Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
#61
sunsettommy: you kill me, you really do! [Image: icon_rolleyes.gif] :lol:

OK. Here we go with all of this crap. And I know what's going to happen too![Image: icon_rolleyes.gif]

(And don't think that I'm going to go through the whole paper with this crock; I can go on the internet and find you more, but I have a life, unlike others!)[Image: icon_rolleyes.gif]

And so we begin:

II. VOSTOK DATA
A. CLIMATOLOGISTS’ VIEW OF VOSTOK DATA
(italic is Glassman's)

Climatologists show the Vostok ice core data of temperature and carbon dioxide graphically on a frequently reproduced and well‑known chart like that in Figure 1. These data reveal a compelling correlation between the concentration of CO2 and temperature.

Climatologists?! Does this gentleman infer that all climatologists are in agreement with this? I would only believe that these people were actually named by their parents?

Recently published, new ice core data extend the carbon dioxide trace back an additional 200,000 years. Figure 2. This extended record cannot contribute to this analysis until someone reduces and publishes corresponding temperature data.Recently published?! By whom?! Where can I get a copy of this?!

The author of Figure 1 employs a bit of marginally acceptable, subjective chartsmanship to underscore a point. He selected scale factors and data ranges to emphasize the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. The peak to peak swings in the chart traces are arbitrarily made to look alike. This is subjective and artificial, but harmless here.The author?! (Parents looking at their newborn: Wife:"Honey what do you want to call our new arrival?" Husband: "I know dear. Lets call him 'AUTHOR'". Wife: "don't you mean 'Arthur'?" Husband: No, dear. Our newborn is going to be really famous for making a figure.) [Image: icon_rolleyes.gif]Just not enough of these when you need them, you know?

Anyways, we go down about another paragraph.

When other analysts examined the data, they found that the CO2 trace lagged the temperature curve by about a millennium. This confounds the greenhouse theory prediction. CO2 couldn’t be the cause of past global temperature increases!Oh...now we run in to some new people; they're referred to as analysts! Sheesh! I wish that I could get away with writing a paper like this back in school! Seriously! [Image: icon_rolleyes.gif]

I don't know what to tell you--I could go on and on with this. Why I probably could go to NOAA and find some stuff just like this, but at least they're not challenging some unknown people.

Now I hope that you do not take offense at this question. But is Glassman your dad or a relative that you admire? Seriously! I'm not doing this in order to get a laugh or something.
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#62
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You have no idea how stupid you came across in your so called critical analysis of a webpaper.

Not once did you actually refute anything.Not once did you point to any errors of calculations or his conclusions.

What you did was play word games on how he writes his paper.

The references are there but since you are an idiot.They were missed by your rush to slam something you have no idea what the hell he is talking about.

Figure #1:

Quote:"CO2, temperature, and dust concentration
measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice
core as reported by Petit et al., 1999."
[Dust record deleted.] http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Image: Vostok-ice-core-petit.png#file.

Figure #2:

Quote:Extraneous traces deleted, http://www.realclimate.
org/index.php?p=221">.

He posted the URL for that "recently published" you whine about.It is right there!

But I myself posted TWO more in this thread:

#1,

Quote:When the Ice Ages ended, the Scripps researchers found that air temperatures warmed long before there was any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, they said, the increases in CO2 lagged the warming by 400 to 1,000 years! That’s just the opposite of the greenhouse theory that CO2 increases lead to warming. (The Fischer team’s analysis was published in the March 12, 1999 issue of Science.)

#2,

Quote:Recently, another Scripps team, led by French expert Dr. Nicholas Caillon, also tested Antarctic ice cores, but used a more-accurate argon proxy to measure the CO2 lag more precisely. The Caillon team says their work confirms the Fischer findings (that CO2 increases lagged behind the Antarctic warming) but say argon gives them a more precise estimate of the lag—800 to 200 years.

“This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation,” they wrote in Science, March 14, 2003

You also failed to look at the link ANDRE provided just for YOU! It contains the very chart in even more detail than DR. Glassman had used for figure #1

It is on page two of THIS thread.

