backtop


Print 241 comment(s) - last by nstott.. on Mar 8 at 10:01 AM


  (Source: South Park Studios/Comedy Central)

Al Gore says "not so fast" to climate skeptics who have recently been on the offensive. Gore penned a piece defending the research and discussing recent incidents, which was published as an op-ed in The New York Times.  (Source: AP)
Recent climate research embarrassments don't change the overall truth, he argues

There's a mounting movement to discredit research that our world is warming.  In recent months a report by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change had portions retracted due to inaccuracy, leading to questions about its chief Rajendra Pachauri.  And in Britain, the fallout from the Climate Research Unit leaked email scandal continues.

Al Gore, oft a popular target of snide remarks by climate change skeptics, is back in the spotlight after delivering an impassioned commentary about these recent events, published in 
The New York Times.  

His message is relatively straightforward; he writes, "Scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged."

In the piece, Gore says he wishes that climate change wasn't real.  He states, "It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it...We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake."

"I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion."

In the article he directly addresses the recent controversies, a somewhat unusual tactic.  He does, however, take issue with the idea that the mistakes amount to intentional deception or change the accuracy of the overall picture.

He likens climate denialism to denials about tobacco's health impact.  He writes, "Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart."

Gore is advocating the "cap-and-trade" bill championed by President Barack Obama be passed.  The bill was passed by the U.S. House and is currently being debated by the U.S. Senate.  In his op-ed, Gore writes, "Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution."

Mr. Gore is deeply invested in the topic of climate change in many ways.  He made millions off his best-selling book and movie, 
The Inconvenient Truth.  He also reportedly earns at least five figures for speaking engagements at college campuses and public locations.  Gore, already quite wealthy, has also invested heavily in government subsidized green-tech firms, leading some to claim that he is a "carbon billionaire".

Gore has drawn a great deal of criticism, however.  Donald Trump, a rather famous climate skeptic, has gone as far as to suggest that he should be stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize he received for his climate work.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), tweeted a snide response to Gore's column, writing, "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle'."

Gore actually discusses the greater than usual U.S. snowfall in his piece, though.  He writes, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm. "



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Any credibility
By amanojaku on 3/1/2010 10:10:57 AM , Rating: 5
Gore had was lost when he advocated cap and trade. Supporting cap and trade is an admission that global warming doesn't exist because cap and trade does nothing to reduce emissions. It simply allows one company to pollute in place of another. "Hey, I didn't pollute enough today, so take my share!!!" That's one hell of a way to solve what you consider to be the biggest problem on Earth, Al.




RE: Any credibility
By milkyway4me on 3/1/2010 10:22:42 AM , Rating: 5
That might be true for the "cap and trade" bill now, but the agency that sells these carbon credits will be able to choke anyone's company out of existence with nary a whimper from anyone. Got a friend in the EPA and want to drive your competitors out of business? Restrict their carbon licenses. Cap and trade, when you take into account human nature, which "progressives" never do, is a horrifically bad bill for the USA and the world in general. It will provide avenues of fear, cronyism and injustice in the private sector like we've never seen before.


RE: Any credibility
By Jellodyne on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Hyperion1400 on 3/1/2010 12:51:06 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, I honestly can't tell if the irony was intentional or not. Well, either way it's a good laugh.


RE: Any credibility
By Souka on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 2:07:52 PM , Rating: 5
Rouge is a cosmetic. Perhaps you meant 'rogue'?

Al Gore has made several hundred million dollars from global warming alarmism. But the real point is that Gore's speaking fees derive from his alarmist campaign.

If he truly believed in global catastrophe due to carbon emissions, he wouldn't be generating 100 times the carbon footprint as the average person. He wouldn't be buying ocean-front condos if he believed sea level rise would soon swamp them.


RE: Any credibility
By JediJeb on 3/1/2010 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 5
When Al Gore downsizes his mansion to a three bedroom ranch and only turns on lights in the rooms he is in at the moment, and starts taking public transportation to his speaking events, then maybe, just maybe, I will take him seriously.

Put your beliefs into action Mr. Gore and if you are truly saying what you believe.


RE: Any credibility
By dizkonekid on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By Jellodyne on 3/1/2010 5:11:53 PM , Rating: 4
No, read the article -- inflammatory political diatribes are the only responses which are actually ON topic.


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By Hyperion1400 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By fishman on 3/2/2010 7:24:44 AM , Rating: 4
Doesn't everyone have a $30,000/year utility bill like Al Gore?


RE: Any credibility
By whiskerwill on 3/2/2010 8:12:09 AM , Rating: 4
And that was at just one of his four houses.


RE: Any credibility
By decapitator666 on 3/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By nstott on 3/2/2010 10:47:13 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry to burst your cryptocommunist moonbat bubble, granola boy, but:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp


RE: Any credibility
By ekv on 3/1/2010 3:22:10 PM , Rating: 5
"He should get more..."

Oi-vay, talk about uneducated and easy-to-commmand.

1) Palin gave away the money she received to other non-profits. All of it.

2) for starters she quit the governorship since she was facing a half-million in debt from frivolous lawsuits. I hope she counter-sues.

3) she made no such "internation[al] experience" claim as you stated. You can see, from "mainland" Alaska, Russian military aircraft conduct their routine training exercises. In addition, several islands have been ceded to Russia from our State Dept. You can see those islands from "mainland" Alaska. Hadn't heard about the giveaway?

http://www.alaska.net/~logjam/give_away.html

http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/AlaskaGovSenAG...

But who would fail to report the truth? Perhaps the same so-called reporters that sensationalize Al Gore's money-making version of AGW? the same reporters that try to cover up the CRU scandal?

Way to try and divert attention from man-bear-pig Al Gore. That sleazy, pathetic excuse for a person, that makes Jabba-the-Hut look good by comparison. Al Gore ought to climb back under his rock. And stay there.

I'm surprised he's showing his fat, phlegmatic face when there's still snow in Washington DC. Perhaps a dip in dopes buying his AGW hysteria has him trembling enough to try and repair the damage done by Mann and Jones. He's shown his hand a bit too soon.


RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 4:49:08 PM , Rating: 1
People don't get "elected" to Vice President btw...


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 5:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Voting for Prez and Vice Prez is a package deal, and electing one is electing the other.


RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 12:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Yep, getting the truth out about what's behind AGW legislation is SO being sweeping and general. I mean, of course it's not like you liberals make broad, sweeping generalizations about, say, Tea Party members (Nazis, racists, ...) and those who disagree with the Algoreacle (flat earthers, deniers, ...).

Pot, meet kettle. Or more to the point, horse, meet @ss.


RE: Any credibility
By nstott on 3/1/2010 1:02:08 PM , Rating: 3
It's OK. The catostrophic climatards are neo-geocentrists and natural process deniers.


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/2010 1:31:33 PM , Rating: 5
Ya, its only them damn liberals that make broad, sweeping generalizations. - spoken from a liberal that thinks Al Gore and Global warming is a load of crap.

I personally think we need to get off foreign oil for the following reasons, in order.
#1 - economically. The need for Oil is choking us.
#2 - policitally. The need for Oil is tying our hands and forcing us to be involved in the middle east, a place we should not set foot in.
#3 - environmentally. - specifically polluting the air we breath and water we drink. To hell with the tempurature.

You know what else, this lib is in favor of the death penalty (in fact it should be expanded dramtically) and is pro gun rights.

Now take that broad brush YOU paint with and stick up your wazoo.


RE: Any credibility
By nstott on 3/1/2010 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 5
All you've proven is that you're a moderate! :P


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Like I'm the only partisan (left OR right) on these blogs, or in this nation? Please, stop snarling, Spooty - you are messing up my screen.


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 5:50:53 PM , Rating: 4
I see. It is the Democrats now run amok with corruption and unchecked powers. It is the Democrats no attempting to ram through government health care takeover which the vast majority of Americans are vehemently against.

Yet somehow "I'm the problem" as are "people like me."

Uhm... okay.


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 10:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
Okay one more time Spooty and I'm going to let this go since it's really not on topic: I have stated on these forums many, MANY times that the current situation we are in has come through fruition over several administrations, dating back to the Carter years. Democrats and Republicans.

But I have never, EVER seen such a short take by one party on taking down America to a socialist, government controlled union as we have witnessed the Democrats today. We have seem them manufacture a health care crisis and relative to this forum topic manufacture a global warming crisis, all to gain more power over the individual AND corporations.

Right now Democrats are running things, not Republicans. When Republicans start effing us over, I'll start bitching about them. Until then, all eyes are where the buck stops: The Party In Charge. And you are going to see the repercussions of that on a massive scale in 2010 and 2012 if things don't start changing rapidly for the Democrats. And judging from their blind arrogance, I don't see that mentality changing any time soon.


RE: Any credibility
By milkyway4me on 3/1/2010 6:49:56 PM , Rating: 3
As non liberal as your views are, your taking such offense at having the obvious about your typical liberal is mind boggling. The big rub about your typical moderate, or your average college 3 years removed from a teenybopper voter is that while their views may not mesh exactly with the average liberals, there is enough social pressures to ensure they'll vote like a true liberal anyway, so it doesn't matter. People like nfarse who oppose vehemently the corruption in this country are the only thing keeping it afloat from people like nancy pelosi, and yourself and other misguided "moderate leftists" who don't know a train wreck until they experience one first hand. Maybe you'd admit the trainwreck was your fault, but we all know someone as corrupt as Pelosi wouldn't.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:38:28 PM , Rating: 5
"I personally think we need to get off foreign oil for the following reasons, in order...."

