Methane worse than CO2

[Screaming Eagle]

How can methane be more of a contributor to creating a situation which does not exist?

 

[Sodafin]

How can methane be more of a contributor to creating a situation which does not exist?

Because it so obviously does exist, and the fact that you haven't bothered to read the science or keep up with the news isn't really the problem of anyone else, is it?

There are real reports linked in this thread - by all means read them and comment accordingly.

But we both know you won't.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

How can methane be more of a contributor to creating a situation which does not exist?

Because it so obviously does exist, and the fact that you haven't bothered to read the science or keep up with the news isn't really the problem of anyone else, is it?

There are real reports linked in this thread - by all means read them and comment accordingly.

But we both know you won't.

There is no global warming. Even their best efforts to show warming have failed over the last decade. Are there any studies which include temperature data from rural stations only? No. Therefore there are no studies which meet the basic criteria for scientific examination. If the inclusion of inflated data and attempts to show warming can only produce a plateau, then we are actually cooling.

 

[Sodafin]

Are there any studies which include temperature data from rural stations only? No. .

Yes, of course - what are you talking about?

The use of urban stations was dealt with 20 years ago in most countries.

Even their best efforts to show warming have failed over the last decade

You have to laugh, don't you?

This from bbc and the uk met office -

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Are there any studies which include temperature data from rural stations only? No. .

Yes, of course - what are you talking about?

The use of urban stations was dealt with 20 years ago in most countries.

Even their best efforts to show warming have failed over the last decade

You have to laugh, don't you?

This from bbc and the uk met office -

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.

The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

BBC News - This decade 'warmest on record'

The only problem is that that is all bullshit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.

That being said, I am all for less pollution and more environmentally friendly energy but as I have said before and will say again, it is not the the responsibility of government to spend our tax dollars on it.

If government wants to spur growth in these industries of greener energy then the best thing it can do is get out of the way. Rather than taxing people and businesses and making it less likely that we can afford to upgrade, government should be giving massive tax credits to businesses and individuals that design, produce and implement green energy systems of any sort.

These industries should by definition need very little government oversight as they should be less polluting than current energy production there again saving the taxpayers money and allowing more people to avail themselves of the newer technology.

I see. A technological specie changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere and the acidity of the ocean cannot have impact on climate and life on earth.

Has it occured to you that a very small non-technological organism completly changed the atmosphere of the earth two billion years ago?

We are a democracy. Therefore, the people are the government. And if we decide that we wish to government to sponsor energy that does not emit GHGs, and is non-poluting, then we will do that. And those of you that wish to remain in 1910 can piss and moan, just get the hell out of the way of the majority of us.

I said control not change.

And when that attempt to control empowers government to assert even more control over us we have seen we end up with many vested interests vying for their portion of government pork and gravy and guess where that portion comes from. Us that's who leaving all of us the poorer and thus more likely more dependent on government.

I am a skeptic by nature and will remain so. So far all the so called models for global warming have yet to be accurate. There are serious questions about some of the so called scientists conduct and therefore their claims should be doubted to a degree.

And check your history. We are a republic.

And what 1910 has to do with anything i don't know. It's the democrats and their cap and tax scheme that want to bring us back to carbon output from 1875 not me.

I'm all for better cleaner energy as I have stated umpteen times but instead of confiscatory taxes and more government control, I would rather see tax breaks for businesses and individuals that research, design, produce and implement these technologies.

If government and you are truly only worried about the planet and not the sacred government revenue stream, you shouldn't have a problem with 100% tax credits for purchasing and installing greener energy sources should you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL

"CO2 takes 1/2 million years to work...." from the presentation.

Why do people take Warmers seriously?

I guess ManMade CO2 is Super CO2

Frank, are you that stupid? Natural cycles of CO2, weathering, ect. take that long. As shown from the reaction of the feedbacks of CO2 from the Milakovic Cycles, the warming and cooling from CO2 occurs in a matter of years, not centuries or millenia.

Maybe you should have watched the presentation? I'm just saying.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I want to clear something up.

When I say I am a skeptic, I am not denying that temperatures have risen slightly in the past 150 years since we have been keeping records.

I am saying that I am skeptical of just how much of that warming is man made. As has been said there have been warmer periods of temperature than our current one and much colder, the most recent being the last little ice age. Now the warming period after the little ice age was not heralded by violent storms and drought as we are being told our current warming period will cause. In fact it was rather the opposite and there was a boom in the human population.