ANDRE:

Quote:As you can see here in this thread, CO2 is lagging the isotopes (temperature) with hundreds of years and the characteristics of the graph demonstrates that the net feedback can not be positive, which actually proves that CO2 is a result only and neither a cause nor a feedback.

http://earth.myfastforum.org/positive_pr...ut134.html

ANDRE in that link provided additional charts based on data showing irrefutably that CO2 lags behind temperature changes.

Here is a quick sample from that link:

Quote:These are the last data sets from the EPICA dome C (Concordia). Data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ic...ctic..._data.html
used these, Monnin et al 2004 for the CO2 and these, Stenni et al 2001 for the isotopes, which is supposed to be a proxy for the temperatures.

Go there and see the charts that were generated from that data set.

You failed to pay attention back on Saturday when ANDRE went to the trouble to educate you.Now that since I have thrown it in your face you no longer have an excuse to miss it.

I have already TOLD you about REALCLIMATE blog accepting the 800 year lag.They had a blog about it.

You have no idea how to rebute a paper let alone a simple webpaper you tried to savage.It is very illuminating on what a AGW simpleton like you thinks.

No he is not my dad or even a distant relative.He is someone who decides to post a series of webpapers on the subject.I was referred to his website well over a year ago by someone else.
Reply
#63
Well.....

There is an equilibrium situation between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 in the oceans (as H2CO3 or carbonates). If the temperature goes up, there is simply 'bubbling up' more CO2 from the oceans and it results in higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 after some time, as you say here 400-1.000 years.

Of the roughly 30 Gigatonnes of CO2 we emit every year 15 Gigatonnes land in the oceans and biomass. 15 Gigatonnes per year add to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

A warming of the oceans will lead to the release of some CO2 from the oceans. If we cut down and burn the rainforests and use the area for biofuel plantations (like soybean for biodiesel or sugar cane for ethanol) there is a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The best thing we could do would be to scrap all these biofuel programs around the earth and instead plant new forests in tropical and subtropical areas. That would have a net reduction effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.

/track_snake
Reply
#64
sunsettommy Wrote:You have no idea how stupid you came across in your so called critical analysis of a webpaper.
Oh. See? You yourself call this a webpaper. Big difference between a Science Paper and a webpaper, huh. (Thinking: Frontpage is a cool product, huh.)

Like I said before, Ace, I need to know exactly who this gentleman is referring to with the people I'm asking about. A true scientist will tell you the names of these people and not just make the characters subjective.

sunsettommy Wrote:"CO2, temperature, and dust concentration
measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice
core as reported by Petit et al., 1999."
[Dust record deleted.] http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Image: Vostok-ice-core-petit.png#file.
Wikipedia is cool, huh. [Image: popcorn.gif] Give me a few minutes and I'll write up some information and let people guess as to whether it's right or not. (BTW: did you try clicking on that link?) :lol:

sunsettommy Wrote:Extraneous traces deleted, http://www.realclimate.
org/index.php?p=221">.
Another good link. [Image: rolleyes.gif] Tell Glassman to relax--I'll do all the detective work for him. [Image: rolleyes.gif]
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#65
sunsettommy Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:
sunsettommy Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:Cool, AIDS deniers always claimed HIV is the companion of an immune-system problem, not its cause. I see the GW deniers finally copied the idea. Since they are essentially a stupid bunch, it took some time. :lol:

You and Grizzly are full of it because NEITHER of you two made ANY cogent rebuttal on the contents of DR. Glassman's webpaper.

Just name calling,deflection and evasive replies.

You got ANYTHING valid to contribute?
Do you? Just read you in a different thread celebrating the return of ice in the Arctic, in case you haven't been told, it's December. Winter starts in September above the Arctic circle. In a week from now is the shortest day of the year.

Still nothing from you.Just more emptyheaded B.S. I have come to expect from you.

No observations to tell us about in your alleged reading of the webpaper.I POSTED TO START THIS THREAD!

I did gratituously post some published papers too and made some comments on it.

What have YOU done to add to a rational discourse in this thread?

