Climate Change - Science, Ideology or Money

[kalm]

Hmmm, that's kind of a tough challenge as just like with oil and most new technologies, renewable energy is going to have all sorts of ties to the government. $'s drive most private research, not altruism or a clean environment. But none the less...



http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/07 ... /index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Private equity and venture capitalist investment. Gotta love it. Yay for the 1%'ers
That's how it should be done, but I lol'd at Solyndra making the list.

Like I said, tough not to find something without ties to or that benefits from some sort of government funding or subsidy and that goes for practically every industry.

[Baldy]

Your own chart seems to say otherwise.

It looks like the baseline for the national average is set at 100. According to your chart, Georgia is well below the national average in every category except one.

...and I didn't need a 'schlub scientist' working for the coal industry to tell me that.

I'm gonna give you a pass on this one.

0=clean 100=most polluted

You're one of the worst. Top 9, MOF.

One would think you'd be a little more receptive to the green message, considering GA is so polluted.

If 100 = the most polluted, how come there are several cities and states who rank way over 100 in some categories? Is there something worst than most polluted?

I would love to see a link showing Georgia is one of the worst and the criteria used to determine it, especially considering Georgia only has 15 EPA Superfund sites compared to 38 in Wisconsin and 25 in Minnesota.

[SeattleGriz]

kalm, you keep pitching high and over the middle of the plate and I'll keep knocking them outta the park.

Keep using people like Zbigneiw Jaworski to halt threads.

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

[andy7171]

Keep using people like Zbigneiw Jaworski to halt threads.

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

Convienent Untruth?

[kalm]

Keep using people like Zbigneiw Jaworski to halt threads.

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

I don't know, but judging by his own words he sounds like he's got it all figured out.

[youngterrier]

Keep using people like Zbigneiw Jaworski to halt threads.

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

Well first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are. Seeing as the McExpertonScience media is not all over this particular paper in universal refutation of global warming, when it is in fact "out there" I can only assume that it is probably not as a solid refutation of a paper as you think it is. Either the experts have been able to refute the paper, or the media that is ever-so-ready to expose a conspiracy is not doing its job when the evidence is out there. Where were the huge headlines when this paper hit?

[SeattleGriz]

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

Well first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are. Seeing as the McExpertonScience media is not all over this particular paper in universal refutation of global warming, when it is in fact "out there" I can only assume that it is probably not as a solid refutation of a paper as you think it is. Either the experts have been able to refute the paper, or the media that is ever-so-ready to expose a conspiracy is not doing its job when the evidence is out there. Where were the huge headlines when this paper hit?

I agree. While it is obvious it is going to be a yes/no the ice core readings are good science, I would think 90,000 CO2 measurements being thrown out would be a huge red flag.

The sad part is that in trying to find actual papers, I always come upon pay to view sites. Ain't payin' $32 for a paper.

Gotta take the boy to the bus stop and then I will try my best to explain what he is saying in his paper.

[travelinman67]

ell first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are...

...like I said earlier, son...

...study or become a D1B.


(i.e., ...do your own damn research...you've been given the resources.)

[SeattleGriz]

I have looked and can't find any articles on WHY his ice core data is incorrect. Seems to be global warming proponents saying something without any proof.

Let's just say the ice core thing is a wash. Why no complaints on the 90,000 manually taken CO2 levels that were left out of the hockey stick graph?

Well first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are. Seeing as the McExpertonScience media is not all over this particular paper in universal refutation of global warming, when it is in fact "out there" I can only assume that it is probably not as a solid refutation of a paper as you think it is. Either the experts have been able to refute the paper, or the media that is ever-so-ready to expose a conspiracy is not doing its job when the evidence is out there. Where were the huge headlines when this paper hit?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His thoughts are essentially that the data used to construct the hockey stick graph are incorrect.

Jaworowski is saying that deriving CO2 values from ice cores is unreliable because he believes that air inclusions in ice is not a closed system. Meaning that the values you obtain, depending on a couple of factors will change in value over time - almost always lowering CO2 levels. So, if the CO2 levels are not accurate, why were 90,000 actual readings not included in the calculation of the hockey stick graph.

By using ice core data that is reporting a lower value of CO2 than the actual measurements, the hockey stick pattern is skewed. If the 90,000 values were used, you wouldn't get a hockey stick pattern at all. You would get an up and down pattern that is shown on page 8 (figure 3) of his paper. Link at top of post.

