Global emissions hit record levels

[Trakar]

Remember him?

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

I'm just as familiar with Dr Jones as I am with the Daily Fail's distortions and lies.

If you are willing to accept Dr. Jones' opinion on this issue, I'm perfectly willing to consider them as well, so long as we look at the words he actually said in the context of how he said them and how he clarified and expanded upon them when questioned about them.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
(though the whole interview is important for context - the specific question and initial response was

“Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Answer: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

Though I don't do blogs, and generally eschew youtube presentations for similar reasons, here is a youtube explanation that is (from my perspective) surprizingly cogent and well put.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag]8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube[/ame]

From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (CI). 95% CI - is simply a commonly-used interval in scientific research (statistically identifying data that falls within two standard deviations of the mean), it is not any sort of cut and dried or intrinsic determinant. Anecdotally, the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.

Trusting Phil Jones on experiments would be like hiring Bernie Madoff or Jon Corzine as financial Controller; he's a fake who has altered and destroyed data

I posted that just to show you how your Jesus is saying "AGW...meh...I'm not so sure"

Excepting, of course, two very important points 1) He is no one's "Jesus" that I am aware of, and 2) that isn't what the man said.

(oh, btw, if you are going to use that poor dead man's picture as your political statement d'jour, how about at least using a picture that is sympathetic to his memories like the one below instead of the one you have where he looks like he just stumbled out of some opium den after a week-long bender!)

 

[Trakar]

If the earth is dying from CO2 -- I'll believe it when the warmers start asking for 120 new nuke plants. Til then --- it's a politically motivated fraud of alternatives, sustainability, global social justice and a parade of other leftist causes like the anti-nuclear crowd..

So FAR -- not ONE SINGLE warmer has cared to refute my cynical belief that y'all are bluffing...

Strawman alert! No one is saying the earth is dying. The earth will be just fine. The concerns are over the effect warming will have on the coasts, in agriculture and on civilization in general. It's no bluff. It's science and logic. Look into it sometime.

The bluff is that science can tie GW directly to something that humans do, or do not do... Look into it sometime.

The "bluff" only exists in your confused, but mostly absent, understandings.

 

[flacaltenn]

Man Trakar -- Poking fun at a dead border agent ain't funny at all. I thought your unfounded attacks on me were bad -- this is clinically abberant..

Same response I gave to KonRadV when he dodged the question (without impugning my intelligience at least)

Oh HELL man. Just answer the question.. Which is a bigger more imminent danger? Your precious AGW apocalyptic visions or nuclear power which would END man-made CO2 threats?

Don't bother -- you sick piece of garbage.. You are gone from view...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm just as familiar with Dr Jones as I am with the Daily Fail's distortions and lies.

If you are willing to accept Dr. Jones' opinion on this issue, I'm perfectly willing to consider them as well, so long as we look at the words he actually said in the context of how he said them and how he clarified and expanded upon them when questioned about them.

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
(though the whole interview is important for context - the specific question and initial response was


Though I don't do blogs, and generally eschew youtube presentations for similar reasons, here is a youtube explanation that is (from my perspective) surprizingly cogent and well put.

8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years' - YouTube

From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (CI). 95% CI - is simply a commonly-used interval in scientific research (statistically identifying data that falls within two standard deviations of the mean), it is not any sort of cut and dried or intrinsic determinant. Anecdotally, the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.

Trusting Phil Jones on experiments would be like hiring Bernie Madoff or Jon Corzine as financial Controller; he's a fake who has altered and destroyed data

I posted that just to show you how your Jesus is saying "AGW...meh...I'm not so sure"

Excepting, of course, two very important points 1) He is no one's "Jesus" that I am aware of, and 2) that isn't what the man said.

(oh, btw, if you are going to use that poor dead man's picture as your political statement d'jour, how about at least using a picture that is sympathetic to his memories like the one below instead of the one you have where he looks like he just stumbled out of some opium den after a week-long bender!)

Classic.

Can't answer the AGW question so let's make merry with the guy Obama and Holder helped murder

 

[Trakar]

Go find me a "Real scientist"

I don't go over to the Crosstard Punk profile, since we both know you are too stupid to be anything but a zombie, but look at Trakar. I don't know what he claims, but I am sure he is enough of a scientist, to teach at colleges. Should we go look?

Trakar's album is titled, "AGW." It is plainly a great collection, of graphs:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw.html

Don't get all excited and try to eat his brain, you goddamn living-dead fucktard!

If you are hungry, try munching on this: atmospheric molecules of three or more atoms contribute, to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, or Earth would be a lot colder.

Out-gassing will cause runaway warming. Science never sleeps, Crosstard.

