More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

sidestep sidestep sidestep}

Sorry Kallend and Billvon. He's not going to participate. He's just not gonna.

I think we can guess why not.

And here we have it folks. More thought and insight than can be found from anyone on the site. Priceless........

Still avoiding the question about the source of the money?

I have posted if before. Go find it yourself.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Still avoiding the question about the source of the money?

He'll avoid it with snipes all day long if he has to. But pretty quick here everyone else will lose interest. He'll check back in to the thread every few minutes and when an hour passes without another challenge he'll breathe a big sigh of relief.

Then he'll gleefully post another very silly anti-global-warming editorial from "Oil News Weekly" or "S.U.V. Enthusiast" or "Republican Talking Points Review".

(If we're lucky he'll do something really funny like forget to read it first and accidently post another PRO-global-warming article thinking it's the opposite. I like it when he does that.)

And you have now side. Now that is funny.

Your only side it to stalk and back stab. And you attack me..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As a rule, effective propaganda mixes lies in with truths.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

Oh yes, The WSJ Opinion page - ha ha. About as impartial as Salon.

It didn't deny the $10k bribe, it just called it a "commission fee".

What part of the linked piece was incorrect or misleading?

I find it quite amusing that you discount the credibility of a respected mainstream organization, considering you have use sites like the "People's Weekly World Newspaper" to support your positions. LOL

[narcimund 0]

Quote

And you have now side. Now that is funny.

I still have no side. But I do find your religious faith in your POLITICAL side to be funny.

Quote

Your only side it to stalk and back stab. And you attack me..........

"Stalk"??? I'm reading a thread that I've been participating in. How is that stalking?

And I wouldn't call it a backstab -- think of it as shock therapy. I'm trying to help you learn something about rational thought.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Remster 26]

Quote

First off quit with the bs.

You made a (possible wild) claim with your 1%. Bill showed you the numbers. Now its BS.


Nice.

Remster

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

First off quit with the bs.

You made a (possible wild) claim with your 1%. Bill showed you the numbers. Now its BS.

rushmc is really funny, isn't he? He says most of the research he reads* agrees with billvon, but a few scientists aren't completely convinced so he'll take an extreme position on faith.

In this particular exchange, billvon adds up the tons of carbon burned by humans every year and finds it correllates very closely with the amount discovered to be increasing in the atmosphere. Then rushmc announces that the human contribution is actually being re-absorbed but a DIFFERENT non-human-caused source of carbon is emitting the rest.

Even if his fantasy Extra-Absorption/Extra-Emission pair of hidden processes are someday discovered (and who knows?) he's completely forgetting how to add. According to rushmc, these thing are all happening simultaneously:

A) Humans burn 1.0 ton of carbon
B) Natural Process X absorbs 1.0 ton of carbon
C) Natural Process Y emits a different 1.0 ton of carbon
D) The result: 1.0 new ton of carbon in the air -- through NO fault of humans

Even assuming Process X and Process Y exist (and maybe Santa Claus will bring them to rushmc) does anyone want a gold star for explaining what would happen if humans WEREN'T contributing part (A) above?

Hint: What if we just write the same statements in a different order?

E) Natural Process Y emits 1.0 ton of carbon
F) Natural Process X absorbs 1.0 ton of carbon
G) Humans burn a different 1.0 ton of carbon
H) The result: 1.0 new ton of carbon in the air -- could this now be humanity's carbon?



* Of course rushmc doesn't actually read any research. He scans political headlines. But that's the same thing isn't it?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

And you have now side. Now that is funny.

I still have no side. But I do find your religious faith in your POLITICAL side to be funny.

Quote

Your only side it to stalk and back stab. And you attack me..........

"Stalk"??? I'm reading a thread that I've been participating in. How is that stalking?

And I wouldn't call it a backstab -- think of it as shock therapy. I'm trying to help you learn something about rational thought.

Back stabing is defined as talking about somebody (in a negative way) behind thier back or with some one else. Fits that well.

And of course I need theapy. I am a conservative. Everybody (liberal) knows conservatives are not as smart as themselves and so they must talk down to them and tell them they need to learn something. Sorry for being so stupid but at least I am not disrespectfull (on purpose as I do make mistakes)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Back stabing is defined as talking about somebody (in a negative way) behind thier back or with some one else. Fits that well.

Your definition is a bit expansive. Got a reference for that somewhere? And how about this "stalking" accusation you threw at me? Got a handy definition for that as well?

