|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is it all Leftwing Conspiracy/Massive Scientific Fraud? |
| Of course it is |
|
35% |
[ 14 ] |
| Very likely |
|
15% |
[ 6 ] |
| No real opinion |
|
10% |
[ 4 ] |
| Probably not |
|
22% |
[ 9 ] |
| What madness! |
|
17% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| Clueless. Ha. Well, guess what. We're winning. Suck it. |
What are you winning? Idiot of the year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So clever! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Especially when pitted against such as you!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Clueless. Ha. Well, guess what. We're winning. Suck it. |
-said the illegal loggers as they cut another 100 sq. km of rainforest.
All you're doing is burning down your own house.
Talking of "winning", it would be a surprise if environmentalists actually won anything when you consider they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the ignorant, selfish, greedy and (unfortunately) politically powerful. Which group are you in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Clueless. Ha. Well, guess what. We're winning. Suck it. |
What are you winning? Idiot of the year? |
Big Bird, I think some children may be using your account to make posts that violate the TOS. See above.
Might want to look into that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In her defense, I egged her on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
So MOS has come up with a theory the scientists at CRU couldn't figure out?
They themselves said that they couldn't account for the lack of warming over the last decade. If it really was that simple, then that's what they would have said.
Sorry, but that doesn't work. |
No, they did not say that. This is a problem with taking emails out of context.
What Trenberth was lamenting (the guy you are actually quoting) is this:
Scientists know from the satellite data that the Earth has continued to warm. However, it's difficult for climate scientists to track the flow of energy. Where is it going? They can account for some of it, through various observation systems. But they can not account for all of it.
i.e. - They KNOW this energy is in the planet from satellite observation - but where exactly on our planet is the heat that they can not account for?
Trenberth expressed his frustration at the limitation of their observation systems. One problem is that they can only measure the heat in the ocean to a certain depth. We have not yet the means for direct observation in the very deep ocean. So once the heat flows down past a certain depth, it can no longer be tracked. Trenberth suspected that the heat (the remaining heat that they can not account for) may have flowed deeper down to places where it can not be measured.
That was his 'travesty' - that he has no current means of confirming what he suspects.
This is the problem with you virtual scientists - you really are a clueless bunch. |
Link?...never mind. Wouldn't want you to get all stressed out. But just for the record that is NOT the e-mail I am referring to |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Short answer is that at that time CO2 was proportionately less than is now. There may have been more, but it still made up a smaller % of the atmosphere.
|
Um, no. PPM = parts per million. That is an absolute and comparable ratio. A higher PPM in the past (*cough* 4400 *cough*) has been proved and is not disputed. Temperatures were also dramatically colder at that time. It is not "apples and oranges;" it is simple fact.
It is nothing short of ignorant to declare PPM data to not function proportionally. A higher PPM means a higher concentration. How can you argue a position when you obviously don't understand even the most basic points behind it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, they did not say that. This is a problem with taking emails out of context.
|
No, this is a problem of people desperately searching for a context to place them in where it sounds less damning.
And for the record, yes, he DID say that. Context or not, it was his comment. Denying it is ridiculous. And blatantly untrue.
He did indeed say it:
"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"
If you want to fish for context out of the email, we could certainly include how he was complaining about "where the heck is global warming?", stating that they are asking that question where he is, mentioning record colds, and then dismissing data (this is the data they are using to tell us man is causing global warming) as wrong and the methods inaccurate as the only possible explanation of why they "can't account for the LACK OF WARMING [emphasis mine] at the moment."
Here's the email. Draw your own conclusions.
| Quote: |
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).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
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_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| A higher PPM in the past (*cough* 4400 *cough*) has been proved and is not disputed. Temperatures were also dramatically colder at that time. It is not "apples and oranges;" it is simple fact. |
Sigh...
