kaynight wrote:
Mr. Tambourine man himself.
With a little bit of Pink floyd thrown in for good measure :D
Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions
Sort:
Apr 27, 2015
0
#103
robbie_1969 wrote:
@xlote
What is it about, 'I don't care what you think', that you fail to understand? Is it the language? Is it verbose? full of technical terminology?
I have demonstrated why your opinions are more bull than a herd of Texan longhorns. You don't provide any arguments. You think that your opinions are some kind of self certified truths, they are not, without substantiation they are meaningless. You commit irrelevancy, logical fallacy, straw-man arguments fabricated on values that were never claimed. All the references and data are in the National Geographic article, not a single assertion of yours has refuted anything they have published and in many instances it never even came close to even addressing the claim that was made.
If you ever manage to actually find a refutation for anything they have published, anything other than your opinion, let me know, I'll be interested to hear it.
Now if you don't mind I have better things to do than remonstrate with a zombie apocalypse, so Ill be on my way. Vamos Munchachos!
You are taking the information in the National Geographic article as Fact. It is not. Neither your article nor you provide any data to back it up, yet when I say I don't believe information in the National Geographic article I am required to back up my assertions with data/facts. That is a double standard arguement. If National Geographic had any standing as a true Climate related publication and/or they provided data, your arguement would be sound. They are not, and they do not. Therefore, you are just using information presented as fact, information which might as well have come from People Magazine, written by their fashion editor.
kaynight wrote:
Greed is good.
Look where it got you. lol.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#105
robbie_1969 wrote:
I need only point out that the walls of feigned academic integrity are crumbling.
Look Jamie! A white unicorn bathing in azure water while golden fish chatter nonchalantly under a rainbow encrusted sky! their sound echoing out into the stratosphere to far distant planets! Lets set the controls for the heart of the sun so we can be with them in our magic swirling ship!
Have you read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"? I recognize the tactics. You do need to brush up on them a bit, though.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#106
now_and_zen wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
now_and_zen wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
To be sure, "Koch Brothers," "Big Oil," "billionaires," "Neo-conservatives," and "deniers" are all tried and true Leftist pejoratives. They appeal to a largely uneducated and easily-led base.
Well at least you admit they're true.
Koch Brothers are funding global warming deniers; that's a fact. They are billionaires. That's also a fact. Neocons, like BushCo - best friends Big Oil ever saw. Condaleeza Rice even had an oil tanker named after her. They're pejoratives only because the truth of the matter is ugly.
I was giving examples of ad homs. Boogie men. Scarey things.
No admission at all.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You said "tried and true". Do you not even know what your own words mean? Just because you're afraid of the Bogeyman doesn't mean these people aren't seriously championing global warming deniers specifically because they have huge economic investments in the commodities and technologies that cause global warming. That's just a fact. Divert from it all you want. It doesn't matter how many times anyone mentions that the Koch Brothers fund global warming deniers, it's still a fact that they do, it's still a fact that their motivation is profit, and it's still a fact that it's very bad for the planet and people living on it.
"Tried and true" means tested and proven to work. When pandering to the un- and under-educated, scare tactics are an effective method to arouse an emotional response. Therefore the use of alarmist examples (which provided the basis for this enlightnening topic), as well as misleading labels, are the tactics of the Leftists.
It worked equally well in the 1960s and 70s, when the Academic Prophets of Doom declared, that unless we spent boatloads of taxpayers' money, the next Ice Age was upon us.
Same shrill presentation, just switch out "warming" for "cooling."
Apr 27, 2015
0
#107
Apr 27, 2015
0
#109
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015
Apr 27, 2015
0
#110
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
Something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists, writes Christopher Booker
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#111
(Cont'd)
One of the more provocative points arising from the debate over those claims that 2014 was “the hottest year evah” came from the Canadian academic Dr Timothy Ball when, in a recent post on WUWT, he used the evidence of ice-core data to argue that the Earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of all those recorded since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago.
Jamie Delarosa - Koch Brothers playmate. Probably has investments in fossil fuels and that's the reason he's hell bent on deluding himself about Global Warming. Yeah, he just wants to know the truth, as long as the truth is that his fossil fuel profits are maxed out.
Have you read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"? I recognize the tactics. You do need to brush up on them a bit, though.
No i have not read it, but I can assure you that every word is borne from the inner depths of my psyche as a painter grapples with reality in order to express the real essence of being!
kaynight wrote:
Say that in the gorbals and you'll get ra heid stuck on u.
Actually the Gorbals is ok nowadays during the day and early evening, they even have a theatre, the Citizens theatre, I saw Salome and Oedipus Rex there. Well its not quite the Gorbals, but Govan Hill, but its ok.
kaynight wrote:
When they pee in the sink they now take the dishes out first.
The Romans had large jars you could urinate in, I think they used it for laundry detergent, either way, they were awesome and so are we.
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.
CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heatmeasurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.
Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heatmeasurements.
Apr 28, 2015
0
#120
now_and_zen wrote:
We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.
Let's look at the long term geologic record. Note the weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 and ambient temperature (glacials shown in blue). Ergo, atmospheric CO2 levels do not drive climatic warming.
I need only point out that the walls of feigned academic integrity are crumbling.
Look Jamie! A white unicorn bathing in azure water while golden fish chatter nonchalantly under a rainbow encrusted sky! their sound echoing out into the stratosphere to far distant planets! Lets set the controls for the heart of the sun so we can be with them in our magic swirling ship!