This new graph doesn't bode well for the theory that CO2 atmospheric levels were as low in the past as stated and more importantly, the CO2 levels don't follow the rise in temperature that many state are directly related.

Lastly, he is making his case that it is the sun and cosmic rays that are the driving force for the climate change and not CO2.

As stated above, I too wonder why if this is such a smoking gun why it hasn't been brought up more often. Been looking, but like I said, I can't find anything other than personal opinion as to why he was wrong with his papers. I mean he has the usual stamp of approval from the climate change group - he worked for the UN.

[travelinman67]

Well first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are. Seeing as the McExpertonScience media is not all over this particular paper in universal refutation of global warming, when it is in fact "out there" I can only assume that it is probably not as a solid refutation of a paper as you think it is. Either the experts have been able to refute the paper, or the media that is ever-so-ready to expose a conspiracy is not doing its job when the evidence is out there. Where were the huge headlines when this paper hit?

I agree. While it is obvious it is going to be a yes/no the ice core readings are good science, I would think 90,000 CO2 measurements being thrown out would be a huge red flag.

The sad part is that in trying to find actual papers, I always come upon pay to view sites. Ain't payin' $32 for a paper.

Gotta take the boy to the bus stop and then I will try my best to explain what he is saying in his paper.

Cutting to the chase: YT, look here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/t ... ture-link/

...and here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/c ... -ice-ages/

...for a thoughtful, unbiased study of ice core data analysis.

Something to keep in mind, YT; most of the Hansen modeling arose out of initial hypothesese drafted back in 1995 long before there were thousands of researchers reviewing his modeling. Since 1995, GW has undoubtedly become the most researched subject, with many projects having rewritten Hansen's theory...with far more accurate data and findings.

[travelinman67]

Well first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are. Seeing as the McExpertonScience media is not all over this particular paper in universal refutation of global warming, when it is in fact "out there" I can only assume that it is probably not as a solid refutation of a paper as you think it is. Either the experts have been able to refute the paper, or the media that is ever-so-ready to expose a conspiracy is not doing its job when the evidence is out there. Where were the huge headlines when this paper hit?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His thoughts are essentially that the data used to construct the hockey stick graph are incorrect.

Jaworowski is saying that deriving CO2 values from ice cores is unreliable because he believes that air inclusions in ice is not a closed system. Meaning that the values you obtain, depending on a couple of factors will change in value over time - almost always lowering CO2 levels. So, if the CO2 levels are not accurate, why were 90,000 actual readings not included in the calculation of the hockey stick graph.

By using ice core data that is reporting a lower value of CO2 than the actual measurements, the hockey stick pattern is skewed. If the 90,000 values were used, you wouldn't get a hockey stick pattern at all. You would get an up and down pattern that is shown on page 8 (figure 3) of his paper. Link at top of post.

This new graph doesn't bode well for the theory that CO2 atmospheric levels were as low in the past as stated and more importantly, the CO2 levels don't follow the rise in temperature that many state are directly related.

Lastly, he is making his case that it is the sun and cosmic rays that are the driving force for the climate change and not CO2.

As stated above, I too wonder why if this is such a smoking gun why it hasn't been brought up more often. Been looking, but like I said, I can't find anything other than personal opinion as to why he was wrong with his papers. I mean he has the usual stamp of approval from the climate change group - he worked for the UN.

...there's also the issue of CO2 diffusion within ice (a dynamic body)...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/a ... e-problem/

[SeattleGriz]

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His thoughts are essentially that the data used to construct the hockey stick graph are incorrect.

Jaworowski is saying that deriving CO2 values from ice cores is unreliable because he believes that air inclusions in ice is not a closed system. Meaning that the values you obtain, depending on a couple of factors will change in value over time - almost always lowering CO2 levels. So, if the CO2 levels are not accurate, why were 90,000 actual readings not included in the calculation of the hockey stick graph.

By using ice core data that is reporting a lower value of CO2 than the actual measurements, the hockey stick pattern is skewed. If the 90,000 values were used, you wouldn't get a hockey stick pattern at all. You would get an up and down pattern that is shown on page 8 (figure 3) of his paper. Link at top of post.

This new graph doesn't bode well for the theory that CO2 atmospheric levels were as low in the past as stated and more importantly, the CO2 levels don't follow the rise in temperature that many state are directly related.

