Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[RetiredGySgt]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

I REPEAT can the model be used to recreate past KNOWN temperatures? Past KNOWN weather and climate events? If your answer is NO, then it can not possibly predict the future. We do not know enough to create a model capable of that. SO genius if they can tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years can they tell us what it will be NEXT year?

Sarg, it was not a model that was used to estimte past temperatures, but proxies from ice cores, isotope ratios in ocean sediments, tree rings from those periods, and many other methods.

Really, you need to start using the wonderful instrument that sits in front of you, and do some real research, rather than just spewing the ignorance in the wingnut talking points.

Once again retard they can not predict weather, climate or temperature 6 months from now, BUT they can 50 years from now? SURE thing. Our entire process of temperature prediction is based SOLELY on observation. And future temperatures are only able to be estimated for about a week maybe a little longer. YET you want us to believe these guys can tell us what will happen in 50 years. in 100 years?

We do not know enough about the Earth to do that. We do not even know when clouds will form or exactly what causes them to do so. We know what they are made of and we can sorta of sometimes cause precipitation. And you want us to believe some guys at MIT can predict what will happen in 50 years and 100 years?

Hell 10 years ago we were told how it was gonna be a run away event with steadily increasing temperatures and that did not happen. YET know they know cause of some tree rings? Sure thing.

It is a simple concept. IF these guys know how and why the climate works and what it will do then they can create a model and be able to go backwards with the data they have and recreate temperatures and climate events that we KNOW happened. Failing that they are making wild ass guesses.

 

[FactFinder]

Dr. Hansen is one of the most respected climatologists, in not the most respected, in the world. The fact is that his predictions were pretty much spot on. Except that they were a bit conservative and underestimated the effects of some of the positive feedbacks.

Hansen has been caught multiple times hacking the data or leaving things out. He is a modeler not a scientist.

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2009) — Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole, according to new research.

Do you never tire of the bull...this is why you are generally considered a political hack and not one who has any objectivity.

Good God, Fact, old boy. Sea Ice is not an ice cap. It is seasonal, and goes away every summer, and grows in the winter.

Yes, the winter seasonal ice has been increasing a bit around Antarctica. And each summer, it has gone away. Not only that, but the ice cap in Antarctica has been losing ice every year, by the gigatons.

No, Dr. Hansen has not been caught doing either. He has been given data that was not correct concerning current conditions a couple of times. He included that in the current accessment, and when he found out that the data was not correct, issued a statement to that effect, and corrected the assessment to reflect the corrected data.

On the other hand, his detractors, most with no scientific training or accredation, never have retracted even the most egrerious statements.

In every case he made his corrections after he was caught.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it that during the past few decades, even with all these changes in how things are done, that this "change" only keeps getting worse Rockhead? We've been "cleaning" up a lot since the seventies ... yet your reports show no impact has been made ... not even a little one ... by these laws. Explain why anyone should listen to these same scientists now?

Sweet Kitten, have you ever bothered to read even the most basic of science concerning this subject? I think not.

Cleaning up the sulphate atmospheric pollution from our factrories actually created more warming, because that pollution was reflecting sunlight. Not that I would reccomend going back to polluting, but that is a fact. Part of the Faustian bargain that Dr. Hansen refered to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm........ Every time someone does a serious study on this, the Hockey Stick Graph just gets more confirmation.


Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

You definitely did too much LSD in the 60's ........

You don't know me, and I do not know you. I only know, from your posts, that you are an ignorant asshole.

 

[FactFinder]

hmmm...so let's see:

We have the Mann hockey stick that was soundly thrashed as at a minimum greatly flawed
We have Hansen who has been repeatedly found to fail in his use of data on computer models
We have Lindzen leaving the IPCC when he finds out the bureaucrats have taken over the process and manipulated the report.

Now I wonder why there are so many skeptics????

 

[Old Rocks]

I REPEAT can the model be used to recreate past KNOWN temperatures? Past KNOWN weather and climate events? If your answer is NO, then it can not possibly predict the future. We do not know enough to create a model capable of that. SO genius if they can tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years can they tell us what it will be NEXT year?

Sarg, it was not a model that was used to estimte past temperatures, but proxies from ice cores, isotope ratios in ocean sediments, tree rings from those periods, and many other methods.

Really, you need to start using the wonderful instrument that sits in front of you, and do some real research, rather than just spewing the ignorance in the wingnut talking points.

Actually ... you need to read your own "research" better, as the hard numbers and facts contradict each other, they also contradict this global warming ... because they also show there have been much higher temps in the past ... prior to humanity existing.

Now, Sweet Kitten, I have done ample reading and research on that very subject, as you also can.

Methane catastrophe

 

[Si modo]

Rocks, stop playing at science. You can't do it well at all.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is it that during the past few decades, even with all these changes in how things are done, that this "change" only keeps getting worse Rockhead? We've been "cleaning" up a lot since the seventies ... yet your reports show no impact has been made ... not even a little one ... by these laws. Explain why anyone should listen to these same scientists now?

Sweet Kitten, have you ever bothered to read even the most basic of science concerning this subject? I think not.

Cleaning up the sulphate atmospheric pollution from our factrories actually created more warming, because that pollution was reflecting sunlight. Not that I would reccomend going back to polluting, but that is a fact. Part of the Faustian bargain that Dr. Hansen refered to.

