

The Heartland Institute gets exposed for the junk it is
its a great read over on the Desmogblog
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

Heartland PR outlet gets busted at there own game, leaked E mails tell the tale of funding and propaganda
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Heartland-Institute-Leaks-Highlight-Astroturf-Quackery-118418

For years we've watched as the corporate-funded "fauxcademic" group the Heartland Institute took tobacco-industry money, then argued that the industry's ties to cancer deaths were based on "junk science." They've been very active on the broadband front, taking money from incumbent ISPs and then arguing how there is no broadband price, coverage or speed issues, while also fighting tooth and nail against the rights of towns and cities to wire themselves.

The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.
-Heartland Institute
Heartland isn't having a very good week, with leaked documents and e-mails showcasing how the firm takes corporate cash to sow seeds of doubt about established science and indisputable data. While they have always hidden their funding, the documents show the company takes money from AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The documents also show how they're well funded by corporations to attack climate science, particularly in the classroom.

here's another interesting bit.


If you're familiar with the group's actions in the slightest, it is clear that "honest disagreement" has never been on the agenda. On the broadband side, Heartland has contributed to no limit of polluted discourse, using completely bogus science from other incumbent ISP-tied organizations to endlessly dispute clear data showing that U.S. broadband needs a lot of work. They were also instrumental in pushing the "Exaflood" myth, or the idea that the Internet will collapse from traffic growth unless ISPs get what they want (higher prices, no consumer protections, deregulation, no net neutrality rules).

While the climate side of the story will see the most contentious debate, the most interesting bit here on the telecom front is that the ties between the company and their incumbent ISP donors have been clearly highlighted. It's doubtful that anyone at AT&T, Comcast or Time Warner Cable will want to go on the record to discuss their involvement with such a group.

[Yobarnacle]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1767894/scientists_look_at_ancient_co2_levels/

"Trouble is, we don’t know where the critical CO2 or temperature threshold is beyond which ice sheet collapse is inevitable," said Dr Overpeck. "It could be below 450ppm, but it is more likely higher – not necessarily a lot higher – than 450ppm.

[Yobarnacle]

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

It's generally "ASSUMED" that co2 drives climatic change but there is no correlation over 500 million years.

[Yobarnacle]

Its pretty obvious whats going on, in case no one noticed there is no debate and very very few detractors within the scientific community.

Who is the denier there is serious debate among scientists?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

[Yobarnacle]

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it is a weak one when compared to water vapor. Rising temperatures may increase evaporation and therefore the amount of water vapor in the air, thus adding powerful greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and accelerating warming. On the other hand, water evaporated by rising temperatures may form more clouds that shade the Earth and help to reduce temperatures. Whether future man-made global warming is catastrophic depends a lot on the balance of these effects.

[Yobarnacle]

vote is now 90 to 86

[Boston]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1767894/scientists_look_at_ancient_co2_levels/

"Trouble is, we don’t know where the critical CO2 or temperature threshold is beyond which ice sheet collapse is inevitable," said Dr Overpeck. "It could be below 450ppm, but it is more likely higher – not necessarily a lot higher – than 450ppm.

actually we do

Its been published in several reports, most notably the IPCC releases

as a great man once said

the science is very clear on this

[Yobarnacle]

I still say one if the largest factors (which for some reason is being completey ignored) is the change in the planet's color from green to black.

It happens on roofs, parking lots and roads.

The more light a color absorbs, the more thermal energy it produces. Black, indigo, and forest green will produce the most thermal energy. Did you think plants being "forest" green was accidental? :D

[Yobarnacle]

actually we do

Its been published in several reports, most notably the IPCC releases

as a great man once said

the science is very clear on this


Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1mfcRl1e2

[Yobarnacle]

Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."


Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming STOPPED INCREASING IN 1998.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1mfeAuer9

[Yobarnacle]

hoyte im with you on this one...i try to do the same- in fact this is one of the reasons i like steam...it may still not be a clean energy but with wood its renewable - i love the water-so it bothers me when i see the great lakes- 3 ft lower than normal..where does trillions of gallons of water go anyway?
this tells me something is wrong when it does not return after ten years...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100136/Europe-weather-Rivers-lakes-seas-iced-bitter-Siberian-cold-leads-temperatures-40C.html

The ice and snow is falling elsewhere right now. I imagine eventually it will fall on the great lakes watershed again. :)

[Yobarnacle]

check it out

[Boston]

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.



media coverage has nothing to do with it, but if it did the criminality would easily be found in the disinformation campaign thats been so often exposed.

the science is extremely clear on this one with not a single dissenting opinion being forwarded by a single major university.

[Boston]

flooding the net with half truths and outright lies concerning climate change science is whats criminal

[hoytedow]

Then stop doing it.

[Yobarnacle]

The simple fact is that “climate scientists” are just a bunch of professors. And like other people (but much more so) they are subject to the influence of ideology, professional self-interest and groupthink.

[Yobarnacle]

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

[Yobarnacle]

I do not want us to shut down economic drive to support false science, and on the other hand, I do not want to leave behind a scorched earth. …. Let's get the science right! A better debate and research is needed by honest and believable scientists who study climate professionally.

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Yobarnacle]

flooding the net with half truths and outright lies concerning climate change science is whats criminal

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

[troy2000]

The simple fact is that “climate scientists” are just a bunch of professors. And like other people (but much more so) they are subject to the influence of ideology, professional self-interest and groupthink.

Well, no. They aren't 'just a bunch of professors.' They're a bunch of professional scientists, whose lives and careers are built around science -- even if some of them also happen to be professors.

You make it sound like climate scientists are all just a bunch of amateur dilettantes, screwing around with climate change between their afternoon classes and the nearest pub. The truth is that the scientific consensus regarding climate change is one of the most overwhelming in modern scientific history.

edit: Oops... I'm breaking my resolve to stay away from non-boat related threads. It's gonna take a while to retrain myself; expect occasional relapses.

[hoytedow]

Their lives and careers are built around getting grants to do research and the money came from the gullible people and taxpayers who get milked of their hard-earned wages in the form of taxation. Global warming and shrimp on treadmills are just 2 of the ways they squander our money.

[Boston]

well Yobbar all I can say is you picked the right name :P:D

its just that what you on about is pretty off the wall. Are you actually trying to inform the readers that all scientists are a bunch of college professors.

Its almost impossible to get bunk past the peer review process by the way, so if there's faulty science in there somewhere its almost always filtered out. So how is it you claim its all bunk ?????