The best way to do that is, a) drill for more oil domestically, and b) invest in nuclear power.

Two things the "liberal" party has been adamantly against for the last 30 years.


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/2010 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 3
"The best way to do that is, a) drill for more oil domestically, and b) invest in nuclear power.

Two things the "liberal" party has been adamantly against for the last 30 years. "


That would be the "dem" party. They are about as "liberal" as the "rep" party is "conservative"

The fact is both party's have robbed us blind to the point of being criminal and continue to do so, distracting us with petty bickering while they laugh it up at our expense. The only difference between the 2 parties are on social issues, because fiscally they both sold us out.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.


RE: Any credibility
By retrospooty on 3/1/2010 1:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
The REALLY sad thing is, that as messed up as it is, there isnt any place better. Wherever people are involved, there is corruption and deception. The larger the organization, the worse the corruption and deception.


RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Now Spooty - someone made an accusation and I countered with similar logic. We are all individuals and not everyone is a member of idea A or thought process B.

quote:
I personally think we need to get off foreign oil for the following reasons, in order.


I agree. We've got our own energy resources and we can't tap them (and as I've stated before here Republicans are just as much as fault here, specifically off the Gulf Coast and natural gas drilling).

Now go calm down!


RE: Any credibility
By cfaalm on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By kaoken on 3/1/2010 12:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
With great powers comes with great responsibilities.


RE: Any credibility
By geddarkstorm on 3/1/2010 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 3
So lets give more power to the greatly irresponsible! Sweet deal :D.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
That is basically the whole point of emissions trading: to make millions for those invested in the scheme .
Corrected.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 10:46:46 AM , Rating: 5
CO2 isn't pollution...it's an essential nutrient required for all life on earth.

I realize that enviros understand this, and don't care whether or not global warming is real, as they wish to use CO2 reduction as a backdoor method of decreasing real pollutants...but it doesn't work that way. The tens of trillions of dollars we squander on CO2 reduction schemes is money we could otherwise be spending on real problems.


RE: Any credibility
By amanojaku on 3/1/2010 11:01:27 AM , Rating: 1
CO2 over a certain amount is pollution. So is water, which is the biggest greenhouse gas. Global warming advocates mention CO2 so much because humans are the greatest contributors to the C02 "excess", but lets be realistic. At at average of 10% of the global warming potential C02 doesn't contribute much, while water contributes to 50% of the global warming potential. In other words, even if we reduce CO2 emissions there's no guarantee the effects will be significant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potent...


RE: Any credibility
By bdot on 3/1/2010 11:06:06 AM , Rating: 5
A link to Wikipedia... bad form sir, bad form.


RE: Any credibility
By amanojaku on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By amanojaku on 3/1/2010 11:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
F'ing EPA moves stuff around too much. Follow the links to the GWP tables.

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/defns.html#gwp


RE: Any credibility
By Jalek on 3/2/2010 3:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
There've been a couple of articles suggesting that water vapor increases are dampening the warming, like a feedback effect. Water vapor apparently can reflect sunlight away as well as act as an insulator.

That's about all I took away from them, I'm not foolish enough to pretend my thermodynamics or nuclear physics training and knowledge directly apply to climatology as some "scientists" seem eager to assert.


RE: Any credibility
By Jeffk464 on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:05:51 AM , Rating: 5
Appeal to authority, coupled with an ad hominem attack. Congrats on packing two logical fallacies into one short post.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that one needs a Ph.D to understand that CO2 is required by all life on earth?

As for scientists who do disagree that AGW is a problem, here are 32,000 of them...over 9,000 have a PhD:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/


RE: Any credibility
By TETRONG on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, considering that the worse thing the IPCC is predicting is some 20 inches of sea level rise over the next century (and 9 inches of that is from warming not even related to carbon emissions).

Even if GW is real, we could solve that problem just by passing a law requiring any new construction near a beach to be set back an extra 15 feet.


RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually in some parts of Florida laws like that are already in place, but mostly due to hurricanes. In any event, don't ever let facts get in the way of a good ALgoreacle rant. I'm just shocked he didn't whine about Rush & FoxNews as to blame for the meltdown, so to speak, of AGW lately.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Gl...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-l...


RE: Any credibility
By Nfarce on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By MadMan007 on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 3
Please try to think clearly. My link to the GW Petition Project was to refute the insinuation that "anyone with a Ph.D in the relevant science" believes in AGW.

The reasons to disbelieve in CAGW have been stated many times, and in no way, shape, or form, derive from an 'appeal to authority'.


RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 6:12:14 PM , Rating: 5
"Dude... More than 9/10 of the people that signed it have no education in earth sciences"

"Dude", 3,697 of the signatories have advanced degrees in geosciences. An additional 6,900 have degrees in Physics, Math, or Computer Science -- and before you claim that's not relevant, you want want to check the degree status on those scientists most loudly promoting AGW, such as James Hansen (Physics), or Gavin Schmidt (Mathematics). In fact, over 80% of IPCC authors don't have degrees in geosciences, and most climate modelers have degrees in math or physics.

"The main backer of this petition is a vile person ..."

The main backer is a past President of the National Academy of Sciences.

"...and gave false public statements that second hand smoke was not bad for people"

False. He testified that claims about the dangers of second hand smoke were being overstated by some groups, a statement I proved to you the last time you posted this tripe. I see some people can't learn from their errors, though.


RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 5
"Having a degree in Math or Computer Science makes you qualified to speek on global warming?"

Since the head of NASA GISS -- their primary climate division and the most famous global warming researcher in world -- has none, then the obvious answer is yes.

Seriously, you're going to want to take a deep breath and stop embarrassing yourself here. Several of the most noted climate researchers in the world have degrees outside the geosciences.

"Any of these persons in the petition could have finished school and went to work for McDonalds"

But they didn't. One became president of the National Academy of Sciences. Another became president of the World Federation of Sciences. Several run the climate research division at their respective universities. One is the most heavily published meterologist in the world. More than two dozen are past or present IPCC authors or reviewers.


RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 7:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I love how you cherry pick my comments.

It's better than cherry-picking climate data!


RE: Any credibility
By Jeffk464 on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 7:10:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.


Do you know anything about climategate ? If you did, you wouldn't have posted such an idiotic statement. I'll give you a hint : they specifically used the "peer review" system to block and silence studies against global warming.

You're done kid.


RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 7:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Weren't you one of the ones that go by the look-out-the-window science? Didn't you just post that it was snowing a few weeks ago so GW is a lie?


NO. I said the same people "looking out the window" saying it was hot so there was global warming are now the same people saying because it's snowing is proof that there is global warming too.

Learn to read.


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 7:50:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
All studies should be peer reviewed.

Correct, by actual peers no less, instead of the cronyism that the CRU leak revealed. If you cared at all about accurate science and proper peer review, you'd be at the forefront calling for all climate data to be discarded and begun again from scratch.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 8:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
"THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE PEER REVIEWED STUDY AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING"

There have been hundreds, actually. Here's just three, courtesy of DT itself:

http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Report+Disputes+...
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8588


RE: Any credibility
By amirite on 3/2/2010 1:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
None of those you have cited discount man made global warming. They just try to somewhat minimize CO2.

Try again dumbass.


RE: Any credibility
By Jeffk464 on 3/1/2010 6:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I don't think Al Gore is any scientific expert on global warming.


RE: Any credibility
By nstott on 3/1/2010 11:25:20 AM , Rating: 3
From MIT in Course 5D (physical chemistry). AGW is total bullshit spread by government funded media whores. How's that for an appeal to authority, 8!@+(#?


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:48:58 PM , Rating: 5
"From MIT in Course 5D (physical chemistry). AGW is total bullshit spread by government funded media whores"

To interject, I've looked at a few GCM models in my time. It seems clear that CO2 does have some warming effect. However, it also seems just as clear that effect is not only logarithmic in response, but counteracted by negative feedback effects such as cloud albedo. Thus, rather than expecting 2-4 degrees of warming by 2010, we've very likely seen all we're going to, at least in non-polar regions...and even at the poles (where the colder, dryer air allows CO2 more of an effect), the actual warming is very likely to be minimal.

All in all, a very good thing for the planet. The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Optimum were both warmer than today. Both were periods of plenty and prosperity for humanity.

It's the cold periods that hurt civilization. Currently, the average temperature of the planet is 54F. Both mankind and the plants and animals we depend on most prefer a significantly warmer climate.


RE: Any credibility
By nstott on 3/1/2010 3:01:46 PM , Rating: 3
CO2 acting as a green house gas and anthropogenic sources of CO2 being a significant contribution to global warming are not the same thing. There was more CO2 degassing from the oceans during the most recent warming trend (due to increasing irradiance within the solar cycle) than there were emissions of CO2 from anthropogenic sources. Even so, and as stated previously, planetary temperature versus CO2 concentration is not a linear relationship but has a maximum threshold for a given solar irradiance (and finite atmospheric thickness).

Anyway, I think you took my 'appeal to authority' response to Jeffk's 'appeal to authority' too seriously. ;)


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 3:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
"There was more CO2 degassing from the oceans during the most recent warming trend ...than there were emissions of CO2 from anthropogenic sources"

That seems very likely, especially since CO2 levels today are rising at roughly the same rate they were in the 1960s, despite our pumping out 20X the CO2 we did then.

