Global warming discussion III

[aleCcowaN]

This is another case like the incoming shortwave radiation toa and toa1au and not "knowing" the Earth's orbit is elliptical (simply failing to make the connexion). In the Antarctic sea ice growth there are obvious elements as the elliptical orbit was to that different subject and not the silly elements like the freshness of waters because of the melting ice.

Just to state the obvious: the medium is the massage (and reality doesn't sell nor catch the public's attention)

Like Finding Bigfoot, which kinda finds bigfoot in every episode, blogs and press releases from official institutions, articles from independent press and even some "peer reviewed" papers, they tell a nice story made from snippets ( "... Ransom notes keep falling from your mouth. Mid-sweet talk, newspaper word cut-outs ...") laid in such a way that the different typographies, sizes and colours in it are not noticed.

That's not new. The fact that an astray idle soul finds a couple of them and post them with a twisted interpretation born in his infantile expectations isn't new either. As it isn't new all the post ping-pong that comes from such an easy target -and, strangely, for the delight of that easy target who will eager come back-.

It remains to be seen where the scepticism is, where the science is and what is really happening there. I mean, to be seen here.

 

[CapelDodger]

What does this have to do with me ? ... All I did was report that some Germany energy providers will move back to coal .

Why did you bother?

As far as Nukes , I agree , if not for the anti-nuke activists in years gone by the world would be using much more Nuclear and less coal.

Do you have any evidence for that? Can you point to one nuclear plant that was stopped by "anti-nuke activists"?

I saw an interesting interview with a leading physicist who is certain that stored nuclear waste will be successfully recycled in the future ...

Well, if a physicist is certain of something that's to your liking who could possibly doubt it?

...and it will produce multitudes more energy than the raw product did ... he likened it to storing gold energy in underground bunkers.

Sounds great - how do I get in on this marvellous scheme? I still have some capital left over from buying Floridian swampland.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting new article shows Antarctic ice may be much thicker than previously believed.

Turns out the ice is very deformed (uneven) ... and ranges from 1.4 meters to 5.5 and sometimes 16 Meters

Using a submersible and doing a multiple grid pattern measurement survey they are finding much thicker ice than drilling rig results showed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11...first_thought/

What do you infer from that?

This has had the effect of creating a new group called the ... "Baffled Climate Scientists" ...

I'm surprised the Register doesn't link to their website.

This report says .... (Quote) ... Climate scientists have confessed they are baffled – yet again – by another all-time record area of sea covered by ice around the Antarctic coasts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10...l_time_record/

If the Register says something to your liking who could possibly doubt it? And who could possibly fail to infer that global cooling is happening? Such a relief.

 

[Reality Check]

.url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/penguinpowered_robot_finds_antarctic_sea_ice_is_thicker_than_first_thought/[/url]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...ientist_antarctic_sea_ice_at_all_time_record/

.

Wrong, Arnold Martin, this has the effect of revealing the basic fact that newspapers exist to sell themselves and their reporters write articles to sell their newspapers !
So you get idiotic headlines like "Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins" and "Antarctic ice at ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: We have more to learn, says boffin" !

This also reveals an inability to understand that The Register is showing all of the signs of "random-USE-of-CAPITALS end of tabloid journalism" as commented on in this article from the Guardian: One climate paper, two conflicting headlines (The Register misrepresents climate science)

The science is that the Antarctic sea ice extent is larger than modeled and that climate scientists have good ideas as to why. Why is southern sea ice increasing?
The science is that the Antarctic sea ice thickness is larger than expected and that not one knows yet what effect this has on the calculated volumes of sea ice. Adding a constant value to the thickness will have no effect on trends in ice thickness.
The science is that the Antarctic land ice is melting: Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

.

 

[ClarkMag]

If we could turn up the CO2 we would. Plants would grow faster.
If we could turn up the temp we would. Plants would grow faster.
If man's CO2 emissions were changing the environment, it would be a big surprise, but would not matter.

What matters is the struggle for a century between the collective and the private. It is a war. In this war, global warming is being used as a weapon by the collectivists against the individualists.