Can we really use sea ice data when we only have accurate satellite data since 1979? And that satellite data actually shows that there is more not less antarctic ice so which do we use.

Personally I do not believe that 30 years of data can be used to predict future events in a system as complex and let's face it as poorly understood as the earth's climate. The fact that computer models are unreliable shows us that there is much much more to be learned.

That said, I will state yet again that there really is no reason to believe that we will have to endure natural catastrophes of biblical proportions as the alarmists and our government would have us believe.

 

[Old Rocks]

How can methane be more of a contributor to creating a situation which does not exist?

Because it so obviously does exist, and the fact that you haven't bothered to read the science or keep up with the news isn't really the problem of anyone else, is it?

There are real reports linked in this thread - by all means read them and comment accordingly.

But we both know you won't.

There is no global warming. Even their best efforts to show warming have failed over the last decade. Are there any studies which include temperature data from rural stations only? No. Therefore there are no studies which meet the basic criteria for scientific examination. If the inclusion of inflated data and attempts to show warming can only produce a plateau, then we are actually cooling.

Dumb ass, how many urban stations are there in Siberia, Northern Alaska, and Northern Canada?

Are you claiming that the melting of the Northern Ice Cap is a hoax? How about the melting of giga-tons of ice from the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Cap?

No glaciers in Glacier National Park after 2030. Even the highest mountain range in the world is seeing it's glaciers recede at an alarming rate.

And all the major rivers that agriculture depends on in Asia come down from the Himalayas.

 

[Old Rocks]

I want to clear something up.

When I say I am a skeptic, I am not denying that temperatures have risen slightly in the past 150 years since we have been keeping records.

I am saying that I am skeptical of just how much of that warming is man made. As has been said there have been warmer periods of temperature than our current one and much colder, the most recent being the last little ice age. Now the warming period after the little ice age was not heralded by violent storms and drought as we are being told our current warming period will cause. In fact it was rather the opposite and there was a boom in the human population.

Can we really use sea ice data when we only have accurate satellite data since 1979? And that satellite data actually shows that there is more not less antarctic ice so which do we use.

Personally I do not believe that 30 years of data can be used to predict future events in a system as complex and let's face it as poorly understood as the earth's climate. The fact that computer models are unreliable shows us that there is much much more to be learned.

That said, I will state yet again that there really is no reason to believe that we will have to endure natural catastrophes of biblical proportions as the alarmists and our government would have us believe.

30 years of data?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Paleoclimatology

World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder

We have millions of years of data, Every bit of which states that climate is very sensative to changes in CO2 and CH4.

The transition out of the little ice age was rather minor compared to the increase that we will see from just the existing GHGs in our atmosphere.

A much better comparison would be the transisition to and out of the Younger Dryas. It would be very instructive to you to look at a list of large mammals living in North America prior to the Younger Dryas, and a list that lived in North America after the Younger Dryas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change has been a constant in earth's history and will remain a constant.

To think that we can control climate is hubris of the worst sort.

That being said, I am all for less pollution and more environmentally friendly energy but as I have said before and will say again, it is not the the responsibility of government to spend our tax dollars on it.

If government wants to spur growth in these industries of greener energy then the best thing it can do is get out of the way. Rather than taxing people and businesses and making it less likely that we can afford to upgrade, government should be giving massive tax credits to businesses and individuals that design, produce and implement green energy systems of any sort.

These industries should by definition need very little government oversight as they should be less polluting than current energy production there again saving the taxpayers money and allowing more people to avail themselves of the newer technology.

I see. A technological specie changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere and the acidity of the ocean cannot have impact on climate and life on earth.

Has it occured to you that a very small non-technological organism completly changed the atmosphere of the earth two billion years ago?

We are a democracy. Therefore, the people are the government. And if we decide that we wish to government to sponsor energy that does not emit GHGs, and is non-poluting, then we will do that. And those of you that wish to remain in 1910 can piss and moan, just get the hell out of the way of the majority of us.

I said control not change.

And when that attempt to control empowers government to assert even more control over us we have seen we end up with many vested interests vying for their portion of government pork and gravy and guess where that portion comes from. Us that's who leaving all of us the poorer and thus more likely more dependent on government.