I certainly agree with your post. I just wanted to (yet again) go on record with the difference between the AGW hoax and the very real fact that CO2 is a GHG.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:08:45 AM , Rating: 5
Then why did we never see this "intense warming" in the past, even when CO2 levels were 10 or even 20 times higher than they are today (far higher than they'd be even if we burned every drop of oil on the planet)?

Geologically, the pattern is clear. The earth warms slightly, CO2 levels increase in result...then the earth begins to cool again despite higher CO2 levels.

The paleogelogic record is clear proof that runaway warming cannot happen.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 3
" when the planet was dramatically different."

Meaning the laws of physics were somehow different then? Way to not address the point. Your link has nothing to do with warming.

Geology makes it clear. Temperatures go up, then CO2 rises...but then temperatures fall again despite higher CO2 levels:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-g...

This is impossible by the basic tenet of AGW theory-- that CO2 acts as a positive amplifier of water vapor, causing runaway warming.

If you want to look further back, here's a graph showing how many times in the earth's past CO2 levels have been far higher than they are today:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/2010 12:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Your link has nothing to do with warming"

The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.

"porkpie" you are ... whatever.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
Did you not look at the graphs? There have been several periods before that where CO2 levels were much higher than today, yet temperatures were cooler.

And you're still ignoring the basic point here. When temperatures rise, CO2 goes up in response...but then temperatures decline, DESPITE rising CO2 levels. Oopsies, eh?

As for your little scare tactic on sea level rise, the rate of rise has actually been declining dramatically over the last 20,000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea...


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 4
"The largest source of CO2 emissions globally globally is combustion of fossil fuels..."

Oh my god, someone who debates global warming actually believes this? Even according to the IPCC itself, anthropogenic sources constitute only 4% of total CO2 emissions. (The IPCC merely claims that humans account for the majority of the accumulation ):

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati...

Please Vitaly, stop embarrassing yourself. Learn about your topic, then come back and discuss it.

"That's why you can't simply compare past climate conditions with today's settings. "

What nonsense is this? CO2 is CO2, regardless of its source. You're trying to claim that CO2 emitted from an exhaust pipe is magically more effective at raising temperature than the same CO2 from some natural source?

/shakes head sadly.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:15:13 PM , Rating: 3
"I meant human emission CO2 by industry (activity), maybe that was not clear enough"

That was clear. It's also clearly wrong. Human emissions are a tiny fraction of total CO2 emissions.

Are they a majority of the accumulation? Quite possibly...but that's a different story entirely.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 3:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am talking about the fact that 20 million years ago there were no industries, human related sources of carbon dioxide producing "extra" ("unnatural") amount of CO2.

CO2 is CO2. 20 million years ago, somehow "extra" ("unnatural"?) CO2 was getting into the atmosphere. Today, somehow "extra" ("unnatural"?) CO2 is getting into the atmosphere.

It seems directly comparable to me. Mama Earth doesn't care where the "extra" ("unnatural"?) CO2 came from.


RE: Any credibility
By Kurz on 3/1/2010 5:30:20 PM , Rating: 3
In fact it was natural at one point.
Till Nature turned into oil and we dug it up and burned it.

We are doing nature a favor and releasing this natural resource back so nature can use it.


RE: Any credibility
By JediJeb on 3/1/2010 11:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
There is also evidence that CO2 levels once hit nearly 3000ppm yet even then the Earth did not bake to a crisp as many AGW proponents claim will happen if we get to around 500ppm.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, CO2 levels once may have reached as high as 5,000 ppm...almost 20 times higher than they are today.

What happened? The planet was in its richest, most biologicaly diverse period ever...and then, despite those massive carbon levels, temperatures began to decline.


RE: Any credibility
By whiskerwill on 3/1/2010 12:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Vitaly, you don't seem to be able to make a clear point. Someone tells you about all the times CO2 levels have been higher before without temperatures exploding, and you say it doesn't count because "the planet was different then".

But you then turn around and pick just one of those periods where temperatures were actually higher and say "this one counts! the rest don't!" Huh?


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
Vitaly, please don't play ignorant. I've proved to you repeatedly that CO2 levels have been much higher many times in the past. In some of those periods, temperatures have also been higher, in some they've been lower.

Do you seriously believe its valid to ignore all the periods temperatures were lower, and cherry pick a single time when they were higher?

You're also still ignoring the critical point here. In ALL these periods INCLUDING the one you name, temperatures began to decline on their own...despite the fact that CO2 levels were still rising.

Explain that, or pipe down and move along.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 2:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
"In the past it was much easier for nature to rebound "

Prove it.

"there were no detrimental human activities on environment, pollution (extra CO2), "

As I've already proven, human sources of CO2 are far smaller than natural sources, even today. And that still ignores the point. Why did temperatures decline in the past even when CO2 levels were still rising?

I've asked you this question five times now. Five times now you've ignored it.

"Overall conditions are only going to worsen with the rising human population"

In other words, the sky is falling, Chicken Little?


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/2010 5:42:53 PM , Rating: 1
Why did temperatures decline in the past even when CO2 levels were still rising?

What kind of general question is that, do I really have to explain to you what causes climate cycles on earth? You don't know what "Milankovitch" cycle is (changes in the Earth's orbit that changes the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons), effect of these orbital cycles and long term changes, do I have to educate you on long ice ages and interglacials, albedo, the solubility of CO2 in water, ocean release of CO2, undeniable correlation of CO2 on past temperatures? Really? Maybe you should not debate this topic at all if your position is concentrated on just dismissing science.

science:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 6:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do I really have to explain to you what causes climate cycles on earth?

Yes, if you're going to claim (or side with those claiming) that we should be afraid of those climate cycles and wildly adjust our lives accordingly.


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 6:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
"You don't know what "Milankovitch" cycle is "

I know better than you. I also know that, while (many) past climate shifts correspond with Milankovitch cycles, energy budget calculations as to total solar insolation changes from those cycles don't even begin to explain the resultant effects.

"So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise"

Sure, no one is disputing that. But then, despite massively higher CO2 levels, a negligible shift in insolation suddenly causes temperatures to drop...despite CO2 levels much higher than those found today, levels that still continue to increase even as temperatures drop.

The conclusion is obvious. While CO2 is a moderately effectively GHG at low temperatures, as soon as the earth's atmosphere warms to the point that significant water vapor is present, its effects become negligible.

This should also be obvious not just from a paleoclimatic perspective, but from basic radiative physics as well. CO2 absorbs in a very narrow IR band, a band covered almost entirely (and more effectively) by water vapor. When water vapor is in the air, CO2 can't absorb those wavelengths...they've already been trapped.


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 5:28:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Overall conditions are only going to worsen with the rising human population

Especially if we cripple our ability to adjust to the rising human population by going along with Al Gore's fairy tale.


RE: Any credibility
By Kurz on 3/1/2010 5:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Really you really think Cap and Trade will do anything?
Oil is cheap, alternatives suck (Nuclear has its place) expensive and we are not quite there yet with them. They need to be economically viable before oil can be replaced.

What conditions? the only places suffering are local wildlife and rain forests. But CO2 is not to blame for those. We are going into their habitats and clearing it out.

Before you start saying Cap and Trade will make alternatives viable. A tax is meant to control and destroy.
It'll make it economically harder to research into alternatives since we still use Fossil energy to research them. All its going to do is slow down development.



RE: Any credibility
By croc on 3/1/2010 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 1
"Proved???" Seems to me that all you have done is express opinions with no factual data to back up said opinions. Proof would require credible data from a reputable source.

Speculation can be fun... But speculation does not equate to proof.


RE: Any credibility
By nafhan on 3/1/2010 11:16:24 AM , Rating: 2
We don't have a firm grasp on what the natural cycle is. So... how do you know that we are out of step with it? Also, putting "-science" at the end of your post doesn't make what you say factual!
-skeptic


RE: Any credibility
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:09:22 PM , Rating: 1
Whoever is rating Vitaly down, please don't. Unlike the AGW alarmists, who continually harrass, shout down, and even threaten those who disagree, we have nothing to hide from honest debate. Far from it.


RE: Any credibility
By MrPeabody on 3/1/2010 10:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that is basically the whole point of emissions trading; to stimulate development of greener energy.


Only, you basically said it yourself: this policy does not stimulate "green" companies so much as it retards the competitiveness of CO2 emitters.

If this bill passes, you can be sure that the general economy will become much more retarded.


RE: Any credibility
By JediJeb on 3/1/2010 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. This policy makes them less competitive, that is basically the whole point of emissions trading; to stimulate development of greener energy.


If people are really concerned about the planet, then they would just give their unused emission load to others that need them. Why would something good for the planet need to be bought and sold? The very fact that there are people out there that will make a lot of money off the cap and trade program shows that it is more about politics, profit and power than it is about protecting the environment.


RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 10:36:24 AM , Rating: 4
Speaking of credibility, you have to love when Mick opens with..

quote:
There's a mounting movement to discredit research that our world is warming.


Really ? Is that what's going on ? Because I thought they discredited themselves by lying and bullying and manipulating data, and now we're trying to get to the truth of the matter.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/2010 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 4
"Because I thought they discredited themselves by lying and bullying and manipulating data"

http://i.imgur.com/E1VtY.jpg

You'll thank me later.