I'd be really curious as to how you'd explain what happens to all that excess CO2

Remember, of the 90 million barrels of oil we burn each day, there's something like 3 lbs of CO2 for each 1 lbs of oil we burn. Then add in all the coal we burn and you end up with billions of tons of CO2 that had never previously been going into the atmosphere.

and your suggesting that it has no effect on the atmosphere ?????????

yikes

[rasorinc]

Bos, do you still drive that big belching diesel. The one that must be a poluting monster. And you burn used motor oil???? That has to be worse than 300 farting cattle.

[troy2000]

Their lives and careers are built around getting grants to do research and the money came from the gullible people and taxpayers who get milked of their hard-earned wages in the form of taxation. Global warming and shrimp on treadmills are just 2 of the ways they squander our money.
That's pure baloney, Hoyt. Most climate-related scientists are sincere professionals, doing their best to uncover and present the truth. If you really want to follow the money, look up the leading 'skeptics' and tally up their checks from Exxon and the Heartland Institute.

I don't expect you to believe that, since I'm guessing you also believe evolution is a Satanic conspiracy to undermine people's faith in the Lord....

By the way: I went ten days without my warfarin, because I was out of town and didn't have a chance to renew my prescription. My leg is the size of a redwood log, and so painful I can hardly walk. I had an ultrasound to confirm the obvious, and I'm back on warfarin -- along with some lovely self-administered subcutaneous shots, to tide me over until the warfarin builds up in my system. Nothing I love more than poking myself in my belly fat with pointy things. Fortunately, I have a lot of it (bellly fat, I mean).

[hoytedow]

well Yobbar ... bla bla bla ...
Remember, of the 90 million barrels of oil we burn each day, there's something like 3 lbs of CO2 for each 1 lbs of oil we burn... bla bla bla...
and your suggesting that it has no effect on the atmosphere ?????????

yikesBaloney. Even if 1 lb of oil were 100 % carbon it could only combust into 1 pound of carbon plus whatever oxygen atoms attached to it. That would be 3.67 lbs. at a 1 to 2 ratio, but one of the by-products of combustion is water, which apparently the Great Lakes need, so free it up so their docks won't be land-locked and cold.

localenergy.org says 1.0 US gallon gasoline (0.833 Imperial gallon, 3.79 liter) = 2.42 kg carbon
and 1.0 US gallon diesel/fuel oil (0.833 Imperial gallon, 3.79 liter) = 2.77 kg carbon

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



"Density
The specific gravity (or relative density) of gasoline ranges from 0.71–0.77 (719.7 kg/m3 ; 0.026 lb/in3; 6.073 lb/US gal; 7.29 lb/imp gal), higher densities having a greater volume of aromatics.[5] Gasoline floats on water; water cannot generally be used to extinguish a gasoline fire, unless used in a fine mist."

A pound of gasoline only contains 0.88 pound of carbon.

[Boston]

Bos, do you still drive that big belching diesel. The one that must be a poluting monster. And you burn used motor oil???? That has to be worse than 300 farting cattle.

I run it on a mix, and no its running clean as any new diesel truck, I just rebuilt it. The majority of the fuel used is used veggie oil. In the winter I run it on used motor oil because it flows better and causes less problems overall when its below say 20°F. So far I've burned maybe 50 gallons of the stuff this winter. but I've got a few hundred gallons of veggie oil in the backyard just waiting to go. So the answer to your question is yes. I proudly drive an alternative fueled vehicle, and the fuel I burn is mostly carbon neutral, although not all.

Why what are you doing to try and help out ? :D

Troy
take care of that leg a little, you might need it some day. :D

[rasorinc]

I drive a small, non-poluting 4 cy. Subaru. But if I win the lottery I'm going to buy a Kodiak
pick-up.

[Yobarnacle]

The truth is that the scientific consensus regarding climate change is one of the most overwhelming in modern scientific history.
.

the consensus is a lie.

There is not a consensus that mankind is contributing to Global Warming!.

There is not even a consensus that Global Warming is occurring!

More than 19,000 Scientists have signed a petition against GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.zimbio.com/Global+Warming/articles/449/19+000+Scientists+Say+Inconvenient+Truth+Lie

[Boston]

soon as I get that pyrolysis system up and running I'll be experimenting with various biomass as a feedstock, but as it is I think I burned maybe 100 gallons total of fossil fuels last year in the truck. Everything else was veggie fuel.

what does your 4 cy run on ? and what are you planing to do with that Kodiak ?

[Yobarnacle]

I'd be really curious as to how you'd explain what happens to all that excess CO2

Remember, of the 90 million barrels of oil we burn each day, there's something like 3 lbs of CO2 for each 1 lbs of oil we burn. Then add in all the coal we burn and you end up with billions of tons of CO2 that had never previously been going into the atmosphere.

and your suggesting that it has no effect on the atmosphere ?????????

yikes

The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records.
*The resulting CO2 signal exhibits NO systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

Real scientists say climate isn't driven by co2. You think it is. Who's more likely wrong? Prove your theory.

[Boston]

the consensus is a lie. You might go look up the position statements of the major universities because you'd be calling them liars to, given that they are 100% in agreement with the scientific assessment.

There is not a consensus that mankind is contributing to Global Warming!.

pure fiction, there is most certainly a consensus that states very accurately Humans are to blame

where do you come up with this stuff ?


There is not even a consensus that Global Warming is occurring!

again entirely inaccurate, not sure what sites you get your information off of but its pretty easy to look up the position statement from any or all of the major universities and note the 100% agreement on the issue.

More than 19,000 Scientists have signed a petition against GLOBAL WARMING

And some of them weren't even alive when they did it. Amazing how far science has come idnt it uhuhuhuh



yikes

I guess that was classic eh folks

Yobar, why do you attempt to misinform the readers with this kinda stuff. Go look up the position papers of any or all the major universities and figure it out for yourself if you have to. There is most certainly a consensus and its most certainly in favor of the science. Global climate shift is occurring and it is being caused by man. Period.

[CatBuilder]

The more light a color absorbs, the more thermal energy it produces. Black, indigo, and forest green will produce the most thermal energy. Did you think plants being "forest" green was accidental? :D

Wait a second. Last I checked, black absorbs the most heat (and light) out of any color?

