What Do We Think About Climate Change

what would happen if I changed your DNA by some few percent
would you be monkey instead of a man
maybe insect instead of mammal
or bird instead of beast

should the earths incredibly delicate balance be altered by any amount
would we not all
be this
instead of that
who among us can say what effect these billions of millions of metric tons may have

who among us has the right to foist there filth upon us all
and for profit say
best not to worry
we have no proof of harm or hinder

were is the man who having changed the world
once having realized the error of his ways
can change it back

I say
leave well enough alone
and err on the side of caution

let the ocean live and not fish it to extinction
let the air be and not pollute it to extremes
let the ground alone and not contaminate the future
let the children see a place we once knew
and let the generations to come not say of us
we were the ones
and knew not what we had done
or having known
did not care

I say
we have a choice
and I dearly hope
we chose wisely
B

oh
and well done Rick
although we arent going to agree here
its always a pleasure bantering with you
Ild have to say two things
way to prove the ease of the metric system
and ask
how far off is a retarded child's DNA from the norm
and I ask having no idea of the answer
so my head is on the block
so to speak

ok
three things
what percentage DDT in the environment did it take to nearly kill off the raptors of north America
my bet is its way lower than 0.00015%

if you have trouble finding numbers for DDT used in North Amarica
Im sure I can find em for you

respectfully
B

 

Boston,

All your queries are merely re-treads of older questions already raised and answered. Please go back and read the old posts for this thread as well as the other 'global warming' thread. Your characterization of CO2 as 'crud' is amusing, BTW. Had you bothered to read the previous posts you would know that it's all about context. The anthropogenic portion of atmospheric CO2 seems large if you don't consider the context. When context is considered, it's not very large at all. The portion of the greenhouse effect which is attributable to CO2 seems large if you don't consider the contextual information that the trace gases (of which CO2 is one) are responsible for only a tiny portion of the greenhouse effect; water vapor is the greenhouse gas of merit. No more re-posting; it will be at least the third time for me. If you can't read the old posts which address all of these issues, then you must simply be intellectually lazy or a troll.

Meanwhile you have never bothered to address the issue of why no warming at all is evident in the tropical troposphere, which is right where we should see warming if the greenhouse effect is causing it.

Also please address why Mann and Hanson were forced to backpedal on the question of the warmest decade, being forced to admit that it was the 1930's, NOT the 1990's as they had previously claimed. I know that YOU believe that the 1990's were the warmest decade, because your AGW gurus Mann and Hanson had previously said so. (Where else would you have obtained that information?) But now that they were forced to admit otherwise, do you still believe it?

The same question could be raised about MBH-98 and the 'hockey stick' graph
drawn from that reconstruction. Now that it has been THOROUGHLY discredited, do you still believe the gist of that climate recon and graph? If you do, please show us how you NOW support that belief with valid scientific data.


Jimbo

 

A lot arguments... What I belive is WYSIWYG.
Up here (70N) summer is now 3weeks longer than 25 years ago, not warmer just longer..
Winters.. more winds and rain also raining WATER occasionally which was unheard some 20 years ago. Really frreezzzzing cold (like -40C) last time... let me see.. kids were 1 then so 9 years ago. In the past every year some weeks at least..

Don't know why

 

Teddy,

The climate has been on a long warming trend for a couple of hundred years now. If that warming were the result of the greenhouse effect, we would expect that certain characteristics of greenhouse warming be present, like highly anomalous warming in the tropics. Yet we don't see that at all. In fact, the warming seems to be affecting the colder regions more, which is NOT congruent with greenhouse warming.

Jimbo

 

Yes it is, as I suggested elsewhere, GW invokes greater cloud generation, - and over land that reduces daytime land (surface) temperatures which encourages lower extremes over night...

The water tends to hold any warming longer and ocean evaporation and other stuff facilitates the generation of more severe and frequent storm events so the GW will initially be seen as significant cooling over large land masses, (where people with thermometers are), and more severe and frequent weather events in summer season influences even to the gulf stream influences...

Just look up how weather works and use common sense to extrapolate what may happen and what drives evidence of cooling or warming - - who gives a **** about the cause until the direction can be determined....

