Suzuki 1 Harper 0
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 Next
sasquatch2 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:31 am
It's sort of funny but I got thinking about a trick a self-admitted science teacher posted about a clever easy way to prove CO2 AGW.
Take a jar and instal a 1 hole rubber stopper with a thermometer in the hole.
Prepare another such jar but this one filled with CO2...place them in the window in the sun and see which heats up fastest. This will convince kids who are airheads anyhoo....in reality this disproves CO2 AGW at it's very basis.
"the theory" is based upon the notion that CO2 somehow has a high specific heat compared to the rest of the atmosphere.
The two jars in the window are subject to identical heat inputs. The CO2 warming so fast disproves "the theory". Obviously the Co2 warms so fast because it lacks the specific heat of standard atmosphere.
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
Unless you repeal the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics. Which shouldn't be too difficult for a devoted alarmist.
Back to basics!
sandorski @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:52 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
It's sort of funny but I got thinking about a trick a self-admitted science teacher posted about a clever easy way to prove CO2 AGW.
Take a jar and instal a 1 hole rubber stopper with a thermometer in the hole.
Prepare another such jar but this one filled with CO2...place them in the window in the sun and see which heats up fastest. This will convince kids who are airheads anyhoo....in reality this disproves CO2 AGW at it's very basis.
"the theory" is based upon the notion that CO2 somehow has a high specific heat compared to the rest of the atmosphere.
The two jars in the window are subject to identical heat inputs. The CO2 warming so fast disproves "the theory". Obviously the Co2 warms so fast because it lacks the specific heat of standard atmosphere.
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
Unless you repeal the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics. Which shouldn't be too difficult for a devoted alarmist.
Back to basics!
Take a jar and instal a 1 hole rubber stopper with a thermometer in the hole.
Prepare another such jar but this one filled with CO2...place them in the window in the sun and see which heats up fastest. This will convince kids who are airheads anyhoo....in reality this disproves CO2 AGW at it's very basis.
"the theory" is based upon the notion that CO2 somehow has a high specific heat compared to the rest of the atmosphere.
The two jars in the window are subject to identical heat inputs. The CO2 warming so fast disproves "the theory". Obviously the Co2 warms so fast because it lacks the specific heat of standard atmosphere.
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
Unless you repeal the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics. Which shouldn't be too difficult for a devoted alarmist.
Back to basics!
Wow.
sasquatch2 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:09 am
sandorski
$1:
Wow.
Self praise is no recommendation but when it hit me---I was astounded that this had not occured to me before...let alone greater minds.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:53 am
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Soon and Baliunas have been discredited. Their work failed peer review and are widely considered to have manipulated data on purpose. Both took funding from the oil companies and lied about it. von Storch supports global warming theory, he just didn't like Mann's graph.
It doesn't matter where the data comes from. What does matter is that the studies fit the scientific method and pass peer review. Your data has failed that challenge.
The Medieval Warming Period is accepted, as is the Little Ice Age. What is not known is if they were truly global or not and what forcing factors, if any, were involved. What it comes down to though, is that they have no impact on modern global warming theory.
Global warming theory is, quite simply, that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. There are other factors, especially ocean temperature (the oceans can absorb a huge amount of heat as well as a huge amount of CO2), but the science behind global warming is greenhouse theory.
That particular theory explains why the planet isn't a frozen rock hurtling through space, and is tightly entwined with evolutionary theory. No serious scientist has questioned it for decades.
You are still fixated on the hockey stick graph though. You have not produced anything to show that global warming isn't real, just some critiques of an eight year old paper. Mann's work is a really, really small part of the science that's out there.
We know the earth is warming and that it's happening quickly. We know that GHGs lead to increased temperatures (you can actually do that experiment yourself if you doubt it...look it up). We know about the greenhouse effect. We know that the predictions made by the climate models a decade ago are coming true...the biggest discrepancy is that it's happening faster than we thought it would. That's independent of Mann's work or the critiques of it, but even the graphs you posted show a more rapid warming now than during the MWP. You'll also notice that your graphs stop eight years ago. We have more data now, and it supports global warming theory.
You can keep attacking Mann's work if you want (by the way, he has published corrections, but they don't affect the conclusions. McKittrick has also published corrections, but his do change the conclusions, so who had the better conclusions to begin with?) but those attacks haven't been relative to the overall science for five years or so. Science is not static, it's dynamic and has moved on.
So present some evidence...real, scientific evidence... that global warming isn't real. Prove the greenhouse effect to be wrong.