RE: Any credibility
By albundy2 on 3/1/2010 12:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I've got a hang over, mind explainin yer pic? I want it to be funny, but it hurt's me at the moment.


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 5:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
Clearly, he's provided irrefutable proof that if one skeptic does a poor job at explaining himself, they all do. That's why it's bad to be a skeptic, because they're all magically tethered together into a singular entity, with one opinion, one mouthpiece, and one train of thought.

On the other hand, sciencists (people that are good at sounding sciency) are unique and dynamic individuals with a fervent desire to get to the truth and would NEVER manipulate data to push a political agenda that can greatly benefit themselves in a financial way. Never.


RE: Any credibility
By VitalyTheUnknown on 3/1/2010 6:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Since all his drivel on climate topic practically always gets him 5 perfect points on DT he is essentially here a highly regarded expert on climate science, or as I like to call him "the sewage of collective ignorance".


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 7:55:07 PM , Rating: 3
One can make excellent points and do a good job expressing ideas without being an "expert". It looks like you're making up things in your head in order to avoid having to deal with those excellent points. Your antagonized tone is clearly indicative of your hazy state of mind. I suggest you take some soma and have a long nap, maybe a good twelve hours.


RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 6:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm I did a damn good job explaining myself actually :)


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 7:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but HE doesn't know that!


RE: Any credibility
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 5:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
Because you can't have science without launching SPACE MISSIONS!!!


RE: Any credibility
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 7:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
lol you know what I love ? He went through all that trouble to prove me wrong, and uses an article where they spent billions of dollars over a period of years, and STILL the best answer is :

Most of the observed increase in global temperatures is VERY LIKELY due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Very likely ? That is not a definitive answer. That is not a scientific factual statement. Too much as at stake here, sorry but "very likely" doesn't cut it.

Also nowhere does it say "man made". Since we all know (or should know) the largest contributor of greenhouses gasses on the planet comes in the form of water vapor and other natural processes.

So I mean.. points to him for creativity I guess ? But as far as "owning" me or whatever he attempted to do, it kinda fell flat.

Man-made climate change is a hoax. We all know it is, and only the most ignorant or personally motivated scoundrels still believe in it.

Gore is a scumbag. He helped create a hoax in order to become a millionaire. If there were any justice in the world he and others like him and all those bastards at the IPCC would be in jail.


RE: Any credibility
By fic2 on 3/1/2010 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 3
My analogy of carbon credits is:
Assassin/killer want to kill 3 people so he has to have 3 kids to offset his "kill allowance".


RE: Any credibility
By jimbojimbo on 3/1/2010 1:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
You should also add that Gore will offer to have those 3 kids for you for a large chunk of money.


OH ... MY ... GORE!
By just4U on 3/1/2010 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 3
He didn't just liken climate scepticism to the evils of the tobacco industry .... (shakes head) and to call people deniers on top of it?

Peope like him do science a disservice..




RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:42:19 AM , Rating: 5
"A data point here and there doesn't make your case "

How about the fact that the earth stopped warming 15 years ago? How about the fact that the earth warmed faster from 1860-1880 than it did 1970-1995? How about the fact that it was warmer during Medieval times (the MCO) than it is today? How about the fact that rising CO2 levels have never before caused runaway warming, even during periods of the earth's history where they were 10 or even 20 times higher than they are today? How about the fact that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, rather than accelerating?

How about the fact that the IPCC has been found to be intentionally falsifying its claims? How about the fact that every single prediction made by AGW alarmists about how the world would be in 2010 turned out to be false?

And worse of all, how about the fact, that even if the IPCC is correct, it'll still be far cheaper to take a few easy mitigatory actions, rather than to reduce carbon emissions?


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:50:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"How about the fact that the earth stopped warming 15 years ago? False"
True. And even the scientist running the East Anglia Climate Center (one of the shrillest voices in support of AGW) now admits it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...

quote:
"Without researching it, I dunno. Maybe there was more atmospheric CO2 in the earlier periods. Maybe there was a difference in solar activity. If you know, why don't you just go ahead and tell us all?"
In other words -- "forget the laws of physics, I still want to believe!" And you call us creationists?

quote:
Straw man. Runaway warming isn't claimed
What rock have you been living under? Here's just a FEW of the thousands of times runaway warming has been claimed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/27/...
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscienc...
http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=5596
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0124-11.ht...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...

quote:
It's still rising during whatever periods that you didn't name.
Way to ignore the point. If the sea was rising much faster thousands of years ago than it is today, then there's no reason to believe that lowering CO2 emissions are going to have any affect on the process.

quote:
Even if that were true... Piltdown Man
Flawed analogy. Piltdown man had nothing to do with the core science of evolution. The IPCC found faking data is more akin to showing Charles Darwin faked his research.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By kaoken on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 4
Are you intentionally trying to embarrass yourself? AGW researchers such as James Hansen, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, and many others have often used the phrases "runaway warming" and "tipping point" countless times.

Even more amusing is that, even if you were right and it was all just a media-generated phenomenon...then why should we worry about AGW at all? If there's no runaway warming, there's no problem.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 2:19:26 PM , Rating: 4
"I'd want to see the data on which Jones' admission was based"

Sure. Right here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03...

I can give you the direct satellite data link if you wish, but here its in nice graphical form.

There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Since 2001, there has actually been very slight cooling.

That of course, ignores the distorting UHI effect on world temperatures, which may mean the reported data is showing warmer than it actually is.

" I'm a bit leery of a reporter's ability to accurately interpret and paraphrase a quote from a researcher. "

You can't wiggle out that easily, sorry. Here's the full text of Phil Jones BBC interview, not paraphrased in the least:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

"Under my rock, "runaway" connotes a positive feedback system in which temperature just plain keeps rising until the biosphere is destroyed"

You said "runaway warming isn't being claimed". When I show it is, you try to redefine the term based on what you think it should mean?

After a cop out like this, why should we take anything you say seriously? You obviously have no interest in intellectual honesty.

And for the record, many people (including James Hansen himself) have claimed that runaway warming would result in the destruction of a significant portion of the earth's biosphere.

"A lot of factors go into global temperature change and sea level change."

Again, the cop out. Whenever serious flaws in AGW orthodoxy are pointed out, an AGW alarmist always falls back on phrases like "there's a lot of factors" and "we can't really say for sure".

What happened to "certainty" and "consensus" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"?


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 5:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Here's what you claimed of Phil Jones:
quote:
And even the scientist running the East Anglia Climate Center (one of the shrillest voices in support of AGW) now admits [the earth stopped warming 15 years ago]

....

There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 . Since 2001, there has actually been very slight cooling.

Your two statements don't quite line up. Close, but not quite.

Here's what he actually said in the transcript you kindly provided:

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

A: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

So he didn't say the planet stopped warming 15 years ago. He said the warming of the last 15 years is not quite enough to be statistically significant (as you almost said the second time around), possibly due to the short time span (which you didn't mention). Notably, you mention cooling since 2001, but Jones said that's not statistically significant, either, due to an even shorter period. Well, if the warming didn't happen because it wasn't statistically significant, then neither did the cooling. You can't have it both ways.
quote:
You said "runaway warming isn't being claimed". When I show it is, you try to redefine the term based on what you think it should mean?

After a cop out like this, why should we take anything you say seriously? You obviously have no interest in intellectual honesty.

Given that I never defined the term at all in my first response, redefinition would seem rather out of the question. But hey, thanks for taking what was my innocent misunderstanding of what you were trying to communicate, and turning it into an accusation of cop out and lack of intellectual honesty. <sarcasm>That'll sure win me over.</sarcasm>

quote:
And for the record, many people (including James Hansen himself) have claimed that runaway warming would result in the destruction of a significant portion of the earth's biosphere.

OK. A "significant portion" wasn't quite what I thought was meant by "runaway" anyhow. In any case, what I thought was meant, and what you actually meant, were two different things.

quote:
"A lot of factors go into global temperature change and sea level change."

Again, the cop out. Whenever serious flaws in AGW orthodoxy are pointed out, an AGW alarmist always falls back on phrases like "there's a lot of factors" and "we can't really say for sure".

What happened to "certainty" and "consensus" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Climate scientists are certain about some things, and uncertain about others. And in my case, I'm uncertain about a whole lot of things related to GW, because I've only scratched the surface in my reading, and am learning as I go. One of the few things I've be able to discern with certainty is that climate is a very complex system, the workings of which I struggle to wrap my mind around. Stating as much isn't a cop out - it's an honest acknowledgment of ignorance. Nor am I an alarmist, nor am I in any way acknowledging flaws in GW "orthodoxy".


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 6:22:57 PM , Rating: 1
"Nor am I in any way acknowledging flaws in GW "orthodoxy". "

There is no "GW orthodoxy". There is AGW orthodoxy, which you claim to not be supporting, yet we can't seem to get a clear answer out of you either way.

"Here's what he actually said in the transcript you kindly provided"

He said there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. I said exactly that. AGW theory predicts that temperatures should have risen faster than ever before. Instead, they've actually declined very slightly since 2001. (as for Jones' refusal to admit the statistical significance of that cooling, that's irrelevant. Other researchers have been more forthright).

