Some basic, empirical evidence in favor of AGW

[Bodi]

You're not logically extending, you're absurdly extrapolating and you know it. It's standard conservative "debate" tactics.

Conservatives like smaller governments, therefore they must also really like NO government. Total anarchy, like some places in Africa! I'm just logically extending their opinions!

The moment you used the word "plantation" you outed yourself as a blindly partisan nutjob. I suppose you also think Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Socialist Terrorist?

And complaining about absurd extrapolations is a standard Liberal "debate" tactic...

 

[Deuce]

And complaining about absurd extrapolations is a standard Liberal "debate" tactic...

This thread is to discuss science. Please keep it that way.

 

[BmanMcfly]

This thread is to discuss science. Please keep it that way.

Yes... this thread was meant to discuss the 'science'... of course this isn't REALLY about the science of understanding the earths climate, this is about converting others to the church of climate-ology. Which is pushed regardless of how often and repeatedly any science that pushes 'AGW' theory is shown to be a fraud or worse.

 

[Deuce]

Yes... this thread was meant to discuss the 'science'... of course this isn't REALLY about the science of understanding the earths climate, this is about converting others to the church of climate-ology. Which is pushed regardless of how often and repeatedly any science that pushes 'AGW' theory is shown to be a fraud or worse.

Says the man with the conspiracy theories about the church of climatology trying to reinstate slavery and cotton plantations, or whatever that was about.

"Repeatedly" shown to be fraud? There was literally one instance, from out of context emails, from one single climate group. That's like saying, well, one unit of Marines killed some civilians in Iraq, therefore the entire US military consists of nothing but murderers.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Says the man with the conspiracy theories about the church of climatology trying to reinstate slavery and cotton plantations, or whatever that was about.

"Repeatedly" shown to be fraud? There was literally one instance, from out of context emails, from one single climate group. That's like saying, well, one unit of Marines killed some civilians in Iraq, therefore the entire US military consists of nothing but murderers.

I'm sorry man... we're talking about EVERY instance :
- Hockey stick curve
- himalayans melting
- polar bears dying
- ocean acidification
- NASA's cherry-picking data (I believe it was earlier in this thread where I showed EXACTLY which data was selected versus recorded)
- rainforests disappearing

I have yet to see one study out of the extremist camp that is ACTUALLY based on good science...

Further, even that claim that the emails were out of context REQUIRES taking the e-mails out of context to explain... the proper context which develops as you read the emails in order of date demonstrates the proper context and further demonstrates why the whistleblower released those emails.

The "conspiracy theory" as you call it, simply answers the WHY these self-proclaimed 'eco-fascists' are so insistent on fear mongering with their modern day equivalent of 'tobacco science' (if you don't remember / weren't around, there were all sorts of studies proving how safe smoking was back 30-40-50 years ago), and just like the tobacco science this global warming hysteria will be looked back on as one of the greatest attempted scams in the history of mankind.

 

[Deuce]

If you think that's the entirety of climate research, I just don't know what to tell you, man. I suggest going to the PNAS website and poking around there.

 

[BmanMcfly]

If you think that's the entirety of climate research, I just don't know what to tell you, man. I suggest going to the PNAS website and poking around there.

No no, I'm sure there's SOME good research that's been done... BUT, in EVERY case where there is this 'alarmist' attitude... in EVERY CASE the results are shown to be over-blown, pushed to the extreme unrealistic situation (like the 5X atmospheres of CO2 in order to get the oceans as acidic as presented before there was any measurable results), or just plain fraudulent.

All the REAL science, not based on fear mongering, will say that CO2 has a negligible impact on the climate... as in not much more then the margin of error in the data collection.

But as I always say in these discussions : "We should focus on REAL pollution, that is REALLY TOXIC and causing MEASURABLE DAMAGE to the environment." Not this charade of cows farting going to destroy the earth.

I'm sorry, but again, by making CO2 the enemy, you are making human life the enemy... and you get crazy people thinking like that and people are going to act on it... especially with the way there's been this discussion of 'eco-fascism'.... because people are 'too stupid' to buy into the scam.

Beyond that... I'm all with you, we need to find ways to curb excessive pollution.

 

[marduc]

in EVERY CASE the results are shown to be over-blown, pushed to the extreme unrealistic situation (like the 5X atmospheres of CO2 in order to get the oceans as acidic as presented before there was any measurable results)

Can you clarify and/or expand on the 5x CO2 thing? Oceans as acidic as presented where? How acidic? measurable results in what?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Can you clarify and/or expand on the 5x CO2 thing? Oceans as acidic as presented where? How acidic? measurable results in what?