It doesn't matter where the data comes from. What does matter is that the studies fit the scientific method and pass peer review. Your data has failed that challenge.
The Medieval Warming Period is accepted, as is the Little Ice Age. What is not known is if they were truly global or not and what forcing factors, if any, were involved. What it comes down to though, is that they have no impact on modern global warming theory.
Global warming theory is, quite simply, that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. There are other factors, especially ocean temperature (the oceans can absorb a huge amount of heat as well as a huge amount of CO2), but the science behind global warming is greenhouse theory.
That particular theory explains why the planet isn't a frozen rock hurtling through space, and is tightly entwined with evolutionary theory. No serious scientist has questioned it for decades.
You are still fixated on the hockey stick graph though. You have not produced anything to show that global warming isn't real, just some critiques of an eight year old paper. Mann's work is a really, really small part of the science that's out there.
We know the earth is warming and that it's happening quickly. We know that GHGs lead to increased temperatures (you can actually do that experiment yourself if you doubt it...look it up). We know about the greenhouse effect. We know that the predictions made by the climate models a decade ago are coming true...the biggest discrepancy is that it's happening faster than we thought it would. That's independent of Mann's work or the critiques of it, but even the graphs you posted show a more rapid warming now than during the MWP. You'll also notice that your graphs stop eight years ago. We have more data now, and it supports global warming theory.
You can keep attacking Mann's work if you want (by the way, he has published corrections, but they don't affect the conclusions. McKittrick has also published corrections, but his do change the conclusions, so who had the better conclusions to begin with?) but those attacks haven't been relative to the overall science for five years or so. Science is not static, it's dynamic and has moved on.
So present some evidence...real, scientific evidence... that global warming isn't real. Prove the greenhouse effect to be wrong.
First of all those studies I linked to were peer reviewed. Now you might not like that, or them, but they were peer reviewed.
American government officials commisioned 2 studies. One you keep posting from the NAS in which they kind of figured, yeah maybe Mann had a point. For the last 400 years at least. The other was the Wegman study. It was not so complimentary.
I say Mann can't be trusted because he refused to show people what he did until he was pressured. You say he would show people, but just the right people (whoever they may be).
So basically what have we got here. I think the hockey stick is crap, and you're not going to change my mind. You think it's not crap and I'm not going to change your mind.
Cool I can live with that. But present that BS graph as having some sort of credibility in support of anything, and off we'll go again.
So let's move on.
$1:
We know the earth is warming and that it's happening quickly.
Kind of, but not really. We know the earth was warming up until 1998. We're not really sure what it's doing now.
$1:
We know that GHGs lead to increased temperatures (you can actually do that experiment yourself if you doubt it...look it up. We know about the greenhouse effect.).
We also know water is responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect, and humans only add about 3.5% of CO2 into the atmosphere. We also know about negative feedback, meaning what works in the lab, or in a computer model doesn't really work so well in the real world. What's your point?
$1:
We know that the predictions made by the climate models a decade ago are coming true...the biggest discrepancy is that it's happening faster than we thought it would.
That's precisely what we don't know. There's a ton of climate models out there, so I don't know. I quess you could maybe find a few somewhere that fit (maybe if they were done in 2008), but basically no, we don't know the climate models are accurate at all. In fact they've been coming up with a lot of strange explanations for why they're not coming true. It's explained pretty clearly in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8
$1:
You'll also notice that your graphs stop eight years ago. We have more data now, and it supports global warming theory.
I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. It supports the exact opposite. Wanna see a more recent graph? Here's January to january right to 2008. Notice what's happening lately?
Here's one of my faves. The black line is CO2
Reverend Blair @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:21 am
I'm sorry, you cited Soon and Balinunas. As I said, they've been discredited. You cited von Storch, but he has said outright that global warming is real.
We can expect variances in the weather. A few cool years don't show anything. You didn't link to your sources, but you really should.
In fact, the only link you've provided is a Utube video that misrepresents feedback loops. He says outright that there is no reason for scientists believing that positive feedback loops are a dominant force. The thing is that they are. He further claims the negative feedback loops aren't taken into account...an absolute falsehood. He then claims, again falsely, that aerosols are the only thing considered in mitigating global warming...I've already mentioned the effect the oceans have, so he's wrong about that too. He further misrepresents how aerosols act in the atmosphere.
In other words, he hasn't done his homework.
Here's a pretty good site for modelling. Note all of the documentation.https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/index.jsp
Now compare that to some guy on utube.