Can you walk me through the "science"? Use small words

Explain how the CO2 is turning the oceans acidic

Okay!

The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the more CO2 you have dissolved in the waters in contact with the atmosphere.

CO2 + H2O ----> H2CO3 (AKA Carbonic Acid) ----> H+ + HCO3

the more H+ (free hydrogen ions) you have in a solution, the more “acidic” that solution becomes.

Currently, the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago, and are considerably more acidic than they have been in at least 800,000 years and possibly more than they've been in the last 50 million years or more.

 

[Saigon]

Can you walk me through the "science"? Use small words

Explain how the CO2 is turning the oceans acidic

Okay!

The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the more CO2 you have dissolved in the waters in contact with the atmosphere.

CO2 + H2O ----> H2CO3 (AKA Carbonic Acid) ----> H+ + HCO3

the more H+ (free hydrogen ions) you have in a solution, the more “acidic” that solution becomes.

Currently, the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago, and are considerably more acidic than they have been in at least 800,000 years and possibly more than they've been in the last 50 million years or more.

That's a very good answer, again.

It's interesting reading through the climate change threads and considering the intellectual tone of the debate.

Something that has really surprised me here is how much climate scpetics seem to rely on insults, abuse and particularly patronising comments in lieu of presenting real scientific data and evidence.

The argument presented here - that measured by weight the amount of carbon released by human acitivity seems tiny when compared to the total atmosphere - seems more emotional than scientific. It makes no sense to me that a 4 kilos of botulin could potentially kills every person on earth, either, but science tells us that it could. It makes far more sense to me that raising the PPM of carbon in the atmosphere to the extent we know it has been increased could influence weather.

I've yet to see any sceptic on any of these threads present a realistic, peer-reviewed scenario for what is happening to ocean ph, to glaciers, to the artic ice or to desertification patterns, and I suspect we never will see that because the papers just don't exist.

 

[Trakar]

Can you walk me through the "science"? Use small words

Explain how the CO2 is turning the oceans acidic

Okay!

The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the more CO2 you have dissolved in the waters in contact with the atmosphere.

CO2 + H2O ----> H2CO3 (AKA Carbonic Acid) ----> H+ + HCO3

the more H+ (free hydrogen ions) you have in a solution, the more “acidic” that solution becomes.

Currently, the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago, and are considerably more acidic than they have been in at least 800,000 years and possibly more than they've been in the last 50 million years or more.

That's a very good answer, again.

It's interesting reading through the climate change threads and considering the intellectual tone of the debate.

Something that has really surprised me here is how much climate scpetics seem to rely on insults, abuse and particularly patronising comments in lieu of presenting real scientific data and evidence.

I've yet to see any sceptic on any of these threads present a realistic, peer-reviewed scenario for what is happening to ocean ph, to glaciers, to the artic ice or to desertification patterns, and I suspect we never will see that because the papers just don't exist.

That's because the only legitimate argument at this time is over the public policy actions to be taken with regards to minimizing, reducing and ameliorating our impact upon the climate and environment in general. There is plenty of room to argue, within the science, about the best means and manner of accomplishing these goals. Even the current science leaves a fairly large range of debatable time frames for impact realization and even a significant range of impact severity and scope that needs further refinement. But arguing and deciding nuances of action and expense and trying to get a largely distracted and undereducated electorate emotionally worked up over such policy drudge work isn't near as easy as denying that there is a problem that needs addressing, and asserting black-helicopter conspiracies in the stead of bread and circuses.

 

[Trakar]

Man Trakar -- Poking fun at a dead border agent ain't funny at all. I thought your unfounded attacks on me were bad -- this is clinically abberant..

Same response I gave to KonRadV when he dodged the question (without impugning my intelligience at least)

Oh HELL man. Just answer the question.. Which is a bigger more imminent danger? Your precious AGW apocalyptic visions or nuclear power which would END man-made CO2 threats?

Don't bother -- you sick piece of garbage.. You are gone from view...

You keep saying that and then you keep reading and responding to my posts. I could care less whether you read my posts and responses or not. Until a few weeks ago I never heard of you, what little I've seen, has not made much of an impression either way. If you wish to blindfold your eyes to my words to protect your delicate sensitivities I wish you would get on with it, I'm getting a bit weary of all your moaning and crying about how terribly offended you are and how you are filtering me, with the implication that such is punishing me!

ROFLOL, I'd much rather be filtered than continue having to listen to your constant blubbering and weeping about how I and the world are treating you poorly.
Please, be a man for once in your life and do get on with it!

