CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Boston1]

Actually I didn't compile that graph but hey, Look at that.

The only thing baseline represents is where they stick 0 on a graph.

If you really want to know my preference for baseline it'd be somewhere prior to the industrial age.

This one uses the 1961~1990 average and its obviously high when compared to pre industrial norms.

going back 2000 years and using the 1880 average

Here's another, same time frame.

Here's at 10,000 years with a baseline again set in the 1900s

As you can see the baseline can be set wherever you want it really doesn't make a difference.

The graphs resolution is what matters and that gradually diminishes as you try and jamb more and more information onto it such that the dramatic nature of the recent temperature changes we're seeing today, become blurred. I love the fools that post a graph of a few billion years time frame and demand someone point to todays temperature anomaly

IE baseline is irrelevant. Resolution is what a graph needs in order to see whats really going on.

You sure have a knack for false premisses and irrelevancies Todd.

Maybe, however, you noticed the unprecedented nature of the changes in temp and CO2 over the last few years in those graphs tho ;--)

Ever wonder what happens to the environmental system when you throw a wrench at it like that ?

Ever heard of aerobic stratification ? Anoxic events ? Things like that ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually I didn't compile that graph but hey, Look at that.

The only thing baseline represents is where they stick 0 on a graph.

If you really want to know my preference for baseline it'd be somewhere prior to the industrial age.

This one uses the 1961~1990 average and its obviously high when compared to pre industrial norms.

going back 2000 years and using the 1880 average

Here's another, same time frame.

Here's at 10,000 years with a baseline again set in the 1900s

As you can see the baseline can be set wherever you want it really doesn't make a difference.

The graphs resolution is what matters and that gradually diminishes as you try and jamb more and more information onto it such that the dramatic nature of the recent temperature changes we're seeing today, become blurred. I love the fools that post a graph of a few billion years time frame and demand someone point to todays temperature anomaly

IE baseline is irrelevant. Resolution is what a graph needs in order to see whats really going on.

You sure have a knack for false premisses and irrelevancies Todd.

Maybe, however, you noticed the unprecedented nature of the changes in temp and CO2 over the last few years in those graphs tho ;--)

Ever wonder what happens to the environmental system when you throw a wrench at it like that ?

Ever heard of aerobic stratification ? Anoxic events ? Things like that ?

Actually I didn't compile that graph but hey,

I didn't say you compiled it. It is funny that you posted it without reading it.

If you really want to know my preference for baseline it'd be somewhere prior to the industrial age.

Why?

You sure have a knack for false premisses and irrelevancies Todd.

When I'm responding to the false premises and irrelevancies of the warmers, not to mention their weak grasp of economics, I feel compelled to point them out.

Maybe, however, you noticed the unprecedented nature of the changes in temp and CO2 over the last few years in those graphs

Yes I did. Are you claiming warmer is worse? Why?

Ever heard of aerobic stratification ? Anoxic events ?

Yes. Do we need to build more windmills to prevent a reoccurrence?

 

[2aguy]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

Republicans believe in climate change....it gets cold, it gets hot...and we have nothing to do with it....

 

[Holos]

Does anyone consistently participating in this topic think scientists are actually underfunded and need greater educational investment? It seems that way to me, by sharing my educated scientific opinion and further being seemingly neglected and unable to contribute for an apparently long due and greatly demanded resolution.

This is a serious question. If anything I would cease being a scientist in search of better education and procure for a source to invest in the sciences and scientific education.

 

[Holos]

Sounds like ideological problems more than scientific ones.

Is there anyone here who understands what an isotope is ?

What is an isotope, and how does it relate to the topic of climate change and environmental stability?

 

[Boston1]

Sounds like ideological problems more than scientific ones.

Is there anyone here who understands what an isotope is ?

What is an isotope, and how does it relate to the topic of climate change and environmental stability?

Um, same element, but with a different number of neutrons ;--)

You claim to be a scientist but don't know ? So how is it the same element ends up with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons ?

Also if you are a scientist you should know how this relates to the issue of mankind's influence on the atmospheric chemistry ;--)

 

[Boston1]

Actually I didn't compile that graph but hey, Look at that.

The only thing baseline represents is where they stick 0 on a graph.

If you really want to know my preference for baseline it'd be somewhere prior to the industrial age.