Don't believe me? Paint the deck of your boat black. :D:P

Whoops. I didn't realize this was an intense thread and replied to a post way back. I'm just playing around here. I'm not very passionate about this particular issue, being a skeptic. Should stay out of the tantalizing and tasty off topic threads... must look away... :)

[Yobarnacle]

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

Sorry Boston
Dr Kunihiko has more credibility than you

[Yobarnacle]

Wait a second. Last I checked, black absorbs the most heat (and light) out of any color?

Don't believe me? Paint the deck of your boat black. :D:P

Paint yours dark green! :D

[CatBuilder]

Ha ha ha. Ok, so answer me this:

Why is it always 5-10 degrees warmer in a city than in the surrounding suburbs?
What do you attribute that to, if it's not all the baking hot asphalt and tar roofs?
At the same time, I ask: Why is it cooler in a field than in a WalMart parking lot?


Lastly, on another micro/local warming thought... how many fires are burning and producing heat, in general on this planet?

There is a fire going somewhere (coal, nuclear, etc...) to power the computers we are typing on.
There are heaters burning day and night up north.
Every car you see driving down the road is producing enormous amounts of waste heat.
Nearly every industrial process produces heat.
When you run your air conditioner you produce a lot of heat and there is a fire burning somewhere to power it.
Every bit of electricity you use produces large amounts of heat where it is generated.

Basically, all of our energy production methods produce huge heat as a byproduct - and how much energy does this planet use on a daily basis? The scale of the numbers is mind boggling.

The list goes on and on. Combine locally generated heat we all generate every day with the incredible heat developed in cities and well, maybe you have the source of the little extra blip in temperature we saw that is hotly debated.

Then again the sun could be causing it. Who knows?

I'd say my little theory of locally generated heat works too, since it's on such a massive scale.

PS: I'm a skeptic of global warming anyway, but we sure produce a lot of heat directly.

[Yobarnacle]

yikes

I guess that was classic eh folks

Yobar, why do you attempt to misinform the readers with this kinda stuff. Go look up the position papers of any or all the major universities and figure it out for yourself if you have to. There is most certainly a consensus and its most certainly in favor of the science. Global climate shift is occurring and it is being caused by man. Period.

Boston
You ignore any data that disagrees with you and quote UN reports that have lost all respect.
And you resort to personal attacks. Your argument indeed is weak.

[Boston]

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist
knows this, ahahaahahaahahaaha yup and the moon is made of cheese but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps
Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda
Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.

Sorry Boston
Dr Kunihiko has more credibility than you

not when he's spewing that kinda crap he's not

while your entitled to your own opinion, your not entitled to your own facts. We have a working theory capable of making accurate predictions. What do you got ??????????

[Boston]

oh I ignored data now, thats cool, I couldn't help but notice your ignoring that every single position paper concerning this issue by every single major university is in agreement with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift.

or were you hoping to change the subject to my having ignored data rather than you misreporting about the consensus

Are we really going to begin this wild attack on reality again. The bait and switch of climate denial, the Gish gallop. Good plan I'll turn on some music and watch as the folly's unfold

[Yobarnacle]

Ha ha ha. Ok, so answer me this:

Why is it always 5-10 degrees warmer in a city than in the surrounding suburbs?

What do you attribute that to, if it's not all the baking hot asphalt and tar roofs?

At the same time, I ask: Why is it cooler in a field than in a parking lot? Why is it cooler in a dirt parking lot than a WalMart tar one?

Cat. I'm not arguing that paving hasn't increased heat. Obviously concrete and as-phalt absorb and holds heat longer than wood or paper thin leaves. Because of mass. And Black absorbs energy. I'm just saying that dark green is also an excellent color to absorb solar energy. Plants live on it.

[CatBuilder]

Ok, thanks, Yo.

That is all my point was. It was that there could be plenty of other reasons for a blip in the temperature observed at one point. As a trained scientist, I'm bothered that only the hypothesis of carbon emissions was considered and immediately validated.

Don't forget that photosynthesis is an *endo*thermic reaction, meaning that photosynthesis actually absorbs the energy that lands on the forest green leaf and uses that energy to make chemicals instead of storing heat it like the pavement does. Every plant out there that was ripped up to make a parking lot can no longer:

*Absorb heat and turn it into glucose or ATP and Oxygen
*Provide you with Oxygen to breathe
*Absorb Carbon Dioxide you breath out as waste

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa051903a.htm

I'm not that passionate about this discussion like I was in the boat security plan gun thread a while back, so I'll just watch you fellas have at the debate. :)

[Yobarnacle]

oh I ignored data now, thats cool, I couldn't help but notice your ignoring that every single position paper concerning this issue by every single major university is in agreement with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift.

or were you hoping to change the subject to my having ignored data rather than you misreporting about the consensus

Are we really going to begin this wild attack on reality again. The bait and switch of climate denial, the Gish gallop. Good plan I'll turn on some music and watch as the folly's unfold

Have you posted university position reports? Or am I to take your word for it?
You haven't adressed any of the facts or opinions in my posts except to dismiss them offhand.

[Boston]

Ok I got the music playing
GOOOOOO Yobar. show me the foot work

[Boston]

you can take my word for it :P

Sorry but I haven't stopped laughing long enough to even consider altering your views. Hang on I gotta go get a pizza. looks like it needs another maybe 20 minutes or so. Ok proceed ;-)

[Yobarnacle]

while your entitled to your own opinion, your not entitled to your own facts. We have a working theory capable of making accurate predictions. What do you got ??????????

Even your own high priest scientist admit under pressure there hasn't been warming since 1998.

Professor Muller of Berkely, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming STOPPED INCREASING IN 1998.

[Yobarnacle]

while your entitled to your own opinion, your not entitled to your own facts. We have a working theory capable of making accurate predictions. What do you got ??????????

The Massive NASA & IPCC Embarrassment: Hansen's Abysmal Global Warming Model Predictions
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?


http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/the-massive-nasa-ipcc-embarrassment-hansens-abysmal-global-warming-model-predictions.html

[Boston]

Even your own high priest scientist admit under pressure there hasn't been warming since 1998.

Professor Muller of Berkely, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming STOPPED INCREASING IN 1998.

Horse pucky

But I did like the part about having a high priest. Does he sacrifice children as well, cause if your going for flash and awe you might as well go for flash and awe. You could even picture him standing at some kinda alter with the rest of the IPCC all around in robes or something, then maybe have them all chant

Damn, That warming for stopping on us like that.
Damn, That warming for stopping on us like that
Damn, That warming for stopping on us like that

while they all pass there children forward. :P:P:P:P:P:P

[Boston]

yup I see a massive embarrassment all right,

ok now its time for me to go get the pizza.