(BTW - I told you a long time ago, that I'm all for nuclear power, I think the number of power plants needed is probably closer to 500 than 120, however)

 

[Trakar]

Trusting Phil Jones on experiments would be like hiring Bernie Madoff or Jon Corzine as financial Controller; he's a fake who has altered and destroyed data

I posted that just to show you how your Jesus is saying "AGW...meh...I'm not so sure"

Excepting, of course, two very important points 1) He is no one's "Jesus" that I am aware of, and 2) that isn't what the man said.

(oh, btw, if you are going to use that poor dead man's picture as your political statement d'jour, how about at least using a picture that is sympathetic to his memories like the one below instead of the one you have where he looks like he just stumbled out of some opium den after a week-long bender!)

Classic.

Can't answer the AGW question so let's make merry with the guy Obama and Holder helped murder

What AGW question have I not answered?

I didn't "make merry" I simply offered you a better picture to use for your turning of a man's life into demogogery and partisan rhetoric on an internet messageboard.

 

[Saigon]

That's because the only legitimate argument at this time is over the public policy actions to be taken with regards to minimizing, reducing and ameliorating our impact upon the climate and environment in general. There is plenty of room to argue, within the science, about the best means and manner of accomplishing these goals. Even the current science leaves a fairly large range of debatable time frames for impact realization and even a significant range of impact severity and scope that needs further refinement. But arguing and deciding nuances of action and expense and trying to get a largely distracted and undereducated electorate emotionally worked up over such policy drudge work isn't near as easy as denying that there is a problem that needs addressing, and asserting black-helicopter conspiracies in the stead of bread and circuses.

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.

It seems to me that the sane conservative voices in the world have long since moved on to discussing the key issues of nuclear vs renewable energy and looking at the impact of rising sea levels etc on the lives of ordinary people, rather than pretending the science is not what it is.

I'm baffled as to why the Conservative Party in the UK (plus France, Germany, New Zealand and most of the rest of the developed world) have come out and said that climate change is real and needs to be addressed - and yet the US conservatives are still clinging to the bubble of disbelief.

There IS a real conservative position on climate change - but that has more to do with promiting free enterprise in energy generation than it does in waiting for the glaciers to grow back of their own accord.

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'Conservatives' here and not the conservatives of William Buckley's time. They are uneducated reactionaries, and proud of their ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't go over to the Crosstard Punk profile, since we both know you are too stupid to be anything but a zombie, but look at Trakar. I don't know what he claims, but I am sure he is enough of a scientist, to teach at colleges. Should we go look?

Trakar's album is titled, "AGW." It is plainly a great collection, of graphs:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/trakar-albums-agw.html

Don't get all excited and try to eat his brain, you goddamn living-dead fucktard!

If you are hungry, try munching on this: atmospheric molecules of three or more atoms contribute, to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, or Earth would be a lot colder.

Out-gassing will cause runaway warming. Science never sleeps, Crosstard.

Can you walk me through the "science"? Use small words

Explain how the CO2 is turning the oceans acidic

Okay!

The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the more CO2 you have dissolved in the waters in contact with the atmosphere.

CO2 + H2O ----> H2CO3 (AKA Carbonic Acid) ----> H+ + HCO3

the more H+ (free hydrogen ions) you have in a solution, the more “acidic” that solution becomes.

Currently, the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago, and are considerably more acidic than they have been in at least 800,000 years and possibly more than they've been in the last 50 million years or more.

And all it takes is one molecule of CO2 to turn the oceans acidic?

Can you continue you train of thought?

What does it mean that "the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago"? If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

(I have several more questions, but it's best to do this in small doses because I'm a layman)

 

[Saigon]

If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in acidity.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

What does it mean that "the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago"? If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

7.89

Simple math! If you couldn't answer your own question, do you really have any business posting to this forum? My advice, lurk and learn something.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in acidity.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, I'm every bit as skeptical that there is an "Average" ocean pH that can be stated to 1/100 as there is an "Average" Earth temperature that can be stated to a 1/10 of a degree, but let's pretend what you say is accurate. I'm even more skeptical that we can say for certain what this "Average" pH was back in 1750, again, let's put that aside.

I'm confused as to what your "theory" is and what mechanism is driving this increase in CO2.

1. I thought that as oceans warmed from AGW they retained less CO2 and caused a "Feedback Loop" Have you abandoned that theory?

2. To the extent that the increase in CO2 is solely responsible for this 30% increase in acidity, can you walk me though the basic chemist involved? What's the pH of Carbonic acid? Is it a stable molecule that stays in the oceans for 200 years?

Again, more to follow

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does it mean that "the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago"? If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

7.89

Simple math! If you couldn't answer your own question, do you really have any business posting to this forum? My advice, lurk and learn something.