This one uses the 1961~1990 average and its obviously high when compared to pre industrial norms.

going back 2000 years and using the 1880 average

Here's another, same time frame.

Here's at 10,000 years with a baseline again set in the 1900s

As you can see the baseline can be set wherever you want it really doesn't make a difference.

The graphs resolution is what matters and that gradually diminishes as you try and jamb more and more information onto it such that the dramatic nature of the recent temperature changes we're seeing today, become blurred. I love the fools that post a graph of a few billion years time frame and demand someone point to todays temperature anomaly

IE baseline is irrelevant. Resolution is what a graph needs in order to see whats really going on.

You sure have a knack for false premisses and irrelevancies Todd.

Maybe, however, you noticed the unprecedented nature of the changes in temp and CO2 over the last few years in those graphs tho ;--)

Ever wonder what happens to the environmental system when you throw a wrench at it like that ?

Ever heard of aerobic stratification ? Anoxic events ? Things like that ?

Actually I didn't compile that graph but hey,

I didn't say you compiled it. It is funny that you posted it without reading it.

If you really want to know my preference for baseline it'd be somewhere prior to the industrial age.

Why?

You sure have a knack for false premisses and irrelevancies Todd.

When I'm responding to the false premises and irrelevancies of the warmers, not to mention their weak grasp of economics, I feel compelled to point them out.

Maybe, however, you noticed the unprecedented nature of the changes in temp and CO2 over the last few years in those graphs

Yes I did. Are you claiming warmer is worse? Why?

Ever heard of aerobic stratification ? Anoxic events ?

Yes. Do we need to build more windmills to prevent a reoccurrence?

Can you identify the false premise you claim I posted ?

 

[Holos]

Sounds like ideological problems more than scientific ones.

Is there anyone here who understands what an isotope is ?

What is an isotope, and how does it relate to the topic of climate change and environmental stability?

Um, same element, but with a different number of neutrons ;--)

You claim to be a scientist but don't know ? So how is it the same element ends up with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons ?

Also if you are a scientist you should know how this relates to the issue of mankind's influence on the atmospheric chemistry ;--)

Are you telling me a scientist, by definition, is a learned individual who has reached a maximum capacity for learning? In other words, a single individual occupied with a single task, cannot hold two functions at the same time (ie. student and scientist)?

I can probably answer your questions better than google or any researched data base is able to, given my own empirical research. However, it seems your own answers are not very forwardly conducive as mine would be, if you had actually answered my simple question without a gaping preclusion of unnecessary eliticist mannerism, asking me to continue researching when the research has obviously already been done, according to your despondent certainty.

I never said I didn't know, I just asked for your perspective so I could also share mine.

 

[Boston1]

Sounds like ideological problems more than scientific ones.

Is there anyone here who understands what an isotope is ?

What is an isotope, and how does it relate to the topic of climate change and environmental stability?

Um, same element, but with a different number of neutrons ;--)

You claim to be a scientist but don't know ? So how is it the same element ends up with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons ?

Also if you are a scientist you should know how this relates to the issue of mankind's influence on the atmospheric chemistry ;--)

Are you telling me a scientist, by definition, is a learned individual who has reached a maximum capacity for learning? In other words, a single individual occupied with a single task, cannot hold two functions at the same time (ie. student and scientist)?

I can probably answer your questions better than google or any researched data base is able to, given my own empirical research. However, it seems your own answers are not very forwardly conducive as mine would be, if you had actually answered my simple question without a gaping preclusion of unnecessary eliticist mannerism, asking me to continue researching when the research has obviously already been done, according to your despondent certainty.

I never said I didn't know, I just asked for your perspective so I could also share mine.

Yikes, where in the world did you get that from ?

you asked me what an Isotope was and how it relates to our topic.

I was suggesting that if you learned how the various isotopes of say, Carbon, ;--) develop you might figure out just why the information is relevant to our topic. IE do your own homework.

Mass isotopic balance would be next on the list.

Hint

Virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Given that at least some of our contestants have accepted that, I thought the issue reasonably settled.

Although any attempt at further progress was, temporarily I hope, interruption by some inane assumption that there was a perfect temperature.

Baring any further nonsense maybe we could discus rate of change ;--) which is in the end the central issue.

Not to many people will question that the dramatic deviation from trend is significant.