I am a skeptic by nature and will remain so. So far all the so called models for global warming have yet to be accurate. There are serious questions about some of the so called scientists conduct and therefore their claims should be doubted to a degree.

And check your history. We are a republic.

And what 1910 has to do with anything i don't know. It's the democrats and their cap and tax scheme that want to bring us back to carbon output from 1875 not me.

I'm all for better cleaner energy as I have stated umpteen times but instead of confiscatory taxes and more government control, I would rather see tax breaks for businesses and individuals that research, design, produce and implement these technologies.

If government and you are truly only worried about the planet and not the sacred government revenue stream, you shouldn't have a problem with 100% tax credits for purchasing and installing greener energy sources should you?

Not only do I not have trouble with that idea, I have suggested a major program based on that, that would force the development of solar and electric vehicles.

Rather than 100% subsidy, here is how it would work.

The government would announce, say Feb. of 2010, that as of 2011, it would fund $3500 of the purchase of an electric vehicle, or non polluting fuel cell vehicle, and $3500 of the cost of the first 5 kw of a home solar installation. If both were done at the same time, it would double both amounts.

That would take care of the additional load on existing grids, and the years delay would give both industries time to gear up.

Also, in cases like Oregon, where we already have a state subsidy for clean power, there would be no penelty for the state subsidy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists have sorted it out very well. From the AGU conferance this month,

The Biggest Control Knob, CO2 in the Earth's History

The Bjerknes lecture from this page;


2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

What that has to do with AGW, debunking or supporting, remains to be seen.

Well now, someone with the slightest scientific curiosity would listen to the lecture and find out.

Other than pointing out that CO2 and atmospheric temperature have gone hand in hand over the geological history of this planet, and that the CO2 does not care one whit as to why it is in the atmosphere, it just follows the laws of physics.

Of course, to someone determined to ignore reality, I suppose it could be said that this has nothing to do with AGW.

 

[Si modo]

Scientists have sorted it out very well. From the AGU conferance this month,

The Biggest Control Knob, CO2 in the Earth's History

The Bjerknes lecture from this page;


2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

What that has to do with AGW, debunking or supporting, remains to be seen.

Well now, someone with the slightest scientific curiosity would listen to the lecture and find out. ....

I did, yet you make a baseless assumption. You're playing again.

.... Other than pointing out that CO2 and atmospheric temperature have gone hand in hand over the geological history of this planet, and that the CO2 does not care one whit as to why it is in the atmosphere, it just follows the laws of physics. ....

Still confusing mechanism with AGW, I see.

.... Of course, to someone determined to ignore reality, I suppose it could be said that this has nothing to do with AGW.

I don't ignore reality. I don't know if you do, but you try to make your own reality. What I said is his presentation does nothing to debunk or support AGW. Do try to at least stay in this reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

"CO2 takes 1/2 million years to work...." from the presentation.

Why do people take Warmers seriously?

I guess ManMade CO2 is Super CO2

Frank, are you that stupid? Natural cycles of CO2, weathering, ect. take that long. As shown from the reaction of the feedbacks of CO2 from the Milakovic Cycles, the warming and cooling from CO2 occurs in a matter of years, not centuries or millenia.

Maybe you should have watched the presentation? I'm just saying.

Frank, old boy, I have watched the presentation twice, and have it on my desktop.

It states without equivocation that over the history of this planet, the CO2 has tracked atmospheric temperatures. The lecture demonstrates where we are today compared to historical levels of CO2 and CH4.

Another lecture, the Nye lecture discusses present observations of the melting of the permafrost in North America and Siberia.

Real data, from real scientists that you do not want to acknowledge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I want to clear something up.

When I say I am a skeptic, I am not denying that temperatures have risen slightly in the past 150 years since we have been keeping records.

I am saying that I am skeptical of just how much of that warming is man made. As has been said there have been warmer periods of temperature than our current one and much colder, the most recent being the last little ice age. Now the warming period after the little ice age was not heralded by violent storms and drought as we are being told our current warming period will cause. In fact it was rather the opposite and there was a boom in the human population.

Can we really use sea ice data when we only have accurate satellite data since 1979? And that satellite data actually shows that there is more not less antarctic ice so which do we use.

