TWO more Global Warming issues

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why I bring up nuclear power. If liberals were serious about the threat of CO2 and didn't want to damage our economy, they'd be the biggest supporters of nuclear. But they aren't.
Because they're being dishonest.

B.S. Until...UNTIL you can figure out how to dispose or adequately store the poisons that are left behind from nuclear plants.....AND...until nuclear plants are truly secured from terrorist wackos.....nuclear energy will always be suspect.

I was recently involved in some failed negotiations from the Feds who.....looking to dump the toxic waste from nuclear plants, were offering billions to Indian tribes to please take it.

UNTIL you can figure out how to dispose or adequately store the poisons that are left behind from nuclear plants.....

It's not that hard. They've been doing it onsite for decades and decades.
And if global warming is the threat you claim, we need more nukes.

AND...until nuclear plants are truly secured from terrorist wackos.....nuclear energy will always be suspect.

Not as suspect as fear mongers who won't consider additional nuclear capacity.

I was recently involved in some failed negotiations from the Feds who.....

The current Feds are dumber than usual.
And burying perfectly good nuclear fuel is stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Safer than oil trains.

For all you nitwits that echo what Fox tells you to echo....

Trains that carry oil DO derail more often BUT the spillage from pipelines cause more than 3 times the damage to the environment from spillages.

spillage from pipelines cause more than 3 times the damage to the environment

Was that from MSNBC?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cook's survey is the source of the 97% 'consensus' figure.

Cook's survey is NOT the only source of the figure ....
Look believe what your biases tell you to believe, I really don't give a crap.

Cook's survey is NOT the only source of the figure ....

Link to the other sources, so we can show you their faults.

 

[Ernie S.]

encourage you to investigate the methods of John Cook's survey which led to this 97% figure.

Well, I haven't relied on Cook's survey.....My more objective source is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..which is a UN sponsored panel.

Oh goody! Have you read their emails?

Tell me guy. Suppose there is a murder and during the trial, we find that the prosecutor and the lead detective have exchanged emails discussing planting evidence to support the case against the accused.

Let's put you in the judge's chair up front. Would you elect to continue the trial or would you remove the prosecutor and all evidence gathered by the detective?


Why then, for God's sake, do you still believe IPCC?

 

[Staidhup]

Fact, the earth has experienced periods of cooling and warming trends for millions of years before man, it will continue to do so, scientists are not God, they only attempt to understand natural phenomena, and as we have witnessed, profess to have a cure and understanding. Somewhat like the weatherman predicting weather.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Excellent! Ice ages really suck.

An intelligent person would....

... answer questions directly related to his positions.
He would have those answers because he asked the questions himself, and found them.
A person who doesn't have those answers hasn't asked the questions; if he continues to hold his position without asking those questions, he isn't intelligent.

 

[nat4900]

Please present the facts to support your supposition..

You know, you dimwits can do YOUR own research...we are not here to educate those who will simply dispute facts favoring their own opinions......But since I'm a nice person.....

........A lot of people have used this data to argue that transporting oil via pipelines is safer than rail. And that’s true, if your idea of safety is defined by the frequency of accidents, regardless of how large the accidents are. If, however, you think massive releases of oil into the environment pose a greater risk to human health, than pipelines are the greater evil.

According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

Data Oil Trains Spill More Often But Pipelines Spill Bigger ThinkProgress

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please present the facts to support your supposition..

You know, you dimwits can do YOUR own research...we are not here to educate those who will simply dispute facts favoring their own opinions...

Its up to you to back up your claims and answer questions related to them.
When you can;t do so, you should ask yourself why.

 

[mamooth]

An intelligent person would....

... answer questions directly related to his positions.

Okay, you're admitting you're not intelligent. I didn't ask you to admit it, but if you want to, it's all good.

By the way, please stop sulking at me. It's unseemly for a grown man to act like that.

I was going to let you off the hook. I've seen your kind's evasions a thousand times before, and they bore me. But since you insist, let's get back to what you keep running from, which would be how the directly observable data says your natural cycles theory is wrong, and yet you cling to that theory despite it being contradicted by the evidence, as if it were some kind of religious faith.

The observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase in backradiation is only explainable by greenhouse-gas-caused global warming theory. Being that global warming theory is the only theory that explains all of the observed data, it is the accepted theory.

It is not sufficient to declare how your gut says that can't be right. If you want to claim global warming theory is wrong, you need to provide an alternative theory that explains all of the observed data.

So far, you haven't even tried. Waving your hands around wildly and shouting "natural cycles!" is an evasion, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes. Name the cause. Show your work. Show that the observed data is consistent with your cause. For example, increased solar radiation, whether by solar changes or orbital changes, would result in stratospheric warming. Since we see stratospheric cooling, we can definitely rule out those causes.

Get going. What's your theory?

 

[nat4900]

Get going. What's your theory?

He heard it from that renowned climatologist, Sean Hannity?

 

[M14 Shooter]

An intelligent person would....

... answer questions directly related to his positions.

Okay, you're admitting you're not intelligent.

Says he who knows he cannot support his position.
That is, after all, the only sound conclusion one can reach when someone makes a claim and then refuses to support it.

I was going to let you off the hook.

You mean you were going to run away.

It is not sufficient to declare how your gut says that can't be right. If you want to claim global warming theory is wrong, you need to provide an alternative theory that explains all of the observed data.

Absolutely wrong as any thinking person knows -- when you make a claim you are required to support it; no one is required disprove it to present an alternative.
When you can't support your posiiton, you should ask yourself why.
You don't -- you have no answers for the questions I asked because you haven't asked them yourself.
Why?
You're a zealot

Now the, tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.
it is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Please present the facts to support your supposition..

You know, you dimwits can do YOUR own research...we are not here to educate those who will simply dispute facts favoring their own opinions......But since I'm a nice person.....

........A lot of people have used this data to argue that transporting oil via pipelines is safer than rail. And that’s true, if your idea of safety is defined by the frequency of accidents, regardless of how large the accidents are. If, however, you think massive releases of oil into the environment pose a greater risk to human health, than pipelines are the greater evil.

According to the same PHMSA dataset, compiled and analysed by the International Energy Agency, U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

Data Oil Trains Spill More Often But Pipelines Spill Bigger ThinkProgress

THE OWNEROUS IS ON YOU TO PROVE. You made the statements you provide the facts to support them.

Using far left wing talking points sites such as think progress is a fools errand as almost 100% of what they print is fabrication or extreme exaggeration.

ON to your fabrications/exaggerations... The 800,000 leak was contained and cleaned up just as the 63,000 gallon leak was. Had you read the IEA reports you would have noted the spills had minimal impact on the surroundings and wildlife. They were 100% cleaned up and mitigated.

Had you read the IEA reports and not the made up drivel from Think Progress you would also know that semi accidents and breaches of tankers of oils and gas far out weigh the sums. (because they are limited to 10,000-20,000 gallon potentials they are classified differently) Its funny how you alarmist tell only half the truth and expect others to ferret out your lies or hope we dont and allow the lies to stand.

 

[Billy_Bob]

An intelligent person would....

... answer questions directly related to his positions.

Okay, you're admitting you're not intelligent. I didn't ask you to admit it, but if you want to, it's all good.

By the way, please stop sulking at me. It's unseemly for a grown man to act like that.

I was going to let you off the hook. I've seen your kind's evasions a thousand times before, and they bore me. But since you insist, let's get back to what you keep running from, which would be how the directly observable data says your natural cycles theory is wrong, and yet you cling to that theory despite it being contradicted by the evidence, as if it were some kind of religious faith.

The observed stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation, and the increase in backradiation is only explainable by greenhouse-gas-caused global warming theory. Being that global warming theory is the only theory that explains all of the observed data, it is the accepted theory.

It is not sufficient to declare how your gut says that can't be right. If you want to claim global warming theory is wrong, you need to provide an alternative theory that explains all of the observed data.

So far, you haven't even tried. Waving your hands around wildly and shouting "natural cycles!" is an evasion, not a theory. Natural cycles have causes. Name the cause. Show your work. Show that the observed data is consistent with your cause. For example, increased solar radiation, whether by solar changes or orbital changes, would result in stratospheric warming. Since we see stratospheric cooling, we can definitely rule out those causes.

Get going. What's your theory?