Well, the fear was that CO2 was going to acidify the water and harm sea life... so the studies were done. Now, there was an EFFECT, but that was once they were studying the effects of 2000ppm of CO2... which was about 5times the limit. The result was that the shells on the crustaceans in some instances would increase the thickness of their shells, in other words, life adapts to changes in CO2...
Ocean Acidification Causing Some Shells to Grow Thicker : TreeHugger - first site I saw referencing.

Well, not acidic to the point where the oceans would literally be acidic, just a lowering of the PH from a base to a slightly less base, so the term in itself is a bit of a misnomer, and it turns out that it's not that big a deal, only because the levels tested was somewhere near the record levels of CO2.

It's all about hyping up fear, if nothing else because 'studying' CO2 in this climate (no pun intended), has become more or less a cash grab, and the more you can ratchet up the fear the more money comes your way to fund further research ventures into 'solutions'...

So, this one in particular falls into the 'over-hyped'... especially when you look into the details. although the actual pictures probably come from the most dramatic difference in their test cases, but the fact remains that CO2 will not in any way dramatically turn the oceans more acidic (maybe a .2 difference in pH levels, even if the atmosphere becomes... oh sorry, it was 1000ppm in the study, which was still roughly Triple current atmospheric co2 levels... my bad, I'll correct.), and WOULD NEVER become truly acidic.

 

[marduc]

Well, the fear was that CO2 was going to acidify the water and harm sea life... so the studies were done.

It does impact calcification rates of many organisms, I have done a few studies on this myself since it was critical for maximizing profits in my business at the time (raising and selling corals).

Now, there was an EFFECT, but that was once they were studying the effects of 2000ppm of CO2... which was about 5times the limit. The result was that the shells on the crustaceans in some instances would increase the thickness of their shells, in other words, life adapts to changes in CO2..
Ocean Acidification Causing Some Shells to Grow Thicker : TreeHugger - first site I saw referencing.

A drop in the bucket - and these are exceptions feel free to read the rest of the article you linked.

This is one small segment of calcifying organisms, crustaceans are a bit role player in the realm of calcifying organisms, and even in this isolated study it only occurred in 7 out of 18 of those crustaceans - and yes the mechanisms as to why are being investigated. there are also some species of coccolithophores (planktonic calcifying algae) which also seem to have increased calcification (under present conditions versus preindustrial), however they are exceptions not the rule, there are more species that are impacted negatively than positively for both the crustaceans investigated, and the coccolithophores.

crustaceans and some coccolithophores have something in common, they both produce CacO3 (calcium carbonate) predominantly in the form of calcite as opposed to the more soluble aragonite. In the past (such as Cretaceous - Jurassic) time periods of high CO2 are marked by calcite being the dominant (and virtually the only) form of CaCO3. It is suitable to high CO2 environments because it dissolves slower at lowered pH than its cousin aragonite (aragonite is also CaCO3). I suspect this has something to do with the ease of adaptation for them.

I do not know why they chose to use 2000 ppm for their studies, but there are detrimental effects in calcification rates (and the rate CACO3 dissolves) that are evident in many organisms with very minor changes in pH (mind you even a .3 decrease in pH is essentially doubling the amount of H+). These are most pronounced and noteble in aragonite dominant species.

Organisms that deposit predominantly aragonite instead of calcite (reminder - aragonite dissolves more readily at a higher pH than calcite does) would react very differently to a CO2 induced pH change. These calcifying organisms are extremely vulnerable

Among these are molluscs (read your article), and cnidaria (esp. scleractinia or stony corals). Both of which I have first hand experience rearing and observing while documenting their rate of growth as a function of pH level related to different CO2 levels (indoor grow out tanks versus greenhouse). Just the elevated CO2 indoors versus the ambient outdoor CO2 was enough to change the pH by ~.2 units, and growth rates in the high CO2 low pH indoor grow was always significantly lower than the external ambient CO2 (~375 PPM at the time) grown colonies.