I'm ignoring you because as usual you add less than nothing to the conversation

 

[flacaltenn]

What does it mean that "the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago"? If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

7.89

Simple math! If you couldn't answer your own question, do you really have any business posting to this forum? My advice, lurk and learn something.

And that means WHAT in terms of the NATURAL massive variations in PH in most of the coastal ecosystems?

[/IMG]

Look at Palmyra Reef numbers. PH is a log function. I don't have time to do it but this is HUGELY bigger than 30%. We don't even have good numbers for most of ecosystems we're considering. I've seen charts of Wash coast where xCO2 in the water varies 100% percent in a month....

 

[bobgnote]

I sure noticed how neo-con zombies like to run around and bite the living survivors, of neo-con zombie-virus. I particularly like how Woody Harrelson blows away a bunch of biters, in a hurry, at an amusement park, in Zombieland. Jesse Eisenberg shoots Bill Murray, in his Beverly Hills home, when Murray, in zombie makeup and wig surprises Jesse, who has broken into Murray's home.

Also from Zombieland:
GHG data from UNFCCC

Bill Murray: You are staring at me. It's a hairpiece. A piece.
Wichita: I'm sorry. No, it's just that you look remarkably like Eddie Van Halen.
Bill Murray: I just saw Eddie Van Halen.
Wichita: Nuh-uh.
Tallahassee: Really?
Bill Murray: Yeah.
Wichita: Wow.
Tallahassee: Where?
Bill Murray: The Hollywood Bowl.
Tallahassee: How was it?
Bill Murray: He's a zombie.

You know, boys and girls, Eddie Van Halen is a klepto-zombie, who stole a lot of riffs, and we just won't be seeing a return, of classic rock, since that was ripped, right out of homes and sundry locations, to be overproduced, as note-for-note dupe, by corporate plagiarists. Showbiz was producing fake 'live' productions, with various degrees of sync-tape application, in their fake-rock. So the reality about life in the USA is really a lot more like Zombieland, than many people expect.

The NSA just got a new hole, in Bluffdale, Utah, to process terabytes. The NSA is four times the size, of the CIA. When they pick up a riff, at some US location, they can forward it, to any other agency or corporation, but don't expect more classic Bad Company, which appears as corporate zombies, at concerts, or even the recent royal jubilee. Sirs Paul and Elton are zombies, with a lot of plagiarism, inc., but there they are, standing for the Queen. The NSA won't do jack, about AGW or ACC, since you can't steal anything, related to all this.

Wingnut zombie Alex Jones found out, about the CIA's new global warmiing center, so what should be so hard for wingnuts, to figure out, about what will happen, due to accelerating emissions:

» Why is CIA

----------------------

https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

The Central Intelligence Agency is launching The Center on Climate Change and National Security as the focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology.

Its charter is not the science of climate change, but the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources. The Center will provide support to American policymakers as they negotiate, implement, and verify international agreements on environmental issues. That is something the CIA has done for years. “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence,” said Director Leon Panetta.

The Center will assume responsibility for coordinating with Intelligence Community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research. This effort draws on imagery and other information that is collected in any event, assisting the US scientific community without a large commitment of resources.

----------------------

The CIA and Global Warming - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

The Central Intelligence Agency concluded at least a decade ago that global warming and climate change were occurring.

-------------------------

Alex Jones wants a bunch of disclosure, but I bet he is one of those assholes, who entertains anti-science zombies, so Jonesie won't admit the CIA's goal of coordinating response, by the US and partners, to warming-related phenomena is a worthwhile application of CIA and US resources, compared to some of the company shenanigans we've seen, which are covert, such as overflying China, from bases in Tibet and Taiwan, 1948, in excess of the Black Cat Squadron, or supporting the Shah, Saddam, and UBL.

Looks like a good use of company time to me, zombies and scientists!

Page four sure is peaceful. I suppose I'll put up a related UN link, but you know, nothing quite beats seeing idiot zombies get sacked, so off the field they limp.

GHG data from UNFCCC

 

[flacaltenn]

This is getting annoying.. If USMB spends so much time on robotcrawlers and trolls, why can't this be fixed? You've got 80 topics and the WHOLE board bob -- why don't you go hit up the Conspiracy Section?

Speaking of conspiracies. Is it just me or does bobonenote throw in these huge page bumpers anytime someone makes a point that he thinks hurts his prejudices?

 

[konradv]

What does it mean that "the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were a century ago"? If the ocean pH is 8, where does a 30% more acidic change take us?

7.89

Simple math! If you couldn't answer your own question, do you really have any business posting to this forum? My advice, lurk and learn something.

I'm ignoring you because as usual you add less than nothing to the conversation

How does asking the same questions over and over again, despite their being repeatedly answered, add anything to the conversation?