Mantooth once again proves it doesn't have a freaking clue about natural variation, how to quantify it, or how to discern it. Nice to know that nothing changes with this one.

 

[mamooth]

Absolutely wrong as any thinking person knows -- when you make a claim you are required to support it; no one is required disprove it to present an alternative.

And that's been done, so the burden of proof is now on you to disprove it. Global warming theory explains all of the observed data, hence it's the accepted theory. Don't expect anyone to type 20 pages to support the status quo, especially since everyone knows you'd just find a new excuse to handwave away all the evidence. Your behavior is like asking someone to support the theory of gravity, and then declaring victory when they pass.

Remember, you're the conspiracy theorist here. The burden of proof is on you to justify your conspiracy theory, just as it is for birthers, truthers, moon landing hoaxers or antivaxxers. You, of course, are free to continue to evade. I'm sure you'll even have a few fellow conspiracy cultists cheering you. However, this message board is not the world. In the world, your cult is considered to be a joke because it won't do any science. If you want to rise above joke status, do some science.

When you can't support your posiiton, you should ask yourself why.
You don't -- you have no answers for the questions I asked because you haven't asked them yourself.
Why?
You're a zealot

You are going to give us your theory to explain the observed warming someday, right? Oh wait, you won't. Because you don't have one. And you can't point out any problems with the current theory. You just know in your gut it has to be wrong, because your religion says so. Very convincing.

Now the, tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.

One of my points is that, being you're a mindless cultist, you'll always find convenient excuses to handwave away all the science that contradicts your cult's teachings. Therefore, I'll happily set you up to prove my point yet another time.

This image comes from
http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

Note the current 100 kyear ice age cycles. That would give us 50 kyears.

This Nature article places it at 28,000 years for the interglacial length. Note that I said cooling, not interglacial length, and that the cooling would go on after the interglacial was over.

WebCite query result
---
The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long -- 28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future
---

This paper calls for a much longer period, a 100kyear cycle, giving us at least 50k years until the next ice age.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES290/Rial1999.pdf

Pacemaking the Ice Ages by Frequency Modulation of Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity
---
Evidence from power spectra of deep-sea oxygen isotope time series suggests
that the climate system of Earth responds nonlinearly to astronomical forcing
by frequency modulating eccentricity-related variations in insolation. With the
help of a simple model, it is shown that frequency modulation of the approx-
imate 100,000-year eccentricity cycles by the 413,000-year component ac-
counts for the variable duration of the ice ages, the multiple-peak character of
the time series spectra, and the notorious absence of significant spectral am-
plitude at the 413,000-year period. The observed spectra are consistent with
the classic Milankovitch theories of insolation, so that climate forcing by
100,000-year variations in orbital inclination that cause periodic dust accretion
appear unnecessary.
---

Your whole argument is senseless, of course. You claim the current switch to warming is part of a natural cycle, one that always happens as part of the glacial cycle. Trouble for you is the heating happens AFTER THE GLACIAL PERIOD. Did you see any glaciers covering the earth recently? No? Then it means we're not coming out of an ice age, so the current sudden switch to fast warming can't be part of that cycle.

it is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

I have directly told you more than once that the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and the increase in backradiation all conclusively show warming is not part of a natural cycle. And in response, you pretend that evidence doesn't exist.

What does it say about your position, that it can only be maintained by running from data?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely wrong as any thinking person knows -- when you make a claim you are required to support it; no one is required disprove it to present an alternative.

And that's been done,

This is a lie as you know you have not addressed the two questions I asked:

What do you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years?
it is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.
Please note: All the nformation you just cited? Inference and induction.

.

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Its YOUR claim, it is up to YOU to prove every bit of it.
No one else must disprove it, no one must present an alternative - YOU must prove your entire claim.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Absolutely wrong as any thinking person knows -- when you make a claim you are required to support it; no one is required disprove it to present an alternative.

And that's been done, so the burden of proof is now on you to disprove it. Global warming theory explains all of the observed data, hence it's the accepted theory. Don't expect anyone to type 20 pages to support the status quo, especially since everyone knows you'd just find a new excuse to handwave away all the evidence. Your behavior is like asking someone to support the theory of gravity, and then declaring victory when they pass.

