PDA

View Full Version : co2 in balance for last 150 years new study says



sdowney717
01-02-2010, 03:05 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

the key thing is that if this is true, then all the computerized climate models foreshadowing increasing earth temps are wrong.


The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Memphis Mike
01-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Fart

ljb5
01-02-2010, 03:17 PM
There's a difference between airborne fraction and total atmospheric CO2.

What this says is that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing... and CO2 in the oceans is increasing at the same rate. In that way, the fraction stays the same, while both increase.

I don't think this is very surprising. It has been known for some time that a lot of CO2 released into the atmosphere gets absorbed. The worry is that the oceans might saturate at some point in the future and then the atmospheric fraction will go up rapidly.

Even if that doesn't happen, (i.e., the trend in atmospheric fraction remains at zero), we still have the problem of net CO2 increase in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

Brian Palmer
01-02-2010, 03:20 PM
Yes, but the concentration in the atmosphere, which is where it really matters, is still increasing, even if the balance between absorbed and atmospheric amounts remains "in balance." They are only talking about relative amounts. The absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, and has been for the last 150 years.

From the US Global Change Research Program (usgcrp.gov):

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/co2hm.gif

Nicholas Scheuer
01-02-2010, 03:27 PM
So what is melting the icecaps and glaciers, then?

Moby Nick

ingo
01-02-2010, 04:49 PM
Since I do not share the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change, this topic is not relevant to me.

LeeG
01-02-2010, 05:26 PM
Since I do not share the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for climate change, this topic is not relevant to me.

but do women swoon at your feet?

ingo
01-02-2010, 05:35 PM
but do women swoon at your feet?

They do of other reasons ;-)

Anyway: It is still even in scientific comunity doubtful if CO2 is responsible for climate change. The climate computer models can't give answers since they can not be verified nor falsified. Climate scales in decades and centuries, so no prediction of a model can be observed to make the model better.
The old Arrhenius explanation is bull**** and it still lacks of a plausible explanation why and how a 0.03% part of the atmosphere should do this effect.

skuthorp
01-02-2010, 05:43 PM
Well, skeptic or not #6 and #7 are true enough, and your children will find out whether you were wrong.

JimD
01-02-2010, 06:53 PM
...how a 0.03% part of the atmosphere should do this effect.

Whatever your other reasons for disbelief this seems a poor one. It sort of like saying you don't believe in anaphalaxis because how could such a miniscule amount of peanut oil affect a human body that way? Its very possible for small things to have big effects.

RodB
01-02-2010, 06:58 PM
The problem is, those that want to believe in the negative effects of CO2 and climate change, "want to believe it" no matter the facts...

R

skuthorp
01-02-2010, 07:02 PM
The "facts" may be in dispute RodB, but the cautionary principle should still apply as if we get it wrong, OOPS! will not an adequate reaction and far too late.

JimD
01-02-2010, 07:04 PM
The problem is, those that want to believe in the negative effects of CO2 and climate change, "want to believe it" no matter the facts...

R

Those who want to believe want to believe? Hard to argue with that. Perhaps you just want to believe that we want to believe.

PeterSibley
01-02-2010, 07:05 PM
The problem is, those that want to believe in the negative effects of CO2 and climate change, "want to believe it" no matter the facts...

R

Is this the same as defence policy ? The same precautionary principle ...no one has a problem with that .

Rod , I hope you are right ...what if you're wrong ?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:09 PM
So what is melting the icecaps and glaciers, then?

Moby Nick

hot air

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:17 PM
This thread is perhaps the finest example of why non-scientists ought not to pass judgement on stuff they don't understand.

If you can't understand the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2, you are not equipped to participate in the discussion.

At least you've clearly identified yourselves so we know who is putting their agenda ahead of their ability to understand science.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:20 PM
are you suggesting that YOU are a scientist? If so...sientist of WHAT?

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:28 PM
Phillip I am not a scientist but my understanding is that C02 is increasing and C02 is increasing in the ocean according to the article provided. SDowneys statement isn't supported by the article he supplies:

"the key thing is that if this is true, then all the computerized climate models foreshadowing increasing earth temps are wrong."

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:32 PM
are you suggesting that YOU are a scientist? If so...sientist of WHAT?

I have advanced degrees in solid state physics and engineering and have been employed as a professional scientist and engineer for ten years.

More importantly, (in the context of this thread), I know the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2, so I know what this article is really about.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:33 PM
I have advanced degrees in solid state physics and engineering and have been employed as a professional scientist and engineer for ten years.

More importantly, (in the context of this thread), I know the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2, so I know what this article is really about.

are you saying, then, that you derive your income from the global warming panic?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:35 PM
are you saying, then, that you derive your income from the global warming panic?

Nope.

I'm a professional scientist with no vested (economic) interest in this particular issue.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:37 PM
so, you don't have a dog in the fight? no sense of purpose, status, nothing? ...and yet, you are suggesting that you are a direct (and superior)source of informed knowledge?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:42 PM
so, you don't have a dog in the fight? no sense of purpose, status, nothing? ...and yet, you are suggesting that you are a direct (and superior)source of informed knowledge?

That is correct.

I have the necessary education, intelligence and professional experience to understand this issue, yet I do not derive my income from it.

You got any more questions?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:43 PM
lots of questions but you are answering them pretty fast... :)

for instance...you obviously derive a large part of your personal identy (sense of self) from claiming superior education (and general superor status) even though your advanced degrees (I was told you are 33 years old) will have limited your real life experience to less years than my youngest grand child is old..

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:44 PM
I hear Phillip knows stuff about guns but doesn't derive income from that knowledge. It's like, magic.

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:44 PM
And what branch of physics is your Ph.D. in, Phillip?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:45 PM
I hear Phillip knows stuff about guns but doesn't derive income from that knowledge. It's like, magic.

If I ever had a serious question about guns, I would ask Phillip.

I am aware that he knows much, much more about that subject than I do.

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:48 PM
And yet Phillip has absolutely no curiosity to take advantage of this opportunity to learn about the article.

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:48 PM
none

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:49 PM
zip

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:50 PM
zero

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:51 PM
I don't believe I go about claiming advanced degrees in gun nor do I claim my tenure at some fancy school gives me acendence over others in all areas of life...politics come to mind...

what degrees do you hold lj?

(Lee's degree is obviously in cheerleading)

LeeG
01-02-2010, 07:52 PM
Phillip, I have a high school diploma. Maybe you and I could take advantage of Ljb5 knowledge and learn something?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:54 PM
Phillip, I have a high school degree. Maybe you and I could take advantage of Ljb5 knowledge and learn something?

I wonder if you have taken advantage of GWB's knowledge to learn something...let us not forget Palin who has a better education than "us" there are many, many people with acendence over us due to their advanced education...I"ll remember that...

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:55 PM
I don't believe I go about claiming advanced degrees...

Well of course not... you don't have one! :eek:

You'd be lying if you claimed to have one.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Well of course not... you don't have one! :eek:

You'd be lying if you claimed to have one.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't.

are you gonna list those degrees?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:57 PM
But Phillip, the critical issue on this thread isn't advanced degrees in physics.

The critical issue is understanding of the subject.

Do you understand the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2?

If not, it doesn't matter how many degrees you have or don't have.

ljb5
01-02-2010, 07:58 PM
Bachelor's of Science.
Master's of Science.
Ph.D.

I thought you knew that already.

================================================== =========

But that's not the important issue here. The important issue is understanding the subject matter. Do you understand, or do I have to explain it to you again?

brad9798
01-02-2010, 07:59 PM
LeeG is definitely a cheerleader for lj!

:confused:

:(

ljb5
01-02-2010, 08:02 PM
Brad is definitely a cheerleader for Phillip.