There are still many calcifying organisms not even mentioned here, all of which rely on CaCO3 (mostly aragonite) deposition for growth and survival. I need to stop or this will become tl;dr (probably too late)

Well, not acidic to the point where the oceans would literally be acidic, just a lowering of the PH from a base to a slightly less base, so the term in itself is a bit of a misnomer,

I was wondering if you were going to bite when I asked "how acidic?" thank yo for the accurate clarification here, it does not mean become acidic as in pH< 7, but rather just a decline in pH, such as if it was 135 F and it is now 125 F there was cooling, although it is still freakin hot.

and it turns out that it's not that big a deal, only because the levels tested was somewhere near the record levels of CO2.

This was one study that shows promise for a few crustaceans, I volunteered a few more for you with the coccolithophores - the observed change in them is in situ comparing preindustrial skeleton mass to present day. It would be very cool to see exactly why I have my hunches and am betting calcite and carbonate availability have substantial roles to this.

I would need to see the paper itself to know why they used 2000 ppm for their CO2 levels, there are variables such as alkalinity, pH and even to a minor degree temperature that would also need to be taken into consideration. There are numerous tweaks to the system that could have been made to keep it in balance for other parameters that could influence the ratio of carbonate versus bicarbonate, versus carbonic acid. It could have been merely to speed things up. dissolution of both aragonite and calcite can be eliminated by a few calculations so from there you can isolate deposition.

It's all about hyping up fear, if nothing else because 'studying' CO2 in this climate (no pun intended), has become more or less a cash grab, and the more you can ratchet up the fear the more money comes your way to fund further research ventures into 'solutions'...

I know a few marine biologists that are working on research directly related to calcification rates in corals, trust me they are not making much cash out of this grab (well one is now. he took a job working with a pharmaceutical company).. this is a part of several reasons that swayed me away from research and pushed me into the entrepreneurial route.

So, this one in particular falls into the 'over-hyped'... especially when you look into the details. although the actual pictures probably come from the most dramatic difference in their test cases,

It falls into the "not understood"... especially when you realize the picture showing the dramatic difference is not even a crustacean and is an echinoderm.

but the fact remains that CO2 will not in any way dramatically turn the oceans more acidic (maybe a .2 difference in pH levels, even if the atmosphere becomes... oh sorry, it was 1000ppm in the study, which was still roughly Triple current atmospheric co2 levels... my bad, I'll correct.), and WOULD NEVER become truly acidic.

a .2 change is drastic, and is enough to have a profound effect on calcification rates.. your one article is the equivalent of looking at a hair follicle on the back of a hand and declaring the person bald. The only people saying the oceans would become acidic are people who have ZERO understanding of the subject. The notion of our oceans becoming actually acidic is ludicrous, and exemplifies the "I stayed at a holiday inn last nite" army of "experts" on the case.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It does impact calcification rates of many organisms, I have done a few studies on this myself since it was critical for maximizing profits in my business at the time (raising and selling corals).

I don't doubt that there are effects to changes in the environment... one trait of life on this planet is that often times it's those organisms that are least able to adapt that don't survive. That said, even with SOME negative impacts to an increased acidity of the oceans, these are hardly what one could call 'detrimental' effects, and that's not to say that there isn't anything that causes detrimental effects, BUT when the focus is on simply the CO2 element it's really not a huge deal.

A drop in the bucket - and these are exceptions feel free to read the rest of the article you linked.

This is one small segment of calcifying organisms, crustaceans are a bit role player in the realm of calcifying organisms, and even in this isolated study it only occurred in 7 out of 18 of those crustaceans - and yes the mechanisms as to why are being investigated. there are also some species of coccolithophores (planktonic calcifying algae) which also seem to have increased calcification (under present conditions versus preindustrial), however they are exceptions not the rule, there are more species that are impacted negatively than positively for both the crustaceans investigated, and the coccolithophores.

crustaceans and some coccolithophores have something in common, they both produce CacO3 (calcium carbonate) predominantly in the form of calcite as opposed to the more soluble aragonite. In the past (such as Cretaceous - Jurassic) time periods of high CO2 are marked by calcite being the dominant (and virtually the only) form of CaCO3. It is suitable to high CO2 environments because it dissolves slower at lowered pH than its cousin aragonite (aragonite is also CaCO3). I suspect this has something to do with the ease of adaptation for them.

I do not know why they chose to use 2000 ppm for their studies, but there are detrimental effects in calcification rates (and the rate CACO3 dissolves) that are evident in many organisms with very minor changes in pH (mind you even a .3 decrease in pH is essentially doubling the amount of H+). These are most pronounced and noteble in aragonite dominant species.

