Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   American chestnut trees may mitigate climate change. Here comes the science   (eurekalert.org ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1991 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jun 2009 at 1:20 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2009-06-11 10:56:30 AM  
The wings of passenger pigeons may reflect enough solar radiation to counteract the effects of global warming.
 
2009-06-11 11:42:53 AM  
This isn't that M.Night Shamalamadingdong movie is it?
 
2009-06-11 01:22:20 PM  
You mean the same one that was almost destroyed because of one beetle?
 
2009-06-11 01:22:35 PM  
[jedi hand wave]

There is no "Climate Change"

[/jedi hand wave]
 
2009-06-11 01:31:49 PM  

Thisbymaster: You mean the same one that was almost destroyed because of one beetle?


No, blight.
 
2009-06-11 01:36:49 PM  
U-S-A! U-S-A!
 
2009-06-11 01:45:56 PM  
Chest nuts grow on trees??

static.flickr.com
 
2009-06-11 01:49:21 PM  
wait wait wait, how is this supposed to increase the pirate population again?
 
2009-06-11 01:51:46 PM  
And they cure cancer.
 
2009-06-11 02:06:15 PM  
wut - no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore?

Oh, that's right, because the planet ISN'T warming. So now it's called 'change'. Well gee, that would happen anyway.

Guess the economy's still in fine shape so long as there are budgets for this kind of crap.
 
2009-06-11 02:08:51 PM  
As much as I would like this to be a significant mitigation technique, I very much doubt it will be unless we plant tremendous amounts of these somewhere.

kittylittle: wut - no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore?

Oh, that's right, because the planet ISN'T warming. So now it's called 'change'. Well gee, that would happen anyway.

Guess the economy's still in fine shape so long as there are budgets for this kind of crap.


How many times do you need these idiocies to be refuted before you stop trotting them out?
 
2009-06-11 02:10:23 PM  
in other words his funding is about to get cut so he's trying to get a fistful of carbon money.
 
2009-06-11 02:12:24 PM  

Zafler: As much as I would like this to be a significant mitigation technique, I very much doubt it will be unless we plant tremendous amounts of these somewhere.

kittylittle: wut - no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore?

Oh, that's right, because the planet ISN'T warming. So now it's called 'change'. Well gee, that would happen anyway.

Guess the economy's still in fine shape so long as there are budgets for this kind of crap.

How many times do you need these idiocies to be refuted before you stop trotting them out?


You have never refuted a thing unless you count some of your own posts.
 
2009-06-11 02:14:18 PM  
This is why you roast them on an open fire, in order to counter this effect and promote global warming.
 
2009-06-11 02:17:14 PM  
kittylittle:

wut - no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore?

Oh, that's right, because the planet ISN'T warming. So now it's called 'change'. Well gee, that would happen anyway.


You know how I know your entire understanding of the subject comes from TV and radio soundbites?

It's easy to spot. Scientists have always been specific about climate change / global warming / natural vs manmade etc.

TV newsbabes and talking heads are not so particular. Most of them couldn't even *pronounce* "anthropogenic climate change" much less understand the implications.

People who get all their information from tv and radio are the sort who repeat your busted talking point.

BTW, The UN set up the International Panel on Climate Change in 1988, not the International Panel on Global Warming.

Handy reference so you won't sound so dumb next time:

img44.imageshack.us
 
2009-06-11 02:17:29 PM  
American Chestnut Foundation (new window)

They've been working on this for 25 years. It'll be pretty cool if they pull it off. Don't believe an ecosystem restoration on this scale has been attempted before.

/member for 21 years
 
2009-06-11 02:19:25 PM  

SVC_conservative: wait wait wait, how is this supposed to increase the pirate population again?


The hardwood is used for crafting essential pirate paraphernalia, such as peg legs, treasure chests and rum casks.
=Smidge=
 
2009-06-11 02:21:33 PM  

maxheck: kittylittle:

wut - no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore?

Oh, that's right, because the planet ISN'T warming. So now it's called 'change'. Well gee, that would happen anyway.

You know how I know your entire understanding of the subject comes from TV and radio soundbites?

It's easy to spot. Scientists have always been specific about climate change / global warming / natural vs manmade etc.

TV newsbabes and talking heads are not so particular. Most of them couldn't even *pronounce* "anthropogenic climate change" much less understand the implications.