[Yobarnacle]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/

Sea levels lower not as predicted higher

[Yobarnacle]

Once again Boston
It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. You are now ignored again. Last time was a week. This time is a month.

[Boston]

oh damn, and I was just sitting down to my Pizza

couldn't help but notice that site you linked to. isn't that the one that also promotes the flat earth society ?

[hoytedow]

Paint yours dark green! :DMy teardrop trailer, the "Land House Boat" was painted dark green and it got very hot inside as a result. It has since been re-painted a nice light yellow.

[CatBuilder]

My teardrop trailer, the "Land House Boat" was painted dark green and it got very hot inside as a result. It has since been re-painted a nice light yellow.

That's right! Any pictures of the new color?

[Boston]

here's an interesting snippet from Heartlandgate the leaked Heartland institute papers that are revealing so much

“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

[Yobarnacle]

the best dark color is red. infra-red is heat. reflecting red means not absorbing the red spectrum. Many many steel ships have red decks. Cooler than grey decks.

[Yobarnacle]

You would think intelligent people would want discussion and real unbiased research into a topic like global warming. I also would think treating other veiwpoints contemptuously, would be considered unscientific and irational. Certainly it is symptomatic of lacking objectivity and an unwillingness to learn the truth. I'd be happy to discuss global warming with anyone as long as we can respect each other.

[Boston]

And speaking of learning the truth
Looks like our man Idso is on the take from corporate interests

from the Heartland Institute's leaked emails
I think we can call this one Insti-gate
“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”

You would think intelligent people would want discussion and real unbiased research into a topic like global warming

yup sure would think that people might be interested in unbiased research but apparently thats just not the way the denial machine works.

wasn't that the same Idso you quoted earlier with the caveat saying something about his qualifications

at $11,600 a month I'd say his qualifications are pretty well established :D

[hoytedow]

That's right! Any pictures of the new color?Yep, taken at the Chipola River boat ramp in Marianna, Florida. The photo on the right was taken in April, 2011 at Lake Allatoona, Georgia.

[Boston]

Damn
and I had the music all queued up and everything

I went with big band
not sure what goes best with the Gish gallop tho

[CatBuilder]

Yep, taken at the Chipola River boat ramp in Marianna, Florida. The photo on the right was taken in April, 2011 at Lake Allatoona, Georgia.

Ah, missed this post!

Thanks, Hoyt. I like the yellow better just from a looks standpoint. Looks a lot more interesting and cool.

[hoytedow]

Ah, missed this post!

Thanks, Hoyt. I like the yellow better just from a looks standpoint. Looks a lot more interesting and cool.Thanks. It is certainly a lot roomier now with the lateral extensions. The air was so cold that the evaporation from the river condensed into a fog.

This photo is of the boat ramp on the Chipola River north of Marianna, Florida. Go visit.

The Land House Boat is parked behind the photographer (me) as this shot was taken.

[Boston]

a few more tidbits from the Heartlandgate papers


http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/teachers.jpg


http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/heartlandgate_anti-science_ins.php


seems like these guys really shot themselves in the foot this time. Oh well, kinda to be expected, these are the same guys that wrote all kinds of articles on how cigarette smoking is "good" for you

enjoy its a great article
Cheers
B

[Frosty]

Hy guys --you know that there is a clean up going on with non boat related threads.

You need to say boat at least twice in any one post.

This is a serious warning, you may be cut any minute.

Shh Shhe quick hes coming!!

Boat boat boat aboat aboat. My boats floating today.

t

[hoytedow]

How's that heavy snow working for you, Boston? Boat and boat.

[Boston]

Not at all Frosty. Its just politics and religion that are out. Tends to get messy. Although we've had our moments over here as well. Hell we've had moments everywhere at least twice so I'm no to worried about it.

Climate issues are very directly related to yacht design. I can't even remotely pick my design unless I consider the conditions and that means weather. Which an offshoot of climate. I'm not sure there's any large sea fairing nations which aren't studying the effects climate shift is having on there coastlines

Speaking of which, conditions are changing due to climate shift and mitigating those changes is essential for longer term investments

from
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/coastline/wave-climate.aspx

Changing wind systems projected to occur with climate change will have the effect of altering the surface ocean wave energy felt on Australia's coasts. These changes must be quantified in order to assess the ocean wave resources available for renewable wave energy generation, and to enable coastal managers and researchers to determine how any changes will impact on Australia's coastal infrastructure and environment.
The Department of Climate Change and CSIRO Wealth from Oceans National Research Flagship funded this study to describe Australia's ocean wave climate and identify the trends and year-to-year changes in Australia's offshore wave climate, including an estimate of the range of the extremes.
Possible impacts of changing ocean waves in the coastal zone are:
coastal inundation during severe storm events through the combined effects of sea-level rise, storm surge, and ocean waves.
chronic coastal erosion brought about by large wave events, or changes in wave direction shifting coastal sand and sediment
sea-bed disturbance impacting sub-tidal habitats. The study has the effects of increasing our understanding of the potential impacts of these processes. Additionally, the study has quantified the wave power in Australian waters available for electricity generation, which has the potential to reduce emissions and reduce any negative impacts of climate change.


and then there's always the ever present denialist machine at least one of which just got exposed for the fraud it is

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

[hoytedow]

I am skeptical of those skeptical of the deniers diatribe. :P

[Frosty]

Global warming is being ignored by governments all over the world (politics oopsSTOP.


However some people believe that the Earth can not possible be at risk or God will save it ( religion --ooops STOP.

[Boston]

Which is why I've always laughed at the first and really laughed at the second Frosty ole Man. It makes no difference what people "think" climate is shifting and those shifts are very clearly seen in the changing ocean conditions. Science has its head clear of its arse on this one, the public is about 50/50 or at least they are in the ignorant ole US. Even so there's no real debate about it at all.

wave heights increasing
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2010/jan/maximum-height-extreme-waves-dramatically-pacific-northwest&sa=U&ei=7vFGT8L8KYaosQLipenqCA&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=7omAjF1imaLLxYQZba9W6w&usg=AFQjCNEfMDujJ4U1eAhnQQM55J8ceZJ5Bg

wind speeds increasing
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.sciencenewsline.com/nature/2011032607430000.html&sa=U&ei=7vFGT8L8KYaosQLipenqCA&ved=0CBUQFjAC&sig2=R9VXY-O2TvOd7GATkhqh0w&usg=AFQjCNGSV2JIwIlKB7rgIoUPG0f1-kGrMA

So clearly there is a shifting paradigm and any failure to recognize it will effect the longevity of any coastal infrastructure as well as shipping and yachting. Its no struggle at all to link climate to ocean conditions which are of vital concern to any responsible yachtsman. Any yacht designed for an area where these conditions are changing fastest had better incorporate design for the shifting conditions or it might just not be a suitable vessel for the area for any reasonable period of time.