It was 1000 ppm, I forget which study it was that went to 2000 ppm... I think that was a study determining the effects of CO2 on plant growth, because plants grew at peak efficiency around 1000ppm of CO2 (as they use in many greenhouses), so they had to raise the CO2 levels to the point nearing the levels of toxicity before there was any bad effects. I forget, but I do remember one study where it was literally that obscene level.

Organisms that deposit predominantly aragonite instead of calcite (reminder - aragonite dissolves more readily at a higher pH than calcite does) would react very differently to a CO2 induced pH change. These calcifying organisms are extremely vulnerable

Among these are molluscs (read your article), and cnidaria (esp. scleractinia or stony corals). Both of which I have first hand experience rearing and observing while documenting their rate of growth as a function of pH level related to different CO2 levels (indoor grow out tanks versus greenhouse). Just the elevated CO2 indoors versus the ambient outdoor CO2 was enough to change the pH by ~.2 units, and growth rates in the high CO2 low pH indoor grow was always significantly lower than the external ambient CO2 (~375 PPM at the time) grown colonies.

You obviously know alot more about this topic then I do... but yes, this is a BIT of an issue, but still is not such pressing issue that we should take political measures that would effectively create a post-industrial society... as was hyped before the beginning of the actual study.

There are still many calcifying organisms not even mentioned here, all of which rely on CaCO3 (mostly aragonite) deposition for growth and survival. I need to stop or this will become tl;dr (probably too late)

I was wondering if you were going to bite when I asked "how acidic?" thank yo for the accurate clarification here, it does not mean become acidic as in pH< 7, but rather just a decline in pH, such as if it was 135 F and it is now 125 F there was cooling, although it is still freakin hot.

Exactly, but even with something like acid rain, we're not talking about acid to the point where it melts the clothes off your back, as was depicted in shows like 'captain planet' when I was younger.. which even in that case, it's not the carbon that would cause this level of acidification, it's the sulfur. (primarily, there's multiple factors at play, of course)

This was one study that shows promise for a few crustaceans, I volunteered a few more for you with the coccolithophores - the observed change in them is in situ comparing preindustrial skeleton mass to present day. It would be very cool to see exactly why I have my hunches and am betting calcite and carbonate availability have substantial roles to this.

I would need to see the paper itself to know why they used 2000 ppm for their CO2 levels, there are variables such as alkalinity, pH and even to a minor degree temperature that would also need to be taken into consideration. There are numerous tweaks to the system that could have been made to keep it in balance for other parameters that could influence the ratio of carbonate versus bicarbonate, versus carbonic acid. It could have been merely to speed things up. dissolution of both aragonite and calcite can be eliminated by a few calculations so from there you can isolate deposition.

I don't know much about what you've said here, but the 2000 was my bad, it's just 1000ppm that they used, which is STILL more then double current atmospheric levels, a fact that requires it's own proper considerations. But, let's say it was the opposite, that we were concerned about LOWERING Co2 levels, then we'd be hearing the opposite concerns for the opposite creatures.

I know a few marine biologists that are working on research directly related to calcification rates in corals, trust me they are not making much cash out of this grab (well one is now. he took a job working with a pharmaceutical company).. this is a part of several reasons that swayed me away from research and pushed me into the entrepreneurial route.

I'll just clarify the point... it's not like research will necessarily make you a millionaire because you study CO2 (those are the ones that are working for the IPCC, the CRU, to a lesser extent NASA (but that has a whole other cash cow)... but more like, if you're going to study say, migrating patterns of birds... I dunno, you will have to all but get on your knees and beg to get funding... BUT, if your paper is changed to 'CO2's IMPACT on bird migration patterns' then you'll find yourself getting funding much more easily.

It falls into the "not understood"... especially when you realize the picture showing the dramatic difference is not even a crustacean and is an echinoderm.

There is SOO MUCH about the environment and the climate that we don't understand, and as evidence, back in the 70's when it was a 'global cooling' scare, there were plans drawn up to put carbon over the ice caps to capture more heat and all that, so imagine what the case would be if we had to go back and clean up the mess... Some of the more powerful computers in the world taking into consideration all the available data can't predict the weather with anymore then a 50% accuracy a week out... and yes, in the culmination of weather reports you're effectively predicting the climate over the thousands of micro-climates.

