Good for plants?

I am dissapointed that you actually believe that shit concerning the scientists. They reacted as human beings, and said and e-mailed some derogatory things concerning people who were saying, and continue to say, much worse about them. They were exonerated of 'twisting' the evidence, or destroying any evidence.

As for the information that the 'sceptics' were seeking, had they bothered to check the net, instead of making demands on busy scientists time, they would have found it freely and publically available.

No, the scientists are not cherry picking the data. In fact, that is almost solely the realm of the people whoring their credentials, such as Lindzen, and the rest of the sceptics.

In order to believe your accusations, Ian, one must believe that nearly all the scientists in all nations around the world have no ethics or morals. For there is as great a consensus concerning the warming among scientists as there is for evolution.

Very simply, we are seeing major changes in our envirnoment now due to the warming, changes that were not predicted to happen for another 50 to 100 years. And as we pick up new data, and see new patterns emerging, we need to know it. Even if it means, at times, stating that the data is very preliminary, but we have to start looking at it.
 
Climategate and the continuing embargo on FOI requests leave a huge stink and a lot of important questions to be answered.

The only stink I see is the deniers twisting the facts. What you see as bad actions by climate scientists is mostly their opponents' making 'gotcha' points and counting on the lack of scientific sophistication of their audience. You need to consider who's making this a poltical fight and why.
 
I am dissapointed that you actually believe that shit concerning the scientists. They reacted as human beings, and said and e-mailed some derogatory things concerning people who were saying, and continue to say, much worse about them. They were exonerated of 'twisting' the evidence, or destroying any evidence.

As for the information that the 'sceptics' were seeking, had they bothered to check the net, instead of making demands on busy scientists time, they would have found it freely and publically available.

No, the scientists are not cherry picking the data. In fact, that is almost solely the realm of the people whoring their credentials, such as Lindzen, and the rest of the sceptics.

In order to believe your accusations, Ian, one must believe that nearly all the scientists in all nations around the world have no ethics or morals. For there is as great a consensus concerning the warming among scientists as there is for evolution.

Very simply, we are seeing major changes in our envirnoment now due to the warming, changes that were not predicted to happen for another 50 to 100 years. And as we pick up new data, and see new patterns emerging, we need to know it. Even if it means, at times, stating that the data is very preliminary, but we have to start looking at it.

I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

When some future generation drills back to this time what will they say, "Lord-a-mighty! This is some sensitive CO2 here in the 20th and 21st centuries!"
 
Last edited:
I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

Whatever the ice cores may show does not prove one is the result of the other. You're taking some fact and saying it proves something. WELL PROVE IT!!! I say, "you thought wrong". Why would heat increase CO2 800 years later. Sounds like you're just trying to lie with statistics. Don't just give us the blurb, give us the facts for a change.
 
I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

Whatever the ice cores may show does not prove one is the result of the other
. You're taking some fact and saying it proves something. WELL PROVE IT!!! I say, "you thought wrong". Why would heat increase CO2 800 years later. Sounds like you're just trying to lie with statistics. Don't just give us the blurb, give us the facts for a change.

This is priceless.

No, I did not pay konradv to self-destruct
 
I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

Whatever the ice cores may show does not prove one is the result of the other
. You're taking some fact and saying it proves something. WELL PROVE IT!!! I say, "you thought wrong". Why would heat increase CO2 800 years later. Sounds like you're just trying to lie with statistics. Don't just give us the blurb, give us the facts for a change.

This is priceless.

No, I did not pay konradv to self-destruct

WHATEVER, Frank. You're just too intellectually dishonest to even bother with anymore. You've entered 'gslack' and 'daveman' territory!!! :lol::cool::cuckoo:
 
Yup. In the interglacial periods, CO2 lags the warming. As has been explained many times by geologists, climatologists, and glacialogists.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The skeptic argument...CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
 
I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

Whatever the ice cores may show does not prove one is the result of the other. You're taking some fact and saying it proves something. WELL PROVE IT!!! I say, "you thought wrong". Why would heat increase CO2 800 years later. Sounds like you're just trying to lie with statistics. Don't just give us the blurb, give us the facts for a change.





