A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence

[skookerasbil]

I remember as a kid going to see The Harlem Globetrotters at Madison Square Garden. They played some team called THE GENERALS..................

Following this thread makes me think of that game..........OLd Rocks reminds me of the guy chasing Curley Neal around the court for the Generals.

Vid of Rocks running off the court at abut the 5 second mark.............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma4YEC-AQM8]YouTube - Harlem Globetrotters[/ame]


Rocks s0n.......a couple of years ago, you had West and me in here and to the curious observer of this forum, you could create a perception of your BS being legit...............

You need to find another forum s0n...........these days, you are getting decimated on a daily basis!!! You might as well stand in the middle of Siberia in your birthday suit and scream "But the real scientists!!!"

 

[skookerasbil]

There is obviously a lot of interest in this subject since on ALL political message boards, somebody starts a new thread on it every few days.

We're looking for record warm temperatures here in New Mexico over the next several days. That follows on the heels of record setting cold over this past winter. The problem with records of course is that we have been keeping them for such a short time relative to the length of time there has been weather on Planet Earth.

The 'record' is only seconds of the many eons of Earth science making it relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

The thing I can't figure out is why some are hanging onto the whole AGW schtick so tenaciously? I mean I know why scientists depending on liberal governments for their funding do. I know why corporate big wigs like General Electric who stand to make billions if the AGW crowd is successful in their agenda do.

But why are our fellow USMB members so gung ho to insist that AGW is real and a threat and a terrible problem?

The basic analogy is to take one frame of film of a long running TV series and the TV Guide overview on it's series finale and then trying to extrapolate the whole plot, character, acting and cinematography from it.

It cannot be done with anything less than a giant chunk of religious faith.

And that's what we see in the Chicken Little Brigade.

I would love to see the scientific PROOF that mankind is THE source of all this climatological change and not some insignificant blip in a planetary and astrological scale cycle of interconnected systems. It's akin to claiming that beavers are controlling the local hydrological process because they build dams.

dumbass is so OCD, he's in his own world debating temperature crap with West. Like I said, these type of people loath information bro.........

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks considers the Pakistan floods and the Russian heat wave to be incontravertable, unequivical proof. you just can't argue with that logic. of course I have tried and it couldnt hurt if you try too.

Proof that they happened or proof that man is responsible? Has he really drank that much kookaid?

Chris, konrad, trolling blunder, and of course oltrakarfraud are politically motivated operatives. Science is anathema to them and their ilk (as I am sure you're aware), science is only useful to terrorise the natives so that they will agree to give up their freedoms and wealth so the elite (such as our dear Mr. Gore) can lead the high life on the backs of those who actually work.

oltrakarfraud is one of the worst hypocrites of the bunch working as he does for EVRAZ in Portland (a notoriously polluting company in a notoriously polluting industry, namely the steel industry) I find is amazing that this so called paragon of virtue can attempt to lecture sceptics while engaging in the very behavior he claims to abhor.

He must be a very twisted individual at home.....

 

[Si modo]

The models are nonfalsifiable, thus they are nonscientific.

Those who play at science must think the models are scientific. It's pretty cringeworthy.

Very good point. I am constantly asking alarmists to describe exactly what might falsify AGW theory in thier minds. I never get an answer because they know that whatever they say, there exists peer reviewed studies showing the very thing they claim might falsify the hypothesis.

Hell, in the scientific method, one of the first steps toward putting forward a credible hypothesis is the criteria necessary to falsify the claim. I have seen very little mentioned from the alarmist with regard to what will falsify the hypothesis.

Apparently, Rocks, Konrad, et al think Th Logic of Scientific Discovery is voodoo. Or maybe they think Popper was a conservative.



The amazing thing is they fail to learn a thing about even the basics. This is nothing new to them, but they either don't get it, or their dishonesty is too deep. They are true enemies of science, soiling it in this manner.