Point is, it's no surprise there's alot that's not understood.

a .2 change is drastic, and is enough to have a profound effect on calcification rates.. your one article is the equivalent of looking at a hair follicle on the back of a hand and declaring the person bald. The only people saying the oceans would become acidic are people who have ZERO understanding of the subject. The notion of our oceans becoming actually acidic is ludicrous, and exemplifies the "I stayed at a holiday inn last nite" army of "experts" on the case.

Ya, for sure... but here's the way the scam works :
- The study is on the 'acidification' which is the scientific term for lowering pH levels from a -> b
- In the papers the lay person reads this, or the 'green peace' level environmentalist, and they freak out because they think acidification like rain becoming acid rain.
- Then there is lobbying towards regulations for this as a reason... and in the furor it passes.
- Finally, the actual study comes out and it's not nearly as detrimental as it was first sold.

You do realize that the main reason that we do not already have a global carbon tax (that most heavily hits the west) that would have become binding in Copenhagen is BECAUSE that's when climategate broke out, and then several other scandals erupted from the "scientific" community... that shed just enough doubt on the program that other nations, specifically those in africa and places actually READ the agreements and then walked away. The program fell apart.

They are back in mexico already trying again...

Bye bye cars, air conditioning, heating, electricity, industry, jobs... if this program is successful...

There is good news however, once again :
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

So, the pressure is mounting against these initiatives, as common sense is starting to prevail.

 

[marduc]

I don't want to hijack this thread and get all involved in an ocean acidification tangent more than we already have, this is a completely separate issue from global warming that just happens to share the same underlying cause (for those who may dispute CO2 is the cause for GW and love to focus on the 2 or 3% who dissent and claim there is no consensus, there is zero doubt that rising atmospheric CO2 levels cause ocean acidification).

If anyone wants to read more on the basics of ocean acidification here is a no nonsense -presented in lay terms- faq covering a decent amount of ground and touching on some of what is known (and not known - there is a TON that is unknown yet) that I highly recommend:

FAQs about ocean acidification : OCB-OA

 

[BmanMcfly]

I don't want to hijack this thread and get all involved in an ocean acidification tangent more than we already have, this is a completely separate issue from global warming that just happens to share the same underlying cause (for those who may dispute CO2 is the cause for GW and love to focus on the 2 or 3% who dissent and claim there is no consensus, there is zero doubt that rising atmospheric CO2 levels cause ocean acidification).

If anyone wants to read more on the basics of ocean acidification here is a no nonsense -presented in lay terms- faq covering a decent amount of ground and touching on some of what is known (and not known - there is a TON that is unknown yet) that I highly recommend:

FAQs about ocean acidification : OCB-OA

No no no... people that say that humans have 0 impact on the climate are JUST AS wrong as those 52 alarmist scientists running the scam saying that the earth and all life on it are doomed because of CO2.

The reality is, as those 1000 scientists (just to point out the "consensus" is now 20:1 against catastrophic agw) are just saying that whatever impact we are having that the earth is bigger then us, so the impact we have really is in the area of negligible, ie: not a great concern.

Also, it's important to point out that the 'human produced' CO2 is in the areas of a 1-2% of CO2, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the overall composition of the atmosphere. The only way CO2 is truly detrimental is if the atmospheric contributions are increased to the level of toxicity.

 

[Deuce]

No no no... people that say that humans have 0 impact on the climate are JUST AS wrong as those 52 alarmist scientists running the scam saying that the earth and all life on it are doomed because of CO2.

The reality is, as those 1000 scientists (just to point out the "consensus" is now 20:1 against catastrophic agw) are just saying that whatever impact we are having that the earth is bigger then us, so the impact we have really is in the area of negligible, ie: not a great concern.

Also, it's important to point out that the 'human produced' CO2 is in the areas of a 1-2% of CO2, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the overall composition of the atmosphere. The only way CO2 is truly detrimental is if the atmospheric contributions are increased to the level of toxicity.

Where did you get this 20:1 idea? Are you citing the petition project again? And what makes you think there are only 52 scientists working on climate research?
And where are you getting this idea that only 1-2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made? Levels have gone up about 40% since the industrial revolution.

 

[marduc]

No no no... people that say that humans have 0 impact on the climate are JUST AS wrong as those 52 alarmist scientists running the scam saying that the earth and all life on it are doomed because of CO2.

The reality is, as those 1000 scientists (just to point out the "consensus" is now 20:1 against catastrophic agw) are just saying that whatever impact we are having that the earth is bigger then us, so the impact we have really is in the area of negligible, ie: not a great concern.