So then ... environmental protection made it worse ... which has always been my point.

 

[FactFinder]

Oh not to mention:

We have Goldman Sachs investing heavily in carbon credits
We have JP Morgan investing heavily in carbon credits
We have Al Gore founding his own carbon credits company.

Naw, it is all a coincidence, heh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Rocks, stop playing at science. You can't do it well at all.

OK, demonstrate how it should be done.

 

[KittenKoder]

Rocks, stop playing at science. You can't do it well at all.

OK, demonstrate how it should be done.

The fact that you can't use simple logic, much less complex logic.

 

[FactFinder]

Methane catastrophe

Methinks they could ratchet up their adjectives a bit. That is not quite terrorizing enough to have the desired effect

 

[KittenKoder]

Methane catastrophe

Methinks they could ratchet up their adjectives a bit. That is not quite terrorizing enough to have the desired effect

How about: Methane Cowtastrophy?

 

[FactFinder]

Methane catastrophe

Methinks they could ratchet up their adjectives a bit. That is not quite terrorizing enough to have the desired effect

How about: Methane Cowtastrophy?

oooooooo...now i'm shaking! Rocks got me now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

 

[KittenKoder]

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

We have trace amounts of both in our bodies, just not combined. The cyanide in our bodies is a chemical resulting in the purification of consumables, while potassium is one which our body uses. In our bodies the two are kept apart, but when they mix the result will kill us in large enough dosages. However, the combined chemical is not common anywhere, it has to be made artificially, while CO2 occurs in large amounts naturally, we exhale it with every breath.

 

[Si modo]

Rocks, stop playing at science. You can't do it well at all.

OK, demonstrate how it should be done.

I don't play at science. You do, and you cannot do that well likely due to the lack of critical thought you demonstrate.

 

[Si modo]

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

We have trace amounts of both in our bodies, just not combined. The cyanide in our bodies is a chemical resulting in the purification of consumables, while potassium is one which our body uses. In our bodies the two are kept apart, but when they mix the result will kill us in large enough dosages. However, the combined chemical is not common anywhere, it has to be made artificially, while CO2 occurs in large amounts naturally, we exhale it with every breath.

KCN, potassium cynanide is a salt (ionic compound). It's water souluble, meaning it will disassociated into its ions, K+ and CN- in water as a solvent.

In an acidic solution of water, HCN (g) will be generated and that is what is done in gas chambers. Once inhaled, the CN- will get into the bloodstream quickly and suffocate the victim as it displaces O2 in our hemoglobin.

In a basic solution, KCN is OK.

Ingesting it is a less effective means of poisoning ourselves, but it will still happen, one just needs larger doses.

The potassium ion is a basic electrolyte need for our body's functioning. Cyanide is not. One can get K+ from a plethora of other sources.

 

[KittenKoder]

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

We have trace amounts of both in our bodies, just not combined. The cyanide in our bodies is a chemical resulting in the purification of consumables, while potassium is one which our body uses. In our bodies the two are kept apart, but when they mix the result will kill us in large enough dosages. However, the combined chemical is not common anywhere, it has to be made artificially, while CO2 occurs in large amounts naturally, we exhale it with every breath.

KCN, potassium cynanide is a salt (ionic compound). It's water souluble, meaning it will disassociated into its ions, K+ and CN- in water as a solvent.

In an acidic solution of water, HCN (g) will be generated and that is what is done in gas chambers. Once inhaled, the CN- will get into the bloodstream quickly and suffocate the victim as it displaces O2 in our hemoglobin.

In a basic solution, KCN is OK.

Ingesting it is a less effective means of poisoning ourselves, but it will still happen, one just needs larger doses.

The potassium ion is a basic electrolyte need for our body's functioning. Cyanide is not. One can get K+ from a plethora of other sources.

Mister science guy. Thanks for filling in the blanks though.

 

[Si modo]

Potassium makes sense, but cyanide? Nah

We have trace amounts of both in our bodies, just not combined. The cyanide in our bodies is a chemical resulting in the purification of consumables, while potassium is one which our body uses. In our bodies the two are kept apart, but when they mix the result will kill us in large enough dosages. However, the combined chemical is not common anywhere, it has to be made artificially, while CO2 occurs in large amounts naturally, we exhale it with every breath.

KCN, potassium cynanide is a salt (ionic compound). It's water souluble, meaning it will disassociated into its ions, K+ and CN- in water as a solvent.

In an acidic solution of water, HCN (g) will be generated and that is what is done in gas chambers. Once inhaled, the CN- will get into the bloodstream quickly and suffocate the victim as it displaces O2 in our hemoglobin.

In a basic solution, KCN is OK.

Ingesting it is a less effective means of poisoning ourselves, but it will still happen, one just needs larger doses.

The potassium ion is a basic electrolyte need for our body's functioning. Cyanide is not. One can get K+ from a plethora of other sources.

Mister science guy. Thanks for filling in the blanks though.

That's not to say that CN- is not ubiquitous in biological systems, though. It's part of catabolic processes and is part of the biosynthesis of amino acids. Our bodies just don't do that in a way where CN- will get onto hemoglobin.