Never mind that though...here's a good link on climate modelling:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ch_lang/in
Here's one on the physics, although I understand there's some discussion of emergent phenomenon vs. boundary values or something like that:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html
Here's something on the Medieval Warming Period:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33
Here's a Q&A session that addresses a lot of the stuff the denial industry tosses up:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ch_lang/in
Here's a bit on the way some deniers manipulate curves:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... illennium/
Here:s some more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ch_lang/in
Once you've read those, and the things they link back too (often the original scientific papers etc.) let me know and I'll send you some more.
C.M. Burns @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:17 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
It's sort of funny but I got thinking about a trick a self-admitted science teacher posted about a clever easy way to prove CO2 AGW.
Take a jar and instal a 1 hole rubber stopper with a thermometer in the hole.
Prepare another such jar but this one filled with CO2...place them in the window in the sun and see which heats up fastest. This will convince kids who are airheads anyhoo....in reality this disproves CO2 AGW at it's very basis.
"the theory" is based upon the notion that CO2 somehow has a high specific heat compared to the rest of the atmosphere.
The two jars in the window are subject to identical heat inputs. The CO2 warming so fast disproves "the theory". Obviously the Co2 warms so fast because it lacks the specific heat of standard atmosphere.
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
Unless you repeal the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics. Which shouldn't be too difficult for a devoted alarmist.
Back to basics!
Take a jar and instal a 1 hole rubber stopper with a thermometer in the hole.
Prepare another such jar but this one filled with CO2...place them in the window in the sun and see which heats up fastest. This will convince kids who are airheads anyhoo....in reality this disproves CO2 AGW at it's very basis.
"the theory" is based upon the notion that CO2 somehow has a high specific heat compared to the rest of the atmosphere.
The two jars in the window are subject to identical heat inputs. The CO2 warming so fast disproves "the theory". Obviously the Co2 warms so fast because it lacks the specific heat of standard atmosphere.
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
Unless you repeal the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics. Which shouldn't be too difficult for a devoted alarmist.
Back to basics!
THIS is junk science!
It's nothing more than a comparison between apples and oranges. This would be the case if the mass of the CO2 was less than the mass of the air - fewer molecules to absorb heat means hotter molecules.
Wow!
An experiment which does demonstrate the effect of increased C02 must model that actual situation, and goes like this:
- 2 jars with air, stoppers, thermometers.
- Add a small amount of C02 (alka-seltzer) to one of the jars - enough to double the concentration of CO2 so we can see the difference in a relatively quick time scale.
- Bring the jars to the same temperature.
- Now, since the greenhouse effect is all about RETAINING HEAT or rate of heat loss, put the jars somewhere where there is enough of a temperature differential to cause a measurable heat loss on short time scale (outside at night works great!).
- Take temperature readings ever minute until both jars reach ambient temperature.
What happened?
Wow! The jar with the higher concentration of CO2 took LONGER TO COOL DOWN.
It demonstrates the increased heat capacity of the atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2.
That, my friends, is science.
Here are the complete details for this experiment from:
David J. Davies, Department of Geology
Ernest W. Blakeney, Department of Chemistry
Centenary College of Louisiana
Shreveport, LA
http://www.beloit.edu/~SEPM/Geology_and ... rming.html
Dr Caleb @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:39 am
C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:
What happened?
Wow! The jar with the higher concentration of CO2 took LONGER TO COOL DOWN.
It demonstrates the increased heat capacity of the atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2.
That, my friends, is science.
Wow! The jar with the higher concentration of CO2 took LONGER TO COOL DOWN.
It demonstrates the increased heat capacity of the atmosphere with higher concentrations of CO2.
That, my friends, is science.
That was why I posted the name of the German study, a couple pages back. So people could research it.
C02 molecule may not have the ability to hold heat, but CO2 in atmosphere (Oxygen, Nitrogen, Water Vapour) can increase atmosphere's ability to hold heat.
sasquatch2 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:51 am
HAW HAW
Interesting how easy it is to get a meaningless parlour trick discredited by it's most prominent promoters. The experiment is usually used to brain wash kids by merely observing how quickly the temps in the different jars changes. In the real world it is meaningless because of the extreme concentration of CO2 in the one jar. No application to establish the effect of 1\10,000 of the earth's atmosphere. The hystical magical molecule bits the dust. It was a meaningless parlour trick anyway and not mine.
It is signifigant that the warmers have so viciously dismissed or attempt to minimise the MWP. A liar must always keep the truth in mind...for any success.