:confused:

:(

brad9798
01-02-2010, 08:07 PM
Actually, my gut tells me leeG is a pretty good guy, really! :)

... not so much, lj! ;)
______________________________

But then again I cannot read his posts ... the ol'ignore function.

Here's my take ...

Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, IIRC ... along with the CO2 in the saltwater on the planet ... this can be concerning ... In fact, it IS troubling.

What I am NOT sold on is the fact that it is all 'human-caused.'

Sure CO2 hurts the oceans ... but there is also a lot of science out there backing the hot/cold trend pattern of meteorological history ...

I hate to see coral die ...

But time will, as it always does, tell.
__________


Personally, invasive non-native species will do more to destroy local, regional, hemispherical ecosystems than will H2s. :(

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:08 PM
Come on now. Let it go.

not possible...it's his sickness

brad9798
01-02-2010, 08:08 PM
By H2, I mean the HUMMER!

:(

ljb5
01-02-2010, 08:09 PM
not possible...it's his sickness

Hey man... at least I addressed the scientific issues of the thread.

That's something you have not done!

You're on pure attack mode. You obviously know nothing about the science, so you have nothing to add to the discussion.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:09 PM
But Phillip, the critical issue on this thread isn't advanced degrees in physics.

The critical issue is understanding of the subject.

Do you understand the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2?

If not, it doesn't matter how many degrees you have or don't have.

is that a no?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Bachelor's of Science.
Master's of Science.
Ph.D.

I thought you knew that already.

================================================== =========

But that's not the important issue here. The important issue is understanding the subject matter. Do you understand, or do I have to explain it to you again?

I see (missed this post a minute ago)

so where were these various degrees had?
what year did you defend your disertation?

LeeG
01-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, IIRC ... along with the CO2 in the saltwater on the planet ... this can be concerning ... In fact, it IS troubling.

What I am NOT sold on is the fact that it is all 'human-caused.'

S

so where is the C02 coming from?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:14 PM
Hey man... at least I addressed the scientific issues of the thread.

That's something you have not done!

You're on pure attack mode. You obviously know nothing about the science, so you have nothing to add to the discussion.

there's nothing pure about my "mode", I cheat ...learned a lot of that from you

LeeG
01-02-2010, 08:14 PM
I wonder if you have taken advantage of GWB's knowledge to learn something...let us not forget Palin who has a better education than "us" there are many, many people with acendence over us due to their advanced education...I"ll remember that...

GWB and Sarah aren't on this thread. Neither of them have the science background of ljb5. Now if I or ljb5 had a question about guns you'd be the guy to ask. Do you not have ANY curiosity to discuss the article or SDowneys statement or is this all an opportunity to play bitch slapping ?

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:14 PM
so where is the C02 coming from?

hot air...I SAID that

elf
01-02-2010, 08:15 PM
It is truely a sad thing to have to get the last word.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:15 PM
GWB and Sarah aren't on this thread. Neither of them have the science background of ljb5. Now if I or ljb5 had a question about guns you'd be the guy to ask. Do you not have ANY curiosity to discuss the article or SDowneys statement or is this all an opportunity to play bitch slapping ?

better ask Smalser...not me

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:16 PM
It is truely a sad thing to have to get the last word.

I've watched that for years Emily...I've yet to see lj let that pass...maybe this time

LeeG
01-02-2010, 08:17 PM
hot air...I SAID that
,
warming air up doesn't increase the level of C02, it only gives you warm air

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:18 PM
,
warming air up doesn't increase the level of C02, it only gives you warm air

depends on where that hot air is coming from :)

LeeG
01-02-2010, 08:20 PM
better ask Smalser...not me

You really have no curiosity about the science do you? It's ok if you don't. I have no curiosity about the types of ball ammo or powder used in old firearms. But if I wanted to know I know I could ask you and you'd teach me something I didn't know before.

isla
01-02-2010, 08:35 PM
lots of questions but you are answering them pretty fast... :)

for instance...you obviously derive a large part of your personal identy (sense of self) from claiming superior education (and general superor status) even though your advanced degrees (I was told you are 33 years old) will have limited your real life experience to less years than my youngest grand child is old..

Clutching at straws there Philip. What's wrong with 33 years old? A professional sportsman would be about ready to retire at that age, a soldier could have risen to a very senior rank and be in command of some very serious military operations, the framers of the Constitution set the minimum age for Senate service at 30 years, and Bill Gates started Microsoft when he was only 21 years old. Do you really think that a person aged 33 would lack knowledge and expertise in their chosen profession? You obviously have a serious prejudice against young bright people in general, and scientists in particular.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Clutching at straws there Philip. What's wrong with 33 years old? A professional sportsman would be about ready to retire at that age, a soldier could have risen to a very senior rank and be in command of some very serious military operations, the framers of the Constitution set the minimum age for Senate service at 30 years, and Bill Gates started Microsoft when he was only 21 years old. Do you really think that a person aged 33 would lack knowledge and expertise in their chosen profession? You obviously have a serious prejudice against young bright people in general, and scientists in particular.

on the average...33 equates with out of school for 3 years...probably teaching high school science or physics or both...you must remember that our boy claims superior knowledge in political science as well and don't forget he has diagnosed me as an idiot many times...adding yet another layer of superior education...I could go on and on but if you are willing to get the point you have enough...if you don't have enough, you aren't gonna acknowledge the point no matter what...

ljb5
01-02-2010, 08:49 PM
...probably teaching high school science or physics or both...

You are mistaken... but hey, senseless guessing about stuff you know nothing about is your standard operating procedure!

And you think you're demonstrating your intelligence?!


...you must remember that our boy claims superior knowledge in political science as well and don't forget he has diagnosed me as an idiot many times...

Well yes... but that's got nothing to do with my Ph.D. in engineering.

That's just cause I'm capable of reading and thinking.... something you have demonstrated you cannot do.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 08:53 PM
You are mistaken... but hey, senseless guessing about stuff you know nothing about is your standard operating procedure!



Well yes... but that's got nothing to do with my Ph.D. in engineering.

That's just cause I'm capable of reading and thinking.... something you have demonstrated you cannot do.

here ya go..."Bachelor's of Science.
Master's of Science.
Ph.D."

clearly implying a PhD in some unspecified "science"

so...what "science" is your masters in?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 09:03 PM
so...what "science" is your masters in?

Wow, you're totally determined to make it all about me, aren't you?

You can't discuss the science, so you're just going to attack. :rolleyes:

As you know, Phillip, your behavior has been so creepy and inappropriate that I will not disclose any information which would help you track me down. That includes the title of my thesis, my major or year of defense. You already know where I went to school.

I understand this is quite frustrating to you (and Jamie and MIke), but you'll just have to deal with it. You're a creep and I don't like you and don't want you tracking me down.

=====================================

Now... would you care to discuss the scientific issue of atmospheric carbon fraction.... or are you just going to try to attack me?

LeeG
01-02-2010, 09:04 PM
on the average...33 equates with out of school for 3 years...probably teaching high school science or physics or both...you must remember that our boy claims superior knowledge in political science as well and don't forget he has diagnosed me as an idiot many times...adding yet another layer of superior education...I could go on and on but if you are willing to get the point you have enough...if you don't have enough, you aren't gonna acknowledge the point no matter what...

Phillip, are you seriously saying that age determines ability? I knew when I was 40 my 14yr old nephew could read and comprehend abstract concepts much better than me. Now I knew a heck of a lot more about love, loss, raising kids and how to fix a bicycle wheel but when it came to reading about a topic he would do it faster and with an understanding that connected to ideas OUTSIDE of the topic in question faster than I could. In a nutshell he is smarter. Ten years later I could learn things from him that I kind of got through osmosis in five years of reading various books but he could pull it together in a paragraph. "Oh I get it".

Same thing in other activities. Some folks really do know more and are resources for learning. You must have figured that out by now.