Quote

Everybody (liberal) knows conservatives are not as smart as themselves and so they must talk down to them and tell them they need to learn something. Sorry for being so stupid but at least I am not disrespectfull (on purpose as I do make mistakes)

I have never accused you of being stupid as a consequence of your conservatism*. Many conservatives are extremely intelligent. Some however, are not.

By the way, still going to avoid all the extremely thoughtful responses to your outrageous and unfounded claims about global warming?


* Nor have I cited your height or weight or the kind of shoes you wear.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,478]

>First off quit with the bs.

Political diatribes are "solid facts" but actual numbers are "BS?" OK.

>More CO2 is absorbed or used than your numbers suggest according
>to some researchers.

Then why is it still increasing at such a rapid rate?

> The increases are from release but the positive feedback is CO2
>released from temp increases, not temp increases from CO2
> accumulation.

Then why are CO2 increases leading the temperature rise? Shouldn't the temperature rise _first_, _then_ CO2 increases occur?

And you are now arguing against yourself. You were claiming that "more CO2 is absorbed" than I claim, but you also claim "more CO2 is released" than I claim. Which is it?

If "more CO2 is absorbed" than I claim, why are the CO2 levels rising?

If "more CO2 is released" than I claim, then where is all the extra CO2 we are releasing going?

>Again, quit twisting my words.

You're doing a pretty good job twisting your own arguments.

[billvon 2,478]

>I have posted if before. Go find it yourself.

"Lets see, you tell others you don't have time to do the research and they should do it themselves."

(Now that you're arguing both sides of the argument, it becomes pretty easy to refute you!)

[NCclimber 0]

The current level of CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere.

I can see why people are so concerned with it.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tell us where the money comes from to promote the claimed "hoax", and how it compares with the money available to Exxon Mobil, the company with the world's largest profits, which HAS pumped enormous amounts into efforts to refute good science about CO2 emissions, etc.

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9
www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/business/02oil.html?ex=1328072400&en=08a4aef44d86ae08&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

As a rule, effective propaganda mixes lies in with truths.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649

Oh yes, The WSJ Opinion page - ha ha. About as impartial as Salon.

It didn't deny the $10k bribe, it just called it a "commission fee".

What part of the linked piece was incorrect or misleading?

I find it quite amusing that you discount the credibility of a respected mainstream organization, considering you have use sites like the "People's Weekly World Newspaper" to support your positions. LOL

Spin is spin. Calling the offer a "commission fee" doesn't change what it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>First off quit with the bs.

Political diatribes are "solid facts" but actual numbers are "BS?" OK.

>More CO2 is absorbed or used than your numbers suggest according
>to some researchers.

Then why is it still increasing at such a rapid rate?

> The increases are from release but the positive feedback is CO2
>released from temp increases, not temp increases from CO2
> accumulation.

Then why are CO2 increases leading the temperature rise? Shouldn't the temperature rise _first_, _then_ CO2 increases occur?they are not. I know this is a point of debate but many are saying the temps are leading the CO2 increases.

And you are now arguing against yourself. You were claiming that "more CO2 is absorbed" than I claim, but you also claim "more CO2 is released" than I claim. Which is it?

If "more CO2 is absorbed" than I claim, why are the CO2 levels rising?

If "more CO2 is released" than I claim, then where is all the extra CO2 we are releasing going?

>Again, quit twisting my words.

You're doing a pretty good job twisting your own arguments.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

> The current level of CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere.

Right now the percentage of arsenic in your body is about .000001%. Indeed, we need that level; it plays a small but important role in our metabolism.

But if we increased that to just under .0001% - that's less than one one-MILLIONTH of your body - you would care very much indeed. (Actually you wouldn't care about anything at all at that point, but you get the idea.) It's the change in concentration that gets us rather than the absolute concentration.

CO2 is a poisonous gas that will kill you quickly in small concentrations (over about 6%.) In smaller quantities, it doesn't bother us too much, it gets carbon to plants and helps keep us warm through its greenhouse-gas properties. We've increased its concentration by 50%, though, and that's starting to have some effects. Fortunately they are not too serious yet.

[billvon 2,478]

>they are not. I know this is a point of debate but many are saying
>the temps are leading the CO2 increases.

I think you may be confusing the historical record with the current one. Historically, in several cases, temperature rise has preceded CO2 and methane rise - and both have been much slower. These increases are likely due to some of those "positive feedback" mechanisms you mentioned before - warmer oceans release CO2, melting tundra releases CO2 and methane etc.