But, but, but, but, konrad IT IS A FACT That the CO2 increases 800 years after the warming begins. While I agree with you that correlation does not mean causation it is a central fact that AGW theory predicts the EXACT opposite.

You've got some 'splainin to do there Looocey!
 
I thought the Vostok ice cores showed an 800 year lag between warming then a subsequent increase in CO2? If your theory is correct (it's not) shouldn't the ice cores have shown additional warming after the COS increase?

Whatever the ice cores may show does not prove one is the result of the other
. You're taking some fact and saying it proves something. WELL PROVE IT!!! I say, "you thought wrong". Why would heat increase CO2 800 years later. Sounds like you're just trying to lie with statistics. Don't just give us the blurb, give us the facts for a change.

This is priceless.

No, I did not pay konradv to self-destruct

WHATEVER, Frank. You're just too intellectually dishonest to even bother with anymore. You've entered 'gslack' and 'daveman' territory!!! :lol::cool::cuckoo:





Oh don't worry there konrad you were born intellectually dishonest. You are so far ahead of those you vilify that it will take them decades to catch up to you.
 
Yup. In the interglacial periods, CO2 lags the warming. As has been explained many times by geologists, climatologists, and glacialogists.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

The skeptic argument...CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.






When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.



The first part of the paragraph is accurate. After that it is all theory, theory that so far is unsupported by fact. Contrary to what you say if the science was settled we wouldn't be here talking about it.
 
ALBANY, GA (WALB) – It's not over yet, but this summer could end up being one of the hottest on record. This month is now the second hottest August in Albany since 1900. Of course, you don't need the record books to explain what you can feel and see all around you.

This summer has been brutal for people, pets, power bills, and plants. At ABC plant nursery, they've been running irrigation systems practically non-stop to help the plants that have been seeking some relief from the heat.

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13067902
 
Last edited:
Old Rocks said- I am dissapointed that you actually believe that shit concerning the scientists. They reacted as human beings, and said and e-mailed some derogatory things concerning people who were saying, and continue to say, much worse about them. They were exonerated of 'twisting' the evidence, or destroying any evidence.
they were found 'unguilty' of criminally twisting and destroying evidence. they were chastised for needlessly withholding data and methodology, and for careless loss of data and documentation.

Old Rocks said- As for the information that the 'sceptics' were seeking, had they bothered to check the net, instead of making demands on busy scientists time, they would have found it freely and publically available.
obviously you have not read about the last decade's worth of data withholding and the minimal compliance to FOI (freedom of information) requests.

Old Rocks said- In order to believe your accusations, Ian, one must believe that nearly all the scientists in all nations around the world have no ethics or morals. For there is as great a consensus concerning the warming among scientists as there is for evolution.
Quite the opposite, I believe the vast majority of scientists do their research to the best of their ability and pass that information on (with p values and uncertainties disclosed). What happens to those research papers is what pisses me off.

Old Rocks said- Very simply, we are seeing major changes in our envirnoment now due to the warming, changes that were not predicted to happen for another 50 to 100 years. And as we pick up new data, and see new patterns emerging, we need to know it. Even if it means, at times, stating that the data is very preliminary, but we have to start looking at it.
Here is where the shit hits the fan!

example#1- the global vegetation study in Science. preliminary, statistically insignificant, and with the opposite trend if the first reading is dropped. Yet the media articles derived from that study will live forever and most will never give a clue as to how weak the findings were.

example#2- Mann's Hockey Stick. Has there ever been a graph that has spawned more alarm? It is the poster child of global warming. Most people have seen it, many have been convinced by it, but how many people have any idea about how accurate it is? Did the authors ever point out its limitations? Did they publicly warn the world that conclusions drawn from the study and attendant graph were on shaky ground? No, they did not. They enjoyed the celebrity and enhanced funding that this spectacular publicity brought them. But what did they say when they were called into account to defend their work?
In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[58][59] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."[58]

Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion."


I am a newcomer in the AGW debate, but every time I look closer into any particular aspect I find that the science is underwhelming but the excuse is that 'taken as a whole' the information must get put out to the public (with no explanations as to how weak the data really is) because of how important the subject is. I am also noticing that any study supporting AGW gets more press than one that points the opposite way.

jus sayin'
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top