Longbow
01-02-2010, 09:30 PM
I think the title of Al Gore's movie an "Inconvenient Truth" sums up the whole climate debate. The truth is that the earth has gotten warmer over the last two centuries. There can be no debate about this because we have the records to prove it. The ice shelves and the glaciers are melting. The mean air temperature has risen and there is an obvious trend upwards despite some years where it's colder than normal. In that same two centuries, humans have been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. Global warming seems to correlate with this CO2 increase although it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a consensus among climate scientists that that this correlation demonstrates a causitive effect. Some people have suggested that an increase in solar output is the cause of this global warming. Taking this fact into account, the earth is still hotter due to some other cause.The CO2 balance has been fairly constant, which is what you would expect. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then the percentage of CO2 in the ocean would logically increase, at least until the oceans become saturated. The increased CO2 in the ocean water leads to increased acidity. This increase in acidity can also be documented. So far I have not heard another scientifically based argument for what is causing the temperature of the earth to rise. If opponents of man-made global warming have another theory to put forth that can withstand scientific scrutiny, I would love to hear it. In addition to boats, I love working on classic cars, tractors, stationary engines and just about any kind of machinery. Nothing would make me happier than knowing that I could pursue those hobbies without the nagging guilt that I am destroying my children's world. In my own mind though the evidence leads me to believe that global warming is a man-made problem due to increased CO2, methane and other heat trapping emmissions. As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but until I know that I am, I'm not willing to gamble my children's future. I'm not willing to let anyone else gamble it either. I am not a climate scientist but I feel that I also have enough education to be able to read and understand scientific literature and I'll gladly list my educational background and if anybody is interested my gun collection.

B.S. Applied Physics - Appalachian State University 1988
B.S. Clinical Laboratory Science - University of NC - Chapel Hill 1994

Computer Programming Certification - NC State University - 2010

Ian McColgin
01-02-2010, 09:43 PM
For Phillip's continuing education about education: In the humanities a PhD usually takes longer but it's not at all odd for a PhD in a natural science or math to require maybe three or four years of graduate course work and a dissertation, depending on how related the intermediate MS was. The time required for the work in the dissertation varies incredibly depending on the nature of the research but it's not odd for it to be a year or so, often done during course work. So a person who got his or her BA at age 21 would be a PhD by 25 or so. Except for the not inconsiderable of math and science whizzes like a few of my friends who enter college at 16 or younger and gain a PhD by 20.

But really, the point has become Phillip's ability to raise - ljb5 has the right adjective here so I'll use the adverbial - creepily inane sputterings about qualifications he can't even guess at. While I'd not worry about Phillip getting motivated to activly harrass me, ljb5 has had problems in the past Further harrassment is not likely to come from Phillip but from someone putting together information from these threads.

I expect Phillip to respect and honor this.

I don't really expect Phillip to break charactor and actually study the topic but he could. You really don't need to be much of a genius to read the basic science which is available to ninth graders in the scientificly literate states.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 09:47 PM
this bricklayer understands that a PhD may not be awarded at the same institution as lesser degrees...it follows then that lj is indulging in a little informational misdirection...I just was giving him a chance to come clean...

Phillip Allen
01-02-2010, 09:51 PM
For Phillip's continuing education about education: In the humanities a PhD usually takes longer but it's not at all odd for a PhD in a natural science or math to require maybe three or four years of graduate course work and a dissertation, depending on how related the intermediate MS was. The time required for the work in the dissertation varies incredibly depending on the nature of the research but it's not odd for it to be a year or so, often done during course work. So a person who got his or her BA at age 21 would be a PhD by 25 or so. Except for the not inconsiderable of math and science whizzes like a few of my friends who enter college at 16 or younger and gain a PhD by 20.

But really, the point has become Phillip's ability to raise - ljb5 has the right adjective here so I'll use the adverbial - creepily inane sputterings about qualifications he can't even guess at. While I'd not worry about Phillip getting motivated to activly harrass me, ljb5 has had problems in the past Further harrassment is not likely to come from Phillip but from someone putting together information from these threads.

I expect Phillip to respect and honor this.

I don't really expect Phillip to break charactor and actually study the topic but he could. You really don't need to be much of a genius to read the basic science which is available to ninth graders in the scientificly literate states.

I once had a very good friend who was awarded her PhD on her 25th birthday (what could she know...she was just a Cherokee from Oklahoma)...it was considered very unusual to recieve one that young...once again, possibility is used as a substitute for probibility...

I even helped Dr. Kim with some of her work...it can be tedius

(weed science, University of Arkansas...BTW)

TimH
01-02-2010, 09:54 PM
Of those who deny the earth is warming or that humans could have an influence on this who denies that humans caused the ozone hole?

ljb5
01-02-2010, 09:57 PM
...a PhD may not be awarded at the same institution as lesser degrees...

'may not' or 'might not'?

Never mind. :rolleyes:


...lj is indulging in a little informational misdirection....

It's not misdirection. Just telling you it's none of your business.

Frankly, I think it's creepy that you show such a personal interest in me.

You'll have to become comfortable with the idea that you don't get to know everything about me.

ingo
01-03-2010, 04:25 AM
Whatever your other reasons for disbelief this seems a poor one. It sort of like saying you don't believe in anaphalaxis because how could such a miniscule amount of peanut oil affect a human body that way? Its very possible for small things to have big effects.

No, this is a strong one since we do not talk about chemistry effects like a catalysation and not of surface effects like reflection at the surfaace of waterdrops. We talk of a physical effect where some very few atoms absorb energy and emit this again on other wavelengths...
small things can have great effects but not in thermodynamics

ingo
01-03-2010, 04:45 AM
I think the title of Al Gore's movie an "Inconvenient Truth" sums up the whole climate debate. The truth is that the earth has gotten warmer over the last two centuries. There can be no debate about this because we have the records to prove it. The ice shelves and the glaciers are melting. The mean air temperature has risen and there is an obvious trend upwards despite some years where it's colder than normal. In that same two centuries, humans have been pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat. Global warming seems to correlate with this CO2 increase although it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a consensus among climate scientists that that this correlation demonstrates a causitive effect. Some people have suggested that an increase in solar output is the cause of this global warming. Taking this fact into account, the earth is still hotter due to some other cause.The CO2 balance has been fairly constant, which is what you would expect. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then the percentage of CO2 in the ocean would logically increase, at least until the oceans become saturated. The increased CO2 in the ocean water leads to increased acidity. This increase in acidity can also be documented. So far I have not heard another scientifically based argument for what is causing the temperature of the earth to rise. If opponents of man-made global warming have another theory to put forth that can withstand scientific scrutiny, I would love to hear it. In addition to boats, I love working on classic cars, tractors, stationary engines and just about any kind of machinery. Nothing would make me happier than knowing that I could pursue those hobbies without the nagging guilt that I am destroying my children's world. In my own mind though the evidence leads me to believe that global warming is a man-made problem due to increased CO2, methane and other heat trapping emmissions. As I said, I hope I'm wrong, but until I know that I am, I'm not willing to gamble my children's future. I'm not willing to let anyone else gamble it either. I am not a climate scientist but I feel that I also have enough education to be able to read and understand scientific literature and I'll gladly list my educational background and if anybody is interested my gun collection.


I disagree. It is not even proved that there is a global warming. How much should it be? 0.5 degrees in two hundred years? How exact can you mesure temperature 100 years ago? +/- 1 degree? And where did you measure temperatures mainly? At towns and airports. An airport looked much different 50 years ago than today. Grass is different to concrete.
Even more where did you measure temperatures? Hundred years ago??? How many stations where in south america, Asia and Africa? Enough to dare to calculate a "global temperature"???

But anyway: There maybe a GW. And there maybe a correlation to CO2. This proves nothing.