OK, start at page 30 of the "Warming conspiracy is exposed" thread.Here:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=171302&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=435
On that page, VisitorQ asserted:
| Quote: |
| To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." |
MannerOfSpeaking responds:
| Quote: |
| The assumption only holds true if all other components of the atmosphere were the same during the Carboniferous as they are today, which they were not. Although the C02 level was much higher, so was the atmospheric 02 level. During the Carboniferous it was 35%, whereas today it is only 21%; the insulating properties of the two time periods of atmospheric structure are not comparable. In addition, much of the terrestrial landmass was centered over the south pole, hence evidence of extensive glaciation in the geological record. |
VzQ replied:
| Quote: |
| Why would this even matter? |
MannerOfSpeaking replied:
| Quote: |
It matters because the higher oxygen level in the atmosphere counteracted the higher level of C02. The gas mixtures between the two atmospheres are not comparable. It's like comparing apples and oranges.[
In addition, much of the terrestrial landmass was centered over the south pole, hence evidence of extensive glaciation in the geological record. |
VQ:
| Quote: |
| This doesn't change the fact of the matter. |
M.O.S:
| Quote: |
| It changes the fact of the matter because the primary reason there is geological evidence of glaciation is that most of the world's landmass was centered over the south pole. Which is why today, although the world is getting warmer due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, there are continental glaciers in Antarctica. |
VQ:
| Quote: |
Oxygen prevents CO2 from trapping heat? Give me a break.
Do I really need to point out the obvious fact to you that if all the alarmist nonsense about CO2 melting our ice caps were true, then there wouldn't have even been glaciation at all during that ice age? In fact, there were massive glaciers covering most of the area. And CO2 was 12X higher! Use your head. |
M.O.S.:
| Quote: |
You can't compare the atmosphere of the Ordovician with today's because the atmospheric structure was different. If all other factors - atmospheric composition, solar flux, continental distribution - were true, then you might have a point. But C02 does not lead to higher atmospheric temperature independent of other factors. Anthropogenic C02 production is less than natural C02 production, but the added input is stressing the atmosphere and heating it up. Rapidly and catastrophically. We've gone from the atmosphere of the Quaternary to the atmosphere of the Miocene in a little over a century. Which is the equivalent of a microsecond in geologic timescales.
You can't compare the atmosphere of the Ordovician to the atmosphere of today anymore than you can say that C02 is not a greenhouse gas because the Martian atmosphere is 98% C02 yet it is cold as hell there. Anyone who would claim it would be laughed out of a first year Physics or Geology course.
You claim the fact that there were glaciers during the Ordovician, yet a higher C02 level than today demonstrates that C02 does not melt glaciers, yet you completely ignore - rather, you are completely ignorant of - the fact that most of the Earth's landmass was centered over the south pole at the time. Continental glaciation at that time was determined by latitude and geography, the way latitude and geography determines the level of continental glaciation in the Antarctic today. It demonstrates that you just don't know what you are talking about. |
VQ:
| Quote: |
| Yeah, thanks for stating the obvious. The atmosphere had far more CO2. Yes, that is different. Anything else you'd care to elaborate on? |
M.O.S:
| Quote: |
I already have. The oxygen level in the atmosphere was also much higher, 35% rather than today's 21%, so your claim that C02 doesn't cause global warming because the C02 level was higher during the Ordovician doesn't hold water. You can't compare the two atmospheres. Mars has an atmosphere of 98% C02 but it is extremely cold there. Because Mars is further from the Earth. It's day and year are different. So are the atmospheric density and moisture levels. If you could find another planet that had the same atmospheric composition as present-day Earth's but was experiencing no global warming, than your shibboleth might be relevant. But there is none.
No ecosystem is capable of adapting to such a rapid atmospheric change. All ecosystems, the plants and animals that live within them, evolved over millions of years to adapt to specific, stable conditions in the physical environment. Polar bears are losing their habitats at a catastrophic rate. Within 100 years there will be no summer ice cover in the Arctic, which means they will be unable to hunt their normal diet of seal. |
VQ:
| Quote: |
| Even if this is true (where's your source?), it does not follow that this is an unnatural occurrence. |
M.O.S:
| Quote: |
It is not a matter of "even if this were true". It IS true. The rise in atmospheric C02 HAS BEEN MEASURED. The volume of annual anthropogenic C02 production HAS BEEN MEASURED and is easily measurable. There are no other events, natural or otherwise, such as volcanic eruptions, that have been observed that could possibly account for the rise in atmospheric C02. Nowhere else in the geological record has this ever happened, and even if it were a "natural" occurrence, it would still be catastrophic.