Lastly, he is making his case that it is the sun and cosmic rays that are the driving force for the climate change and not CO2.

As stated above, I too wonder why if this is such a smoking gun why it hasn't been brought up more often. Been looking, but like I said, I can't find anything other than personal opinion as to why he was wrong with his papers. I mean he has the usual stamp of approval from the climate change group - he worked for the UN.

...there's also the issue of CO2 diffusion within ice (a dynamic body)...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/a ... e-problem/

Exactly, and Jaworoski talks about how CO2 diffuses at a much faster rate than Nitrogen or Oxygen.

[BDKJMU]

I suggest you start to realize that most of those you read about in scientific journals in a highly politicized issue such as have an agenda, as all scientists on both sides do, so you stop looking like a dumbass.

That's your rebuttal? I rest my case, because you have none what a dumbass

You regurgitate the global warming scaremonger agenda & believe its gospel. Dumbass.

[youngterrier]

Okay, first off, the problem with the links posted is that they mention nothing of the 800 year lag.....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ice-cores/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First off, I'm going to have to reject the premises of the faulty Ice core data, in terms of ice core data being fundamentally flawed, simply because I've googled "ice core controversy"and no one seems to deny the usefulness and accuracy of ice core data (including skeptics) except Jaworoski. Sorry, I mean, it's hard to address a controversy, when I'm unqualified to do so, and furthermore there doesn't seem to be a controversy.

Second of all, if you think I'm ignorant enough to think that man is the only cause of Climate change ever, you'd be wrong, and no scientist believes that either.

[youngterrier]

That's your rebuttal? I rest my case, because you have none what a dumbass

You regurgitate the global warming scaremonger agenda & believe its gospel. Dumbass.

Global Warming scaremonger agenda? You mean "science?"

How many predictions of disaster have I posted? none.
How much am I talking about science? A lot.
How much have you discussed science? Not at all.
How many straw men off of Fox News have you posted? A Lot.

This is too mature of a conversation for you, if you're going to post at all about the subject-manner, just cutting and pasting misleading articles from non- scientific sources will not score you any "points." Read a book, or learn to read above a 6th grade level, whichever you haven't learned to do yet first, and then come back for mature discussion. At least I can have a discussion with some people on here, as opposed to pointless, brainless, trolling.

Dumbass

[D1B]

ell first of all, as a common Joe, I'd really YOU to tell me what he's talking about. As non-professionals, it's easy for us to point a counterargument to an argument and say it "refutes" it, but we don't necessarily understand the science involved. So, really before you ask us to refute his claims, I'd really like you to elaborate on what they actually are...

...like I said earlier, son...

...study or become a D1B.


(i.e., ...do your own damn research...you've been given the resources.)

Some research, Tbag : Find the most lengthy, convoluted dollop of conk-financed horse crap, then find another one, post both together so it saps up 90% of the our bandwidth, then call yourself a climate expert.



"Here's a good one, 17 pages long! MA!!!! THE ROAST BEEF!"

Keep hammerin em YT. You're doing great. Tman's on tilt.

[BDKJMU]

You regurgitate the global warming scaremonger agenda & believe its gospel. Dumbass.

Global Warming scaremonger agenda? You mean "science?"

How many predictions of disaster have I posted? none.
How much am I talking about science? A lot.
How much have you discussed science? Not at all.
How many straw men off of Fox News have you posted? A Lot.

This is too mature of a conversation for you, if you're going to post at all about the subject-manner, just cutting and pasting misleading articles from non- scientific sources will not score you any "points." Read a book, or learn to read above a 6th grade level, whichever you haven't learned to do yet first, and then come back for mature discussion. At least I can have a discussion with some people on here, as opposed to pointless, brainless, trolling.

Dumbass

And what "scientific" source did this chart of your's come from? Talk about cutting and pasting from non scientific sources.

I'll side with the experts and specialists:


97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

And you want to call someone else a dumbass.

[BDKJMU]

I understand this, but when you think about the science of
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) We burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere
C) it doesn't disappear
D) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
E) More heat is trapped in the atmosphere as a result
F) insert repercussions

-We burn and release it into the atmosphere. So what. What man releases is only a small fraction of overall CO2, and CO2 is only a small fraction of overall greenhouse gasses.
-CO2 DOES disappear. It is utilized by plants & marine organisms, and increased CO2 levels can be beneficial for plant productivity.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. A hundred years isn't enough time to prove anything. Anthropogenic-CO2-Induced Global Warming hasn't been proven at all, and even IF it did cause a sleight temp increase, no big deal.