Also, it's important to point out that the 'human produced' CO2 is in the areas of a 1-2% of CO2, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the overall composition of the atmosphere. The only way CO2 is truly detrimental is if the atmospheric contributions are increased to the level of toxicity.

WTF? how the hell is it that you are managing to pick out one throw away statement (in parenthesis even) that had NOTHING to do with my post as a springboard to dive back into whatever it is you are on about here? wait don't answer this. It was rhetorical. it was plain to see from your previous post that you were trying hard to return back to your agw comfort zone -you are in Deuce's realm with that, not mine.

I am not going to let your post go without comment since you are trying to make it appear as if it were refuting me, when it was just some crazy tangential rant unrelated to what I was saying, and little more than a weak segue back into whatever agw claims you are making.

 

[Deuce]

WTF? how the hell is it that you are managing to pick out one throw away statement (in parenthesis even) that had NOTHING to do with my post as a springboard to dive back into whatever it is you are on about here? wait don't answer this. It was rhetorical. it was plain to see from your previous post that you were trying hard to return back to your agw comfort zone -you are in Deuce's realm with that, not mine.

I am not going to let your post go without comment since you are trying to make it appear as if it were refuting me, when it was just some crazy tangential rant unrelated to what I was saying, and little more than a weak segue back into whatever agw claims you are making.

Par for the course with this guy. I try to bring the discussion back to an actual scientific topic, and he'll start ranting about FOLLOW TEHMONEY and LIBERALS WANT TO ENSLAVE US LITERALLY ON PLANTATIONS.

It gets old.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Where did you get this 20:1 idea?

Well, the 'consensus' of scientists only actually contained 52 scientists, the rest were scientific reviewers, government workers, editors of journals, or with even less credentials... So, with these 1000 scientists that are now refuting this 'consensus', if we're going on the science of democracy, then yes, that's a 20:1 ratio in terms of actual scientists... not that polls are necessarily relevant in either case.

Are you citing the petition project again?

Possibly, is that the one that last year had 700 scientists??

And what makes you think there are only 52 scientists working on climate research?

The list of THOUSANDS of scientists making up the 'consensus' on AGW... there were only 52 ACTUAL scientists.

And where are you getting this idea that only 1-2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made?

That was an arbitrary guess... but it works out... if you count water vapor I was over-estimating, if you don't count water then I was under-estimating.

Levels have gone up about 40% since the industrial revolution.

Well, slightly less the 40% but sure... and so the concentration goes from roughly 290ppm pre-industry to 387.18 (according to co2now.com)... and that's over... what date are we looking for?? Let's say for argument 1800. That's 200 years... average that out and we're looking at a .2% change in Co2 concentration levels over that 200 year period per year. Further, there's no distinction in this between how much of this was caused by industry vs how much was caused naturally... So, effectively, we're getting to the point where man's contribution is nearing the point where you could call it 'statistically insignificant', or 'within the margin of error'...

I do wonder at what point people are foolishly going to believe that they must end their lives in order to 'help the earth' by eliminating their own CO2 contribution through exhalation.... or are these "scientists" counting exhalation as 'natural' co2? I haven't seen any writings suggesting differently.

WTF? how the hell is it that you are managing to pick out one throw away statement (in parenthesis even) that had NOTHING to do with my post as a springboard to dive back into whatever it is you are on about here? wait don't answer this. It was rhetorical. it was plain to see from your previous post that you were trying hard to return back to your agw comfort zone -you are in Deuce's realm with that, not mine.

Well, like I said, you clearly have a higher level of expertise on that specific area of study... I was merely pointing out previously that the 'harm' that is caused is only relevant with an overwhelmingly massive increase in CO2 concentrations, and EVEN THEN is determined to be somewhat less then detrimental. I mean, it was using data that effectively TRIPLES atmospheric CO2 levels... when, as it's been pointed out over the past 200 years has shown an increase of only .2% per year... SO, how long would it take to TRIPLE this amount?? Well... assuming the same trend, something like 580 years down the road.... because there will probably be more industry if things continue, we could probably knock that down to 250-300 years just to give benefit of the unknown... ALSO that assumes that ALL the contributions are man-made...

So, are we having an impact? yes. Is it anything to be concerned about? No.

I am not going to let your post go without comment since you are trying to make it appear as if it were refuting me, when it was just some crazy tangential rant unrelated to what I was saying, and little more than a weak segue back into whatever agw claims you are making.