Stacey, you are remarkably adept at dodging questions. I'll ask a few of them again. Why has the earth stopped warming? Even when it was warming, why did it do so slower than it did back in 1860-1880? If CO2 emissions are the primary driver, why did we see half of all industrial warming before 1940, in a period in which carbon emissions were negligible by today's standards? Why was the earth warmer in Medieval times, and again during Roman times?

And most important of all -- why should we be alarmed, when all the truly frightening claims about AGW (flooded cities, mass desertification, large scale temperature chances) have all been shown to be without basis? Even if AGW turns out to be true, its going to be anything from a mild annoyance to a huge benefit to mankind.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:52:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
AGW theory predicts that temperatures should have risen faster than ever before. Instead, they've actually declined very slightly since 2001.

As mentioned in a different post, I'm suspending judgment as to whether temperatures failed to rise during the period. But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period. I think it would predict a rise, given a rise in atmospheric CO2, all else being equal. Assuming you're right about there not being a rise in temperatures, my guess is that all else was not equal, and that it was not equal in such a way that the net effect on temperatures was basically nothing.

quote:
Stacey, you are remarkably adept at dodging questions. I'll ask a few of them again...

As I've said before, I don't know the answers to some of your questions. Acknowledging ignorance isn't a dodge. If you know the answers, please tell me what they are.

quote:
why should we be alarmed, when all the truly frightening claims about AGW (flooded cities, mass desertification, large scale temperature chances) have all been shown to be without basis? Even if AGW turns out to be true, its going to be anything from a mild annoyance to a huge benefit to mankind.

As I've said several times before, I don't care what alarmist have to say. From that fact, I'd think you could surmise that I don't advocate for alarmism. I think if AGW is true, there will be winners and losers as regional climate patterns change. That means societal disruption, perhaps to the point of upheaval, for the losers. Perhaps their upheaval will be your mild annoyance. *shrugs*

Honestly, I hope GW and its implications are false. I think our politicians are (and will always be) too hopelessly spineless to actually do anything to tackle it or any other large-scale problems.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 9:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
" I'm suspending judgment as to whether temperatures failed to rise during the period"

In other words, despite irrefutable satellite temperature data, and the admissions of some of the most famous AGW supporters on the planet, you still fail to believe the evidence of your own eyes?

Are you normally this irrational?

"But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period"

Wrong again, courtesy of Hansen, et. al 1988:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_et...

Look at fig. 3, pg 1947.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By bety on 3/1/2010 10:44:39 PM , Rating: 1
Game, Set, and Match Porkpie. What a blowout...Stacey didn't win a single point....


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I'm suspending judgment as to whether temperatures failed to rise during the period"

In other words, despite irrefutable satellite temperature data, and the admissions of some of the most famous AGW supporters on the planet, you still fail to believe the evidence of your own eyes?

Are you normally this irrational?

I have two sets of irrefutable observed temperature data that disagree. In the end, I will likely go with the data you offered, on account of it being more recent. For the time being, though, I am withholding judgment until I have an opportunity to sort out the disagreement. That's not an irrational stance at all.

quote:
"But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period"

Wrong again, courtesy of Hansen, et. al 1988:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_et...

Look at fig. 3, pg 1947.

The fact that you pointed me to a figure (on page 9347, not 1947) demonstrates that you did not understand my statement. The figure does not tell me what formula was used to graph it. It doesn't tell me what constants were used, nor what the control variables were, nor what, if any, independent variables other than atmospheric CO2 were considered. I did go back to section "2. Climate Model", on page 9342 to get what I was really after. And it shows that my statement was correct. The section mentions "limitations" (a.k.a. caveats) in the very first sentence, then expounds on some of them, and apparently refers back to an earlier paper, Hansen 1983, for more. It also mentions that it was not just CO2 that was an independent variable, but also a number of other "trace gases". Besides that, several control variables are named. Those control variables, of course, are not controlled in real life. Just as I suggested, all else is not equal. So yes, Hansen 1988 predicted a temperature rise during the period, but they also did so with caveats. My statement stands.

I will also note here that you have ignored my repeated requests for answers to those questions you asked me, but that I did not know the answer to. Am I to assume that you do not have answers to the questions for which you demanded answers from me? As a reminder, here are your questions, which you have thus far refused to answer:

"Why has the earth stopped warming? Even when it was warming, why did it do so slower than it did back in 1860-1880? If CO2 emissions are the primary driver, why did we see half of all industrial warming before 1940, in a period in which carbon emissions were negligible by today's standards? Why was the earth warmer in Medieval times, and again during Roman times?"


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Kurz on 3/2/2010 3:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why argue when you don't know the issues at hand?
The best debater is one that can see both sides of the argument and understand all the information we do have (Even though it pales in comparison to how much data there is to be had).

If you truly are interested in learning about AGW and truths behind it. Read up on the skeptics. Read why they don't agree with it. Go to Porkpie's links and branch off from them.

There is a lot of many to be made, but for sure its not you that will be making any. Unless you invest in the Hoax Carbon Credits.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 2:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why argue when you don't know the issues at hand?

I do know some things about the topic at hand. Primarily, Although I'm pretty much a noob to the (A)GW debate, I do have several years of experience debating against religionists and creationists, in particular. So I readily recognize all the tactics (A)GW deniers use are the same tactics that creationists use to push their agenda. (Not surprising, considering there's so much overlap between the two groups.) That's the (somewhat) unique value I bring to the debate.

I'm also here to learn, and I am learning, both from my opponents, and from what I find when fact-checking their claims. That relates to the other value I bring, which is a solid ability to marshal the powers of Bing and Google. (Which, I realize, is probably not very unique among this crowd.)


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2010 7:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I'm not so sure that AGW theory predicted a rise, no caveats, during the period. I think it would predict a rise, given a rise in atmospheric CO2, all else being equal.


That's a lie. Remember the famous "hockey stick" graph ?

quote:
As I've said before, I don't know the answers to some of your questions. Acknowledging ignorance isn't a dodge. If you know the answers, please tell me what they are.


lol so you don't know critical points, but you'll still argue for AWG ?


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a lie. Remember the famous "hockey stick" graph ?

I'm not so sure you know what "lie" means. It's not a synonym for "incorrect". In any case, yes, I've heard of the "hockey stick" graph from Mann. But it's irrelevant to my statement. See my comment with timestamp "3/3/2010 1:48:51 PM" for details.
quote:
lol so you don't know critical points, but you'll still argue for AWG ?

See my comment at 3/3/2010 2:25:52 PM for an explanation of why I'm posting here.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/3/2010 6:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
You are one of the most evasive posters I have ever seen. You have a truly dizzying intellect. You can't / won't answer even the simplest questions directly. You refuse to acknowledge ANY points of the other side, and instead simply claim ignorance or deflect the point all together.

This isn't a Religious website. I don't care that you "believe" in global warming, that's not a valid argument.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Kurz on 3/1/2010 9:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Adding on to you Porkpie.

Why after 15 years of putting out 400+ Gigatonnes of CO2 has the temperature hasn't increased *Statistically speaking* (I hate nick pickers).


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Kurz on 3/1/2010 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Pork I always love your posts.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By nstott on 3/1/2010 12:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot my favorite: that the relationship between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is not linear for a finitely thick atmposphere:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By whiskerwill on 3/1/2010 12:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
language that somehow manages to be an even dumber misuse of terms.
You use a term like "even dumber" then want to lecture the rest of us on our education?

I think your Piltdown hoax analogy is best applied to the alarmists. They took a single warm year (1998) and used it to scare the rest of us into thinking some catastrophe is coming, when no one in the research community is actually saying that at all.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 1:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You use a term like "even dumber" then want to lecture the rest of us on our education?

Please do tell me... What, exactly, is wrong with my use of that term? I'm curious. My statement was grammatically correct, as well as descriptive of its subject. The link I provided goes into detail about why the language of the new South Dakota law is ridiculous.
quote:
I think your Piltdown hoax analogy is best applied to the alarmists. They took a single warm year (1998) and used it to scare the rest of us into thinking some catastrophe is coming, when no one in the research community is actually saying that at all.

As I told another respondent above, I don't care what alarmists say.

The analogy does apply to GW deniers' claims. There was an isolated pro-evolution hoax that evolution deniers used to try to discredit a vast body of research that independently supported evolution. Similarly, there have been some isolated mistakes (intentional or not) that GW deniers are using to try to discredit a vast body of research that independently supports GW.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Show us one research paper from this "vast body" that demonstrates catastrophic warming is being caused by anthropogenic emissions. Just one.

And please, don't insult us by trying to move the bar. There's plenty of evidence that man is affecting climate somewhat (although more from land use changes and deforestation than emissions). But a paper that shows some catastrophic result from man's emissions.

We'll wait. We'll have to.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 2:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I've not said anything about AGW (let alone emissions vs. land use and deforestation). Only talked about GW. So you're the one moving the bar.

Nonetheless, I took a minute, and found this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14657489

It was really quite convenient, since the abstract of this very first paper I came across in one minute of searching says:

quote:
Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important...


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 2:52:50 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa, whoa there Bessie! You moved the bar. I said show us a paper that showed human emissions were causing catastrophe. You respond with a 7 year old abstract saying "There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected".

The closest thing this comes to predicting calamity is saying change 'could' be 'disruptive'. Furthermore, you didn't even pick a research paper, you picked a synthesis paper. Do you know the difference?

And you certainly picked a doozie of an author. By Kevin Trenberth himself, one of the scientists at the center of the "Climategate" scandal of faked and altered data galore.

