Thoughts on "Scientific Consensus."

[SpidermanTuba]

Now you have to focus on one single report since you can't actually prove any of the others posted were wrong. Brainwashing is often achieved by repeating the same thing over and over again, and many who are do that, repeat the exact same thing over and over again no matter how wrong it is. Thanks for proving you are brainwashed.

If you haven't read the report, how do you know what's in it?
If you haven't read the report, how do you know what's in it?

 

[FactFinder]

“But carbon dioxide is at record levels.”
Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
Yes. But go back 500 million years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20 percent
higher, they were 10 to 20 times higher. The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway
greenhouse effect, and nothing happened. Indeed the Earth slipped into an ice age while
CO2 was far higher than today’s levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-
CO2 has, it’s no match for the other climatic forces out
there. Further, it doesn’t matter if it’s man-made CO2 or
ocean-made CO2. They are the same molecule.

 

[KittenKoder]

Now you have to focus on one single report since you can't actually prove any of the others posted were wrong. Brainwashing is often achieved by repeating the same thing over and over again, and many who are do that, repeat the exact same thing over and over again no matter how wrong it is. Thanks for proving you are brainwashed.

If you haven't read the report, how do you know what's in it?
If you haven't read the report, how do you know what's in it?

Oooh ... the brainwashing is deep in you grasshopper, but you are on track to breaking it. Now go back and read ALL the evidence, not just that which supports your argument and perhaps you can break this great darkness holding you down.

Or not, I don't mind humans destroying themselves to save nature at all really ... LOL ... it's just the dishonesty and hypocrisy of GW hoax believers that's really quite fun to trick them into talking in circles ... and proving their dishonesty.

 

[Old Rocks]

“But carbon dioxide is at record levels.”
Atmospheric carbon is at higher levels than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
Yes. But go back 500 million years, and carbon levels were not just 10-20 percent
higher, they were 10 to 20 times higher. The Earth has thoroughly tested the runaway
greenhouse effect, and nothing happened. Indeed the Earth slipped into an ice age while
CO2 was far higher than today’s levels. Whatever warming effect super-concentrated-
CO2 has, it’s no match for the other climatic forces out
there. Further, it doesn’t matter if it’s man-made CO2 or
ocean-made CO2. They are the same molecule.

Lordy, lordy, flaunting ignorance. Ever hear of the P-T Extinction? How about the PETM?

Methane catastrophe

 

[Old Rocks]

THE PETM: AN EXTREME Global Biogeochemical PERTURBATION

At the PETM, within a very short time interval, at least 2000 Gt of carbon were added to the ocean-atmosphere system, and polar temperatures soared by as much as 8°C (Kennett et al., 1991; Thomas & Shackleton, 1996; Katz et al., 1999). The primary evidence for these changes comes from high-resolution isotope records (e.g., Fig. 1) which show dramatic negative excursions in d13C and d18O. As highlighted throughout this proposal, many other records across the PETM generally support massive carbon input (e.g., pronounced carbonate dissolution on the seafloor) or extreme warmth (e.g., pronounced increase in warm water nannoplankton in open ocean sites, and migration of low-latitude biota to high latitudes).

As for the carbon source, both empirical and theoretical evidence implicate a massive and rapid release of marine methane hydrates. The primary geochemical evidence is a coeval >3‰ negative carbon isotope excursion in both marine and terrestrial reservoirs at the PETM (Fig. 1) . The presence of a regional seismic discontinuity indicative of a massive slump along the eastern continental margin of the US further supports this hypothesis . The primary theoretical evidence comes from numerical consideration of carbon isotopes, fluxes, and mass balance constraints, which require a very 12C enriched carbon source (i.e., one that is produced by bacteria).

Coupled to the carbon cycle and temperature perturbations are large-scale and widespread changes in physical, chemical, geological, and hydrological systems including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation, precipitation patterns and intensity, and the global sedimentation patterns (Sloan et al. 1997). Deep-sea sediment cores are characterized by pronounced, widespread carbonate dissolution at the start of the PETM followed by gradual increases in carbonate and barium accumulation at some locations . In near shore and shallow marine environments, increased accumulation of carbonates and clastics occurs, particularly kaolinite, a chemical weathering byproduct
The LPTM

 

[FactFinder]

This would be evidence that carbon is a major cause
of global warming:
If temperatures followed CO2 levels in the past. (They didn’t.)
If the atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern of
increased greenhouse warming. (It doesn’t.)

This is NOT evidence:
Arctic ice disappearing
Glaciers retreating
Coral reef bleaching
Mt. Kilimanjaro losing snow
Madagascan lemurs doing anything
Four polar bears caught in a storm
Pick-a-bird/tree/moth facing extinction
A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
Droughts
Dry rivers
Computer models*
There is no “better” explanation
Some guy with a PhD is “sure”
2,500 scientists mostly agree
A government committee wrote a long report
Government spending on “Emissions Trading Plans”
tops $100 million
Geri “Ginger Spice” Halliwell signed a skeptics petition
A failed theologian, ex-politician made a documentary

 

[Old Rocks]

Zachos will present his findings this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in St. Louis. He is a leading expert on the episode of global warming known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when global temperatures shot up by 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). This abrupt shift in the Earth's climate took place 55 million years ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch as the result of a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of two greenhouse gases: methane and carbon dioxide.