:lol:

I am aware of the seasonal changes in the artic.What you apparently failed to grasp is that it is well ahead of schedule!
Do you believe you are the first idiot trumpeting his religious faith there is no manmade GW? Every day one of you comes forward and bores the people possessing common sense. Proper information is all around you, just open your eyes. What I read recently in some papers,
every human in developed countries produces 17 tons of CO2 on average each year. That's some 200 times our bodyweight, in case of Americans maybe 100 times. Do the maths how much this will be, when soon every one of ten billion humans produces say 10 tons a year. Also read, that the 6,6 billion humans alive represent 0,33% of the whole biomass of the world, and doing the maths again, you realise that the biomass regulating and consuming greenhouse gases, the whole carbon circle just can't cope with the amounts we produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29 Otherwise wouldn't the CO2 level rise anyway.
Natural happenings changing the climate? They do. The eruption of Mt.St.Helens in 1980 ejected 2,3 cubic kilometres of material. Assuming a density of 1.5 kilo/cubicdezimetre, that were some 4 billion tons, and surely some CO2 between it. But nowhere near the amounts we pollute the world with. Not even the largest volcanic eruption in modern human history, (Tambora in 1815 which led to the worst famine in the 19. Century in the Northern hemisphere), producing about 100 cubic kilometres, had the climatic impact of the human economy.
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#66
Grizzly writes:

Quote:Oh. See? You yourself call this a webpaper. Big difference between a Science Paper and a webpaper, huh. (Thinking: Frontpage is a cool product, huh.)

It IS a webpaper.It is not a paper that would have passed review at Nature or Science publications.I never claimed otherwise.

The problem you have is that he wrote his webpaper for the GENERAL PUBLIC.He writes broadly with basic technical information.

Your failure to consider this is indicative of your lack of understanding what the difference is between a highly technical science paper written for OTHER scientist's to read.To a simplified webpaper written for a public that lacks the sufficient science background to understand the high technical details that a published science paper would normally consist.

That is what the comment page is for.To ask or discuss greater technical details on the subject.

Your ignorance is noted.


Wikipedia has deleted the referring link.

Realclimate has deleted the referring link.

I will inform DR. Glassman to update them.

When I first read his webpaper in april of 2006.The links were working then.

Realclimate probably deleted the link because they were upset about his reply to Gavin Schmidt's commenting attacks against the Doctor.

Meanwhile you still have not made a SINGLE rebuttal!

There were plenty of opportunity to do so.It is obvious that you have no idea what DR. Glassman is talking about.

:lol:
Reply
#67
Quadrat:

Quote:Do you believe you are the first idiot trumpeting his religious faith there is no manmade GW? Every day one of you comes forward and bores the people possessing common sense. Proper information is all around you, just open your eyes.

Where have I said that there is no manmade GW?

How do you define what information is proper?

It would be a lot smarter if you had first asked what I really believe.

Quote:What I read recently in some papers,
every human in developed countries produces 17 tons of CO2 on average each year. That's some 200 times our bodyweight, in case of Americans maybe 100 times. Do the maths how much this will be, when soon every one of ten billion humans produces say 10 tons a year. Also read, that the 6,6 billion humans alive represent 0,33% of the whole biomass of the world, and doing the maths again, you realise that the biomass regulating and consuming greenhouse gases, the whole carbon circle just can't cope with the amounts we produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29

Interesting stuff you post here.The part you still left out is that mankinds CO2 emission amount is about 3% of the total YEARLY CO2 emissionrate.Nature does about the other 97%.

Have you read the IPCC's take on it?

Quote:Otherwise wouldn't the CO2 level rise anyway.
Natural happenings changing the climate? They do. The eruption of Mt.St.Helens in 1980 ejected 2,3 cubic kilometres of material. Assuming a density of 1.5 kilo/cubicdezimetre, that were some 4 billion tons, and surely some CO2 between it. But nowhere near the amounts we pollute the world with. Not even the largest volcanic eruption in modern human history, (Tambora in 1815 which led to the worst famine in the 19. Century in the Northern hemisphere), producing about 100 cubic kilometres, had the climatic impact of the human economy.

Even if you erase mankinds yearly CO2 emitted contribution rate.There would still be a net CO2 emission rate.Keep in mind that Nature is the dominant CO2 emitter.