A theory has to make predictions that can be falsified. The computer models does not explain the effects we measure today.

ingo
01-03-2010, 04:53 AM
Look at this:



http://www.flatau-itt.de/klima/geschichte5-1.gif

red is the temperature in the last 400,000 years, blue is CO2.

You may notice:
* there were allways climate changes
* humans were not responsible for it
* CO2 follows (!) the change of the temperature, therefor it can not be the reason (this effect is because cold oceans can not hold so much CO2)

PeterSibley
01-03-2010, 05:13 AM
So Ingo ,what would be the effect of CO2 increase preceeding an increase in temperature ?

Boston
01-03-2010, 07:08 AM
You may notice:
* there were allways climate changes
* humans were not responsible for it
* CO2 follows (!) the change of the temperature, therefor it can not be the reason )

* yes there were however they occured gradually rather then rapidly ( as in "rapid" global climate change )

* go study the permeability of ice and then feel free to retract this statement as it is blatantly false
cold oceans or no

as for the original suggestion that co2 is not continuing to rise

pure bunk

love
B

sdowney717
01-03-2010, 07:17 AM
I am wishing to drag this back to the article


The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.the implication as written here is the computer models are all bunk. If only 45% stays in the air, then the climate models are bogus.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm


Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.


In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Boston
01-03-2010, 07:30 AM
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased

pure nonsense

how about in contradiction to virtually thousands of scientists working for 60+ years and tens of thousands of measurements as well as the isotopic mass balance data and the ice core data

sorry this kind of blatantly false industry pseudo science is simply not worth my time
signing off

B

sdowney717
01-03-2010, 07:35 AM
a lot of hysteria is being pushed by IPCC about how co2 levels are going to skyrocket in future decades. This article suggests co2 levels wont be going up in future years as much as those who like to push dire scenarios suggest and want you to believe.

sdowney717
01-03-2010, 07:47 AM
more evidence climate models pushed by IPCC are wrong
he states that "something other than carbon dioxide" caused the warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm


"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."


The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

sdowney717
01-03-2010, 08:11 AM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm

solar radiation key to understanding glacier melting

The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present.and today sun output has declined
"the lower level of solar radiation we have today"


Huss points out that the strong glacier melt in the 1940s puts into question the assumption that the rate of glacier decline in recent years "has never been seen before." "Nevertheless," says the glaciologist, "this should not lead people to conclude that the current period of global warming is not really as big of a problem for the glaciers as previously assumed." This is because it is not only the pace at which the Alpine glaciers are currently melting that is unusual, but the fact that this sharp decline has been unabated for 25 years now.
Another aspect to consider -- and this is evidenced by the researchers' findings -- is that temperature-based opposing mechanisms came into play around 30 years ago. These have led to a 12% decrease in the amount of precipitation that falls as snow as a percentage of total precipitation, accompanied by an increase of around one month in the length of the melt period ever since this time. Scientists warn that these effects could soon be matched by the lower level of solar radiation we have today compared with the 1940s.
which gives us ??
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60204b-us-china-weather/

Heavier snows? been very snowy in Europe also.

Phillip Allen
01-03-2010, 08:54 AM
you guys may not appreciate this but...I've heard this argument many times...in gun shops

it centers around two factions claiming sides over whether the 300 tactical gnarly mag is better than the 300 super turbo cannon...STUFF!

ingo
01-03-2010, 09:36 AM
* yes there were however they occured gradually rather then rapidly ( as in "rapid" global climate change )

* go study the permeability of ice and then feel free to retract this statement as it is blatantly false
cold oceans or no

as for the original suggestion that co2 is not continuing to rise

pure bunk

love
B

Of course CO2 rises. This is not the question. The question was, if CO2 is the reason for climate change or not. And this question can't be answered by computer models that can not be falsified or verified in decades. Moreover, these models can not explain the climate changes in the last hundred thousand of years.

"pure bunk" is a little rude for a scientific discussion. I can be persuaded by scientific arguments. And only by these.

ljb5
01-03-2010, 11:24 AM
...small things can have great effects but not in thermodynamics

We're not talking about thermodynamics. We're talking about optics. (Transmission, reflection and absorption of various frequencies of light.)

In optics, very small things can (and do) have a huge effect. Look at the problem of iron contamination in fibre optics, for example.


http://www.flatau-itt.de/klima/geschichte5-1.gif

400,000 years of data and the CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm.

And now it's around 380.

You cannot claim that's not a significant change.

================================================== ===============================

You say you can be convinced by the science, yet you are trying hard to avoid it.

Clive P
01-03-2010, 12:01 PM
YOU WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF SAILING! AND HAPPIER TOO!
Your arguments make my head ache. Clive

Phillip Allen
01-03-2010, 12:03 PM
YOU WOULD ALL BE BETTER OFF SAILING! AND HAPPIER TOO!
Your arguments make my head ache. Clive

as I was saying...


"you guys may not appreciate this but...I've heard this argument many times...in gun shops

it centers around two factions claiming sides over whether the 300 tactical gnarly mag is better than the 300 super turbo cannon...STUFF!"

ingo
01-03-2010, 12:09 PM
We're not talking about thermodynamics. We're talking about optics. (Transmission, reflection and absorption of various frequencies of light.)

In optics, very small things can (and do) have a huge effect. Look at the problem of iron contamination in fibre optics, for example.



400,000 years of data and the CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm.

And now it's around 380.

You cannot claim that's not a significant change.

================================================== ===============================

You say you can be convinced by the science, yet you are trying hard to avoid it.

Well, okay, a little optics, too. But not much. Especially not reflection - since gases can't do that. You can see it better from the themodynamic point of view: Emergy is absorbed by CO2 and heats it up and so on. Transmission and absorbtion of energy is not only topic of optics.

I do not deny that there is a significant change in CO2-concentration. There is a hell of change. But still it is a concentration <0.04% and still I (and many other scienticsts) doubt that climate change is caused by CO2.

That said it is also possible that there is a climate change that is caused by CO2. I just underline that we do not know this and that it does not make sense to pay money on the try to simulate chaotic systems when the basics are not clear. All that can come out of theses simulations is even more computer fantasy.

What I do not like is any kind of dogmatism in science. And I do not like mixing up science and politics in the same persons since it is then likely that science is compromised by politics. This is what I observe at the IPCC members. GW is topic to science, not to religion.

Where do i avoid to discuss scientific arguments? I am aware from our last discussion several months ago that we do not agree on this topic. No need to warm it up on a personal basis.

ljb5
01-03-2010, 12:37 PM
Well, okay, a little optics, too. But not much. Especially not reflection - since gases can't do that.

Sure they can. It's called Rayleigh Scattering.


You can see it better from the themodynamic point of view: Emergy is absorbed by CO2 and heats it up and so on.

Obviously, your attempt to look at it from a thermodynamic point of view is preventing you from understanding it properly.

Thermodynamics would be useful if we were interested in the expansion or contraction of the atmosphere (PV=nRT), or the equilibrium point of certain reactions (∆G=∆H-T∆S). This approach isn't particularly useful in today's discussion.

The green house effect is all about transmission, absorption and reflection of light. Specifically, how certain gases absorb different amounts of energy at different wavelengths.


Transmission and absorbtion of energy is not only topic of optics.

We're not talking about reactions, convection, conduction or expansion. We're talking about light.


There is a hell of change. But still it is a concentration <0.04% and still I (and many other scienticsts) doubt that climate change is caused by CO2.

If you were familiar with fiber optics, semi-conductors, superconductors, lasers or light-emitting diodes, you would be very familiar with the idea that 0.04% can be a huge amount.

ljb5
01-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Earlier, you said:

there were allways climate changes humans were not responsible for it CO2 follows (!) the change of the temperature, therefor it can not be the reason (this effect is because cold oceans can not hold so much CO2)

While this may (or may not) have been true for the graph you showed (last 400,000 years), the concern is that we have now created a different pattern that is not like anything seen in the historical record.