Previous estimates put the amount of released carbon at 2 trillion tons, but Zachos showed that more than twice that amount--about 4.5 trillion tons--entered the atmosphere over a period of 10,000 years (Science, June 10, 2005). If present trends continue, this is the same amount of carbon that industries and automobiles will emit during the next 300 years,
Studies Of Ancient Climates Suggest Earth Is Now On A Fast Track To Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

This would be evidence that carbon is a major cause
of global warming:
If temperatures followed CO2 levels in the past. (They didn’t.)
If the atmosphere showed the characteristic heating pattern of
increased greenhouse warming. (It doesn’t.)

This is NOT evidence:
Arctic ice disappearing
Glaciers retreating
Coral reef bleaching
Mt. Kilimanjaro losing snow
Madagascan lemurs doing anything
Four polar bears caught in a storm
Pick-a-bird/tree/moth facing extinction
A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
Droughts
Dry rivers
Computer models*
There is no “better” explanation
Some guy with a PhD is “sure”
2,500 scientists mostly agree
A government committee wrote a long report
Government spending on “Emissions Trading Plans”
tops $100 million
Geri “Ginger Spice” Halliwell signed a skeptics petition
A failed theologian, ex-politician made a documentary

Says who?

 

[FactFinder]

Your PETM seems to grossly exagerate the paltry 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere where humans live. What's the point? Do we need to kill off all carbon emitting life in the ocean?

 

[FactFinder]

If present trends continue, this is the same amount of carbon that industries and automobiles will emit during the next 300 years,

That 300 years ignores the fact that there won't be any carbon fuels then. You would also need to skew the data down to account for the declining period of fossil fuel use.

 

[Old Rocks]

If present trends continue, this is the same amount of carbon that industries and automobiles will emit during the next 300 years,

That 300 years ignores the fact that there won't be any carbon fuels then. You would also need to skew the data down to account for the declining period of fossil fuel use.

Well, have you ever heard of feedbacks?

Global Warming Feedback Loop Caused by Methane, Scientists SayElizabeth Svoboda
for National Geographic News

August 29, 2006
In the ongoing debate over global warming, climatologists usually peg carbon dioxide as the most dangerous of the atmosphere's heat- trapping gases.

But methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, might be even more problematic.

According to Tessa Hill, a geologist at the University of California, Davis, more methane is released into the atmosphere from ocean deposits during periods of warming than previously thought.

This expelled methane increases temperatures and releases more methane, creating a positive feedback loop.

The research appears tomorrow in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Global Warming Feedback Loop Caused by Methane, Scientists Say

 

[Old Rocks]

Your PETM seems to grossly exagerate the paltry 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere where humans live. What's the point? Do we need to kill off all carbon emitting life in the ocean?

Damn, the oceans emit 90 gigatons of CO2 and absorb 92 gigatons. The oceans are at present a net sink for anthropogenic CO2. And the increasing acidity is one major effect of it being a sink.

Increasing ocean acidity threatens marine life

The oceans have long buffered the effects of climate change by absorbing a substantial portion of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. But this benefit has a catch: As the gas dissolves, it makes seawater more acidic. Now an international panel of marine scientists says this acidity is accelerating so fast it threatens the survival of coral reefs, shellfish and the marine food web generally.

 

[FactFinder]

Right....

But what the hell does methane CO2 have to do with man made CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

Right....

But what the hell does methane CO2 have to do with man made CO2?

Methane CO2? Methane is CH4. Perhaps if you would bother your little brain to do some research on what paleoclimatologists are finding out, you might understand the connection between CO2 induced warming and methane clathrates.

Go ahead, you have the most wonderful research tool sitting right in front of you. Learn the basics about how to use it, rather than flaunting your ignorance for the whole world to see.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.
In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods....

First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance."
NASA satellite temperature measurements fuel Global Warming debate

Fucking flat earthers.

 

[FactFinder]

Must be some of them thar government bought scientists. Could it be that the ocean is cooling?

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris

Stuart Westmorland
Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. Corbis

There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?


If you read the whole article he doesn't sound like he knows if he is coming or going but that sounds about right.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol..."Global Warming's Missing Heat".

That's funny.

The real brains are more concerned about global cooling, and they are REALLY concerned about it right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Must be some of them thar government bought scientists. Could it be that the ocean is cooling?

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
by Richard Harris

Stuart Westmorland
Oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. Corbis

There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?


If you read the whole article he doesn't sound like he knows if he is coming or going bu that sounds about right.

You mean that he states that there are some unknowns in operation here. Perhaps a deeper mixing than supposed. Or a number of other things.

If you are expecting scientists to come on like all knowing holy roller preachers, it ain't that way, sonny boy. Scientists are quite willing to state that they do not understand all that they observe. That is, after all, the job of scientists. To observe and then achieve an understanding of the processes from that observation.

 

[FactFinder]

Bottom line>>the data showed the ocean cooling. Him being government bought and all was struggling for some alternate explanation. Kind of like the IPCC.

 

[AllieBaba]

"E. R. Beadle said, “Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not. Indeed, it is not even what is in their Scientific Report.

The pattern of falsifying appearances began early. Although he works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Stephen Schneider was heavily employed in the work of the IPCC as this biography notes....
"Schneider, among others, created the appearance that the Summary was representative of the Science Report. However, he provides an early insight into the thinking when speaking about global warming to Discovery magazine (October 1989) he said scientists need, “to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.” The last sentence is deeply disturbing--there is no decision required."


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116