 

[code1211]

And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.

But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.

I certainly don't mind you saying that you are concerned about those things. Just don't say it is scientifically shown that CO2 is causing them.

What's been claimed for CO2 that hasn't been proved scientifically? We know that it traps infra-red radiation, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means more trapped energy. We know that CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means lower pHs. If the concentration in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, why shouldn't we consider it a major contributor in what's happening to the climate?

Primarily, because it hasn't been proven. What's your stance on the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?

 

[code1211]

konradv- you simply dont understand the physics involved. the LR absorbed by Co2 molecules is trivial, it is the increased time to escape into space that changes the equilibrium. likewise you misunderstand the stasis mechanisms involved with CO2 dissoving into the oceans.

I really wish you would investigate CO2 rather than just regurgitate the same incorrect comment over and over again.

I think you're the one trying to complicate things that are really quite simple. I reject your notion that the energy absorbed is trivial. CO2 is well known to keep the earth warmer than if it were not present. That hardly seems trivial to me. You're also trying to obscure the fact that CO2 dissolves in water. If there's more, more WILL dissolve and pH WILL go down. If anyone's repeating the same thing over and over, it's you and the other skeptics trying to tell us that well known physical attributes of CO2 don't count.

So, to illustrate the scale of the problem, please illustrate the levels of CO2 needed in the air for the rain to become Carbonic Acid. Has the ill effect of Carbonic Acid ever been measured before? Is there a need for Carbonic Acid in nature and are there ill effects if it is removed?

Also, How much CO2 must be infused into the air to accomplish the elevation of global temperature by 1 degree. Does that effect change with the level of concentration? Is the effect on temperature arithmetic, geometric or logarithmic. Are there any other effects that might come into play within the global climate system while the climate change effects of CO2 are occurring?

Any time anyone tells me that something very complex is very simple, all of my BS alarms go off big time. You are setting off every one of these alarms.

 

[Foxfyre]

konradv- you simply dont understand the physics involved. the LR absorbed by Co2 molecules is trivial, it is the increased time to escape into space that changes the equilibrium. likewise you misunderstand the stasis mechanisms involved with CO2 dissoving into the oceans.

I really wish you would investigate CO2 rather than just regurgitate the same incorrect comment over and over again.

I think you're the one trying to complicate things that are really quite simple. I reject your notion that the energy absorbed is trivial. CO2 is well known to keep the earth warmer than if it were not present. That hardly seems trivial to me. You're also trying to obscure the fact that CO2 dissolves in water. If there's more, more WILL dissolve and pH WILL go down. If anyone's repeating the same thing over and over, it's you and the other skeptics trying to tell us that well known physical attributes of CO2 don't count.

So, to illustrate the scale of the problem, please illustrate the levels of CO2 needed in the air for the rain to become Carbonic Acid. Has the ill effect of Carbonic Acid ever been measured before? Is there a need for Carbonic Acid in nature and are there ill effects if it is removed?

Also, How much CO2 must be infused into the air to accomplish the elevation of global temperature by 1 degree. Does that effect change with the level of concentration? Is the effect on temperature arithmetic, geometric or logarithmic. Are there any other effects that might come into play within the global climate system while the climate change effects of CO2 are occurring?

Any time anyone tells me that something very complex is very simple, all of my BS alarms go off big time. You are setting off every one of these alarms.

Of course it isn't simple which is why the sociopolitcal opportunists are able to twist it any way they want to fool the gullible and naive into believing we have a terrible problem that only THEY can solve by taking away our choices, options, opportunities, and freedoms.

Those of us who get past the 'simple' mantra--i.e., CO2 is a greenhouse gas so if humankind manufactures any of it, it will melt the glaciers and ice caps and doom us all unless we stop it--usually are able to see that it isn't that simple and is not as much of a problem as the doomsday opportunists would have us believe.