In the Ordovician, most of the continents were centered over the south pole, the day was 22.1 hours long, and the oxygen level in the atmosphere was almost 100% higher. So claiming that Ordovician glaciation proves that anthropogenic C02 has no effect on climate change is ridiculous, and by your argument is unproven.
You make no distinction between the Antarctic ice cap and the Arctic ice cap. The Antarctic ice cap is over a continent, Antarctica. It is on land, so it is not subject to effects by changes in water currents or water current temperature. The adjacent ice shelves in the Antarctic are affected, and they continue to be affected. In Arctic, the ice cap is a permanently frozen ice pack, but it is subject to the effects of adjacent - near the ice margin - water currents, and underlying - under the ocean - temperature, current and salinity effects. And the Arctic ice cap is disappearing at a catastrophic rate because of anthropogenic C02.
|
And so on and on.
Basically your comparison is...worthless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You realize that the person you quoted as defending your position said
| Quote: |
| "But C02 does not lead to higher atmospheric temperature independent of other factors. " |
whereas, your position was
| Quote: |
| Therefore you have to concede that more Co2 will result in warming?" |
So...yeah....your position is...worthless, according to the person you chose cite as an authority. That's brilliant.
Also, negating factors in the atmosphere have nothing to do with proportionality. THAT is apples and oranges. He not only invalidates your prior position, but he has not proved your current one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
You realize that the person you quoted as defending your position said
| Quote: |
| "But C02 does not lead to higher atmospheric temperature independent of other factors. " |
|
You've taken his opinion out of context, it was referring to a vastly different atmospheric and geographical composition millions of years ago. I think you know that CO2 at that time did not cause warming only because it was heavilly counterracted by vastly more 02.That is not the case today
As it is now, the only measurable change associated with the present warming has been a rise in CO2. Not only is CO2 a proven greenhouse gas, we can prove the extra CO2 in our environment comes from human emissions.
| Quote: |
"Further confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity come by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air.
The carbon atom has several different isotopes (ie - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions. " |
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
You've given up the ordovician argument then . Glad to have relieved your ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You've taken his opinion out of context, it was referring to a vastly different atmospheric and geographical composition millions of years ago. I think you know that CO2 at that time did not cause warming only because it was heavilly counterracted by vastly more 02.That is not the case today |
Actually, it is you who are taking his statement out of context. His context (indeed, his statement) was:
| Quote: |
| If all other factors - atmospheric composition, solar flux, continental distribution - were true, then you might have a point. But C02 does not lead to higher atmospheric temperature independent of other factors. |
Ironically, he mentions the same solar factors that I mentioned in my thorough discrediting of your preposterous position. He also unequivocally states that, unlike the position you stated, Co2 alone is not enough. Cry foul all you want, his own words and context rip your position apart.
| Quote: |
As it is now, the only measurable change associated with the present warming has been a rise in CO2.
|
Stop. Right. There.
I figured that you've just been making stuff up for a while, but now I'm certain.
I challenge you to prove that absolutely bunk statement of yours.
It's blatant and reckless falsehoods such as that discredit your entire position. The only measurable change associated with present warming is Co2 rise?
Ever heard of PDO data?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
Extremely accurate solar irradiation correlation to low-cloud cover?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
Jet stream and solar cycle effect on cloud cover (and in turn, temperature)
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010712cloudcover.html
...to name VERY few of the myriad of correlations.
I thought your PPM statement was ignorant, but you've surpassed yourself.
| Quote: |
You've given up the ordovician argument then . Glad to have relieved your ignorance. |
No, my argument was -and still is- that the massive levels of Co2 in the ordovician (which no one denies) were proportionally far greater than current levels (which you ignorantly DID deny, only to find out that you either knew nothing about acronyms or nothing about proportions)...and that such levels, with such temperatures, strike directly at the heart of your claim that merely an increase in Co2 alone will lead to rising temperatures (which the ordovician proves is not the case).