Let's here what Trenberth says TODAY, shall we, rather than 7 years ago.

quote:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...
K. Trenberth, Oct 2009.
In other words, its not his pet theory that's wrong, its the real world.

Care to try again?


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 4:18:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You moved the bar. I said show us a paper that showed human emissions were causing catastrophe.

For the second time: I never made any claims at all regarding A GW. That means you moved the bar.

Your hair-splitting criticism is ridiculous, besides. You're not gonna see a buttoned-down group of people like research scientists publish papers literally saying "'Catastrophe' happening now and more on the way!!!11one" They're professionally modest. Scientists are generally pretty good about stating the caveats of their research and what they don't yet know. Reporters who report about those papers, OTOH...
quote:
you didn't even pick a research paper, you picked a synthesis paper. Do you know the difference?

Of course I know the difference. I just don't know why it would make a difference, in this context, that I voluntarily jumped through your contrived hoop with a synthesis paper rather than a research paper. You were, after all, wanting at least one example, and I gave you a paper that synthesized multiple examples. Would you rather I had dug up one of its source research papers to reference instead?

quote:
And you certainly picked a doozie of an author. By Kevin Trenberth himself, one of the scientists at the center of the "Climategate" scandal of faked and altered data galore. Let's here what Trenberth says TODAY, shall we, rather than 7 years ago.
quote:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate...


K. Trenberth, Oct 2009. In other words, its not his pet theory that's wrong, its the real world. Care to try again?

That's not what Trenberth said TODAY. It's a line he said back in October, which he has more recently said was taken out of context. Here are more recent comments:

quote:
"I'm involved in 102 of the e-mails," Trenberth said. "I don't see anything embarrassing to me particularly. There are a few things that can be taken out of context, and they have been."

That includes the line about a "lack of warming," which Trenberth says was part of a longer message intended to highlight shortcomings in scientists' understanding of recent temperature fluctuations.

"We've always had some problems with the observing system," he said. "It's obviously not as good as we would like, and that's true of the temperature record, as well. What this is saying is we need better observations. What it's not saying is that global warming is not here."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatew...

Care to try again? :-)


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 4:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
"For the second time: I never made any claims at all regarding A GW. That means you moved the bar."

Stop wiggling. Do you or don't you believe in AGW. Just answer the question, rather than dodging it.

Then for bonus points, perhaps you'd like to retract your statement that the earth didn't stop warming in 1995?

"You're not gonna see a buttoned-down group of people like research scientists publish papers literally saying "'Catastrophe' "

Oh really? How about the book "The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe ", by James Hansen, head of NASA's GISS:

http://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Cata...

Drop this nonsense, please. Plenty of AGW researchers have cried wolf. There's no need to deny it.

"It's a line he said back in October, which he has more recently said was taken out of context"

The context is clear. Trenberth can say it was part of a "larger discussion" all he wants, but its clearly just damage control. He was upset because the temperature record shows no warming, and he doesn't understand why.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 6:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and for the weak-minded who believe Trenberth was "taken out of context", here's his entire email:
quote:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't . The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_...

Kevin
In a follow up email, he says:

quote:
Hi Tom

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
And again with this:
quote:
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on
land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes
into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and
burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like we cross-posted about the fuller context of the Trenberth email series. (I looked it up myself at the same time you quoted it here.) The references I provided in response should suffice to counter your interpretation of Trenberth.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 9:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an even better email from Dr. Phil, our favorite climate researcher:
quote:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK


http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon, porkpie. I may be a noob to the (A)GW debate, but I'm not so naive as to fall for that lame quote-mine. It's been thoroughly dealt with in all the news reports for some time now. That FactCheck.org report I linked earlier (http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/) comments on it:

quote:
Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.

Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
(Apparently the DT software thinks my comments are spam now. I'll try to respond in smaller chunks, or with fewer URL references, or something...)


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 8:31:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
(Apparently the DT software thinks my comments are spam now.


I think they're garbage. Too bad DT doesn't have a wastebin.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:05:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stop wiggling. Do you or don't you believe in AGW.

Sure I do, although my opinion wavers as to the extent of it. I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW. Thus, I'm not "wiggling", and you moved the bar in demanding that I defend AGW claims that I never made in the first place.

quote:
perhaps you'd like to retract your statement that the earth didn't stop warming in 1995?

No, but I'm willing to suspend judgment until I can sort some things out. The data you referenced conflicts with data I have previously seen, which showed an unambiguous warming trend over that period. For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumenta...

quote:
"You're not gonna see a buttoned-down group of people like research scientists publish papers literally saying "'Catastrophe' "

Oh really? How about the book "The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe ", by James Hansen, head of NASA's GISS:

You just got after me for referencing a synthesis paper instead of a research paper, and you turn around and reference a popular market book in response to my comment about published papers?! Yeah, the author is a climate scientist. That doesn't make the book a published paper.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 8:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW.

Sure ya did, even if you don't know it. I can cite examples and explain to you exactly how you did it, if you like.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, you're welcome to cite and explain.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 11:21:35 PM , Rating: 1
Don't mind if I do!

quote:
Does Gore give GW research a bad name? Yes. He's an alarmist.

Your claim about Al Gore, one of the most prominent figures in promoting... AGW!

quote:
But at the same time, most of the people commenting on GW stories here at DailyTech give skeptics a bad name.

Your assertions about skeptics of... AGW!

quote:
Runaway warming isn't claimed.

Your assertion about a central tenant of... AGW!

quote:
I think if AGW is true, there will be winners and losers as regional climate patterns change.

And here you are, making direct assertions about... AGW!

Significant? Nah, but then I never said they were. However, it does stand as testament that you are very unaware of the things you yourself are saying and simply undermines your entire position. But thank you, though, for the opportunity to prove how friggin' right I am, pedantic though I may be.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 11:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hi SPOOFE,

Thanks for coming back and taking the effort to respond. You are incorrect, though, that I was arguing for AGW, at least up to the time I made the statement to porkpie that I wasn't. In fact, all the quotes you listed were my statements in defense of GW (no "A" on the front). The exception being the final quote, which, you may note by the timestamp on it, came only after my claim to not be arguing in favor of AGW, when porkpie explicitly asked for my response on some AGW matters. I recognize that, with the nested structure of the comments here, one can easily become confused about the temporal order of longer discussions, so no hard feelings.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 9:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
" Yeah, the author is a climate scientist. That doesn't make the book a published paper. "

You've painted yourself into a corner unfortunately. So you're now claiming that no single published research paper has ever stated we're facing catastrophic results as a result of global warming?

If true-- then why should we worry?

" The data you referenced conflicts with data I have previously seen"

Ah, a Wikipedia link to the famously discredited hockey-stick graph. I hope you won't embarrass us or you by claiming that has any validity.

" I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW. Thus, I'm not "wiggling""

If you're not wiggling, answer the question. Do you or do you not believe in AGW? You've ignored the direct question four times now.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 3:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've painted yourself into a corner unfortunately. So you're now claiming that no single published research paper has ever stated we're facing catastrophic results as a result of global warming?

I'm saying that I'd be very surprised to find published papers stating that there will be "catastrophic results", using that kind of emotive language. Emotive language is for the mass media, not scientific journals.

quote:
Ah, a Wikipedia link to the famously discredited hockey-stick graph. I hope you won't embarrass us or you by claiming that has any validity.

Considering you linked me to a bare graph from retired meteorologist Anthony Watts' blog - which I was unable to find within the context of any blog post, and which turned up no references whatsoever from Google - I didn't think linking to a fully annotated Wikipedia graphic would be any sort of crime, in comparison.

And besides that, I did NOT link to the hockey stick graph (discredited or not). I linked to a graph of observed temperatures, and it's not even shaped like a full hockey stick, because it only goes back to 1880! You'd know that if you had bothered to read the title: "Instrumental Temperature Record" . Here's the link again, for your convenience: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumenta...

quote:
" I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW. Thus, I'm not "wiggling""

If you're not wiggling, answer the question. Do you or do you not believe in AGW? You've ignored the direct question four times now.

Can you read? I answered the question the one and only previous time you asked me, and my answer is in the sentence I said immediately before the two that you just got done quoting! Here it is, again: " Sure I do [believe in AGW], although my opinion wavers as to the extent of it. I just didn't make any claims regarding AGW. Thus, I'm not 'wiggling'."


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/1/2010 8:16:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The context is clear. Trenberth can say it was part of a "larger discussion" all he wants, but its clearly just damage control. He was upset because the temperature record shows no warming, and he doesn't understand why.

Well, both of the "umpire" analyses that I've seen say that the "smoking gun" lines from the hacked emails have been taken out of context. (The "umpires" were three independent scientists asked to review the emails by the AP: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705351090/ , as well as Factcheck.org: http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ )

I also tried looking up the email myself (http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=1048&s=t... ). Given the poor formatting and my ignorance of some of the acronyms used, I had a tough time following the discussion. But after some further searching, I did find some comments about what Trenberth's context was, from Trenberth himself, in some cases. That context does not support your interpretation. See:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-email...
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1853 (see responses from "gavin" in comments 138 and 231, in particular).


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 9:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
"Well, both of the "umpire" analyses that I've seen say that the "smoking gun" lines from the hacked emails have been taken out of context. "

Are you intentionally trying to lie to us? Or are you just unable to read your own links? They say no such thing. One of your links even says specifically that it demonstrates the scientists involved "harbored private doubts" about AGW.