Tambora actually had a big impact on the worlds climate patterns.Large regions of crop failures cause famines that then a few years later contributed to the large cholera outbreaks in the late 1820's to early 1830's.I have the book that describes the far reaching impact that one massive eruption had on the planet.The affects of the eruption lasted for nearly 2 decades afterwards.Causing food shortages,increased food prices and serious cholera outbreaks.

Volcanic eruptions rarely emit significant amounts CO2 that amounts to much.It is the other chemicals along with the dust that can cause temporary cooling worldwide and disrupting global circulation patterns.

Mt. Saint Helens caused a minor global cooling that seemed to last the year.

Mt. Pinatubo cause a longer lasting cooling due to it's much larger emission of dust.

You need to stop calling CO2 greenhouse gas a pollutant.It is irrational to do that.
Reply
#68
[Image: fossile.jpg]
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#69
sunsettommy Wrote:It IS a webpaper.It is not a paper that would have passed review at Nature or Science publications.I never claimed otherwise.
In all of that blabbering, you mean that you never implied it?! Yeah, OK.[Image: rolleyes.gif]

sunsettommy Wrote:Your failure to consider this is indicative of your lack of understanding what the difference is between a highly technical science paper written for OTHER scientist's to read.To a simplified webpaper written for a public that lacks the sufficient science background to understand the high technical details that a published science paper would normally consist.
Definitions of (Heaven Sakes!) a web paper. [Image: rolleyes.gif] Also take note on Writing Political Science Papers: Some Useful Guidelines .



sunsettommy Wrote:I will inform DR. Glassman to update them.
(intended sarcasm)I'm sure that when he gets out of the Exxon-Mobile meeting he will jump right on that. [Image: cool.gif]



sunsettommy Wrote:Meanwhile you still have not made a SINGLE rebuttal!
I'm sorry, did you offer something of substance?

sunsettommy Wrote:There were plenty of opportunity to do so.It is obvious that you have no idea what DR. Glassman is talking about.
I'm only hoping that he does though. But no one is a complete loser at Jane. Here is a complimentary copy of our home game. S6




sunsettommy Wrote:Wikipedia has deleted the referring link.

Realclimate has deleted the referring link.
No sh#t Sherlock. Do you you really think so?

sunsettommy Wrote:I will inform DR. Glassman to update them.
(intended sarcasm)I'm sure that when he gets out of the Exxon-Mobile meeting he will jump right on that. [Image: cool.gif]

sunsettommy Wrote:Realclimate probably deleted the link because they were upset about his reply to Gavin Schmidt's commenting attacks against the Doctor.
Yeah, your OPINION has been duly noted. Funny though, how you thought realclimate was pretty cool earlier. Why the sudden change in thinking with them?
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#70
This is my last substantive post in replying to a hippy.

Who has not answered a number of my questions put to you in this thread.

Who has not noticed an obvious problem in the paper I discovered a year ago in Dr. Glassmans (not published in a science publication and written for the scientifically illiterates like you) paper.To make you feel better.Neither has over 30 other AGW's in several forums I posted this much hated but never rebutted paper.

Who after posting an old paper seemingly showing that CO2 and temperature goes up and down together.Ignores newer and better calibrated papers posted by ANDRE and Myself.That shows a an obvious CO2 lag that is in the HUNDREDS of years behind temperature going up.You suddenly go silent on it.

Who has not posted a SINGLE rebuttal against what Dr. Glassman writes claiming that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

All you do is play this deflection game to avoid being exposed as the ignoramus you are.I KNOW you can't make a rebuttal against the Doctors claims.That is because you have no idea what he is talking about.

It is a waste of my time to keep answering you,a fool.

Quote:In all of that blabbering, you mean that you never implied it?! Yeah, OK

Oh yeah I forget that you are too stupid to notice that it was posted on his PERSONAL website.I should have told you that since you are too stoned to figure it out.

Quote:Definitions of (Heaven Sakes!) a web paper.

Oh that is cute.

I chose the phrase simply because it was a paper posted on a personal website.

Hence WEBPAPER.

Your used a two word definition. :lol:

I posted it as ONE WORD!