It does not do much good to look at the historical behavior if we know that our current conditions are different than they were in the past.

ingo
01-03-2010, 02:11 PM
Scattering is not reflection.

If ifrared light would be elastic Rayleigh-scattered at CO2 you would be right: pure optics (or electrodynamics or quantum mechanics - as you like)

But infrared is absorbed by CO2. And you have inelastic Raman scattering. And the CO2 (or better to say: the atmosphere in this area) is getting warmer by this absorbation.

You can call infrared radiation "light" - what is of course correct - but it is also a thermal radiation - and therefore topic of thermodynamics, too. As well as the heated atmosphere. And I am also talking about convection, conduction, expansion and so on. I am aware that this is another point of view than yours.

You know much more about solid state physics like semi-conductors, fibre-optics and so on. I studied astrophysics specialised on electrodynamics. My diploma was about computer-simulation of pulsar-magnetospheres. Anyway I know that doping for example a germanium crystal with arsenic has really nothing to do with "doping" the atmosphere with CO2.

ingo
01-03-2010, 02:14 PM
It does not do much good to look at the historical behavior if we know that our current conditions are different than they were in the past.

This would be right if CO2 (and other "greenhouse gases") is the reason for GW. And this is what I doubt.

The computer models are called "good" when they are able to simulate the last 150 years. Historical data ;-)

ljb5
01-03-2010, 07:24 PM
The computer models are called "good" when they are able to simulate the last 150 years. Historical data ;-)

Wow. A computer model of the stock market is considered excellent if it's accurate for 150 seconds. ;)

As I've told you before, the computer models really aren't necessary.

It is very, very difficulty to calculate the flow dynamics in a boiling pot of water..... yet even a fool knows that it will boil faster if you put a lid on it.

Instead of concentrating on the computer models, try to understand the scientific concepts.


I am also talking about convection, conduction, expansion and so on....

That's a silly thing to do. It's not leading you to the correct answer.


This would be right if CO2 (and other "greenhouse gases") is the reason for GW. And this is what I doubt.

I don't know what to tell you. The greenhouse effect is not controversial. It has been well known for more than 150 years and proven on this planet and other planets.

Maybe you don't believe in man-made greenhouse effect, but the idea that you don't believe in greenhouse gases is rather shocking. You're not a scientist.

The Bigfella
01-03-2010, 11:10 PM
Why are we talking about eyeblink time periods?

Here's a longer term view...

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20 C (68 F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12 C (54 F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

ljb5
01-03-2010, 11:18 PM
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20 C (68 F).


And did we find that a pleasant environment to live in?

brad9798
01-03-2010, 11:25 PM
On my ignore ... but yet, I cannot help myself ... I am SURE lj is thinking anyone not agreeing with him/her/it is stupid ...

Although most TRUE scientists understand the ebb and flow of global temps ...

Only a BLIND PARTISAN IDIOT would think that this year (decade/century) is a unique circumstance!

Somehow this clown thinks being a democrat is the KEY to global warming.

:)

ljb5
01-03-2010, 11:38 PM
On my ignore ... but yet, I cannot help myself ...

He obsessed about me less when he wasn't ignoring me. :rolleyes:

brad9798
01-04-2010, 12:05 AM
Cannot read your post/answer ... but I will bet that you attacked me ... and did not respond to my post!

Wanna bet?

I will bet a month's income that you copped out ... blamed me for addressing you ... and did NOT respond to my post!

Am I correct?!?

Am I?

Well ...

Someone pm me ... because lj is like a grade school book ... so easy to read!

:D

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 12:12 AM
I've known that for years...

brad9798
01-04-2010, 12:29 AM
Correct, you are ... :D

Ian McColgin
01-04-2010, 12:29 AM
This thread has seriously degenerated. I am most sorry to see two people stray so sedulously from any point whatsoever just because they are annoyed that a third is so insufferably factually correct.

Pity.

George Jung
01-04-2010, 01:01 AM
You had it at insufferable...

ingo
01-04-2010, 02:27 AM
Wow. A computer model of the stock market is considered excellent if it's accurate for 150 seconds. ;)

As I've told you before, the computer models really aren't necessary.

It is very, very difficulty to calculate the flow dynamics in a boiling pot of water..... yet even a fool knows that it will boil faster if you put a lid on it.

Instead of concentrating on the computer models, try to understand the scientific concepts.



That's a silly thing to do. It's not leading you to the correct answer.



I don't know what to tell you. The greenhouse effect is not controversial. It has been well known for more than 150 years and proven on this planet and other planets.

Maybe you don't believe in man-made greenhouse effect, but the idea that you don't believe in greenhouse gases is rather shocking. You're not a scientist.

The "greenhouse-effect" IS controversal and has nothing to do with putting a lid on a pot of boiling water. And there would be still a difference if the lid covers 100% of the pod or 0.04% ;-)

I am a scientist like others. here is a list of 500 peer-reviewed scientific publications that are critic, too: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And of course the critics is not only based on computer models, it is based on straightforward physics. Read "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics": http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

You can't deny that these are pure scientific arguments. You may come to ther conclusions. That is fine. I would not call you a non-scientist just because you prefer other models. That would be dogmatic not scientific...

ljb5
01-04-2010, 03:08 AM
And of course the critics is not only based on computer models, it is based on straightforward physics. Read "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics": http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

I just read it. It's pretty dumb. (By the way: Arxiv is an archive of unpublished papers. Did this paper ever actually get published??)

The paper mostly points out the difference between a real greenhouse and the greenhouse effect. We knew this already.

It's a strawman argument. Basically he claims that certain theories say one thing, then attacks them. Also, a lot of his physics is just gibberish. Do we really need Feynman graphs to understand radiative equilibrium??

=================================

The real killer, of course, is the obvious fact that we can measure the temperature on Earth or Venus, (and other planets with atmospheres) and we can measure the temperature on the moon (and planets without atmospheres.)

We can measure the difference.

You can't argue with the data.

ljb5
01-04-2010, 03:16 AM
BTW: Here is a response to that paper. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf)

If you read it, you'll notice it uses a purely scientific, mathematical approach (and unlike Gerlich), doesn't cite Australian propaganda movies like "The Greenhouse Conspiracy." :rolleyes:

If you really consider yourself a scientist, you should avoid relying on non-scientific papers that spend a lot of time discussing the political nature of the IPCC or works like "The Greenhouse Swindle," "The Greenhouse Conspiracy," and "Those Who Play the Trumpet of Fear."

That's propaganda, not science. Any scientific paper that cites them is highly suspect. I'm disappointed that you would rely on a paper like that.

The Bigfella
01-04-2010, 03:33 AM
BTW: Here is a response to that paper. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf)

If you read it, you'll notice it uses a purely scientific, mathematical approach (and unlike Gerlich), doesn't cite Australian propaganda movies like "The Greenhouse Conspiracy." :rolleyes:

Do you agree with everything in that paper?

ljb5
01-04-2010, 03:52 AM
Do you agree with everything in that paper?

It's fairly simple, but it uses a strictly mathematical approach to prove what it sets out to prove.