Personally I do not believe that 30 years of data can be used to predict future events in a system as complex and let's face it as poorly understood as the earth's climate. The fact that computer models are unreliable shows us that there is much much more to be learned.

That said, I will state yet again that there really is no reason to believe that we will have to endure natural catastrophes of biblical proportions as the alarmists and our government would have us believe.

30 years of data?

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Paleoclimatology

World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder

We have millions of years of data, Every bit of which states that climate is very sensative to changes in CO2 and CH4.

The transition out of the little ice age was rather minor compared to the increase that we will see from just the existing GHGs in our atmosphere.

A much better comparison would be the transisition to and out of the Younger Dryas. It would be very instructive to you to look at a list of large mammals living in North America prior to the Younger Dryas, and a list that lived in North America after the Younger Dryas.

I was speaking of satellite data

And you are speculating as to what we will see as there are no reliable predictive models.

Here you go again with the future disaster that we can't predict with any accuracy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, are you that stupid? Natural cycles of CO2, weathering, ect. take that long. As shown from the reaction of the feedbacks of CO2 from the Milakovic Cycles, the warming and cooling from CO2 occurs in a matter of years, not centuries or millenia.

Maybe you should have watched the presentation? I'm just saying.

Frank, old boy, I have watched the presentation twice, and have it on my desktop.

It states without equivocation that over the history of this planet, the CO2 has tracked atmospheric temperatures. The lecture demonstrates where we are today compared to historical levels of CO2 and CH4.

Another lecture, the Nye lecture discusses present observations of the melting of the permafrost in North America and Siberia.

Real data, from real scientists that you do not want to acknowledge.

Maybe you should watch the presentation. At 9:35 he states, "this CO2 thermostat (regulating the Earth temperature) takes a half a million years or so to work..."

Game, Set, Match and Shut the Fuck Up because Ignorance and Arrogance is a real bad combination

 

[Sodafin]

Crusader -

You seem to have misunderstood the lecture - interesting given your comment on ignorance.

This is from a review of the lecture:

"Alley reviewed climate changes in the geological record, going back 4.5 billion years. His central point was that in almost every case carbon dioxide has emerged as the smoking gun in terms of causation, and indeed that it is essentially impossible to explain the observed changes without carbon dioxide acting as the key forcing. This is true for the "faint young sun paradox" (4.6 billion years ago), the snowball earth period, the late Permian extinction period, the mid-Cretaceous "Saurian sauna" period and the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum for example."

The point you have posted in no way contradicts that, or what Old Rocks has posted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader -

You seem to have misunderstood the lecture - interesting given your comment on ignorance.

This is from a review of the lecture:

"Alley reviewed climate changes in the geological record, going back 4.5 billion years. His central point was that in almost every case carbon dioxide has emerged as the smoking gun in terms of causation, and indeed that it is essentially impossible to explain the observed changes without carbon dioxide acting as the key forcing. This is true for the "faint young sun paradox" (4.6 billion years ago), the snowball earth period, the late Permian extinction period, the mid-Cretaceous "Saurian sauna" period and the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum for example."

The point you have posted in no way contradicts that, or what Old Rocks has posted.

You Warmers are not the brightest people I ever met so I'll go real slowly.

First, I highly recommend actually watching the presentation. I can't stress this enough.

WATCH THE PRESENTATION

Since I've been posting on the internet I developed this read bad habit of reading the articles and watching the videos that people post and you'd be amazed at how many people don't bother reading the articles they post and then comment on them and then find the article totally controverts whatever point they were making!

Now, had you actually bothered to watch the presentation, (it's clear you didn't) you see that Allen states at about 9:35 or so into it that CO2 does act as a temperature regulator and that it takes about 1/2 million to work. It's there for all to see.

CO2 takes 500,000 year to work as a temperature regulator.

I have no idea at all how information you quoted has even any bearing on the 1/2 million year CO2 effect. None! You could have posted the quote from Steve Vai on the first time he watched Vinnie Colaiuta sight read the drum part "Mo N' Herb's Vacation" and it would have been more on point that the flailing nonsense you posted, and far more interesting too.

 

[Sodafin]

Frank -

you have misunderstood the point being made.

And yes - I did watch the video!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

you have misunderstood the point being made.

And yes - I did watch the video!

Facts are stubborn things and tend to be very mean to Warmers