RE: OH ... MY ... GORE!
By Stacey Melissa on 3/3/2010 3:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Well, both of the "umpire" analyses that I've seen say that the "smoking gun" lines from the hacked emails have been taken out of context. "

Are you intentionally trying to lie to us? Or are you just unable to read your own links? They say no such thing. One of your links even says specifically that it demonstrates the scientists involved "harbored private doubts" about AGW.

Way to quote-mine again, porkpie. It's a favorite tactic of creationists, who love to pull quotes out of context from Origin of Species to claim Darwin didn't really believe in his own theory. Here's the full "harbored private doubts" paragraph from the AP article:

quote:
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

So yeah, they harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting... Now why would you leave that second part out?

Now, to the larger point. I said that the articles said "the 'smoking gun' lines from the hacked emails have been taken out of context." In response, you said, "Are you intentionally trying to lie to us? Or are you just unable to read your own links? They say no such thing." It seems I need to put up some direct quotes, to prove you wrong. First from the FactCheck.org article:
quote:
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented.

And now from the AP article:
quote:
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.

Now then, are you lying, or are you just unable to read links provided to you?


Except...
By killerroach on 3/1/2010 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 3
...the science of anthropogenic global warming is far from settled. Is the climate changing? Of course; it almost always is. Is the change for the worse? We don't really know. Is emission of carbon dioxide from human activities causing catastrophic damage to the planet?

...the last part still seems like hubris to me.




RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
".. but 90% of scientists agree with me."

I've posted statistics disproving this countless tims. Most scientists actually disagree that carbon emissions are causing catastrophic damage.

" reduce your CO2 ouput and save yourself money"

Please don't spread disinformation. Government-mandated CO2 reductions are estimated -- even by the most ardent AGW supporters -- to cost several tens of trillions of dollars. There is no "savings" in the AGW plan.

As for your little hominy about wood vs. oil, burning wood in home stoves or boilers releases much more particulate matter and other pollutants, than does oil or even coal burned at an EPA regulated power plant.


RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/2010 11:17:29 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, I was not talking about your Presidents scheme. The AGW plan is crap, I agree with you on that.

I was talking about reducing your personal household emissions. Not the same thing.

You can save yourself living costs by reducing you CO2 emissions at home. It is a fact (I know, cos I have done it)


RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
True. You can save living costs (and reduce emissions) by cutting back on vacations, buying a smaller house, buying less consumer goods, etc. All these lower your standard of living, however.

If you want to do that, then reducing emissions is easy. In fact, the environmentalists desire for a low-tech, anti-industrial, anti-consumerist lifestyle is the primary driving factor behind the myth of CAGW.


RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/2010 11:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
I dont mind debating with you, as you dont resort to personnel attack like the other idiot.

Installing solar panels, wood boilers etc does not effect my lifestyle. In fact, it improves it by reducing my day to day living costs. I have more money to spend now on stuff I like doing, rather than spending it on oil.... e.g. I can get a expand my house, cos it costs me less to run it.


RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
Solar panels (if you mean electricity-producing PV panels) do not reduce costs. They increase them dramatically. Even when you factor in government subsidies and tax credits (which simply shifts some of the costs onto the rest of us) they are still more expensive than traditional sources.

Wood burning stoves may save you money. But as I've pointed out, they're considerably more polluting than other alternativs.


RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/2010 11:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
I cant talk about the USA on solar panels (PV), but where I live, PV panels just about make you money now (only just though). However, I was referring mainly to water heating ones (which mean I can produce free hot water 8 months of the year, without having to burn wood or use electricity).

I dont agree with you about wood boilers being more polluting than oil boilers. As I mentioned before, I use a modern wood burner in the boiler, and use wood from a managed forest.

have you researched modern wood burners recently?

I did all the research before investing in this (it is not something to do lightly) and wood was the cleanest and cheapest way to heat my house. This is a fact.

In an urban area, I would not of used wood. But I live in a small village, where the forest is managed (cut and planted) by the local village authorities, and wood was the best choice.


RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
"I dont agree with you about wood boilers being more polluting than oil boilers"

They are several times more polluting than natural gas or electric heat, and usually worse than home oil burners:

http://www.burningissues.org


RE: Except...
By adiposity on 3/1/2010 1:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you dont resort to personnel attack like the other idiot.


lol...awesome.


RE: Except...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
People like him proves the falsehood of statement: "well even if AGW isn't true, at least we're reducing real pollution". Had he switched to natural gas or electric heat, he would have reduced pollution...instead he's INCREASING pollution, under the guise of reducing carbon emissions.

And yes, he is reducing CO2. If he doesn't burn the tree, it'll decay naturally anyway, and release most of its carbon back into the air. But a higher CO2 level would simply stimulate the biosphere, whereas instead he's generating damaging toxins.


RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
"If I wanted to use gas, I would have to dig a huge hole in my garden, install a huge tank full of gas, and get regular deliveries by a 18 ton truck"

So you're saying you're not willing to do that in order to reduce pollution? But you want to preach to us about how we need to cut back?

The return of wood burning is proof positive of the idiocy of the environmental movement. Were they not restricting domestic production of oil, the much more damaging and polluting use of wood fuel would not be economic.


RE: Except...
By safcman84 on 3/1/2010 11:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
Are you reading a word I write?

Natural gas reduces pollution in Urban areas (cos it is piped directly). Delivery by truck is not efficient in rural areas.

I looked into all of this, and did all the calculations on cost and pollution. Wood boiler was the way to go.

I am not a tree hugging hippy hell bent on making my home emission free, I would not of done it if it wasnt the best thing to do.

I reduced my carbon footprint by using a MODERN (efficient) wood boiler with wood from a MANAGED forest, while reducing my living costs and without effecting my lifestyle.


RE: Except...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:58:50 AM , Rating: 4
The pollution footprint of having a gas truck come to your house once every three months is negligible. Wood burning stoves are many times more polluting than natural gas, or use of electric heat. They're usually even worse than home oil burners:

http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html

What matters here is the impact you're having on air quality...something that directly affects the health and well being of you and your neighbors. In your blind rush to reduce a meaningless "carbon footprint", you've actually increased pollution significantly.

This is why the environmentalist movement is so dangerous. Their attacks on nuclear power shut down the industry, and gave us another 30 years of dirty, polluting coal power plants.


RE: Except...
By kaoken on 3/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Except...
By nstott on 3/1/2010 4:00:03 PM , Rating: 1
kaoken, you obviously are an uneducated troll at least.


RE: Except...
By kaoken on 3/1/2010 10:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Read what that porkpie troll is writing. He isn't even listening to what sac is even saying.


RE: Except...
By thepalinator on 3/1/2010 10:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you just can't read? Is english a foreign language to you?


RE: Except...
By IMothaFreaky on 3/1/2010 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget the energy requirement to cut, dry and transport the firewood to your house!

I would argue that while, if done properly, there is nothing wrong with wood burning, it is far from the "best" way to go. Did you consider geo-thermal? Pulls natural heat from the Earth at a very low operational cost and no carbon involvement at all, save the initial setup and the small amount of power required to run it.
But please people, carbon value should not be the dollar equivalent for mother nature. High carbon DOES NOT EQUATE to poor life. It's about wasting life versus using it efficiently.


RE: Except...
By itzmec on 3/1/2010 2:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
no way in hell are trees growing back as fast as your burning them.


RE: Except...
By armagedon on 3/1/2010 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 1
How to make a point ? Insult everyone who doesn't agree with you since you are sure that you detain the universal truth.
Use the terms : fucking idiot, jackass, ignorance, idiocy, dumbass, etc ...
That will absolutely give great credibility to your points and make them true at the same time. Well done !


RE: Except...
By namechamps on 3/1/2010 3:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Irony: calling someone an idiot while being an idiot.

How do you think the tree grew? Over the trees lifetime it absorbed CO2 as part of it's growing process. Where did it absorb CO2 from? The atmosphere.

Thus the amount of CO2 released when the tree burns is equal to the OC2 it took out of the atmosphere while it grew.

You can grow and burn trees until the end of time and never change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Here is the real kicker. If you don't burn the tree and it dies and rots guess what happens then? It decays releasing CO2.

This the net amount of CO2 added to atmosphere is 0 in both situations.

Tree grows (absorb CO2) + burn tree (release CO2) = net 0 CO2
Tree grows (absorb CO2) + tree decays (release CO2) = net 0 CO2

Personally I think mandmade global warning is a joke/scam/scheme still that doesn't excuse your pitiful science and critical thinking skills.


RE: Except...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/1/2010 7:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not disagreeing with any point of yours. I think you missed the bigger point though. Burning trees in your home and claiming to be "green" is an oxymoron. Also besides carbon, you are releasing smoke, toxins, and ash. This isn't the 1800's. There is NO reason to do this anymore. It's not efficient and it's not "green". It's only, arguably, cheaper.

quote:
Thus the amount of CO2 released when the tree burns is equal to the OC2 it took out of the atmosphere while it grew.


Except trees can take hundreds of years to die. And guess what ? When they die and rot, they don't release their CO2 instantly. It's a very long process, and not ALL of the carbon is released into the air. Have you ever heard of something called topsoil ?