So yeah, I suppose I'd say I agree with it.

ripley699
01-04-2010, 04:18 AM
I have read this paper thru &thru...I have also read the top leading papers from 6 other supposed "scientists" ,all breathing the same point of view.
the problem i have with each and every one of them is that they each,in their own way,attempt to make a point but,each and every one of them tells a tale.each and every one tells what we all know is the truth,for 99 % of what they write.
It is kinda like a scientific way to tell a lie.Tell the people who are listening the truth ,the truth that everyone knows...tell it and make each point ,based upon what every one knows is the truth....gain their confidence and then when you have them on your line,feed them a minor lie,,,a lie that allows you to use your assumed "truthfulness " as a base and then,,you can feed them a "very minor lie".

everything forward of this is a lie,based upon the minor lie you fed them while they were listening to you and sucking up to your "indiscretions" Everything from that point on is a lie based upon all the truths they have already told you..............
THAT IS HOW YOU TELL A LIE AND GET THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO AGREE WITH YOU . All told so that you can't even see ,nor hear the lie taking place.

Lj is a child..a smart one ,an educated one,,,,but there is no wisdom here...he hasn't
been through life,,,he has no experience,,only what he has been taught,,,from left wing ,out of work people,people who teach because they can do nothing else.................No.I do not mean all teachers..most are wise..his are not...he is a fool..wanna listen to him ?like what he has to say ..go for it ..
the rest of the "THINKING POPULATION" Please keep on keepin' on..
LJ is a young man ....a young man who has ZERO experience in LIFE...He has a lot to learn

ljb5
01-04-2010, 07:55 AM
Lj is a child..a smart one ,an educated one,,,,but there is no wisdom here...he hasn't
been through life,,,he has no experience,,only what he has been taught,,,from left wing ,out of work people,people who teach because they can do nothing else.................No.I do not mean all teachers..most are wise..his are not...he is a fool..wanna listen to him ?like what he has to say ..go for it ..
the rest of the "THINKING POPULATION" Please keep on keepin' on..
LJ is a young man ....a young man who has ZERO experience in LIFE...He has a lot to learn

Ripley: I don't care if you don't understand or don't acknowledge the science.

But don't act like you know anything about me. You don't.

You have no basis for saying I have zero experience in life. What exactly have you done which makes you think you have such life experience? What makes you think I haven't? You don't know anything about me.

This is a scientific issue. It should not be any more difficult or personal than solving any math problem. If you can, just discuss the science. If you can't, just hold your tongue.

Clan Gordon
01-04-2010, 11:00 AM
It should not be any more difficult or personal than solving any math problem.

Unfortunately, it seems that you are the one making it personal in the discussion with Ingo. As far as I can see, Ingo is trying hard to be polite, and doing a good job in what is not his first language. I would not blame Ingo for disengaging from this discussion (if he did).

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Unfortunately, it seems that you are the one making it personal in the discussion with Ingo. As far as I can see, Ingo is trying hard to be polite, and doing a good job in what is not his first language. I would not blame Ingo from disengaging from this discussion.

it's always been SOP for lj...very immature...in fact, stupid (I can only imagine what his home life was like growing up (shaking my head)

ljb5
01-04-2010, 11:14 AM
(I can only imagine what his home life was like growing up (shaking my head)

Well, you're right about one thing: you can only imagine. You don't know any of the stuff you think you know.

You and Brad (and now ripley) are constantly talking about me as if you knew me. But you don't. You're just making stuff up.

You don't even what state I live in, yet you talk about me as if you know me. You don't; and that makes you look foolish.

Save yourself the embarrassment and just stick to the facts.

Ingo posted a paper falsely claiming that there is no physical basis for the greenhouse effect. I showed that the paper is mistaken and showed that there is a physical basis.

This is no more complex than calculating the field around a dipole or the voltage in an analog circuit, or any of the other simple tasks that professional engineers do on a day-to-day basis without difficulty.

I understand that you don't have the education to do these simple calculations, but don't act resentful towards those of us who do.

Ian McColgin
01-04-2010, 11:17 AM
Back to the thread point. Turns out the porportion between ocean CO2 and atmospheric CO2 has remained about stabile. But that point has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the twinned issues of: Is there climate change; and Is human development responsible?

Why nothing to do with? Because the amount of CO2 in each has risen dramatically.

The debate can move forward if and only if the people claiming that there is no climate change going on and/or that it's not human caused manage to admit that this thread's starting C&P premis - that climate change is a fraud because atmospheric CO2 / ocean CO2 remains constant - is not true because it's an observation that does not address climate change.

Get that far and we can talk. Or try to find a way to say that the climate change scientists have not been noting the increases in atmospheric and oceanic CO2. But changing the topic from one irrelevancy to another is simply evidence for the hollowness of the denyers' position.

ljb5
01-04-2010, 11:19 AM
I would not blame Ingo for disengaging from this discussion (if he did).

If Ingo went away, it's because he's embarrassed to discover that he posted a non-scientific paper full of propaganda from "independent filmmakers" instead of scientists.

Even he understands that a paper that cites conspiracy theory books and movies is not a scientific paper.

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Well, you're right about one thing: you can only imagine. You don't know any of the stuff you think you know.

You and Brad (and now ripley) are constantly talking about me as if you knew me. But you don't. You're just making stuff up.

You don't even what state I live in, yet you talk about me as if you know me. You don't; and that makes you look foolish.

Save yourself the embarrassment and just stick to the facts.

Ingo posted a paper falsely claiming that there is no physical basis for the greenhouse effect. I showed that the paper is mistaken and showed that there is a physical basis.

This is no more complex than calculating the field around a dipole or the voltage in an analog circuit, or any of the other simple tasks that professional engineers do on a day-to-day basis without difficulty.

I understand that you don't have the education to do these simple calculations, but don't act resentful towards those of us who do.

actually...you DON'T know anything about my education but the rest of us know all about yours, you've seen to that...assuming that you are telling truth of course...always a question about that...

ljb5
01-04-2010, 11:27 AM
actually...you DON'T know anything about my education

If you'd like to tell us about it, feel free. Personally, I'm not interested because this thread isn't about you.

I'm really not all that interested in your education. I'm more interested in your comprehension.

Do you understand the mathematical derivation in the paper I posted above?

Do you understand the difference between atmospheric fraction and net atmospheric CO2?

Did you understand the paper presented in the first post of this thread?

If you understand these, you have nothing to argue about. If you don't understand them, you have nothing to offer except dogma and personal attacks.

As we can all clearly see, you never even attempt to engage the scientific questions.... you only attack me.

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 11:30 AM
Ingo, you're welcome

ljb5
01-04-2010, 12:02 PM
Phillip: I noticed that you haven't even attempted to address the scientific issues on this thread.

Imagine for a moment that this is Sdowney's thread about CO2 atmospheric fraction and not a thread about me.

Would you have anything at all to say?

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 12:14 PM
you're not very high on my list of people to impress...in fact, I do not think I want to be your facilitator for mindless crowing at all...besides, I'm an idiot...you said so at the same time you said you are never wrong

ljb5
01-04-2010, 12:17 PM
...besides, I'm an idiot...you said so at the same time you said you are never wrong

You're not doing a good job of convincing me otherwise.

The only reason you're even posting on this thread is to attack me.

Why don't you at least try to address the scientific issues?

ljb5
01-04-2010, 12:21 PM
you're not very high on my list of people to impress...

Don't think about it as a way to impress me or a way to attack me.

Just think of it as Sdowney's thread about CO2 in the atmosphere.

Haven't you got anything to say about that?

Ian McColgin
01-04-2010, 12:23 PM
The scientific issue will, it appears, not be addressed. The deniers have not even attempted to show that the dramatic rises in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 have nothing to do with climate change. They do appear to acknowledge that climate change is happening, which is perhaps a start.

JimD
01-04-2010, 12:24 PM
It certainly can be frustrating trying to have an intelligent conversation on the internet.

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 12:26 PM
It certainly can be frustrating trying to have an intelligent conversation on the internet.

yes, I've tried and tried

ljb5
01-04-2010, 12:34 PM
yes, I've tried and tried

Here, I'll help you out....

In post #81, Sdowney said:

solar radiation key to understanding glacier melting...and today sun output has declined...

Let's assume for moment that he is correct (I believe he is).

