Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[westwall]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

Ah yes, that little thing called history you so despise. So riddle me this olfraud. What was the temperature BEFORE the LIttle Ice Age? What is the temperature we are returning TO?

 

[westwall]

First let's do a simple test of this hypothesis:

All 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100 lbs. based on the following:

10 boys at 100lbs average: 100 lbs.
But what happens if one of the 10 boys is overweight .. 300 lbs!
All 12 year old boys including the 300 lb average 120 lbs!

So it would be wrong to draw conclusion that ALL 12 year old boys weigh an average of 100lbs IF the 300 lb boy is excluded.. RIGHT???

How does this relate to global warming..

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
"The number of [Siberian ] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present.
Only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So the basis for global warming has been the record keeping of temperature stations around the earth..except for 12.5% of the Earth's surface and those temperatures were NOT included!

The basis for global warming is the rise in GHGs, NOT the rise in temps. The rise in temps would be a RESULT and to be expected regardless of whether any can be confirmed at present, because of the known properties of GHGs. If they truly absorb and then re-emit IR photons, which CAN be shown in a lab setting, warming WOULD HAVE TO be expected, considering the the principle of Conservation of Energy. Since statistically 50% of any photons re-emitted would travel towards earth, what would they do but add to total heat? I think you need to do a complete study of the science, instead of just parroting whatever you've heard from those who want to make this a poltical rather than a scientific story.

Ummm according to the Vostock ice core data what you just posted is absolute horse crap.
Those records clearly show a rise in temperatures followed HUNDREDS of years later by a rise in CO2.

You've got some 'splainin to do there konny.

 

[Si modo]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

And, it's amazing that tree ring data from 1950 on, showing no warming, was cut out of the data by Mann.

Odd, no?

 

[westwall]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

And, it's amazing that tree ring data from 1950 on, showing no warming, was cut out of the data by Mann.

Odd, no?

Well he is a super duper pooper ethical kind of guy don't you know. olfraud says so.

 

[Si modo]

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

And, it's amazing that tree ring data from 1950 on, showing no warming, was cut out of the data by Mann.

Odd, no?

Well he is a super duper pooper ethical kind of guy don't you know. olfraud says so.

Rocks says a lot, and a lot of what Rocks says is untrue, so...........

I mean, he has yet to fully grasp my position, but he keeps representing my position as something it is not.

Wait?

Could it be possible that he is *gasp* dishonest *gasp*?

 

[westwall]

And, it's amazing that tree ring data from 1950 on, showing no warming, was cut out of the data by Mann.

Odd, no?

Well he is a super duper pooper ethical kind of guy don't you know. olfraud says so.

Rocks says a lot, and a lot of what Rocks says is untrue, so...........

I mean, he has yet to fully grasp my position, but he keeps representing my position as something it is not.

Wait?

Could it be possible that he is *gasp* dishonest *gasp*?

Whaaa? olfraud is as unethical as Mann? Say it isn't so!

 

[bripat9643]

That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.

Unethical people are given grants. Who do you think Phil Jones and Michael Mann are?

 

[healthmyths]

Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

Hey you idiot!
Ever hear of "sequestration"???
Ever hear of "net carbon sink"??? Evidently you don't!

The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Just in case that is too complicated for you..
There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???

 

[Old Rocks]

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is why unqualified and unethical people are not given grants. And the grants are for study of phenamona. The conclusions of the study are up to the author.

Unethical people are given grants. Who do you think Phil Jones and Michael Mann are?

Intelligent and ethical scientists. Not a willfully ignorant redneck like you.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

Dishonest Walleyes. The usual we expect from you. It was warmer in the US, a little less than 2% of the earth's surface. For the rest of the world, it was not that warm.

 

[code1211]

The Earth's temperature has risen 1C since the 1950s, claims new study | Mail Online

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

Dishonest Walleyes. The usual we expect from you. It was warmer in the US, a little less than 2% of the earth's surface. For the rest of the world, it was not that warm.

The data collection and record of that collection is what it is. That said, there are places like the US and the UK where the data collection has been reliable, regular and relatively long term.

Other areas like Africa, Antarctica, the Pacific and really most of the world has very sporadic and/or irregular records of temperature collection. The records of the US and the UK by their stability are probably more reliable than those from the rest of the world in terms of measuring change.

The relatively recent tendency of NASA to stop exploring space and opt instead to adjust past temperature readings is confusing to me, but that again is what it is.

Just as we figure the CO2 content of all air based on the readings from Mauna Loa, we can grasp a pretty good reflection of the change in climate from the best records regardless of the confined nature of the samples world wide.

All of that said, the days of the land based climate tracking are past. We have satellites that have made the Earth Stations obsolete in this endeavor. They are as useful to this as the chariot is to Indy Car Racing. An interesting diversion, but not really a cutting edge, or even a very useful, tool.

By their nature, they have become another in a series of proxy measurements. For support of this, witness the wholesale changing that occurs to so many of the readings to make them conform to the satellite data. Really a tad silly.

Why use them if we know that the collected data is wrong in the first place?

 

[westwall]

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

If you're going to try and come across as "mr. MENSA BOY" you should at least learn how to spell your current conspiracy theory's name correctly. So, that would be CALTHRATES MENSA BOY! And if they are emitting so much how come the global temp is remaining static?