But there's not much question that _today_ CO2 change is leading the way. Take a look at the attached graph. You'll note that from 1880 to 1925 CO2 was increasing but temperature remained about the same. (With its usual half-degree swings due to El Ninos etc.) After that temps began to rise.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>they are not. I know this is a point of debate but many are saying
>the temps are leading the CO2 increases.

I think you may be confusing the historical record with the current one. Historically, in several cases, temperature rise has preceded CO2 and methane rise - and both have been much slower. These increases are likely due to some of those "positive feedback" mechanisms you mentioned before - warmer oceans release CO2, melting tundra releases CO2 and methane etc.

But there's not much question that _today_ CO2 change is leading the way. Take a look at the attached graph. You'll note that from 1880 to 1930 CO2 was increasing but temperature remained about the same. (With its usual half-degree swings due to El Ninos etc.) After that temps began to rise.

thanks
I have also seen ice sample driven graphs that are less dramatic and could be read the other way. I am looking to see if where I read that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

>I have also seen ice sample driven graphs that are less dramatic and
>could be read the other way.

Was it like the one below? Those are the ice-core historical records that show temps preceding CO2 change.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I have also seen ice sample driven graphs that are less dramatic and
>could be read the other way.

Was it like the one below? Those are the ice-core historical records that show temps preceding CO2 change.

No, it was more like the one you posted. The scale was made more granular for more comparative defintion. Still looking over lunch. I will see if I can remember where I saw it and post the link.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

What part of the linked piece was incorrect or misleading?

I find it quite amusing that you discount the credibility of a respected mainstream organization, considering you have use sites like the "People's Weekly World Newspaper" to support your positions. LOL

Spin is spin. Calling the offer a "commission fee" doesn't change what it is.

Right. Spin.

Quote

What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade.

What happened to your "stupid comment of the month" post. It was too funny.

[rushmc 18]

I stumbled across this while looking.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

The current level of CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere.

I can see why people are so concerned with it.

CFCs at a level of 1 part in 2.5Billion can destroy the ozone layer in the atmosphere that protects us from life destroying UV radiation.

HCN at a concentration less than 1/2500 will kill you in about 2 minutes.

CO at a level of 1/2500 will kill you in an hour or so.

H2S at a concentration of 1/2500 will kill you in about 10 minutes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What happened to your "stupid comment of the month" post. It was too funny.

You're having some trouble tracking the things you're replying to today. Maybe a little bit more attention?

"Stupid comment of the month" referred to your sarcastic observation:

Quote

The current level of CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere. I can see why people are so concerned with it.

And honestly, I think it comes close to qualifying. It's certainly in the top 10.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

While I am still looking comment to this. This is from NOAA that sugests the temps are not all that far from normal?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtem?dat=BLEND&mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1880&eye1=2005&graph=Lineplot&mon2=0&eye2=0&bye2=0&mon3=0&ye=0&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35¶m=Temperature&non=0&klu=1&proce=80&puzo=0&nzi=99&ts=6&sbeX=-180.0&sbeY=90.0&senX=180.0&senY=-90.0

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,478]

A few notes on that piece:

"Does the Earth's atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it often results in a totally false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere facilitates convection. So-called "greenhouse gases" in the Earth's atmosphere do not act as a barrier to convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is wrong."

This is incorrect. A large part of what a greenhouse does is block re-radiation of IR. That's why plants in a greenhouse will not freeze at night even if the greenhouse is vented - because the glass blocks re-radiation of IR.

To use a concrete example, we had a few-day hard freeze here this year, and we covered our citrus trees with sheets. Our trees were OK but a lot of other people's trees died - because nothing was blocking their tree's IR radiation. The sheet did not "keep the tree's heat inside" (trees don't generate their own heat) nor did it "keep the day's heat in" (they were old and very porous, and could not stop the convection of warm air away from the tree) but did slow radiative heat loss - so the trees did not get much colder than the air.

"Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No . . ."

Untrue. See above example. CO2 does basically what that sheet over our trees did.

"Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent."

They do indeed. No explanation required because the article goes on to admit that they DO trap significant amounts of heat.

"The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it)."

This is quite true - but you seem to be arguing FOR these mechanisms.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The current level of CO2 makes up 1/2500th of the atmosphere. I can see why people are so concerned with it.

And honestly, I think it comes close to qualifying. It's certainly in the top 10.

Why? Because kallend posts some information about other chemicals/compounds that are dramatically more toxic? LOL