If solar output has declined as part of its normal, cyclical variation, yet global temperatures remain at or near historical highs, what is likely to happen when solar output returns to previous levels? (Solar output has been observed to fluctuate on cycles of ~11 and ~22 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)).

Is it possible that decreased solar output is offsetting or masking anthropogenic global warming?

(Please note that I'm asking this question politely and in all seriousness. Please think of this as an opportunity to have an intelligent conversation, and not as an opportunity to attack me.)

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 12:49 PM
many things are "possible" without being probable

we have no way to measure the effect you refer to except through time...lots and lots of time

advancing or retreating ice caps may be blamed on people or volcanos...so? if you think you can go to Haiti and stop the charcoal "farmers" then you are thinking in terms of totalitarian rule...it fits

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 12:50 PM
okay, you get to have the last word again...I'm gonna read my book

RodSBT
01-04-2010, 03:30 PM
So what have any of you on the side of AGW done about it?

Have you stopped driving your CO2 belching autos? Walk to the store instead of driving for food?

Quit ordering/shipping boat building supplies for your recreational fun toys? Don't forget, all those big trucks hauling your 1088 ply and epoxy and epiphanes and bronze screws and sand paper and brushes and fiberglass and power tools....and..... are spewing the evil gas from one side of the planet to the other.

There is nothing stopping any of you from parking your cars for the duration , turning your computers off, using only local woods milled with hand tools for your boats etc. etc. etc. and just quit creating the evil gas.

If this is really as serious as you all purport, then pony up and lead the way.

So how about it? :confused:

isla
01-04-2010, 03:48 PM
So what have any of you on the side of AGW done about it?

Have you stopped driving your CO2 belching autos? Walk to the store instead of driving for food?

Quit ordering/shipping boat building supplies for your recreational fun toys? Don't forget, all those big trucks hauling your 1088 ply and epoxy and epiphanes and bronze screws and sand paper and brushes and fiberglass and power tools....and..... are spewing the evil gas from one side of the planet to the other.

There is nothing stopping any of you from parking your cars for the duration , turning your computers off, using only local woods milled with hand tools for your boats etc. etc. etc. and just quit creating the evil gas.

If this is really as serious as you all purport, then pony up and lead the way.

So how about it? :confused:

Much of what you say is correct. Most of us have our reasons or excuses for continuing to drive a car. I live six miles from my work, there are no buses, so I drive. I can't car-share because I am a mobile support engineer and drive from job to job throughout the day. Yes, I have had plywood delivered from the South of England to the North of Scotland. The problem is, even those of us who believe in AWG find it next to impossible to change our lifestyle overnight, and I don't think anybody is expecting us to do that. What is required is a process of gradual adjustment for the ordinary guy, and more dramatic changes wherever that may be manageable. This would include the acceptance of alternative energy projects and other environmental initiatives, without automatically assuming they are a left-wing plot to screw you for taxes.

ljb5
01-04-2010, 07:47 PM
So what have any of you on the side of AGW done about it?

Have you stopped driving your CO2 belching autos? Walk to the store instead of driving for food?

I sold my car three years ago and haven't missed it at all. :)

ljb5
01-04-2010, 07:54 PM
...even those of us who believe in AWG find it next to impossible to change our lifestyle overnight, and I don't think anybody is expecting us to do that.

Agreed. I have been fortunate to live a car-free lifestyle, but I understand that's not realistic for most people.

I do believe, however that most people can drive 10% less and can get 10% better gas mileage when they next purchase a car. The car makers have demonstrated that they are capable of making more efficient cars, once customers demand them.

During the gas crisis of a couple years ago, people actually reduced the amount of driving they did. I know it's difficult to believe, but people actually can modify their behavior in response to external incentives.

PeterSibley
01-04-2010, 07:59 PM
So what have any of you on the side of AGW done about it?

Have you stopped driving your CO2 belching autos? Walk to the store instead of driving for food?

Quit ordering/shipping boat building supplies for your recreational fun toys? Don't forget, all those big trucks hauling your 1088 ply and epoxy and epiphanes and bronze screws and sand paper and brushes and fiberglass and power tools....and..... are spewing the evil gas from one side of the planet to the other.

There is nothing stopping any of you from parking your cars for the duration , turning your computers off, using only local woods milled with hand tools for your boats etc. etc. etc. and just quit creating the evil gas.

If this is really as serious as you all purport, then pony up and lead the way.

So how about it? :confused:

OK ,all low wattage , bulbs , replaced the screen with small LCDs ,I've collected about 500 gallon of waste veg oil to use as fuel ...but I'm still nutting out the process :confused:. The CO2 from bio is in current cycle . 100% greenpower at double the coal price .....you don't notice the increase if you half your consumption .
Our family of 5 has about half the Oz domestic carbon emiisions .....when I get the bio thing sorted we will have a domestic CO2 of 3 ton for the household ,that will be 1/4 the Oz average .

Phillip Allen
01-04-2010, 08:08 PM
lj sold his car to someone else to drive? and his wife still drives a car?

LeeG
01-04-2010, 08:11 PM
lj sold his car to someone else to drive? and his wife still drives a car?

You have yet to actually address any of the issues concerning AGW except in terms of personalities. Yours is a chickensh*t response.

PeterSibley
01-04-2010, 08:11 PM
That would be one less driver Phillip .It's like guns , cars aren't a problem if no one is driving them .

ljb5
01-04-2010, 08:20 PM
lj sold his car to someone else to drive? and his wife still drives a car?


I recognize that you're just trying to attack me, but this is a stupid way of doing it.

My wife and I have lived within half a mile of her work for the last nine years. She owns a car, yet has not driven it to work since September of 2001.

While it's true that I sold my car to someone else, I never expected to have any authority over his driving habits. I take responsibility for my own driving, which decreased from 4,000 miles per year to essentially zero.

I take comfort in the fact that he used it as his second car... i.e, he kept his inefficient lifted F350 in the garage three or four days a week and drove my little Civic at 38 mpg instead. That's a definite benefit.

Every time you go into stupid attack mode, you just give me more opportunity to point out that you're being stupid. It really doesn't work in your favor.

ljb5
01-04-2010, 09:11 PM
many things are "possible" without being probable

we have no way to measure the effect you refer to except through time...lots and lots of time

advancing or retreating ice caps may be blamed on people or volcanos...so?

That's a cop-out answer. If you had a scientific mind and were genuinely interested in the topic (rather than just looking for an opportunity to attack), you'd pursue the topic further.

How can we determine if this hypothesis is probable or merely possible? What evidence would we need to make that determination? What evidence is available? What type of experiment could we perform or what additional evidence could we gather? What have other scientists said about this issue?

You see, to a scientist the answer is never "we can't know." The answer is always, "let's figure out a way to find out."


...if you think you can go to Haiti and stop the charcoal "farmers" then you are thinking in terms of totalitarian rule...it fits

Last I heard, Americans produced significantly more CO2 per capita than Haitians.

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 02:55 AM
perhaps lj is right for once...I'm not obsessed with the argument...I just got up to stoke the fire and will go back to bed in a few...it's cold and my thermostat is set at 55F...making a smaller carbon footprint than those who are more comfortable

ljb5
01-05-2010, 09:28 AM
perhaps lj is right for once...I'm not obsessed with the argument...

Alas, I wish you were more interested in the topic and less interested in the argument.

I kinda wish you understood the difference.