[Frosty]

So do you think I need a longer anchor chain then? Or carry more petrol in the dinghy for that extra run to shore.

I was telling the misus the other day that if the level of the sea went up the beach would be about 1 mile nearer. Ooh she says I always wanted a house on the beach.

Would this be in about another 20 years Boss because I would be really retired by then and Ide love a bit of fishing and I dot think Ille be able to walk very far.

[Boston]

sea level rise is just one aspect of climate change. The increasing wind and waves being the other main drivers of changing ocean conditions, that and increasing fresh water influx, shifting currents and eventually poison gas releases. The time frames for these changes are looking like 25 to 50 years given that the predictions are tending to err of the conservative side. So while the changes are occurring slowly now they're accelerating faster than predicted. Which means that more robust designs will be needed to keep up with worsening conditions. That and shore based structures will need to be designed in a more modular and mobile manor so that as sea levels rise they can in some cases at least be moved.

Its not going to happen overnight but maximum wave heights have already increased by about 30% in some locations in the PNW which end up effecting how many days of "clear" weather I've got to go play, once I get my ass up there and start fishing.

The problem with your beach house Frosty is the dreaded erosion factor, Once barriers are breached shorelines tend to erode quickly and unpredictably.

Cheers and best of luck with that plan.
B

[whitepointer23]

i haven't read much of this thread so i don't know if my question has been covered. on a discovery program recently they were looking at areas of the pnw and canada where the fish have moved out . the oxygen levels are so low that most fish can't survive and the dead zone is increasing forcing the fish to move further. what i don't understand is how can one part of an ocean be deprived of oxygen, i would have thought currents would be moving new water through the area constantly. it was the scariest thing relating to global warming that i have seen.

[hoytedow]

Oxygen loss is not related to global warming but to something else, pollution.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(environmental))

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

"Eutrophication can be human-caused or natural. Untreated sewage effluent and agricultural run-off carrying fertilizers are examples of human-caused eutrophication. However, it also occurs naturally in situations where nutrients accumulate (e.g. depositional environments), or where they flow into systems on an ephemeral basis."

[whitepointer23]

okay, i just assumed it was due to climate change. pretty nasty business just the same.

[Boston]

your assumption was correct. It is directly related to human activities including climate shift mostly because of all that excess CO2 we produce

i haven't read much of this thread so i don't know if my question has been covered. on a discovery program recently they were looking at areas of the pnw and canada where the fish have moved out . the oxygen levels are so low that most fish can't survive and the dead zone is increasing forcing the fish to move further. what i don't understand is how can one part of an ocean be deprived of oxygen, i would have thought currents would be moving new water through the area constantly. it was the scariest thing relating to global warming that i have seen.

if you were to look at ocean turnover, in some areas its a very slow process. Some natural crooks and crannies in the shore line may look like they turn over during the course of the tides, but in fact most of the water that went out with the tide in some cases returns again on the next. With minimal exchange with the bulk of the surrounding water.

Even in areas where there is a high rate of exchange accelerated biological action due to various forms of pollution ( IE farm run off like in the gulf of Mexico ) exacerbated by increased water temps ( higher temp water holds less oxygen ) end up so oxygen deprived that no higher vertebrate forms can exist. Its a huge concern and one which is known to be growing at a phenomenal rate. There's a really well known lecture on this called "a brave new ocean" by a guy named Dr J Jackson. Really worth watching if your curious as to how it works.

The frightening part is the natural conclusion to the process is something called Anaerobic stratification. Its happened several times before when unusual events disturbed the climate. Anaerobic stratification is best exampled by noticing all the oil shale's, blue and black slates, and some of the coal deposits, those are the result of the oceans dying, everything falling to the bottom, and decomposing Anaerobicly.

What causes it is when the oceans vertical currents stop, also known as the deep ocean turn over. The system is pretty delicate even if it does move vast volumes of water. Right now there is an effort underway to measure these currents and its not looking good. From what is known these currents are slowing, which is why there is a growing number of larger and larger anaerobic zones around the world. Finding one in the cold northern waters is particularly alarming for a number of reasons.

It is thought that the rapid influx of fresh water is diluting the upper seas, that since fresh water is lighter than water laden with salt and since it takes sometimes years for these layers to mix that the natural vertical currents that must occur in certain areas of the ocean in order to work with the ocean floors topography to drive the deep ocean current system is being adversely effected, and the currents are failing.

The other major factor that effects deep ocean currents is shallow ocean currents, which are also being adversely effected by the altering climate. Stronger winds drive taller waves and carry water to parts of the ocean that may not contain the same topographical characteristics that naturally induce deeper currents. IE again a slowing of the deeper circulatory system and a failure to get oxygen to the deep ocean.

If the deep ocean which gets all its oxygen from above is deprived of enough of that oxygen then it begins a spiral. Something dies due to lack of oxygen, then bacteria which eat oxygen bloom on the carcass, lowering the oxygen levels, more stuff dies, enabling more bacteria, and on and on. Eventually everything dies. The bacteria die off last because they are the most efficient at extracting oxygen from the water. The event results in whats called Anaerobic stratification. Its happened before and it looks like we are triggering it again.