Oh no no... I wasn't refuting your point... I was saying that AGW IS real, but not a problem.... just a lot more long-windedly.

Par for the course with this guy. I try to bring the discussion back to an actual scientific topic,

Pseudo-science at best, complete fraud at worst.

and he'll start ranting about FOLLOW TEHMONEY

Ya, like how Shell bought and paid for the CRU's lab... and how the big oil companies are PUSHING THIS in the same way that the insurance companies WROTE the obamacare bill, yet framing the debate as though this is meant to punish them... look at the discussions in Cancun at present, they are no longer discussing this in terms of lowering CO2, they are discussing this issue in terms of LOWERING POPULATION.

and LIBERALS WANT TO ENSLAVE US LITERALLY ON PLANTATIONS.

Yes... I've linked you to the book by the club of Rome. They wrote about wanting to create a post-industrial world, and the way they were going to do that was to use environmental crisis like global warming (while the world was focused on global cooling), in order to turn "humanity into the enemy of mankind.". But hey, we can ignore that, who cares what these global elite think-tanks write about.

It gets old.

Ya, I know... but what will happen to those that can't pay their exhalation (re: Co2) tax???

Or if you weren't aware of Bill Gates' contribution to the debate :
(Size and color was Gates' emphasis, not mine)

CO2 = P * A * E
Or, Co2 =People * activities per person * Energy per activity... and then makes the statement "One of these numbers is going to HAVE TO BE REDUCED to near ZERO" 'or the climate will still be in trouble'. (Forget the exact wording of the last part)

Had you seen that speech?? Did you HEAR the applause? Did you know it was a 500$ per ticket event?

I could go on with other examples, but you will just ignore those too...

 

[Deuce]

Well, the 'consensus' of scientists only actually contained 52 scientists, the rest were scientific reviewers, government workers, editors of journals, or with even less credentials... So, with these 1000 scientists that are now refuting this 'consensus', if we're going on the science of democracy, then yes, that's a 20:1 ratio in terms of actual scientists... not that polls are necessarily relevant in either case.


Possibly, is that the one that last year had 700 scientists??



The list of THOUSANDS of scientists making up the 'consensus' on AGW... there were only 52 ACTUAL scientists.

I was hoping for links to any of this information. You say there were only 52 scientists in some sort of concensus. That's weird because this here survey of ~3000 earth scientists had about 97% respond "yes" to the question "do you think human activity has had a significant influence in changing the mean global temperature?"

That was an arbitrary guess... but it works out... if you count water vapor I was over-estimating, if you don't count water then I was under-estimating.

Well, slightly less the 40% but sure... and so the concentration goes from roughly 290ppm pre-industry to 387.18 (according to co2now.com)... and that's over... what date are we looking for?? Let's say for argument 1800. That's 200 years... average that out and we're looking at a .2% change in Co2 concentration levels over that 200 year period per year. Further, there's no distinction in this between how much of this was caused by industry vs how much was caused naturally... So, effectively, we're getting to the point where man's contribution is nearing the point where you could call it 'statistically insignificant', or 'within the margin of error'...

That's a stupid way to measure it. CO2 levels have risen about 40%. The margin of error is not 40%. And yes, actually, there is a distinction made between man-made and natural sources, through several different methods. There's a difference between CO2 from breathing and CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the ratio of carbon isotopes is different, so you track the C13/C12 ratio and you can figure out how much comes from fossil fuels.

I do wonder at what point people are foolishly going to believe that they must end their lives in order to 'help the earth' by eliminating their own CO2 contribution through exhalation.... or are these "scientists" counting exhalation as 'natural' co2? I haven't seen any writings suggesting differently.

Exhalation is considered natural CO2, I don't know where you'd ever get the idea otherwise. Nobody ever said that and nobody ever believed that was what scientists were proposing. Stop breathing? I mean, really? You'd have to be some kind of moron to think scientists actually proposed we should hold our breath or kill ourselves.

No. Bill Gates was not proposing we eliminate ourselves. That's a downright retarded interpretation of what he was saying. Maybe you really just don't understand how the system works. A certain amount of CO2 can be absorbed by nature. Plants take in CO2 when they grow. If we keep our CO2 emissions low enough, the CO2 levels will start to decrease. We don't have to actually go to zero by stopping breathing, and nobody is proposing taxing breathing. That's really just idiotic conspiracy drivel that belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I was hoping for links to any of this information. You say there were only 52 scientists in some sort of concensus. That's weird because this here survey of ~3000 earth scientists had about 97% respond "yes" to the question "do you think human activity has had a significant influence in changing the mean global temperature?"