Prior to the arrival of the hockeystick my interests were elsewhere and yet I instinctively rejected it---and wondered why. Too many pivital historical events all occurred too coincidentally globally for mere chance. The rise and end of Viking and Mongol expansion in Eurasia---and the closing of the silk road circa 1300. I had always discounted the influence of Islam in the ending of that venerable trade. The mongols had used it as an invasion route and zealously protected it as a source of revenue. Marco Polo reported the difficulties of crossing the Pamirs due to cold weather and then later returned by sea.
Personally, I have serious doubts as to whether Polo ever got east of the Levant. Most of his reports seem like second hand reporting....and he never mentioned TEA.
Back to AGW.
Gore/Suzuki empatically dismiss the MWP, an inconvenient truth, with vigour. When confronted with the indisputable historical record they attempt to represent it as a purely North Atlantic phenomina---ignoring the reality of the necessity of a widespread warming for the North Atlantic Current to provide the heat to support the MWP in Europe. The very Ocean Heat Conveyer they cite is their undoing. For an unusual warming in Europe necessitates the MWP to be a Global phenomina.
The archeology of South America reveals cycles of habitation moving up and down the topography in lock-step with the RWP, DA, MWP and LIA. Marcela Cioccale, of the National University of Cordoba, established this. Circa 1000 AD habitation moved as high as 4,300m in the Central Peruvian Andes and then retreated to lower elevations after 1320AD.....
Then there is the Ice Cores from the Antarctic Vostok Glacier which reflect all these cooling warming cycles.
C.M. Burns @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:52 am
Dr Caleb,
Thanks for the reminder about the excellent original post!
I felt it necessary to specifically address the junk science post from you-know-who with an experiment that anyone with access to high school science gear could actually do.
N_Fiddledog @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:25 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
I'm sorry, you cited Soon and Balinunas.
As I said, they've been discredited.[/quote]
As has Michael Mann. As has the NAS when they stacked their panel with Mann's buddies. Do you see what happens when you play the "your guys are poopheads" card. What you say about one I can say about another. Your guys are no better than my guys.
You wanted peer reviewed studies. I gave you some. You may not like those guys, but their study was peer reviewed. Yes the global warmers threw a hissy fit about it. To be honest I'm not too impressed by Sallie myself, but you wanted a peer reviewed study. I gave you a bunch. That was one of them. You seemed to feel only McIntyre and McKittrick were involved. You were shown that's not the case.
$1:
You cited von Storch, but he has said outright that global warming is real.
Why is it all about the personalities with you. It was a peer reviewed study critical of the hockey stick graph. He believes in global warming. So what? If I were you I'd be wondering why I was supporting something even my own scientists didn't.
I'll have to get to your other stuff later. Basically though...you're wrong about that stuff too.
C.M. Burns @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:30 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
HAW HAW
Interesting how easy it is to get a meaningless parlour trick discredited by it's most prominent promoters. The experiment is usually used to brain wash kids by merely observing how quickly the temps in the different jars changes. In the real world it is meaningless because of the extreme concentration of CO2 in the one jar. No application to establish the effect of 1\10,000 of the earth's atmosphere. The hystical magical molecule bits the dust. It was a meaningless parlour trick anyway and not mine.
Interesting how easy it is to get a meaningless parlour trick discredited by it's most prominent promoters. The experiment is usually used to brain wash kids by merely observing how quickly the temps in the different jars changes. In the real world it is meaningless because of the extreme concentration of CO2 in the one jar. No application to establish the effect of 1\10,000 of the earth's atmosphere. The hystical magical molecule bits the dust. It was a meaningless parlour trick anyway and not mine.
Yes, I'm sure that real science seems like a parlour trick to the scientifically illiterate.
HAW HAW indeed
'... it is meaningless because of the extreme concentration of CO2 in the one jar'.
There is no 'extreme' concentration in this experiment. The experiment calls for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 from 350 ppm (current atmospheric concentration when written) to 700 ppm. This is not even close to being 'extreme'.
The experiment can be done with lower concentrations of CO2. Do it at 450 ppm and you will still see the same effect, just less pronounced. The bottom line is that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Period.
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
There! A simple experiment misrepresented as proof of CO2 AGW actually totally, irrevocably discredits it.
and then:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
It was a meaningless parlour trick anyway and not mine.
You deny your own posts as soon as they are discredited!!!
It's time to take my sails out of this foul wind.
rearguard @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:35 pm
Well we don't have to wait for the carbon tax to hit us before knowing how the scam will work. Here in BC we're going to be carbon taxed on everything we use that was derived from oil and gas products (which we have no choice but to do), yet BC will continue to produce much more energy related products than it requires so that it can profit from oil and gas exports to the USA while it reaps in the rewards by taxing the working stiff into oblivion.