That is not done solely by observing that it is getting colder or warmer on a daily basis, - - - but what is happening to the biggest heat-sink and absorber of solar energy - the oceans.... and take readings at regular depths to get a profile of the thermal energy in the oceans - This is being done as part of the Antarctic research programs of which I have very little knowledge (except what makes a brief news item in the "popular media")....

 

But the oceans take several hundred years to respond to warming stimuli. All the researchers I have read agree on this. So if that great heat sink, The Ocean, is warming, it is in response to events that initiated hundreds of yeas ago. How in the hell can you then turn around and pin that on anthropogenic CO2, which even the AGW alarmist scientists agree has only existed less than 100 years? It just don't add up!

BTW, the common sense of basic weather theory is that warmer climates are less stormy-FAR less, in fact. Storms are ,after all, the climate's attempt to resolve/equalize differences in temperature between cold and warm areas. Greenhouse warming should reduce these. But if as you suggest greenhouse warming affects the colder (polar) areas more (contrary to basic greenhouse theory), then the temp. differences should be even less pronounced and thus a less stormy climate. The idea that greenhouse warming will lead to a stormier climate is in the first place some of the purest unsupported speculation to come out of the AGW camp so far. We have not even observed more tropical storm activity in the 20th century, which should have manifested this particular (supposed) effect of AGW via CO2 most convincingly, but it did not.

Jimbo

 

Only when/after the surface moves deeper the surface response is near immediate - think of El ninio / la nina or whatever they are called, - - impact can be seen in Indian and Atlantic regions in that season....`````

 

a few famous quotes from Jim in the peanut gallery

in political and debate circles this is called double speak
(not allowed in a real moderated debate)
were you accuse your counterpart of exactly what you are doing in order to deflect attention from yourself clinging to the same old arguments while hoping for an error or inconsistency in the previous answer

or maybe if we just dont consider at all, eh Jim
wouldnt that be nice
if we all just blindly went about believing what we are told by the oil and gas industry

the context is the air we breath
kinda an important element of our little planet
could be worthy of some extra consideration if you ask me

answering this would be a reposting of a previous answer and since it is I who am not rehashing round here I think Ill just let you go find the answer you have already been given and ignored

answering this would be a reposting of a previous answer and since it is I who am not rehashing round here I think Ill just let you go find the answer you have already been given and ignored

answering this would be a reposting of a previous answer and since it is I who am not rehashing round here I think Ill just let you go find the answer have already been given and ignored <--- example of reposting in case you have a hard time realizing what reposting is

oh
while Im sure there is a troll under your bridge somewhere, it is not I,
as I am far to broad in my views to fit under a bridge designed for the narrow minded

and if you are really going to descend into name calling once your OGIBS
diatribe fails you
then I would have to ask if you can name this fellow

this should be easy for you as the two of you have lots in common
for instance your antiquated ideas are clearly headed off a cliff
and your names are spelled surprisingly similar
if you want to resort to names
that is

 

Boston,

You've studiously avoided answering ANY of these valid questions. The charts and graphs about the context of anthropogenic CO2 have been posted at least twice by me and probl'y a couple of times by Guillermo as well; it's just that it's getting a bit tiresome.

BTW, You really don't enhance your standing within this thread (or any other for that matter) with your petty, snide childish remarks. If I start getting sarcastic with you, you'll get offended (again) and say the debate has 'turned too nasty' and excuse yourself. The simple way to avoid all this unnecessary 'drama' is to just stick to the specific points of contention, the questions for which you CLAIM you have answers with solid scientific underpinnings.

Here's one:

Do you believe the the 1990's were the hottest decade of the 20th century? Many people believed that at one time, having been misled by the writings of Mann, Briffa and Hansen. I have seen you post the gist of this assertion on this thread (you don't have to re-post it now, that would be repetitious )
But if you still believe that the '90's were the hottest decade, show us the scientific underpinning for that belief, please. As you may know, Mann and Hansen retreated from that position, because they were in effect forced to admit they were wrong, and to admit that the 1930's were the hottest decade of the 20th century as was previously accepted to be the case before the AGW hype started and it was oh so much more dramatic if the 90's were the hottest.