But if you DO want simple, then start with two simple truths:

Truth #1: For more than a decade now the CO2 has continued to increase dramatically--far more than can be attributed to any human activity--but the mean temperature of Earth has retreated over that same time and there has been no appreciable warming in that time. If CO2 indeed was what drives warming of the Earth, we should have seen some correlation during that period.

Truth #2: The scientific record shows that there have been periods when the Earth was much warmer than now, yet life continued to thrive and evolve, and there have been periods when the CO2 levels were much higher but on average the climate was cooler.

 

[Foxfyre]

Add a third truth: Truth #3 - we know from the historical record that plants, animals, and humankind thrives much more efficiently during warm periods than they do during unusually cooler periods. Also climate change is occurring at a pace that innovative humans can certainly find ways to adapt to their own benefit, and THAT is where our focus should be rather than trying to stop the inevitable.

 

[Muhammed]

And still the temperatures go up, the ice melts, and deniars get stupider every day.

Actually, you are the stupidiest idiot I have ever seen on the internet.

BTW...


Tell us how you came up with the monicker "Old Rocks"?

Was it to try to make stupid people believe that you were a geologist?

You are a sorry, and very brainwashed idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

I certainly don't mind you saying that you are concerned about those things. Just don't say it is scientifically shown that CO2 is causing them.

What's been claimed for CO2 that hasn't been proved scientifically? We know that it traps infra-red radiation, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means more trapped energy. We know that CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means lower pHs. If the concentration in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, why shouldn't we consider it a major contributor in what's happening to the climate?

Primarily, because it hasn't been proven. What's your stance on the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

 

[westwall]

What's been claimed for CO2 that hasn't been proved scientifically? We know that it traps infra-red radiation, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means more trapped energy. We know that CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means lower pHs. If the concentration in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, why shouldn't we consider it a major contributor in what's happening to the climate?

Primarily, because it hasn't been proven. What's your stance on the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

It would certainly be nice if they could provide some evidence. The fact that they can't speaks volumes.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that you make that claim speaks volumes about your credibility, Walleyes.

A23A

A23A Bjerknes Lecture
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
Presented by Richard B. Alley, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
View Presentation | Download

 

[westwall]

The fact that you make that claim speaks volumes about your credibility, Walleyes.

A23A

A23A Bjerknes Lecture
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
Presented by Richard B. Alley, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
View Presentation | Download

Wow, do you really believe that computer models are facts? Really? You really are dense aren't you.

 

[bripat9643]

And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.

But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.

That's all hysterical paranoid horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Truth isn't determined by majority vote. Anyone who claims otherwise only proves he's a scientific ignoramus.

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

 

[wirebender]

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

 

[konradv]

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

 

[Oddball]

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year....

Really?...Where'd you dig up that little piece of info?

 

[Si modo]

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

There IS no logic in what you say.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[westwall]

Really? The American Institute of Physics, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society all state that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a major contributer to the present warming.

So bring the proof. If it exists, I am quite sure that you can provide it. After all, according to your logic, if they say it, it must be true. Surely they have packaged proof that is beyond question in a neat little bundle suitable for use by their uneducated mouthpieces.

Lets see one scrap of observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

So, who am I to believe? A poster on a message board, or the scientists of these three societies?

Well now that depends, doesn't it. If your scientists have actually put the proof they claim where you can see it and use it to your advantage, then of course you should believe them and we (skeptics) should believe them also. But if the claim proof when none exists, then a rational being should begin to question their statments right off. So lets see the proof.

We know the energy-trapping properties of CO2 and other GHGs.

We know they've been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, with man emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? QED

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!!!

We KNOW the planet has been much warmer in the past. We KNOW that as recently as 800 years ago the temps worldwide were at least 1.5 degrees warmer. We KNOW that man had no ability to affect climate change then.

Therefore, what is happening now logically happens independent of mans influence.

NOW, it's up to YOU to prove my logic false. GOOD LUCK!