[youngterrier]

Global Warming scaremonger agenda? You mean "science?"

How many predictions of disaster have I posted? none.
How much am I talking about science? A lot.
How much have you discussed science? Not at all.
How many straw men off of Fox News have you posted? A Lot.

This is too mature of a conversation for you, if you're going to post at all about the subject-manner, just cutting and pasting misleading articles from non- scientific sources will not score you any "points." Read a book, or learn to read above a 6th grade level, whichever you haven't learned to do yet first, and then come back for mature discussion. At least I can have a discussion with some people on here, as opposed to pointless, brainless, trolling.

Dumbass

And what "scientific" source did this chart of your's come from? Talk about cutting and pasting from non scientific sources.

I'll side with the experts and specialists:


97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

And you want to call someone else a dumbass.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance ... trdtab.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you look past the substance and go straight to the hook, ignoring the substance.

I could do this all day

[youngterrier]

I understand this, but when you think about the science of
A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) We burn and release CO2 into the atmosphere
C) it doesn't disappear
D) CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere
E) More heat is trapped in the atmosphere as a result
F) insert repercussions

-We burn and release it into the atmosphere. So what. What man releases is only a small fraction of overall CO2, and CO2 is only a small fraction of overall greenhouse gasses.
-CO2 DOES disappear. It is utilized by plants & marine organisms, and increased CO2 levels can be beneficial for plant productivity.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. A hundred years isn't enough time to prove anything. Anthropogenic-CO2-Induced Global Warming hasn't been proven at all, and even IF it did cause a sleight temp increase, no big deal.

And this is why no takes you seriously because you display ignorance that is catastrophic to say the least. For one the amount of CO2 the atmosphere has increased tremendously in the last 200 years, more than likely correlating with the industrial revolution.

Second of all, you don't understand what the term "disappear" in this context. When it's burned, it doesn't stay near the ground. Oh yeah, don't forget the fact that a significant amount of plant life that contributes to the process in the last 50 years has been taken out of the equation due to deforestation.

And lastly, this why you are a dumbass. It's not the fact that the world is getting warmer, it's the fact that we're more than likely speeding up the process as the other 4 influences of climate change have been consistent in the last 50 to 100 years, while Carbon emissions have increased. The issue of the matter isn't that it will be 5 degrees warmer in the future, it's that the increasing temperatures will increase the rate of melting glaciers, etc, which will in fact make climate change accelerate which could be very inconvenient to say the least (but Not Al Gore level of panic). It's not the heat, it's the melting glaciers. Melting glaciers are a problem, and that's a universally accepted fact.

The fact that you use straw man after straw man is just exemplary ignorance on your part. Read a book. Dumbass.

[D1B]

Conks

[AZGrizFan]

Conks

You're exactly right, D. We conks are laughing our asses off at the foaming-at-the-mouth-fear-mongering-al-gore-worshiping-hockey-stick motherfuckers on this site like YT who keep us entertained.

[youngterrier]

Conks

You're exactly right, D. We conks are laughing our asses off at the foaming-at-the-mouth-fear-mongering-al-gore-worshiping-hockey-stick motherfuckers on this site like YT who keep us entertained.

I've never posted any predictions about global warming. Al Gore is an alarmist, and uses hyperbole to try to get a point across. His doomsday predictions are not what any scientist thinks will happen outside of the next 10,000 years or so. That doesn't take away from the reality of climate change.

[D1B]

Conks

You're exactly right, D. We conks are laughing our asses off at the foaming-at-the-mouth-fear-mongering-al-gore-worshiping-hockey-stick motherfuckers on this site like YT who keep us entertained.

OOOOOOOKAY, Conky, whatever you say...

[AZGrizFan]

You're exactly right, D. We conks are laughing our asses off at the foaming-at-the-mouth-fear-mongering-al-gore-worshiping-hockey-stick motherfuckers on this site like YT who keep us entertained.

OOOOOOOKAY, Conky, whatever you say...

I just think it's funny to watch you fellas get so worked up about this....so damned frustrated when you just can't seem to change someone's mind!

Reminds me of ralph over on AGS who used to foam at the mouth about this as "settled science". Hell, we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet (see what I did there?)