All you ever do is argue... and then when I finally get you to say two words about the topic, you say you're not interested and go away. :rolleyes:

Popeye
01-05-2010, 09:46 AM
to a scientist the answer is never "we can't know." The answer is always, "let's figure out a way to find out.".if your school fails to teach you this in the fifty minutes of the first lecture of the first course on the first day

find a new school

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 09:54 AM
if your school fails to teach you this in the fifty minutes of the first lecture of the first course on the first day

find a new school

again, it's not that I'm not interested at all but that I'm not OBSESSED and there are those who can't seem to see the difference...if they're not smart enough to figure that out then I can't help them

jperhaps I already learned that particular lesson with guns...I was obsessed as a kid but couldn't understand that others were not obsessed...I got over it

Popeye
01-05-2010, 09:59 AM
lots of academics have ocd , it's the main reason why they are academics

i also got over it :D

ljb5
01-05-2010, 10:04 AM
again, it's not that I'm not interested at all but that I'm not OBSESSED and there are those who can't seem to see the difference..

And yet you posted thirty times on this thread without addressing the topic.

You are obsessed. Unfortunately, you're obsessed with arguing and obsessed with me. Neither of those are particularly relevant to the topic.

(In case you forgot, the topic was atmospheric CO2 fraction.)

Next time, please just try to concentrate on the topic. If it doesn't interest you, you don't have to post anything at all.

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 10:08 AM
lj, you set this up yourself...you started several years ago...you are very foolish and your parents didn't finish their job

ljb5
01-05-2010, 10:49 AM
lj, you set this up yourself...you started several years ago...you are very foolish and your parents didn't finish their job

Take responsibility for your own actions, Phillip. I didn't make you post on this thread.

What is the source of your sense of superiority?

You're a sixty-one year old man with a failed family life, a failed career, no education and a juvenile obsession with guns. You act like a child and have a vicious disdain for anyone with intelligence, education and success. Yet you feel superior.

You've never met me or my parents, yet somehow you think you're superior to us and can pass judgement on us.

You come here day after day to attack me with stupid and off-topic posts. Yet you think you're superior. Why?

Step back from the keyboard, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one question: "Why am I posting on a thread about the greenhouse effect?"

Ponder that for a second: Why are you even posting on this thread?

Are you posting here because you're interested in the topic? Do you even understand the topic? Or are you posting here because you suffer a compulsion to attack and insult me?

When you can honestly answer those questions (to yourself, if not to the rest of us), you'll develop self-awareness and drop your false feelings of superiority.

Until then, you're just a vicious failure of a man with a nasty compulsion to attack, posting on a thread you know nothing about, for reasons you don't understand.

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 10:53 AM
you flunked again...

ljb5
01-05-2010, 10:59 AM
you flunked again...

Why are you posting on a thread about the greenhouse effect?

You don't know anything about the subject and don't care.

You're only here to attack me.

Why?

You provide nothing other than a vicious string of stupid and off-topic attacks. Yet you think you're a role model?

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 11:02 AM
humanitarian reasons (did I spell that right?)

ljb5
01-05-2010, 11:07 AM
humanitarian reasons

You're not being honest with yourself.

Ask yourself seriously why you're posting on this thread.

We know you're not interested in the topic and you say you're not interested in the argument.

And yet, you still continue to post.

What is your true reason for posting?

LeeG
01-05-2010, 11:14 AM
ok kids, time to cut it out. Ljb5, you represent whatever you represent for Phillip, lucky you. If it wasn't you it would be some other young bright guy. Phillip is like a lot of us who figured out the world is a particular way and it's too hard to go beyond a particular level of understanding. I do that, I'll pick people I can trust if I don't understand a topic. Or try to understand the objective reality of a topic by the community that supports it.
Phillip is interested in social realities and you're working on science.

JimD
01-05-2010, 12:14 PM
...You're a[n] old man with a failed family life, a failed career, no education and a juvenile obsession with guns. You act like a child and have a vicious disdain for anyone with intelligence, education and success...You come here day after day to attack...with stupid and off-topic posts. Yet you think you're superior...you're just a vicious failure of a man with a nasty compulsion to attack, posting on a thread you know nothing about, for reasons you don't understand.

Which is why he is on my ignore list and why I don't know why anyone pays any attention to him at all. Just curious, lj, why do you bother with him? Swatting flies in an outhouse would seem to be more productive.

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 09:21 PM
Take responsibility for your own actions, Phillip. I didn't make you post on this thread.

What is the source of your sense of superiority?

You're a sixty-one year old man with a failed family life, a failed career, no education and a juvenile obsession with guns. You act like a child and have a vicious disdain for anyone with intelligence, education and success. Yet you feel superior.

You've never met me or my parents, yet somehow you think you're superior to us and can pass judgement on us.

You come here day after day to attack me with stupid and off-topic posts. Yet you think you're superior. Why?

Step back from the keyboard, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one question: "Why am I posting on a thread about the greenhouse effect?"

Ponder that for a second: Why are you even posting on this thread?

Are you posting here because you're interested in the topic? Do you even understand the topic? Or are you posting here because you suffer a compulsion to attack and insult me?

When you can honestly answer those questions (to yourself, if not to the rest of us), you'll develop self-awareness and drop your false feelings of superiority.

Until then, you're just a vicious failure of a man with a nasty compulsion to attack, posting on a thread you know nothing about, for reasons you don't understand.

thought I'd bump this to show just how "one-way" our school teacher is...in the same post he tells me I don't know anything about him he then proceeds to lay out a thorough discription of me...how can that be...I don't know anything about him but he knows so much about me???

I don't know why my thread was poofed but because lj's post is still here it follows that something was posted on my thread that was found to be offencive while I was gone

as I copied lj's post word for word then if also follows that my opening post was not the reason...

ljb5
01-05-2010, 09:31 PM
I don't know why my thread was poofed but because lj's post is still here it follows that something was posted on my thread that was found to be offencive while I was gone.

I've been out all day. I didn't even know you had a thread. Sounds like your problem, not mine.

But I asked you an honest question, which you refused to answer: What is the source of your feeling of superiority?

To me, you just look like a nasty old man with a gun fetish and a vicious disdain for intelligence and education. You post obsessively on thread you know nothing about for no other reason but to attack me. Yet you think you're a role model.

Why is that?

Phillip Allen
01-05-2010, 09:35 PM
now we're up to fetish Doctor?
disdain for intellegence/education?
can you prove I know nothing about any thread at all?

counterattack...by an idiot

brad9798
01-07-2010, 09:34 PM
Oh my, lj ... what a pathetic attack ...

And I thought you were superior and not obsessed ...

:(

WOW!

I am embarrassed for you ... (Don't worry, I've been embarrassed for myself plenty on this forum over 10 years ... but man ...)

Shame.

A TEACHER being a know-it-all ... Now THERE'S a BIG surprise!

Are not you what is wrong with US education! :D

PatCox
01-07-2010, 09:53 PM
Phillip, the discussion is about a study that says the ratio of atmospheric CO2 to total environmental CO2 has remained constant for 150 years.

The original poster seemed to believe this means total CO2 levels have not increased, which is just totally wrong and results from the fact the original poster does not understand the significance of what he read, does not understand that a constant ratio does not say anything about total levels, and does not have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that total atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by a great deal over that same period.

Now you have been arguing against LJib forever, and nothing you say has anything to do with this, the fact that a constant ratio is something completely unrelated to total levels.

Just what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that its not true that a constant ratio is irrelevant to the total levels? Are you saying, as you seem to, that having knowledge of science and statistics and such does not give anyone the right to dispute conclusions born of ignorance? What are you saying?

Sounds like you are saying that scientists have no right to have their opinions on scientific matters than plumbers, is that what you are saying?

Thats radical levelling.

Phillip Allen
01-07-2010, 11:18 PM
that's okay Pat...I've kind of dropped out of this one...don't know why I checked in just now...

ljb5
01-08-2010, 02:09 AM
A TEACHER being a know-it-all ... Now THERE'S a BIG surprise!

Are not you what is wrong with US education! :D

I'm not a teacher and I'm not involved in education.

I don't know where you come up with these ideas.