Anyone who actually believe in man made global warming as a problem, is what Marx called his useful idiots. The top communists do not. Look at the Carbon footprint of the biggest collectivist promoters of global warming. They don't believe it for a second.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If we could turn up the CO2 we would. Plants would grow faster.
If we could turn up the temp we would. Plants would grow faster.
If man's CO2 emissions were changing the environment, it would be a big surprise, but would not matter.

What matters is the struggle for a century between the collective and the private. It is a war. In this war, global warming is being used as a weapon by the collectivists against the individualists.

Anyone who actually believe in man made global warming as a problem, is what Marx called his useful idiots. The top communists do not. Look at the Carbon footprint of the biggest collectivist promoters of global warming. They don't believe it for a second.

You bring up an interesting point. But you do understand your beef is against politician's proposed use of mitigation as a form of social engineering, and has nothing to do with the science behind AGW? In other words your beef is with proposed solutions, not the problem itself?

Because there are mitigation proposals completely in line with your individualist political beliefs. They even take advantage of the increased plant growth high CO2 in the atmosphere provides. (It's not all good BTW, mostly only a help for low efficiency c3 plants)

 

[greybeard]

If we could turn up the CO2 we would. Plants would grow faster.
If we could turn up the temp we would. Plants would grow faster.
If man's CO2 emissions were changing the environment, it would be a big surprise, but would not matter.

What matters is the struggle for a century between the collective and the private. It is a war. In this war, global warming is being used as a weapon by the collectivists against the individualists.

Anyone who actually believe in man made global warming as a problem, is what Marx called his useful idiots. The top communists do not. Look at the Carbon footprint of the biggest collectivist promoters of global warming. They don't believe it for a second.

Welcome to the forum. I would suggest you have a look around the forum and make note of the different sections. This is the science section. There is a thread for global warming conspiracy theories here.

 

[bit_pattern]

If we could turn up the CO2 we would. Plants would grow faster.
If we could turn up the temp we would. Plants would grow faster

You're wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong
You're wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n12/full/ngeo2284.html

Anyone who actually believe in man made global warming as a problem, is what Marx called his useful idiots.

Marx never used the phrase "useful idiot" - it is commonly attributed to Lenin but even that is just plain wrong - you're as wrong about history as you are about science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Marx never used the phrase "useful idiot" ...

But David Dunning has used the phrase "Confident Idiot"
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793/

 

[bit_pattern]

Haha! Well played

 

[ClarkMag]

There is a thread for global warming conspiracy theories here.[/URL]

How can you have a skeptics forum that segregates global warming?
As any child what a skeptic is and he will answer that it is a global warming denier.

There are billions of dollars out there at the front lines of the AWG hoax. How far from the front can one be anywhere in a skeptics forum?

 

[Trakar]

How can you have a skeptics forum that segregates global warming?
As any child what a skeptic is and he will answer that it is a global warming denier.

There are billions of dollars out there at the front lines of the AWG hoax. How far from the front can one be anywhere in a skeptics forum?

And the child would be mistaken. Climate scientists are skeptical, deniers of the mainstream science regarding global warming tend to be a motley assortment of political ideologues, fringe cranks and paid disruptors, along with a healthy dose of people who have never objectively examined the science and don't understand the processes.

If you are promoting conspiracy theories, this is not the appropriate thread, there is a separate conspiracy thread for the discussion of AGW conspiracy theories. (The latest on climate science/Climate Conspiracy Theories - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277116)

 

[ClarkMag]

You are not answering my question: is CO2 "good" no matter the quantity ?

If we had half as much, we would be dead.
If we had twice as much, we would be rich.

 

[greybeard]

How can you have a skeptics forum that segregates global warming?As any child what a skeptic is and he will answer that it is a global warming denier.

There are billions of dollars out there at the front lines of the AWG hoax. How far from the front can one be anywhere in a skeptics forum?

Global warming is not segregated. Belief that virtually all the climate scientists in the world are part of a communist plot does not fit in this section. The appropriate section is the one I showed you. Or if your post was intended to be humorous then there is also a sub forum for that.