 

[westwall]

And yet it was much warmer back in the 30's. Amazing how that happens eh?

Dishonest Walleyes. The usual we expect from you. It was warmer in the US, a little less than 2% of the earth's surface. For the rest of the world, it was not that warm.

The data collection and record of that collection is what it is. That said, there are places like the US and the UK where the data collection has been reliable, regular and relatively long term.

Other areas like Africa, Antarctica, the Pacific and really most of the world has very sporadic and/or irregular records of temperature collection. The records of the US and the UK by their stability are probably more reliable than those from the rest of the world in terms of measuring change.

The relatively recent tendency of NASA to stop exploring space and opt instead to adjust past temperature readings is confusing to me, but that again is what it is.

Just as we figure the CO2 content of all air based on the readings from Mauna Loa, we can grasp a pretty good reflection of the change in climate from the best records regardless of the confined nature of the samples world wide.

All of that said, the days of the land based climate tracking are past. We have satellites that have made the Earth Stations obsolete in this endeavor. They are as useful to this as the chariot is to Indy Car Racing. An interesting diversion, but not really a cutting edge, or even a very useful, tool.

By their nature, they have become another in a series of proxy measurements. For support of this, witness the wholesale changing that occurs to so many of the readings to make them conform to the satellite data. Really a tad silly.

Why use them if we know that the collected data is wrong in the first place?

Actually, ground based weather stations (when sited properly and maintained properly) are a good check on the satellite data. The weather stations were able to point out the satellite issues that caused one them to be shut down in one instance for reading wildly innacurate temps in the Arctic.

 

[code1211]

Dishonest Walleyes. The usual we expect from you. It was warmer in the US, a little less than 2% of the earth's surface. For the rest of the world, it was not that warm.

The data collection and record of that collection is what it is. That said, there are places like the US and the UK where the data collection has been reliable, regular and relatively long term.

Other areas like Africa, Antarctica, the Pacific and really most of the world has very sporadic and/or irregular records of temperature collection. The records of the US and the UK by their stability are probably more reliable than those from the rest of the world in terms of measuring change.

The relatively recent tendency of NASA to stop exploring space and opt instead to adjust past temperature readings is confusing to me, but that again is what it is.

Just as we figure the CO2 content of all air based on the readings from Mauna Loa, we can grasp a pretty good reflection of the change in climate from the best records regardless of the confined nature of the samples world wide.

All of that said, the days of the land based climate tracking are past. We have satellites that have made the Earth Stations obsolete in this endeavor. They are as useful to this as the chariot is to Indy Car Racing. An interesting diversion, but not really a cutting edge, or even a very useful, tool.

By their nature, they have become another in a series of proxy measurements. For support of this, witness the wholesale changing that occurs to so many of the readings to make them conform to the satellite data. Really a tad silly.

Why use them if we know that the collected data is wrong in the first place?

Actually, ground based weather stations (when sited properly and maintained properly) are a good check on the satellite data. The weather stations were able to point out the satellite issues that caused one them to be shut down in one instance for reading wildly innacurate temps in the Arctic.

I stand corrected.

 

[RollingThunder]

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

If you're going to try and come across as "mr. MENSA BOY" you should at least learn how to spell your current conspiracy theory's name correctly. So, that would be CALTHRATES MENSA BOY! And if they are emitting so much how come the global temp is remaining static?

If you're going to try to correct other people's spelling, Mr. Retardo, you should maybe get a brain transplant. A monkey brain would be an upgrade for you. LOLOLOLOLOL.....such a very funny retard you are, walleyed.....LOL. The word is indeed "clathrates", not "CALTHRATES", you moron.

Methane clathrate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, "fire ice", natural gas hydrate or just gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2] The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.[3]

 

[westwall]

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

If you're going to try and come across as "mr. MENSA BOY" you should at least learn how to spell your current conspiracy theory's name correctly. So, that would be CALTHRATES MENSA BOY! And if they are emitting so much how come the global temp is remaining static?

If you're going to try to correct other people's spelling, Mr. Retardo, you should maybe get a brain transplant. A monkey brain would be an upgrade for you. LOLOLOLOLOL.....such a very funny retard you are, walleyed.....LOL. The word is indeed "clathrates", not "CALTHRATES", you moron.

Methane clathrate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, "fire ice", natural gas hydrate or just gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2] The worldwide amounts of methane bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.[3]

I stand corrected. I was using a USGS source and they clearly had it spelled wrong.

 

[code1211]

Rolling Thunder quotes Winston Churchill who explains that the time of back passing is past.

Rolling Thunder seems to be a supporter of liberalism.

I don't understand how Liberalism and the quote from Churchill can be linked.


The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. - Sir Winston Churchill

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks never want people looking back past 1980.

 

[skookerasbil]

Rolling Thunder quotes Winston Churchill who explains that the time of back passing is past.

Rolling Thunder seems to be a supporter of liberalism.

I don't understand how Liberalism and the quote from Churchill can be linked.


The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. - Sir Winston Churchill

code bro......you are assumming that Rolling Blunder has even heard of Winston Churchill!!! Probably thinks its some band.