It is the one common event in every single major extinction except one. The snow ball earth event of about 600 million years ago.

you are right to be concerned about the growing incidence of oxygen deprivation in the oceans. Its a huge concern which is unfortunately all to often unappreciated in the media

by the way the next thing that happens once the deep ocean goes anaerobic is that instead of the upper oceans producing most of the oxygen they begin to produce anaerobic by products like methane and ammonia, stuff thats definitely not conducive to surface life. When that happens, and it has in the past several times, then you get the larger life forms on land dying off as well.


anyway I hope that made some sense of it

cheers
B

The nutrient rich areas are so large and clear you can see them from space

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/gulf.jpg

The oxygen depleted areas can be imaged through spectral analysis

http://scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/dead_zone_591.jpg

ps
In his lecture DR Jackson points out that in no uncertain terms that our oceans are collapsing at an astonishing rate. He predicts, and I really hope he's wrong, that the oceans will go anaerobically stratified, its just a mater of if it takes 20 years or 50. But his work shows that the process is well underway and that halting the process is nearly impossible. We as a species would have to address multiple huge issues immediately, CO2, farm run off, over fishing, marine pollution and ice melt. In a nut shell at best he predicts we will have an ocean system which most resembles the black sea in 50 years or less, with no surviving higher life forms other than in shallow coastal areas. His predictions thus far have been in lockstep with the most recent findings.

Its unfortunate that it has to happen that way or that even while we measure the declining conditions there are still people who refuse to see the forest for the trees.

[Boston]

On a complete side note from the Anaerobic oceans issue

Scientists are finally starting to stand up and fight back.

A recent insider job on a popular denial regimes insider trading

Now some of our most prominent people speak up about the recent and growing attacks on science itself

from

Attacks paid for by big business are 'driving science into a dark era'
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fscience%2F2012%2Ffeb%2F19%2Fscience-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy&ei=2P9HT_PgEfP2sQKIo-nqCA&usg=AFQjCNHvvuGkvqNoRFvbdndGphD2qKTNWg&sig2=4Dr70Laj9IlJLUXvn57mOg



The remarks of Fedoroff, one of the world's most distinguished agricultural scientists, are all the more remarkable given their setting.

She made them at the AAAS annual meeting, an event at which scientists normally revel in their latest accomplishments: new insights into marine biology or first results from a recently launched satellite, for example.

But this year there has been a palpable chill to proceedings. Yes, good work was reported to the 8,000 who attended the various symposia and lectures at the meeting in Vancouver.

However, these pronouncements were set against a background of an entire intellectual discipline that realises that it, and its practitioners, are now under sustained attack.

As Fedoroff pointed out, university and government researchers are hounded for arguing that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are changing the climate. Their emails are hacked while Facebook campaigns call for their dismissal from their posts, calls that are often backed by rightwing politicians. At the last Republican party debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted he should be the presidential nominee simply because he had cottoned on earlier than his rivals Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney to the "hoax" of global warming.

The simple reality is that its against the corporate interests to support climate change mitigation. Politicians are being paid off with incredible sums of money to support the corporate interests and attack honest scientists who are struggling to get the word out that change must occur and fast if we are to preserve anything of our environment for the future.

Ocean conditions are changing fast. Wind, waves, the severity of storms, Currents. Yet the science is under attack from the businesses that make the most profit from producing the pollution thats causing these changes. Its an intolerable situation, I guess the only real question is what if anything can be done about it.

[hoytedow]

What total bull.

[CatBuilder]

I'm not trying to be a brown noser or anything, but I am interested in Boston's theory that climate change will affect boating.

I'm not of the opinion that it will.

You are either in protected waters or you are at sea. I really don't see the ocean changing in any appreciable way from climate change (except the species in the ocean).

How could climate change possibly have any effect on my boating, other than deciding to change locations to get the perfect weather?

[Boston]

I don't think your trying to kiss ass Cat, its just what you believe

But consider that increased winds, significantly higher waves, larger more sever storms, stronger surface currents, weaker deep ocean currents, longer hurricane season, more sever storms traveling longer and longer paths. Its not my theory, its basic science. Fully half the effort in climate science is on the oceans and how fast, not if, its changing. How in the world could that not effect boating.

I'm equally as baffled as to how anyone could possible not account for the altering conditions in there longer term plans and designs.

your bound to have reduced revenues because of there being fewer suitable days for your boat in the deteriorating conditions. That and insurance is bound to go up due to the increasing severity of the weather and the increase in damages caused by same.

I realize there is a concerted effort by the corporate powers that be to confuse the public concerning the realities of this issue however a quick look at average peak wave heights in the PNW should dispel any questions. Or a look at average long term wind speads. I plan on retiring to the PNW and if I didn't take into account the altering conditions I'd likely find myself soon enough in a boat totally unsuited for the dangers these changing conditions present. Granted there are some instances where I'd just be stuck in safe harbor but if I want to be able to tool around safely I'd better consider the prevailing conditions at any given time. I don't have the money to build more than once. So its important I get it right the first time and consider that I'll either need to spend more days in safe harbor or build a more robust vessel.

not sure if I've nailed it yet but my latest consideration seems to me to be fairly robust. Lots of free board. good solid area to apply storm shutters, more smaller windows rather than fewer larger ones. stable platform. trawler style windows. Seems like its a lot more seaworthy than the commuter design.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/bostonpyramidbuilder/profileviewI.jpg

I've taken some heat for wanting to beef up the typical hull some and for having so much clearance under the deck, having to compromise on weight for strength but it seems pretty obvious to me that although the cat is an inherently more stable platform its still subject to the same changes in the climate and so must change accordingly it its typical construction. I'd go heavier on the hull and skinny up on the luxuries. Ending up with a vehicle that I can make a mistake in, misjudge the weather in still make it home OK

[Boston]

give me a moment and I'll go look up some of the stuff on wind speeds

once again this isn't my theory
this is very well accepted science
I'm just studying it so I don't get caught with my pants down as things change

From MIT Climate unit
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

6.) Q: You say that reliable records of hurricane wind speeds go back only to about 1950, so how can you say that there were not even more intense storms before 1950? How can you assert that the upswing in the last 50 years is a consequence of global warming?

A: We cannot say for sure. What we can say is that everywhere we have looked, the change in hurricane energy consumption follows very closely the change in tropical sea surface temperature. When the sea surface temperature falls, the energy consumption falls, and conversely, when it rises, so too does the energy consumption. Both theory and models of hurricane intensity predict that this should be so as well. In contrast to the hurricane record, the record of tropical ocean temperature is less prone to error and goes back 150 years or so. Moreover, geochemical methods have been developed to infer sea surface temperature from corals and from the shells left behind by micro-organisms that live near the surface; these can be used to estimate sea surface temperature for the past several thousand years. These records strongly suggest that the 0.5 degree centigrade (1 degree Fahrenheit) warming of the tropical oceans we have seen in the past 50 years is unprecedented for perhaps as long as a few thousand years. Scientists who work on these records therefore believe that the recent increase is anthropogenic.

or from
http://news.discovery.com/animals/birds-flying-faster-wind-speeds-120112.html

Wind speeds over the Southern Ocean have been increasing over the past three decades and those stronger winds are boosting birds in the area to faster flying speeds, according to new research.