 

[TNHarley]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

 

[Stephanie]

thses threads are so dishonest and funny all the same time. these people just Assumes all Republicans DENY deny deny deny deny GloBULL warming Aka "climate change. and I guess is assuming all Democrats march to the drums of "climate change" like good brainwashed soldiers should. NOT one Democrat deny it's a scam.. is that a cult member or not? or Sheep

 

[JoeMoma]

Yikes. Again with the standard denial.

Has anyone here actually studied climate science ?

I have been following the debate for about 15 years now. VERY CLOSELY. Reading papers, discussing with competent colleagues and posting my views on this very board..

AND one might ask -- what is YOUR total investment? And why did you dismiss my post as "denial"? Seems like we need to get down to some facts..

1) The power of CO2 to heat the GreenHouse is well-known from basic physics and chemical properties. This is DIFFERENT from the Super-Powers attributed to CO2 and other emissions by the GW theory. I believe that the DATA we see now confirms the basic science on CO2 -- but at the same time VOIDS the hysterical projections of a doomed planet caught in an irreversible run-away TYPE of global warming. The basic physics WITHOUT THE FEAR and the hype says that each doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give about 1degC of warming. For perspective, the first doubling since the industrial age is not even OVER --- we are at 400ppm and we started at 280ppm.. Will be 2030 or 40 before we reach the first doubling. The rise we've SEEN -- in totally compatible with the 1degC estimate PLUS some natural variation.. The NEXT doubling to 1120ppm would never occur until way after 2100 and is not worth shouting at each other about..

Corrolary to 1) To believe in ALL the tenets of GW -- you have to believe that we live on a junker of planet that would commit planetcide by heating BY ITSELF --- after we reach a magic 2degC threshold. NOT FOUNDED by the relatively cataclysmic history of Ice Ages, and hot epochs that this planet has already survived.

2) The claims that the present 0.5degC of warming seen in YOUR lifetime are unprecendated --- are actually unfounded by science. Trying to ascertain GLOBAL historical proxy records from millennia ago are thwarted by lack of time resolution in the ice cores, mud bug shells, and tree rings to be found lying around on the planet,. These historical studies are good at find "expected mean values" -- but terrible at comparing to the 1/100deg accurate instrumentation readings of the common age. BUT YET --- some activist scientists have made the claim that the :"hockey sticks" PROVE the current little warming blip is "unprecendented" which is a leap that some of the more HONEST hockey stickers have disputed themselves.

3) Why does your socio-political movement rely on castigating "deniers", scream about settled science, and want to end this debate BEFORE IT STARTS??? Because their projections and models have all but failed or are in the process of failing from predictions made just 15 years ago. 38% of Climate Scientists polled in the ONE MEANINGFUL poll of the field, BY Climate gurus themselves -- identified climate science "as a fairly immature field of endevour". (von Storch circa 2008) Even WITH all the hype, propaganda that has been poured on the fire.

So MAYBE -- WE can get past the denier name calling and discuss what the ACTUAL theorems state and why they are failing and what the evidence REALLY IS ---- ya think???

I've never read it "said" better!

 

[Boston1]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

Which why I thought I'd ask a few basic questions and find out where to begin. Like do you know what an isotope is, as this basic knowledge is needed to understand just what isotopic mass balance is.

Some basics in science are needed in order to grasp the concepts involved in climate science.

We know for certain that virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changes in our atmospheres balance of CO2 isotopic types.

Its actually quite basic but one does need to at least know what an isotope is in order to grasp the concept.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

His conclusions from 100 years ago are proving out today.

Its not like this is new science or that its anything more than basic physics.

 

[JoeMoma]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

How big of a problem do you believe climate change to be? Do you believe it's humanity's greatest threat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

Which why I thought I'd ask a few basic questions and find out where to begin. Like do you know what an isotope is, as this basic knowledge is needed to understand just what isotopic mass balance is.

Some basics in science are needed in order to grasp the concepts involved in climate science.

We know for certain that virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changes in our atmospheres balance of CO2 isotopic types.

Its actually quite basic but one does need to at least know what an isotope is in order to grasp the concept.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

His conclusions from 100 years ago are proving out today.

Its not like this is new science or that its anything more than basic physics.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

What would happen?