I have previously posited that there many factors at work in climate. The person you posted to defend your position simultaneously disproved you while upholding my statement that temperature is based on MANY factors.
(he nearly said that word-for-word).
Be more careful when you quote a source next time. They just might make you look stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Telling exchange between the pages author and one of the bloggees.
1. David Rourke at 06:11 AM on 3 December, 2009
Thanks for the thoughtful presentation of evidence in favor of AGW.
I'm concerned with the logic of how you put your argument together on this page, however. Your first point is that CO2 is increasing. The second is that CO2 traps heat. OK so far.
The third point is that the earth is warming. You lose me there. The reason we know that humans are causing the earth to warm is that the earth is warming? I just don't see how that logically follows.
I'd really like to see a clear argument for the AGW hypothesis that separates evidence of warming from evidence for the cause of that warming. That's what I was hoping to find here, but did not.
[ Response: The cause of global warming is outlined above in point 2: the enhanced greenhouse effect from increasing CO2. Point 3 (warming is happening) is the logical consequence of Points 1 (we're raising CO2) and 2 (CO2 traps heat). To accept the first two points, that human CO2 emissions are causing heat to be trapped, is to accept that humans are causing the planet to accumulate heat. With more heat in our climate, temperatures will rise. ]
2. David Rourke at 13:31 PM on 3 December, 2009
Sorry if I seem dense.
Allow me to make an analogy to evolutionary theory. It is observed that species change over time (evolution). Natural selection is a theory that explains how that happens.
The fact of evolution doesn�t prove natural selection. Natural selection explains evolution. If evolution did not happen (species did not change over time) then natural selection would be in trouble, but that doesn�t mean that a scientist can say, �Look at how these species have changed. Natural selection is therefore proven!�
Evolution is consistent with natural selection, but evolution doesn�t prove that the natural selection hypothesis is correct.
Instead, we accept that evolution happens (based on considerable evidence) and compare different explanations for what causes it (natural selection vs. Lamarckism, for example). Natural selection makes many correct predictions, while Lamarckism makes many incorrect predictions. Therefore, natural selection is accepted as true (as true as anything in science).
In the same manner, once we accept global warming, it does nothing to support AGW vs. any other explanation for increased global temperatures. What testable predictions does AGW make? What testable predictions do alternative theories (such as increased solar activity) make? How do those predictions hold up when compared with facts?
That�s really the case that needs to be made here, I think.
[ Response: I had hoped that I had made a clear case above not only for global warming, but more importantly, that humans are causing global warming. If humans are causing global warming, we expect to see an enhanced greenhouse effect. More specifically, we expect to see the enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This has been observed both by satellite measurements observing less infrared radiation escaping to space and surface measurements observing more infrared radiation returning back to the Earth's surface. ]
3. David Rourke at 11:21 AM on 4 December, 2009
OK. It seems like we have different viewpoints on what constitutes evidence in support of a hypothesis.
Thanks for the information you've compiled here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I think this skeptical science website must be the warmist fundamentalists bible!!
http://ebfromga.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/skeptical-science-website-so-whats-your-point/
Skeptical Science Website � So, What�s Your Point?
| Quote: |
There�s a website called �Skeptical Science � examining the science of global warming skepticism�, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism.
While admitting that scientific skepticism is �a healthy thing�, he seems to take particular pleasure in deriding what he considers �skeptic arguments� while basically failing to put forward any arguments of his own to justify his support for �anthropogenic� global warming other than carefully picking his own sources, a number of which are becoming increasingly controversial. I suppose that�s a safe approach to take � ridicule those you disagree with while hiding in a closet with like-minded people.
There are articles on his site with numerous graphs and charts pointing out various things and there�s a lot of discourse related to those articles � if you want to delve into them. I did � regarding a few. And, I frankly found it enlightening regarding how much disagreement there was over data, trends, variables, models, and �anthropogenic� effect on global warming. I forgot to mention the cartoons he posts. I suppose they�re there for the �anthropogenic� global warming advocates that can�t read. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