The wind speed shift is linked to climate change in the study, which was published in the latest issue of Science. The impact, at least for now, is a boon for certain birds. It shortens the length of their foraging trips, improves their breeding success, and is even causing birds to gain over two pounds in weight.

now here's the rub
while wind speeds over the oceans is increasing
there is some evidence to say that wind speeds over land are stable or decreasing slightly, due to increasing vegetation also due to climate shift. The interesting part is that the land estimates have a very good chance of turning around because of the growing desert areas might just offset the rate of altering vegetation, IE melting permafrost.

Its a highly fluid system but from what is measured so far wind speeds are increasing. This will not help power yachts nor create calmer waters overall.

I could get into currents and whats happening with them but all in all there is really very little doubt that the oceans surface conditions are changing or that it will effect yachting

[CatBuilder]

Ok, but I'd welcome some increase in wind speeds. 90+ percent of the time there is too little wind. The weather is nearly always fine and I've never been nervous about winds or seas kicking up a bit.

I just don't see what the big deal would be for coastal type cruising over long distances.

The change can't be that dramatic. I see it as a bonus. We could get by with less sail area.

Our charters run in everything but a small craft advisory and even then, we still get paid since our boat is booked by the week. There is no way for an increase in wind to affect our revenues. An extra front or thunderstorm means a night in for our guests, then back to normal the next day.

[CatBuilder]

Oh, half of what you are saying is that there will be more hurricanes? Again, what difference does that make to someone on a boat? Just move if one is coming your way. They are very small.

[Boston]

Hey it might help in some instances. The Russians are dancing in the streets that its getting warmer. So might the wind turbine industry people. The issue is these folks seem to think its going to stabilize at a slight increase. Uh uh, its going to spiral just like climate has always done, so sure, there will be a brief period were conditions might become more favorable to some users, but given the increasing rate of change that window won't exist for long. Before you know it, well just go check the average extreme wave height for the PNW just over the last few years. Holly molly, 30% increase and climbing, damn thats bound to effect boating in the area.

and remember increasing winds mean increasing waves, and clients get sea sick. I'd love to do charters, OK on a smaller scale than you but still do some whale watching when I can. If the waters up, its bound to be harder to spot the whales or enjoy some time on the deck sitting sipping a martini.

The changing conditions can't "not" effect boating in some way or another

"some" of what I'm talking about is concerning hurricanes which do seem to be lasting longer and following longer tracks, but the majority of the alterations are day in day out changes to the climate system. Its the daily energy available that is shifting, not just a one off event.

[CatBuilder]

Hey it might help in some instances. The Russians are dancing in the streets that its getting warmer. So might the wind turbine industry people. The issue is these folks seem to think its going to stabilize at a slight increase. Uh uh, its going to spiral just like climate has always done, so sure, there will be a brief period were conditions might become more favorable to some users, but given the increasing rate of change that window won't exist for long.

and remember increasing winds mean increasing waves, and clients get sea sick. I'd love to do charters, OK on a smaller scale than you but still do some whale watching when I can. If the waters up, its bound to be harder to spot the whales or enjoy some time on the deck sitting sipping a martini.

The changing conditions can't "not" effect boating in some way or another

I guess what I'm saying is that even a substantial increase in wind speed won't affect life aboard a boat. It's no big deal to have winds go from very calm to windy. It's actually a boon to sailing, as there is too little wind, usually.

And... You don't need to beef up a design for an expected average wind speed increase. Your boat should already be designed to take a severe hurricane style beating. Design is not done to an average, it's done to a worst case scenario and all decent boats are already designed to meet that. It's not like a hurricane is going to be stronger in the future than it is now. The worst case boats are designed to may happen more often, but that doesn't change the design.

That would be like saying that you need to develop cars that can handle 1000mph impacts just because people are crashing more.

[Boston]

your assuming that the worst case scenario isn't going to get worse. It most assuredly is.

What if that worst case scenario increased by say 30% ? Kinda starts to make a big difference at that point. Also what if those average wind speeds, or not what if, when those average wind speeds increase average wave heights. What if your constantly in conditions less conducive to cruising. Ok I've got little adult experience with being on the water and your definitely a long timer but I grew up on the cape and developed a healthy respect for the water. I'd want to be battened down a bit for heaver weather, and if its the norm rather than the exception then its going to effect my charters.

Also remember that there's been an exponential increase in the rate of change. Extrapolate that out say 20 years and you end up with conditions worsening fast enough that if you'd not planned for it ahead of time your vessel might just be stuck in port more often than not.

I realize your of a mind to stay deep when the weather hits and I agree thats a great option if you've got the right boat but what if as I said earlier those worst case scenario's are 30+% worse than they are now. Like what we are seeing with extreme wave heights in the PNW where I'll be hanging out.

[CatBuilder]

Well, a 30% increase in current wind conditions and hurricane strength would have little effect. That is all i am saying. Taking a cat 5 hurricane and notching it up 30% doesn't really change anything. Neither does notching up a cat 1 hurricane 30%. In both instances, you move. They are very small and it is more than possible to avoid them.

As for fronts and other standard weather, they are some of the only times there is enough wind to really sail. A 30% increase would be welcome. Usually, on a sail boat, we are hoping for more wind, not wishing there was less.

Lastly, I think it's a good idea to build the best boat you can that will be strong and able to handle the rough stuff. Very important, actually. But, you don't want to take strong and turn it into over built just because there are more storms and hurricanes are stronger. You won't be in a hurricane, strong fronts pass quickly and stronger normal winds are a blessing.

And in the trades, you'd have a bit rougher ride, but you'd get there faster. Not a bad trade off.

Don't forget, also, that the vast majority of waves are not breakers, but swells. They are usually nice, gentle, rolling hills you go up and down over, even at 10 ft tall.

Just a discussion, but i am hoping to help on the boat project with this info.

[Boston]

No worries, I've heard some interesting stuff on the possible benefits, but thats very short term thinking. My take is its an overall package of changes and even if one aspect could be proven beneficial, its not a stable change and its not alone. There's lots of changes on the way, some, not in the slightest desirable. The rate of change is increasing very fast, which is what all the worry is about. These changes aren't stable. Think snow ball earth event of 600 million years ago. Or the High Permian extinction of 250 million years ago. Both classic examples of a runaway climate system. Now imagine accelerating those processes ~2,500 times

But it goes beyond just boating, its going to effect every aspect of our lives. Thing is I'd like to retire to a boat and enjoy some nice calm weather.