I suppose the exported oil and gas won't be taxed because obviously it won't be burned here in BC.
If we're forced to use less, then they can sell more at a higher margin! HA HA HA HA suckers!
If anyone in here still thinks we're not going to get screwed over by a carbon tax, then you more than deserve the fate that awaits you.
C.M. Burns @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:56 pm
rearguard rearguard:
If anyone in here still thinks we're not going to get screwed over by a carbon tax, then you more than deserve the fate that awaits you.
rearguard. Please, read the full report:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/report ... en_eng.pdf
THE PURPOSE
The purpose of the plan is for carbon EMITTERS to pay for the carbon they emit, thereby giving a marketplace advantage to clean(er) businesses.
Or, put another way, it removes the marketplace advantage (over cleaner businesses) that allows emitters to dump GHG into the atmosphere FOR FREE.
Let me extract a few choice quotes from the actual report:
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?
"A carbon price... would generate government revenue of at least $50 billion per year by 2020. This revenue could be shifted in order to reduce other taxes, including the level of income tax that Canadians pay. In this manner, instead of paying taxes on wages, savings and investments, Canadians would be paying more of their taxes on the basis of the consumption choices they make.
This analysis shows that if the entire revenue generated by a carbon price were used to offset
income taxes, Canadians would experience a 50 per cent average reduction in the income tax
they pay."
PROTECTION FOR LOW-INCOME CANADIANS!
"Low-income Canadians must be protected from the modest economic impact that will inevitably
accompany a carbon price policy. While most Canadians could experience an offsetting reduction
in income taxes through tax shifting associated with a carbon price, low-income earners often
pay little or no income tax and hence would not benefit from a reduction in this tax.
There are several policy options for addressing the economic impact of a carbon price on
low-income earners, including tax rebates, credits, and targeted incentives. One of the options
that has proven most effective is the refundable tax credit, which has been successfully used with
the federal Goods and Services Tax. A refundable tax credit ensures that all Canadians below a
certain income threshold receive direct compensation to offset the additional costs associated
with a carbon price."
C.M. Burns @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:01 pm
So, if you're a Hummer driver you pay for your carbon.
Fly around the world on vacation - you pay for your carbon.
Make choices that are better for the environment and you pay less.
If you're poor and take the bus everywhere and you can't afford a vacation in Spuzzum let alone Hawaii, you get paid.
Sgt_ShockNAwe @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:36 pm
What I know is
Number of species extinct in 20 years < 350,400.
And "<" means "less than." That's math, Blair.
Edit - By serendipity, I stumbled across this site
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/l ... 5lec01.htm
The estimated number of recorded extinctions from 1600 to 1983 was 724. We must have really accelerated mass extinctions over the past 25 years, eh?[/quote]
Toro - the website you posted states: "Whereas the natural rate of extinction is estimated at about one species per year, the present rate is estimated at 10,000 times that - about one per hour - and almost all of these losses are caused by human activities. We probably have already lost 1 million species, and several more million will be lost in the first few decades of the 21st century."
One per hour.
24/day
365/year
More quotes:
"At present, animals are believed to be going extinct at 100 to 1,000 times the usual rate, leading many researchers to claim that we are in the midst of a mass extinction event faster than that which wiped out the dinosaurs."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/ ... redspecies
"Present day — the Holocene extinction event. 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever, according to a 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History. Some, such as E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that humanity's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of one-half of all species in the next 100 years. Research and conservation efforts, such as the IUCN's annual "Red List" of threatened species, all point to an ongoing period of enhanced extinction, though some offer much lower rates and hence longer time scales before the onset of catastrophic damage." - wikki
So - your one quote from years ago that turned out to be wrong - I wonder how many of those one could find? Detracts from the obvious truth - We are causing a current global mass extinction.
The comment about polar bears in Churchill is so laughable it almost defies the energy expenditure to even bother, but let me help you.
POLAR BEARS LIVE ON ICE! ICE MELTING! POLAR BEARS DROWNING! POLAR BEARS MIGRATE SOUTH! MOVE IN WITH CHURCHILL!
So the vastly reduced, underweight survivors of the massive ice melting going on in the Arctic, manage to crawl their way to Churchill, which has nice juicy dumpsters and land that actually won't melt out from under your feet. And are immediately shot by terrified residents and declared an infestation. Nice.....
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 Next