Where do you stand on this, and if you believe the 90's were the hottest decade, show us your data.

Jimbo

 

Arrrrrh - ****, and now I am told it is easier for pigs to fly? - - - - - let alone elephants....

 

actually you have studiously ignored any of the valid answers
but if you like
you may go back and read through to find them

once again you've tried your double speak and failed

gads did you just admit you are guilty of reposting the same old tired failed diatribe
after

it would appear blatantly obvious to any but the least astute observer who has descended to childishness and snide remarks

drama
another obvious point thats fast going against you Jimbo

the debate was futile
when you repeatedly mime the opinions of the oil industry a few failed scientists and some charlatan with a fifth grade education

again you've tried your double speak and failed

are you asking me to repost the answer
first you dont want me to repost
then you do
your requests are as confused as your opinions
make up your mind please
its easy
just try and be clear
all you have to do is say that you either read but ignored the answer
or that you simply didnt understand it
or maybe you havnt read any of the thousands of responses in which people have tried to help you let go of the oil industry monologue
take a week or two and go back to read our many responses
then
if you have questions
maybe we can help you
categorize your inability to understand
did you simply ignore dissenting opinion
did you fail to read it or having done so did you have trouble comprehending
did you get sucked in by a few sour grapes who's failed attempts at publication has left them embittered ( see previous posts for examples )
did we use words you could understand ( there is a great on line dictionary I could show you )
did you get a job in the energy sector and find yourself in a conflict of interest/logic and so are unable to admit the error of there argument
did you find that if you were rude enough
people would eventually give up on you and just leave you the error of your ways
once you begin to answer some of these questions to yourself
maybe you will have grown sufficiently ( sufficiently means enough or up ) that you will begin to realize your limitations
remember
some people are good at some things and not good at others
you may just not be able to fully comprehend the issue of rapid global climate change

love
B

 

I'll quote Guillermo's post to the other thread to answer the above nonsensical, context-less rant:

"Did you know that only by breathing humankind produces around 2,500 millions of tons of CO2 a year, amount quite bigger than the Kyoto Protocol agreed reduction, which is of about 1,000 millions of tons, roughly a 5% of 1990 emissions?"

Also note that in China, right now and for the past decade, there are and have been coal mine fires burning continuously, which no one is able to extinguish, that contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than ALL US transportation, both air, land and sea.

Now in that CONTEXT, what sense does it make to spend great amounts of money 'upgrading' our transportation system to cut a few tenths of a percent of our CO2 emissions, even assuming that these have something to do with climate change:?:

Jimbo

 

Rapid global climate change:?:

I guess you have not watched the news, of late. Probl'y more than a few scientific articles slipped by your notice as well since there really has been no significant warming in at least ten years and truly more like 13 years. In fact, the COOLING of the last couple of years has all but WIPED OUT the modest ~1*C rise seen in ALL OF THE 20th CENTURY! I guess you need to get out more.

I know ad hominem attacks are better suited to your scientifically weak and poorly supported position than actually defending the questions, but again, you are doing yourself little good here.

The only thing you've ever posted here is:

1) Several re-hashed MBH-98 graphs

2) rebuttals from realclimate.org (a website established for the express purpose of defending MBH-98 after its irrevocable demise in stature)

3) Some little small scale study that purportedly showed how shrinking wetlands would lead to higher global temps and therefore less wetlands (implying that since THIS positive feedback may exist then such feedbacks must dominate the climate system or some similar scientifically unsupportable hogwash)

4) Arcane theories of rapid climate change based on ancient dirt/ice cores (which did not address the alleged cause/effect relationship 'tween CO2 and warming, but just showed that rapid climate shifts are possible)

Why not post something relevant, like the latest satellite data set that FINALLY shows some significant warming in the tropical troposphere, STILL considered the 'gold standard' fingerprint of greenhouse warming?

Oh, yeah, you can't because the latest satellite data doesn't show that. The data shows no warming AT ALL in the tropical troposphere. Darn

Ok then, how about posting a graph showing that the alarming warming trend that MBH-98 (improperly) extrapolated as going 'off the page' upward (such that Al Gore had to use a man-lift to point to it in his mockumentary) has in fact continued 'off the page' upward as Mann predicted?