 

[Boston1]

At this point is there really any excuse to deny mankind has brought this on itself ?

How big of a problem do you believe climate change to be? Do you believe it's humanity's greatest threat?

Yes I think its our greatest threat.

The long term chances of a the human race surviving an extinction level climate event of the type indicated by the rate of change in atmospheric chemistry today, are virtually zero.

In the P/Tr extinction which was a result of changes in the atmospheric chemistry approximately 1250 times slower than the changes we are seeing today. 90% of ocean life forms,70% of land forms, even about 50% of insect species died out with the system remaining depleted for ~ 30 million years. larger life forms were hit particularly hard due to depleted O2 levels with most all species over about 1Kg in size dying out during this period.

And some of you guys prefer to go on about costs ;--)

 

[Boston1]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

Which why I thought I'd ask a few basic questions and find out where to begin. Like do you know what an isotope is, as this basic knowledge is needed to understand just what isotopic mass balance is.

Some basics in science are needed in order to grasp the concepts involved in climate science.

We know for certain that virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changes in our atmospheres balance of CO2 isotopic types.

Its actually quite basic but one does need to at least know what an isotope is in order to grasp the concept.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

His conclusions from 100 years ago are proving out today.

Its not like this is new science or that its anything more than basic physics.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

What would happen?

I'd recommend looking it up, its not like the information is hard to find for those who are actually interested in finding out.

See
Svante Arrhenius 1859~1927 ( not sure I got the dates but hey, you're just going to have to do some of your own homework )

As I recall his greenhouse gas equation/s ( from somewhere in the 1890s ) are still used today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

Which why I thought I'd ask a few basic questions and find out where to begin. Like do you know what an isotope is, as this basic knowledge is needed to understand just what isotopic mass balance is.

Some basics in science are needed in order to grasp the concepts involved in climate science.

We know for certain that virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changes in our atmospheres balance of CO2 isotopic types.

Its actually quite basic but one does need to at least know what an isotope is in order to grasp the concept.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

His conclusions from 100 years ago are proving out today.

Its not like this is new science or that its anything more than basic physics.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

What would happen?

I'd recommend looking it up, its not like the information is hard to find for those who are actually interested in finding out.

See
Svante Arrhenius 1859~1927 ( not sure I got the dates but hey, you're just going to have to do some of your own homework )

As I recall his greenhouse gas equation/s ( from somewhere in the 1890s ) are still used today.

I'd recommend looking it up, its not like the information is hard to find for those who are actually interested in finding out.

Yeah, if I was interested, I'd look it up.

 

[Boston1]

If someone denies climate change, they are fuckin retarded.
If someone blames man, they are fuckin retarded.
No doubt man has probably influenced some of earths patterns, but my gawd. Get real.
Just another shot at global power from the elites.

Which why I thought I'd ask a few basic questions and find out where to begin. Like do you know what an isotope is, as this basic knowledge is needed to understand just what isotopic mass balance is.

Some basics in science are needed in order to grasp the concepts involved in climate science.

We know for certain that virtually all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels because of the changes in our atmospheres balance of CO2 isotopic types.

Its actually quite basic but one does need to at least know what an isotope is in order to grasp the concept.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

His conclusions from 100 years ago are proving out today.

Its not like this is new science or that its anything more than basic physics.

From there its very easy to show that even 100 years ago a guy named Arrhenius ( nobel prize winner ) calculated what would happen if we doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

What would happen?

I'd recommend looking it up, its not like the information is hard to find for those who are actually interested in finding out.

See
Svante Arrhenius 1859~1927 ( not sure I got the dates but hey, you're just going to have to do some of your own homework )

As I recall his greenhouse gas equation/s ( from somewhere in the 1890s ) are still used today.

I'd recommend looking it up, its not like the information is hard to find for those who are actually interested in finding out.

Yeah, if I was interested, I'd look it up.

IE

Ya aint going to learn
What you don't want to know.

Jerry

 

[Boston1]

Quote

This winter's biggest sea ice extent was 431,000 miles less than the 30-year average. That's the size of Texas and California combined.

Records go back to 1979 when satellites started measuring sea ice.

Center scientist Julienne Stroeve says winter temperatures over the North Pole were 16 degrees warmer than normal, while it was 4 to 11 degrees warmer than normal elsewhere over the Arctic.

End Quote