People who get all their information from tv and radio are the sort who repeat your busted talking point.

BTW, The UN set up the International Panel on Climate Change in 1988, not the International Panel on Global Warming.

Handy reference so you won't sound so dumb next time:


yea, if you don't want to sound dumb, don't tell people at AGW is real!!!
 
2009-06-11 02:22:40 PM  
 
2009-06-11 02:23:53 PM  
EddyKilowatt:

They've been working on this for 25 years. It'll be pretty cool if they pull it off. Don't believe an ecosystem restoration on this scale has been attempted before.

/member for 21 years


This *is* cool stuff, restoring a major hardwood species...

Hmmm... Now I'll have to check the woods behind the house, see if there are any chestnuts there.
 
2009-06-11 02:25:07 PM  
nicksteel:

yea, if you don't want to sound dumb, don't tell people at AGW is real!!!

[citation needed]

Oh. Wait. I'm talking to nicksteel, the king of zero-content.
 
2009-06-11 02:26:04 PM  
Too bad they're too trashy to put in my backyard, I'd love some chestnuts. I have enough trouble keeping up with the helicopters clogging up my gutters from the neighbor's maple.
 
2009-06-11 02:29:34 PM  

nicksteel: maxheck: nicksteel:

yea, if you don't want to sound dumb, don't tell people at AGW is real!!!

[citation needed]

Oh. Wait. I'm talking to nicksteel, the king of zero-content.

You want a citation that tells you that something IS NOT HAPPENING?? You have all sorts of ways to sound dumb, don't you??


Lemonheads Cancel SF Gig

IT IS NOT HAPPENING
 
2009-06-11 02:30:57 PM  
In case people don't want to bother following the links, essentially humankind is responsible for an approximate 100ppm increase from pre-industrial times. This is a change from 280ppm to 380ppm. Mainly known through isotopic analysis, and confirmed via things like fossil fuel usage estimates.

Also, he still has not addressed any of those questions. So, I have been waiting for a number of months and across numerous threads where he gets away scot free with the thread shiats.
 
2009-06-11 02:38:07 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: You have never refuted a thing unless you count some of your own posts.

Refutation of statement:

Zafler 2009-06-11 08:49:37 AM

nicksteel: es??? Tell the people what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of mankind. It's something like 6% of all of the CO2, and half of that is from exhaling.

More lies, and lies that have been debunked before:

This is from the thread where the following quote comes from, which are questions never answered by the troll. Oh wait, calling him that summons the post deleters: (new window)

nicksteel: Can't a person ask questions and challenge theories?

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait. (new window)

Breathing is carbon neutral asshole. Just because it contains the correct information and the name is fitting. (new window)


just because YOU say something is refuted, does not make it so. And none of those websites you listed are peer reviewed. They do not meet your own criteria. But then again, hypocrite is your middle name.

And those websites you lists get lots and lots of money to "study" the "problem". I would not expect them to say anything that would stop their funding.
 
2009-06-11 02:38:45 PM  
Oh, direct refutation of kittylittle's flat out wrong statements about temperature can be found here (new window)

Be careful with that antique, it's from over a year ago.

Funny how archiving threads so I don't have to redo research yields the same people telling the same lies.
 
2009-06-11 02:40:17 PM  

Ecobuckeye: nicksteel: maxheck: nicksteel:

yea, if you don't want to sound dumb, don't tell people at AGW is real!!!

[citation needed]

Oh. Wait. I'm talking to nicksteel, the king of zero-content.

You want a citation that tells you that something IS NOT HAPPENING?? You have all sorts of ways to sound dumb, don't you??

Lemonheads Cancel SF Gig

IT IS NOT HAPPENING


you are an idiot, I hope you are aware of that.
 
2009-06-11 02:42:56 PM  

Ecobuckeye: Too bad they're too trashy to put in my backyard, I'd love some chestnuts. I have enough trouble keeping up with the helicopters clogging up my gutters from the neighbor's maple.


Chestnuts drop nuts from spiky burs that would not be fun to step on in bare feet but I am not sure how you would consider them "trashy". Unless, but "trashy" you mean any tree that reproduces.

I'd plant one in my backyard but I am not sure I have space for it.
 