You attempt to be smart only shows how lacking your thinking really is.Besides you are again playing deflection games as part of your effort to avoid having to deal with the CONTENT of Dr. Glassmans paper he posted on his website.

You are being exposed as a continual bullshitter you really are.

Quote:Writing Political Science Papers: Some Useful Guidelines

LOL,

Just another attempt to avoid discussing Dr. Glassman's paper.

You deflect and deflect and deflect.Not willing to discuss the content of his paper.That is because you have no idea what he is talking about.Otherwise you would have found a problem in it and stated what it was long ago.

What better way to destroy the paper you obviously dislike.Than to show that his arguments are faulty.Why have you ducked the effort?

Since you never have tried.There are only two possible reasons.

You have no idea what he is talking about.Therefore you will not try.

or

His paper has no significant flaw in it to invalidate his claims.

Quote:I'm sure that when he gets out of the Exxon-Mobile meeting he will jump right on that.

Just another idiotic statement you make.Apparently it does not dawn on you that links can die out.Not only that He provided enough of the source information for you to at least comment on his arguments he wrote using that chart.

Quote:I'm sorry, did you offer something of substance?

Yeah I posted it to create this thread.

I then asked you a bunch of questions that you ignored.Then I posted 2 published science papers that seems to support Dr. Glassmans statement that there is a significant CO2 time lag on the order of centuries behind the temperature increase.You ignored that too.

You chose to spend your time bullshitting instead of responding to them.

Quote:I'm only hoping that he does though. But no one is a complete loser at Jane. Here is a complimentary copy of our home game.

Well he certainly is a better man than you are since he actually responds to submitted questions and comments on something he writes on his website,He does with ALL of the differing papers he has posted.With no B.Sing and no evasions.

All you do here in this thread is post more evasive bullshit.

It is obvious that you can't rebute the paper.Obvious that you have no freaking idea what he is talking about.

Quote:No sh#t Sherlock. Do you you really think so?

I did once tell you that they were fine a year and half ago.I then thought Realclimate shut their link down because of Dr. Glassmans replying paper in response to Gavin Schmidt response to one of his readers at Realclimate blog.How quickly you forget my earlier reply.

I did not realize they were no longer good until you brought it up.I then told you that I will tell Dr. Glassman that he needs to update his paper to correct that problem.

Scientists who publish papers have commonly been asked later to publish corrections to their paper to correct problems they and the peer reviewers miss.

That happened twice with Dr. Manns flawed "hockey stick" paper.It also happened to DR. Oreskes now refuted "consensus" paper.All 3 times the errors were spotted by a NON scientist.

It happens with published science papers.Errors significant enough to require a correction.

Your ignorance once again is noted.

Quote:Yeah, your OPINION has been duly noted. Funny though, how you thought realclimate was pretty cool earlier. Why the sudden change in thinking with them?

I think it is a good guess because Gavin certainly thinks Dr. Glassman is wrong.He said so openly at Realclimate in response to a question about Dr. Glassman's paper.Rather pointedly too.

I have not once thought or stated Realclimate was "pretty cool".You just made that up in your hippy head.

The reason why I stated that even Realclimate accepts the 800 year CO2 lag is because they are the main AGW supporter on the internet.That is why I brought them up.It is a painful admission on their part because it undercuts their claim that CO2 drives warming trends.

Did that possiblity ever cross your mind?
Reply
#71
track_snake:

Quote:A warming of the oceans will lead to the release of some CO2 from the oceans. If we cut down and burn the rainforests and use the area for biofuel plantations (like soybean for biodiesel or sugar cane for ethanol) there is a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The best thing we could do would be to scrap all these biofuel programs around the earth and instead plant new forests in tropical and subtropical areas. That would have a net reduction effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.

BINGO!
Reply
#72
That would be a good start. However, to keep it up, we would have to harvest those trees, sequester all that carbon in the form of guitars, pianos, furniture, houses, etc, and then allow the Jungle to reclaim itself quickly.

Then do the thing all over again. 8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#73
sunsettommy Wrote:I think it is a good guess because Gavin certainly thinks Dr. Glassman is wrong.He said so openly at Realclimate in response to a question about Dr. Glassman's paper.Rather pointedly too.