 

[Reality Check]

If we could turn up the CO2 we would. Plants would grow faster. ...snipped political rant...

No, ClarkMag: Land plants that are under water do not grow at all !
Turning up the CO2 turns up the temperature and raises sea levels.

The science about CO2 being plant food is mixed. Stating that CO2 is plant food is one of the climate skeptic myths: CO2 is plant food

The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors.
...
Conclusion
A specific plant’s response to excess CO2 is sensitive to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: age, genetic variations, functional types, time of year, atmospheric composition, competing plants, disease and pest opportunities, moisture content, nutrient availability, temperature, and sunlight availability. The continued increase of CO2 will represent a powerful forcing agent for a wide variety of changes critical to the success of many plants, affecting natural ecosystems and with large implications for global food production. The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by ClarkMag View Post
How can you have a skeptics forum that segregates global warming?
As any child what a skeptic is and he will answer that it is a global warming deni

A skeptic is one who is informed enough about the topic to make valid critical commentary.
You are not, you are simply ignorant of climate science and regurgitating something you read in a right wing blog.
Now do you have any main stream climate science to discuss as the Pseudoscience section is elsewhere where you can rant to your hearts content.
go nuts
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277116&highlight=climate

Wearing a "skeptic" badge to cover ignorance of science is "not done"

I can be skeptical of another sailplane pilot's thermaling technique because I also fly them ....you can't unless you do.

David Archer can be skeptical of Gavin Schmidt on climate as they are peers...that is what peer review in science is about.
First learn what skepticism is....THEN come here to learn enough climate science to be able to converse intelligently instead of being laughed at.
Conversation includes supporting opinion with relevant papers from science journals and sources referencing those peer reviewed journals.
Unsupported opinion is well.....you know...

Entirely your choice.

 

[Trakar]

If we had half as much, we would be dead.
If we had twice as much, we would be rich.

Please cite and reference the mainstream science that compellingly supports these assertions.

 

[bit_pattern]

If we had half as much, we would be dead.
If we had twice as much, we would be rich.

If we had half as much, we would be very cold.
If we had twice as much, we would be very hot.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is an argument that occurred to me recently while "debating" denialists. I've used it a couple of times now and thought it might be worth parsing by you guys to see if you think my logic stands or not:

Secondly, yes, water and carbon dioxide absorb heat at different spectrums. However, this fact of life exposes the gaping hole in your interpretation of physics. If CO2 doesn't do exactly what all what we know about the physical properties of the molecule, then the parts of the spectrum that water vapour doesn't block would result in more heat exiting the system. And because we know that water vapour levels are regulated by temperature, as heat energy was lost water vapour would decrease correspondingly, leading to more heat energy escaping the system. This negative feedback would very quickly lead to the planet freezing over into a giant ball of ice. The reality of the balmy conditions we enjoy belies the idiocy of how you think physics actually work.

I most recently deployed it in replying to the following Gish Gallop - thought I'd include the link and if anyone is bored and wanted to read it over they could let me know if they think I've missed anything

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...ate-Change?p=12726009&viewfull=1#post12726009

ETA: ignore the mangled sentence I've struck out

 

[foophil]

If we had half as much, we would be dead.
If we had twice as much, we would be rich.

First of all, welcome to the forums.

What you will find here (and what others are trying to tell you) is that you will not be taken seriously if you do not back up your arguments with reputable sources. This isn't the comment section of a Fox News article after all.

You haven't read this thread all the way through (it is a long one) or else you would have seen a few others making your same arguments, all failing to cite any reputable source, and all being mostly ignored. If you want to have a meaningful impact here, please don't spout conspiracy theories in a science forum. Instead, do your research and provide links to peer reviewed papers that back up the points you are trying to make. Then we can discuss the points you are trying to make. Otherwise you'll find most of us will simply put you on ignore and continue on without you.


ETA - It is perfectly fine to ask questions here. Plenty will be happy to answer them or provide links where you can do your own research. Making baseless statements without backing them up is what I'm referring to here.