Ya, I have a number of issues with that statement based on that survey, but it's not all that important... this isn't really a 'democratic' area...

That's a stupid way to measure it. CO2 levels have risen about 40%. The margin of error is not 40%. And yes, actually, there is a distinction made between man-made and natural sources, through several different methods. There's a difference between CO2 from breathing and CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the ratio of carbon isotopes is different, so you track the C13/C12 ratio and you can figure out how much comes from fossil fuels.

Ya, 40% over 200 years +/-.... Well, that makes sense where those numbers came from.... the source listed didn't articulate that specific difference. In that case, the human contribution of CO2 is about 0.118% of the atmosphere.

Exhalation is considered natural CO2, I don't know where you'd ever get the idea otherwise. Nobody ever said that and nobody ever believed that was what scientists were proposing. Stop breathing? I mean, really? You'd have to be some kind of moron to think scientists actually proposed we should hold our breath or kill ourselves.

It's not 'moronic', semantically that's what they are telling people... CO2 is bad, we must reduce CO2.

I would recommend you read the 1996 UN biological diversity assessment.

No. Bill Gates was not proposing we eliminate ourselves.

Actually, he further said that through vaccinations we could reduce reproduction rates by 15%...

That's a downright retarded interpretation of what he was saying. Maybe you really just don't understand how the system works. A certain amount of CO2 can be absorbed by nature. Plants take in CO2 when they grow. If we keep our CO2 emissions low enough, the CO2 levels will start to decrease. We don't have to actually go to zero by stopping breathing, and nobody is proposing taxing breathing.

Are you sure you're thinking of the same speech...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s&feature=player_embedded

Now, don't just listen to the words he says, look at the images at the same time, look at the highlighting of words as he's making these statements... NONE of this presentation was 'accidental'... this was probably the result of a team of marketing professionals ensuring that the message being sent was the one that was intended.

That's really just idiotic conspiracy drivel that belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Oh that's fresh... Bill gates is now a conspiracy theory.

 

[Deuce]

So, I notice you didn't provide evidence that there are "only 52 scientists" involved in the consensus, or that there's some list of 1000 scientists opposed.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So, I notice you didn't provide evidence that there are "only 52 scientists" involved in the consensus, or that there's some list of 1000 scientists opposed.

Oh, sorry... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Just the US senate environmental committee pointing that out... but they are a bunch of conspiracy nuts in congress, right??

 

[Deuce]

Oh, sorry... .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Just the US senate environmental committee pointing that out... but they are a bunch of conspiracy nuts in congress, right??

Yes, acutally, Senator Inhofe is a denialist partisan hack. He's the Al Gore of climate skepticism, and that means I get to dismiss him outright, right? :roll:

52 scientists participated during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007. To claim that this means only 52 scientists support climate change theory is just... well, stupid. It was one meeting, having every scientist who endorses climate change theory present is impractical and useless, if not impossible and counterproductive.

They also cite a paper that says "less than half of papers surveyed endorse climate change theory." That's really a dumb way to measure too, because a paper doesn't have to explicitly endorse the theory to be evidence in favor of that theory. A paper that compares satellite temperature readings to surface temperature observations may not directly address the cause of those temperature changes, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence of something.

As I already cited, 3000+ earth scientists were surveyed, about 90% of all publishing scientists agree with climate change theory.

 

[mbig]

As I already cited, 3000+ earth scientists were surveyed, about 90% of all publishing scientists agree with climate change theory.

Thanks for that Deuce.
I think the board needs this string revived periodically as new wunderkind appear.

 

[Deuce]

Thanks for that Deuce.
I think the board needs this string revived periodically as new wunderkind appear.

I've been thinking about doing another one more specifically about the greenhouse effect and how we can tell the difference between greenhouse warming and solar warming.

 

[Renae]

Dear Lord, it's a giant thread of bull****, with a smattering of lies!

Man is not causing or effecting climate in any definable fashion, the earth isn't going to suffer an unstable atmosphere because of man, this is all BS to push a socio-economic class into having control and power.

Too bad there isn't a D-Day like the Y2K silliness so it could come and go and this non-sense could be ignored.


Do we need to take steps to be as clean, and efficient as we can? Certainly. Do we need to take the drastic, unreasonable measures that Deuce and his fellow AGW minions want? Not at all.