A lot of the guys on the climate forum I hang out on are upset with Gavin. He works on the computer modeling I think. He pops into climatesceptics every once in a while but I haven't seen him since this came out. They don't have much respect for Real Climate either. They prefer Climate Audit. I should post that letter they all wrote to the UN.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#74
scpg02 Wrote:
sunsettommy Wrote:I think it is a good guess because Gavin certainly thinks Dr. Glassman is wrong.He said so openly at Realclimate in response to a question about Dr. Glassman's paper.Rather pointedly too.

A lot of the guys on the climate forum I hang out on are upset with Gavin. He works on the computer modeling I think. He pops into climatesceptics every once in a while but I haven't seen him since this came out. They don't have much respect for Real Climate either. They prefer Climate Audit. I should post that letter they all wrote to the UN.

Well Gavin never was in actual discussion with Dr. Glassman.

He was replying to someone at his blog who had posted a link back to Dr. Glassman's provocative webpaper titled:

The aquittal of Carbon Dioxide

Gavin must have read at least some of it and had commented at Realclimate blog in the same thread with these words:

“[Response: That's pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, nor the implications of the Vostok record, nor the concept of positive feedback. We've discussed each of these issues before, and I would refer you there. - gavin]

He goes on to cite 3 postings.All on Realclimate.

Here is the reply by Dr. Glassman.Gavin never responded again.So much for Gavin's opportunity to refute Dr. Glassman when he had a wide open opportunity.He took the trouble to read at least some of the paper and then make a short comment that purports to a refutation.

GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

EXCERPT:

Gavin A. Schmidt is a well-placed leader of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement. He is a climate modeler at NASA. While London trained as a mathematician, he was an NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in "Climate and Global Change Research". He is an editor for the Journal of Climate. He is the principal of an authoritative blog called RealClimate.org.

As he has admitted and has been shown to be true, he usually doesn't respond to outside criticism. E.g., re newspapers see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/. However, he deigned to answer the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. See the discussion of the Acquittal at website for CrossFit, Comment #48, 10/31/06, www.crossfit.com. This is what he has to say:

"[Response: That's pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, nor the implications of the Vostok record, nor the concept of positive feedback. We've discussed each of these issues before, and I would refer you there. - gavin]

"Dec 2004. What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...s-updated/

"22 Dec 2004. How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...ice-cores/

"5 Jul 2006. Runaway tipping points of no return. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...turn/Gavin Schmidt on Physics"

RSJ dissects Dr. Schmidt's reply categorically.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2....html#more

I wonder if Gavin ever read this?

There ya go Griz.

:lol:
Reply
#75
scpg02 Wrote:
sunsettommy Wrote:I think it is a good guess because Gavin certainly thinks Dr. Glassman is wrong.He said so openly at Realclimate in response to a question about Dr. Glassman's paper.Rather pointedly too.

A lot of the guys on the climate forum I hang out on are upset with Gavin. He works on the computer modeling I think. He pops into climatesceptics every once in a while but I haven't seen him since this came out. They don't have much respect for Real Climate either. They prefer Climate Audit. I should post that letter they all wrote to the UN.

What letter?
Reply
#76
sunsettommy Wrote:What letter?

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Reply
#77
sunsettommy Wrote:Quadrat:

Quote:Do you believe you are the first idiot trumpeting his religious faith there is no manmade GW? Every day one of you comes forward and bores the people possessing common sense. Proper information is all around you, just open your eyes.

Where have I said that there is no manmade GW?

How do you define what information is proper?

It would be a lot smarter if you had first asked what I really believe.

Quote:What I read recently in some papers,
every human in developed countries produces 17 tons of CO2 on average each year. That's some 200 times our bodyweight, in case of Americans maybe 100 times. Do the maths how much this will be, when soon every one of ten billion humans produces say 10 tons a year. Also read, that the 6,6 billion humans alive represent 0,33% of the whole biomass of the world, and doing the maths again, you realise that the biomass regulating and consuming greenhouse gases, the whole carbon circle just can't cope with the amounts we produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29

Interesting stuff you post here.The part you still left out is that mankinds CO2 emission amount is about 3% of the total YEARLY CO2 emissionrate.Nature does about the other 97%.