Oh, yeah, you can't show that because the ACTUAL MEASURED temperatures did not behave that way, but in fact fell quickly back down in '99 and later. Turns out the '98 temp spike was just a strong 'El Nino'; nothing more. Darn again.

Ok then. How about posting a study that shows without a doubt that the surface measurement system is truly accurate, and that we can put our complete confidence in the reliability of that data gathering network, which network has consistently showed that the earth is warming rapidly.

Oh wait, that won't work either. Right now the network is being audited and the results so far show that about half of the sensors are WAY off (>+4*) with a majority off, always in the positive. Only a minority remain accurate. Poop.

But Boston, please PLEASE TRY to post something RELEVANT and stimulating! You're rants are getting BORING; they follow the same pattern over and over. At least come up with a new rant format

Can I get a witness, here

Jimbo

 

May I suggest you look at this sort of data http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC002.gif , and this, http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDYOC005.gif and this, http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/oceantemp/news.shtml - - - - - Admittedly of the Pacific region, but the nature of the data, correlated with land recordings both surface and air (most seem to be up in the air ? and brought to earth for a reality check instead of pontificating over flatulent cows etc....

Enjoy, and see if you can find some relating to your region... - - - LOOK at the numbers 32 deg celsius surface temperatures - that us warmer than baby bath water !!!!!

 

well its thanks giving folks
so Im going to roast a duck and hoist a few
this will be my last for a few
at least if the girl is handy it is
so may all have a feast and remember
we indians we're content to be cool
and then you folks had to go and screw it up
love
B

Jimbo
I know you are having trouble understanding the gobs of literature supporting the theory of rapid global climate change
and thats ok
sometimes people get so overwhelmed by shear volume of supporting evidence that they get confused

the first thing you should try and do is to settle your confusion over posting and reposting

maybe if you just try to take one thing at a time you can see that there is hope and wont be so frustrated in your misunderstanding

is it

or is it

the readers and I know that those supporting articles have already been offered

the problem seems simple enough
your seeing rapid global climate change with classic tunnel vision
getting stuck on minutia and not able to see the hole picture
you've clearly gotten confused on some small issue within a grander idea and rather than step back to your place of competence you reject the hole concept
at some point I will have to stop recommending you reread the data presented and maybe refer you to some basic comprehension tools
Ill try to break it down to its simplest of terms
rapidly fluctuating weather patterns based on mankind's obvious alterations in the atmospheric chemistry
I know some parts are confusing you and some scientists out of the hundreds of thousands supporting this view seem to irk you
so ignore them

it would help you if you read a book called
everything I ever need to know I learned in kindergarten
basically if you dont want to play with someone, you dont have to
but lets hope you find some nice friends who wont be bad influences of you
that way if you find a scientist who you think is not being on the up and up
you will realize he is only one in tens of thousands of reputable scientists who's work you should consider

instead of continually mentioning the same old few who you are stuck on

or continually quoting people like this who's completely false credentials were found out and exposed

oh
and think twice about the reposting question
cause there is more than enough in this thread to sink a few skeptics
all I have to do is cut and paste
and its curtains for you know who


oh and one more thing
I notice no one stepped up to be a

yet hundreds have come
tried to help you understand the issue
and frankly given up
one must want to understand
if its so hard to admit when you are wrong
when you so obviously are
then how can you find improvement in life's daily lessons
the road to enlightenment begins with a simple step
that step is different for each of us
I would suggest that you go to a loved one and reflect on some wrong you may have committed
then in a spirit of humble honesty
apologize
eventually
you may even be able to reconsider things you once thought were incontrovertible
your mind may open
you may even find you have more friends
being rude
repeatedly insisting on diatribe
and resorting to name calling
is no way to prove a point
less of course your a spoiled five year old
sooooooooo

remember
first decision is can we repost in this discussion
if so
then we can resubmit the relevant data that has already been presented
if not
your insisting on ignoring the evidence that has been presented
and proven some interesting points in doing so
either way
your hard pressed on a lee shore
and not looking to likely to save the floater your clinging to