2009-06-11 02:42:57 PM  

Zafler: In case people don't want to bother following the links, essentially humankind is responsible for an approximate 100ppm increase from pre-industrial times. This is a change from 280ppm to 380ppm. Mainly known through isotopic analysis, and confirmed via things like fossil fuel usage estimates.

Also, he still has not addressed any of those questions. So, I have been waiting for a number of months and across numerous threads where he gets away scot free with the thread shiats.


Another hypocritical statement. I ask you questions and you ignore them. So why should I treat you any different??

I know that it bothers you when people disagree with your religious believes but that is too bad. Grow up.
 
2009-06-11 02:44:40 PM  

Zafler: Oh, direct refutation of kittylittle's flat out wrong statements about temperature can be found here (new window)

Be careful with that antique, it's from over a year ago.

Funny how archiving threads so I don't have to redo research yields the same people telling the same lies.


research??? You call "googling" research?? No wonder you believe that AGW is real. You've done the research. Why not "google" unicorn and tell us all about your research on that.
 
2009-06-11 02:46:11 PM  
nicksteel

Well, you see, if you open up the link, it contains citations to the relevant research papers involved which are, lo and behold, peer reviewed. Some of them are actually freely available on the internet. In addition, I use realclimate because it is maintained by people with relevant education, careers, and they will actually answer the questions people pose in the comments section. They also attempt to simplify the language involved so as to be more accessible to the non-scientific community. But you know all this, and have been laughed at before for this same thing.

In addition, the fact that they get paid to study the phenomena involved has essentially zero to do with the conclusions drawn. Of course, you've been told this before as well.

Finally, since you've consistently rejected ACC, address the questions I presented a long time ago:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.
 
2009-06-11 02:46:31 PM  
I think we need to coin another farkism:

Fark SkepticTM:

Someone who claims skepticism and critical thinking but refuses to consider any evidence contrary to their preexisting beliefs.

Sort of like the Fark IndependentsTM who claim to be independent, but somehow end up voting with and supporting the GOP in everything they do.

nicksteel, in thread after thread you have been given evidence supporting AGW and your response no matter what the source, boils down to "I don't accept it."

Not refuting the evidence, mind you, just blowing it off like a child with his fingers in his ears singing "LA LA LA."

You, sir... Are a true Fark SkepticTM.
 
2009-06-11 02:48:18 PM  
maxheck

Be careful or you will suffer from post deletion, that is dangerously close the definition of a troll.
 
2009-06-11 02:48:23 PM  
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

www.geocraft.com
 
2009-06-11 02:49:35 PM  
nicksteel, it's not for nothing that I have you favorited as "science tard"...
 
2009-06-11 02:51:24 PM  
Oh, for any lurkers that have not been chased away by this idiocy yet, and if you're curious about the state of scientific information with regards to climate change, check the climte guides at royalsociety.org, NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, IPCC.ch, realclimate.org, and here (new window) is a simple to understand guide from New Scientist.
 
2009-06-11 02:53:05 PM  
But what about the chinnut trees?
 
2009-06-11 02:54:42 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel

Well, you see, if you open up the link, it contains citations to the relevant research papers involved which are, lo and behold, peer reviewed. Some of them are actually freely available on the internet. In addition, I use realclimate because it is maintained by people with relevant education, careers, and they will actually answer the questions people pose in the comments section. They also attempt to simplify the language involved so as to be more accessible to the non-scientific community. But you know all this, and have been laughed at before for this same thing.

In addition, the fact that they get paid to study the phenomena involved has essentially zero to do with the conclusions drawn. Of course, you've been told this before as well.

Finally, since you've consistently rejected ACC, address the questions I presented a long time ago:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.


You see two lines on a chart that seem to follow a pattern and right away you believe that there is a correlation. How's this??

www.seanbonner.com

A third grade teacher tells you that green houses gases can be explained by using a sealed soda bottle and you get the idea that the Earth acts just like that soda bottle.

You have no idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad for us and ignore the fact that the CO2 content has been much higher in the past than it is now.

You also ignore the most basic explanation for the increase in temperature since 1850. The end of the Little Ice Age was just about then. The average increase we have experienced since then is almost EXACTLY what the average decrease was during the Little Ice Age.

Or is that just a coincidence????
 