Remember, you're the conspiracy theorist here. The burden of proof is on you to justify your conspiracy theory, just as it is for birthers, truthers, moon landing hoaxers or antivaxxers. You, of course, are free to continue to evade. I'm sure you'll even have a few fellow conspiracy cultists cheering you. However, this message board is not the world. In the world, your cult is considered to be a joke because it won't do any science. If you want to rise above joke status, do some science.

When you can't support your posiiton, you should ask yourself why.
You don't -- you have no answers for the questions I asked because you haven't asked them yourself.
Why?
You're a zealot

You are going to give us your theory to explain the observed warming someday, right? Oh wait, you won't. Because you don't have one. And you can't point out any problems with the current theory. You just know in your gut it has to be wrong, because your religion says so. Very convincing.

Now the, tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.

One of my points is that, being you're a mindless cultist, you'll always find convenient excuses to handwave away all the science that contradicts your cult's teachings. Therefore, I'll happily set you up to prove my point yet another time.

This image comes from
http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

Note the current 100 kyear ice age cycles. That would give us 50 kyears.

This Nature article places it at 28,000 years for the interglacial length. Note that I said cooling, not interglacial length, and that the cooling would go on after the interglacial was over.

WebCite query result
---
The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long -- 28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future
---

This paper calls for a much longer period, a 100kyear cycle, giving us at least 50k years until the next ice age.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES290/Rial1999.pdf

Pacemaking the Ice Ages by Frequency Modulation of Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity
---
Evidence from power spectra of deep-sea oxygen isotope time series suggests
that the climate system of Earth responds nonlinearly to astronomical forcing
by frequency modulating eccentricity-related variations in insolation. With the
help of a simple model, it is shown that frequency modulation of the approx-
imate 100,000-year eccentricity cycles by the 413,000-year component ac-
counts for the variable duration of the ice ages, the multiple-peak character of
the time series spectra, and the notorious absence of significant spectral am-
plitude at the 413,000-year period. The observed spectra are consistent with
the classic Milankovitch theories of insolation, so that climate forcing by
100,000-year variations in orbital inclination that cause periodic dust accretion
appear unnecessary.
---

Your whole argument is senseless, of course. You claim the current switch to warming is part of a natural cycle, one that always happens as part of the glacial cycle. Trouble for you is the heating happens AFTER THE GLACIAL PERIOD. Did you see any glaciers covering the earth recently? No? Then it means we're not coming out of an ice age, so the current sudden switch to fast warming can't be part of that cycle.

it is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

I have directly told you more than once that the stratospheric cooling, decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and the increase in backradiation all conclusively show warming is not part of a natural cycle. And in response, you pretend that evidence doesn't exist.

What does it say about your position, that it can only be maintained by running from data?

A paper that has been shown incorrect... Why do you folks keep putting up this drivel over and over again. Why do you base your positions on failed works? Not only are the orbital calculations incorrect but the assumptions as well. This comes from a group of papers which were all Pro-CAGW and all pal reviewed so the deceptions were not exposed. The Galactic position was so far off that one of the conclusions was we would not see the next glacial cycle for 50,000 years which is clearly false by historical review. We are already over due for the next glacial start.

This POS even cites Mann's 1998 hokey schtick as fact. This is one of many in the late 1990's which was designed to drive the fear machine, that there was no way out but to give up our rights so that they could control climate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mantooth once again proves it doesn't have a freaking clue about natural variation, how to quantify it, or how to discern it. Nice to know that nothing changes with this one.

He knows he cannot prove his position, which is why he demands people to disprove it.
In this, he differs not from people who argue the existence of God by asking people to disprove that He exists.
You know.. like a zealot.

 

[mamooth]

This is a lie as you know you have not addressed the two questions I asked:

Can I call it? I sure can.

I gave you long explanations for one of your questions, knowing full well you'd run in response. You didn't disappoint.

I'm done with you now, being you've worked so hard to prove my point about the cowardice and dishonesty of deniers. There's clearly no point in wasting time engaging you as if you were an honest human.

Have fun being laughed at by the entire planet for the rest of your life. I hope the emotional affirmation you get from your fellow cultists here will make the years of humiliation bearable.

 

[Ernie S.]

So you surrender? OK see ya.