Have you read the IPCC's take on it?

Quote:Otherwise wouldn't the CO2 level rise anyway.
Natural happenings changing the climate? They do. The eruption of Mt.St.Helens in 1980 ejected 2,3 cubic kilometres of material. Assuming a density of 1.5 kilo/cubicdezimetre, that were some 4 billion tons, and surely some CO2 between it. But nowhere near the amounts we pollute the world with. Not even the largest volcanic eruption in modern human history, (Tambora in 1815 which led to the worst famine in the 19. Century in the Northern hemisphere), producing about 100 cubic kilometres, had the climatic impact of the human economy.

Even if you erase mankinds yearly CO2 emitted contribution rate.There would still be a net CO2 emission rate.Keep in mind that Nature is the dominant CO2 emitter.

Tambora actually had a big impact on the worlds climate patterns.Large regions of crop failures cause famines that then a few years later contributed to the large cholera outbreaks in the late 1820's to early 1830's.I have the book that describes the far reaching impact that one massive eruption had on the planet.The affects of the eruption lasted for nearly 2 decades afterwards.Causing food shortages,increased food prices and serious cholera outbreaks.

Volcanic eruptions rarely emit significant amounts CO2 that amounts to much.It is the other chemicals along with the dust that can cause temporary cooling worldwide and disrupting global circulation patterns.

Mt. Saint Helens caused a minor global cooling that seemed to last the year.

Mt. Pinatubo cause a longer lasting cooling due to it's much larger emission of dust.

You need to stop calling CO2 greenhouse gas a pollutant.It is irrational to do that.
The 3% additional contribution of CO2 by humans is obviously enough to tilt the balance CO2 has been in for longer than the history of humans, otherwise it wouldn't rise constantly. Though I guess the destruction of vegetation by us helps a lot too.
The vast majority of scientists say that CO2 surplus and rising rapidly is changing our climate. What, if the temperatures actually rise by five Celsius till 2100? That's the end of civilization, maybe the whole species. Half of it will be finished by the climate directly, the rest throwing nukes at each other battling for the few resources left.
What, if the probability of that scenario is not far more than 50% as the majority of the scientists say, but a mere 10%?
Would anybody travel to a tropical country if the probability to catch a deadly disease were 10%? Would you shag a woman if you caught AIDS with 10% certainty? Board a plane or your car if the probability of an accident and bodily harm was 10%?
If you answer those questions with yes, don't waste any more money with insurance for life, car and house. If not, what is the problem to insure humanity against a deadly, even maybe unlikely climate destruction?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#78
Let's assume that there is a 10% chance of a bad outcome for GW.

Many people will have a life saving operation if the probability of death is only 10%. The problem comes with taking a risk very often in which there is a 10% chance of death or serious problems. So, if the probability of a bad outcome is only 10% on one roll of the dice, most people would take the chance. We are not repeating the GW bet every day.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#79
And speaking about the Evil carbon dioxide molecule, we have one more new study. If you are a porno watcher, you should be aware that you are more guilty than others. Spiteful

Quote:Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium

The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third.

This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria.

That’s the conclusion of a French think tank called The Shift Project. Earlier this year, it estimated that digital technologies produce 4 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and that this figure could soar to 8 per cent by 2025.
-------
“This once again demonstrates the need for the designers of digital services to think carefully about the overall impact of the services they provide,” Preist says. “For individuals, upgrading our devices less often, owning less devices, and not demanding mobile high quality internet connection everywhere are probably the most important actions we can take.”

To limit climate change we need to reduce energy consumption as well as switching to renewable sources, says one of the report’s authors, Maxime Efoui. “Producing new energy infrastructure generates emissions, even if the electricity produced is eventually renewable,” he says.

If this doesn't mobilize the Anti-Technology crowd, I'll be totally surprised. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#80
Poor Grizz,...I wonder if he has finally gotten the Real message? Spiteful

Rising CO2 Levels Greening Earth
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 sunsettommy 93 18,878 08-02-2008, 08:06 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)