Besides, how in the HELL can you compare this with burning tree after tree to heat your home ??

quote:
doesn't excuse your pitiful science and critical thinking skills.


Yeah no offense, but I think we can all see who's critical thinking skills need a touch up.


RE: Except...
By ATX22 on 3/2/2010 2:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm… so let me know if I understand this right. Burning trees is OK because they absorb CO2 when alive, right?

Since over the lifetime of a tree, it sucks the CO2 from the air storing up carbon and releasing O2. Extremely oversimplified I know, but so far so good?

Now, since burning firewood releases carbon (among other things) into the air that will subsequently be reabsorbed by among other things trees, there is a net increase of ZERO(?) of carbon in the atmosphere, or something fairly close to. Still OK so far?

Now.. Knowing where fossil fuels come from, how is the carbon stored up in the various petroleum derived fuels outside of the very “carbon lifecycle” that should actually still be a part of? It took organic materials, high temperatures / pressure, and a lot of time to form right? Where did the carbon in the said organic material come from then? Why is it suddenly bad to catastrophic to re-release it back into the atmosphere(or elsewhere) from whence it came? Is there some level of atmospheric carbon that has been proven without a doubt optimal for our existence? Is it that imperative that the carbon trapped underground, which used to NOT be, stay there? If so, why and proven with what scientific facts?

I ask because so far, at best I’ve seen refutable evidence, models which are constantly undergoing revision (or the need is only constantly stated), and a lot of guessing and opinions being used to say: Carbon in fossil fuels = BAD, Carbon in “renewable” sources (like trees) = GOOD .. yeah, I know, again, oversimplified..

Still, this all without asking the multi-trillion dollar question of: “Is CO2 actually as bad as the global warming/climate change/global cooling/insert next big climate label here/and so on.. crowd makes it out to be?”

Just asking for some clarification.


RE: Except...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/2/2010 11:45:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Still, this all without asking the multi-trillion dollar question of: “Is CO2 actually as bad as the global warming/climate change/global cooling/insert next big climate label here/and so on.. crowd makes it out to be?”


No. It's an essential part of life. It's like calling air a pollutant.

Plus we have proof in fossil records and other means, that when CO2 was FAR more abundant than it is now, the Earth saw the most explosive plant and animal life in the planet's history. Life absolutely thrives under periods of warmer temperatures and high CO2 density.


Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By milkyway4me on 3/1/2010 10:14:04 AM , Rating: 4
Emotional appeal and vagueness is all al gore has left. Notice he didn't come out the gate swinging ACTUAL climate data to refute sceptics.




RE: Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By Mitch101 on 3/1/2010 10:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
I noticed that too it seems hes starting to quote references to try and buy time instead of prove his argument.

quote:
They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart."


He's almost saying we dont have any real proof of global warming but give us 4 decades to prove something. Let us run with this for several decades raking in tons of cash while we look for a connection to global warming.


RE: Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 10:36:11 AM , Rating: 4
Mentioning tobacco companies is a propaganda technique known as "guilt by association". Gore, as always, is excellent at manipulating the minds of the weak.


RE: Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By nstott on 3/1/2010 11:20:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.
-Al Gore (in 1988 speech to Southern tobacco farmers while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President)


RE: Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, classic Gore hypocrisy.


RE: Emotional appeal is all al gore has left.
By kaoken on 3/1/2010 1:05:46 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously trolling words. That's taken from 1988, what, people can't change?


By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Gore can certainly change...when he sees a profit for doing so.


By nstott on 3/1/2010 3:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
I can also imagine you saying this: "Obviously trolling data. That's taken from Big Oil/Evil Corporations/Faux News, what, data can't change?"


By sigilscience on 3/1/2010 12:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I noticed that too it seems hes starting to quote references to try and buy time instead of prove his argument
I read that Gore just needs 6-8 more years to become a billionaire off his global warming schemes. He's already made close to $500M off them.


Any which way but loose...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 10:34:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow.
In other words -- if it snows more, that proves global warming, and if it snows less, that proves global warming also. Just a very few years ago, Gore was using the light US snowfall to "prove" global warming was real.




By sigilscience on 3/1/2010 10:58:47 AM , Rating: 4
The term is called "falsifiability". If a theory isn't fasifiable, it's not science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

That's why global warming stopped being real science long ago.


RE: Any which way but loose...
By safcman84 on 3/1/2010 11:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
1) Global Warming looks at the average GLOBAL temperatures, it doesnt care about a specific location.

2) Nobody can say for certain what global warming will do to specific geographic areas. more precipitation, colder winters, less precipitation, scorching summers, violent storms... all of that will depend on what happens to the weather patterns as average global temperatures increase. we can try to predict the impact of warmer temperatures in local areas by using weather models, but they are far from accurate (we cant predict local weather accurately 2 weeks from now, let alone 100 years).

3) Al Gore is an idiot (that we can agree on), he should not be using/have used the weather in a specific area to argue about global warming. Global warming is (not surprisingly) a global phenomenon, and only global trends should be looked at when debating about it. He leaves himself open to criticism from you guys (warming skeptics) by doing it.


RE: Any which way but loose...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 11:10:22 AM , Rating: 3
"Global Warming looks at the average GLOBAL temperatures"

And average global temperatures stopped increasing in 1995. Also, the average temperature of the planet was increasing faster in the 1860-1880 time period than it did in the period 1970-1995. AGW theory cannot explain that.


RE: Any which way but loose...
By nstott on 3/1/2010 12:25:14 PM , Rating: 3
Au contraire, Porkpie! The average temperatures have gone up, up, UP! (according to the temp probes strategically placed between thermal exhaust ports and BBQ pits, right under those halogen lamps.) :P

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-...

quote:
For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.

• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."



RE: Any which way but loose...
By porkpie on 3/1/2010 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Dailytech actually reported on this a few years ago, they were actually ahead of the curve on this one:

http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Global+Warming+Data+...


RE: Any which way but loose...
By Nfarce on 3/1/2010 12:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks! I was about to start a new post with exactly that information - which I've done here many times (and goes all but ignored to the AGW crowd).


RE: Any which way but loose...
By JediJeb on 3/1/2010 2:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) Nobody can say for certain what global warming will do to specific geographic areas. more precipitation, colder winters, less precipitation, scorching summers, violent storms... all of that will depend on what happens to the weather patterns as average global temperatures increase. we can try to predict the impact of warmer temperatures in local areas by using weather models, but they are far from accurate (we cant predict local weather accurately 2 weeks from now, let alone 100 years).


I saw an interesting thing about atmospheric phenomena this weekend. The story was on Science Channel talking about exploring the planets. One thing they discovered that at first seemed totally wrong was that Neptune has the fastest winds in the solar system. It was originally thought Neptune would have very little wind since solar energy there is very weak. Turns out solar heating causes turbulence which actually slows winds down. It could be entirely possible that with a warming atmosphere on Earth, we could see milder weather if increased turbulence breaks up storms. Of course the opposite could be true, thing is, noone really knows for sure because we haven't witnessed the results to know if predictions are true, just as with the predictions on Neptune.

Warming models have been wrong so far, each time we reach a point of CO2 concentration that was believed to be disastrous nothing has really happened. Another level is set as the end of the world point, and it comes and goes more or less unnoticed. Al Gore's statement about us not taking steps to halt warming is going to destroy us, but what if warming turns out to be the boon for our existence? What if warming will give more rain where it is needed, crops grow better and we can then easily feed the entire world with plenty left over for biofuels? The thing is either outcome is based on models that are speculation and certainly do not include every possible variable.

Another possibility is that warming is bad, yet nothing we do will effect the eventual outcome. If we then spend all of our resources trying to halt something we can not possibly halt, then we come to the point where we have not prepared for the outcome because we spent all our efforts on trying to prevent it and none on being ready to survive the inevitable. We do not know for certain what is happening or what will happen, and putting all our focus on only one possibility may end up being the worse decision ever made. Reducing pollution, increasing efficiency, becoming more sustainable are all things we need to do, but not by wrecking our world economy in the process, or simply putting all the money in the hands of a few who take advantage of the many.


Every wonder why they call it Greenland???
By HueyD on 3/1/2010 12:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing it is because it was once a lush green environment with many farms and vineyards.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It's plant food!!! Bring on Global Warming!!! I like my veggies...




RE: Every wonder why they call it Greenland???
By kaoken on 3/1/2010 1:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Too much of a good thing is bad for you. Try over-watering your plants.


By porkpie on 3/1/2010 1:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Once again you embarrass yourself. You're apparently not aware that most commercial greenhouses intentionally raise CO2 levels to 1,000 - 1,500 ppm.

Currently atmospheric CO2 stands at 380ppm. We could burn every bit of oil and coal on the planet, and the plants would do nothing but thank us for it.


By ekv on 3/1/2010 4:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Try over-watering your plants."

Uhuh, and risk getting turned over to the water-police/nazi's ? I don't think so.


By SPOOFE on 3/1/2010 8:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try over-watering your plants.

Better than tilting at windmills.


By Jalek on 3/2/2010 4:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
High CO2 levels result in lethargy and a nasty headache, it takes very high levels to really be a problem. Submarines run it high with O2 reduced as an inherent fire suppressant.

CO2 at ground level doesn't work the same as it does in the upper atmosphere, just like ozone's a pollutant at ground level but it's considered to be important in the atmosphere. Any reports that don't make the distinction but try to extrapolate the characteristics to be un