I could play with some numbers and show that in the High Permian event it took ~1 million years for the Siberian Traps to release enough CO2 to cause a 4°C rise in global temp. At that point it triggered the release of organic carbon, like methane locked in hydrate precipitate on the ocean floor and in the permafrost. Which raised temps by another 6°C over about a 40,000 year period and killed everything down to about 2lbs land or sea.

If you work out the temps, times and reaction, and compare that to whats going on today you end up with 1 million years to change temp 4° VS 200 years to change temp about 2° today. ( and a predicted nother 2° in about 40 years, some might argue 1° but really it makes little difference which number I go with, the results are about the same ) Quite a bit faster than in any other known period of earth history. You might be thinking OK so we've got another 2° to go before we need to worry about it. Nope, I wish that were true, unfortunately its not. In a million years the system has some time to redistribute organic carbons to more stable areas and the over all effect on them is mollified to some degree, although eventually we know the organic carbons did release and did radically alter the atmospheric chemistry enough to kill off nearly all larger life forms, say everything over 2 lbs.

But today we've altered temp by 1,000,000/200/2 = 2,500x faster than in the High Permian extinction ( 5000x+ if you include whats virtually certain to occur over the next say twenty or thirty years ) . here's the really frightening part. Organic carbon is already releasing, and its increasing faster in % than even CO2 these last ten or twenty years. Methane ( CH4 ) is up 150% CO2 is up ~30%. So we've already triggered the organic carbons and we're just entering that time period of most rapid climate change. And we did it in just 200 short years. Amazing, our only real chance is to immediately reverse the trend in CO2 and reduce the atmospheric greenhouse gas content. Otherwise the system will run away faster and faster far past the point where its "more convenient" for any of us.

even if my numbers are 100% off climate has still already changed 1,250 times faster than at any other known period of earth history.

So it goes beyond a convenient increase in some conditions, I've heard the same argument when it comes to wind farms and tidal generators. The issue is, its the same short term thinking that got us into this mess.

Sure if I built a standard boat for today's conditions it would probably do fine for say 10 or 15 years. But I plan on lasting a lot longer than that. So considering the climate shift is important if I'm going to be actually retiring on this thing. The issue you bring up of not being able to change the boat much or you just build a dog is a good one, which doesn't bode well for the state of yachting in the near future. The solution I see as being the most workable is to build a bigger boat.


I agree that building to robust a boat and you build a dog, but I might consider, as I mentioned, skinying up on the amenities and using slightly thicker ply. As well as building slightly bigger than what I think I really need. I'm sure I'd hear a lot about how you want the lightest cat possible and I'd agree, to a point. Its gotta be able to take a wave. Which brings us to the subject of the average freak wave. Now thats a frightening scenario

[Boston]

I guess that looks like it will take these changes thousands of years to induce. Thats unfortunately not the case. If methane and CO2 keep going up even at the present rate we're in huge trouble by about 2035.

http://www.eoearth.org/files/190101_190200/190191/figure-spm-1-l.png

If you go with the estimates which are historically low and remember when looking at these we've exceeded worst case CO2 emissions,you can see we're looking at a significant temp increase far beyond whats needed to trigger the runaway climate scenario's seen in past extinction events. We can safely look at the very top of the envelope to get our predictions, given what emissions are doing.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/tipping_point_fig7.JPG

[CatBuilder]

I'm not saying it won't happen (I know that's what you are used to hearing... ha ha ha), I'm just saying it'll be no big deal for boats.

[hoytedow]

your assuming that the worst case scenario isn't going to get worse. It most assuredly is.

What if that worst case scenario increased by say 30% ? Kinda starts to make a big difference at that point. Also what if those average wind speeds, or not what if, when those average wind speeds increase average wave heights. What if your constantly in conditions less conducive to cruising. Ok I've got little adult experience with being on the water and your definitely a long timer but I grew up on the cape and developed a healthy respect for the water. I'd want to be battened down a bit for heaver weather, and if its the norm rather than the exception then its going to effect my charters.

Also remember that there's been an exponential increase in the rate of change. Extrapolate that out say 20 years and you end up with conditions worsening fast enough that if you'd not planned for it ahead of time your vessel might just be stuck in port more often than not.

I realize your of a mind to stay deep when the weather hits and I agree thats a great option if you've got the right boat but what if as I said earlier those worst case scenario's are 30+% worse than they are now. Like what we are seeing with extreme wave heights in the PNW where I'll be hanging out.Don't assure me that storms will get worse. Show me credible evidence. Otherwise I won't believe you.

[Boston]

its already effected the northern passage. How many boats went through last year ????? and I read a study were they expected that number to grow 100 fold next season.
which well effect the economic standing of the Panama canal to some degree. It also effects revenues along the longer route around. Means the US Canada Russia will be able to trade more efficiently for a while at least. All that melting ice is also having an effect on fisheries. Fish stocks are dropping like flies in the collapsing system. OK partly because of overfishing but also because of the degraded environment.

Its already effecting the shipping industry, won't be long before we feel it in the yachting world as well. Its virtually inevitable.

I do think from a more selfish point of view there is a simple if temporary solution, build a bigger boat. But over all, its a mess and its only going to get increasingly worse.

Eventually if the oceans go Anaerobic, which is a near certainty as well. They will be impassible as the noxious gasses being released will suffocate any surface oxygen breathers. DR J Jackson gives that situation about 30 years at the outside. See "A Brave New Ocean" lecture at Browns U if I remember. ( its a woman's college, and the presenter is damn cute )

There are temporary measures I can take to still enjoy my time on the water, but for future generations that might not be an option.

Cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Make hay while the sun shines. The Northwest Passage won't stay open long so we better make the best of it and do as much trade through that route as possible before its closed for a very long time.

[CatBuilder]

I do think from a more selfish point of view there is a simple if temporary solution, build a bigger boat.

Which creates untold amounts of regular environmental pollution, air pollution and water pollution.

It also adds a tremendous amount of carbon to the atmosphere.

I would know. I actually struggled with this dilemma myself. If I didn't have to earn a living with boats, but just lived and traveled on them, I would not have built a new one. I would have recycled one.