2009-06-11 02:56:53 PM  

Zafler: Oh, for any lurkers that have not been chased away by this idiocy yet, and if you're curious about the state of scientific information with regards to climate change, check the climte guides at royalsociety.org, NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, IPCC.ch, realclimate.org, and here (new window) is a simple to understand guide from New Scientist.


you should look on those sites and you will find out that all of them, except the politically motivated IPCC site, will tell you that nobody (but Zafler and his alter egos) is certain what has caused the increase that that further research is called for.
 
2009-06-11 02:58:47 PM  

maxheck: I think we need to coin another farkism:

Fark SkepticTM:

Someone who claims skepticism and critical thinking but refuses to consider any evidence contrary to their preexisting beliefs.

Sort of like the Fark IndependentsTM who claim to be independent, but somehow end up voting with and supporting the GOP in everything they do.

nicksteel, in thread after thread you have been given evidence supporting AGW and your response no matter what the source, boils down to "I don't accept it."

Not refuting the evidence, mind you, just blowing it off like a child with his fingers in his ears singing "LA LA LA."

You, sir... Are a true Fark SkepticTM.


you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence. Name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be caused by AGW.
 
2009-06-11 02:59:39 PM  
Good job completely ignoring that water vapor has not been increasing in concentration over the entire duration of the warming we've seen. Your entire copy-pasta job is designed to deliberately ignore that, using citations for the numbers while ignoring the mechanisms involved. Furthermore, they use as "supporters" Fred Singer, a contrarian that has been paid outright do deny the connection between smoking and cancer as well as various other for profit lies. Link (new window)

Now, about those questions you never answer.
 
2009-06-11 03:02:45 PM  

Zafler: Good job completely ignoring that water vapor has not been increasing in concentration over the entire duration of the warming we've seen. Your entire copy-pasta job is designed to deliberately ignore that, using citations for the numbers while ignoring the mechanisms involved. Furthermore, they use as "supporters" Fred Singer, a contrarian that has been paid outright do deny the connection between smoking and cancer as well as various other for profit lies. Link (new window)

Now, about those questions you never answer.


hypocrite, you never answer my questions.
 
2009-06-11 03:04:12 PM  

nicksteel: Zafler: Oh, for any lurkers that have not been chased away by this idiocy yet, and if you're curious about the state of scientific information with regards to climate change, check the climte guides at royalsociety.org, NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, IPCC.ch, realclimate.org, and here (new window) is a simple to understand guide from New Scientist.

you should look on those sites and you will find out that all of them, except the politically motivated IPCC site, will tell you that nobody (but Zafler and his alter egos) is certain what has caused the increase that that further research is called for.


Only wikipedia, but this statement is so full of shiat that the entire page went brown. (new window)

Furthermore, when have I ever said research needs to be stopped? I've always felt our research into this area, and many others, is severely underfunded. Also, if you actually understood highschool level physics and chemistry, we'd be discussing steps to mitigate ACC and possible energy solutions. Instead, you're thread shiatting and I'm providing citations showing you're full of it. Mostly because ignorant and misleading statements that go unchallenged become accepted by many people.

Now, about those questions you've never addressed?
 
2009-06-11 03:06:55 PM  
nicksteel:

you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence. Name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be caused by AGW.

Right after you name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be the result of macroevolution through natural selection.

Are you an evolution skeptic as well?

Can you name three people who died of lung cancer PROVABLY CAUSED by smoking cigarettes?

No? I guess you doubt that smoking increases lung cancer then.

I get the impression that you really don't understand very well how science works.
 
2009-06-11 03:07:03 PM  

nicksteel: hypocrite, you never answer my questions.


You see up there, the first link I provided for you? I spent mny hours answering all of your questions. When it came time to reciprocate you went back into insult mode. Call me what you like, but anyone that gives a damn enough to follow the links knows you are not making a valid declaration. Furthermore, I can dig up numerous other threads where various different people debunk your ignorant statements.

Tried just ignoring your thread shiats, and got posts deleted as a result of an accurate assessment of your posting style, and the fact that you've never been dinged for your behavior in these threads.
 
2009-06-11 03:09:08 PM  
The research is only as good as the data. And the data that is being gathered for global temperatures is not very good. Look at these photos of some of the stations gathering that data. The requirements that were set forth were that the sites were to be in areas that would not have unnatural influences (meaning human activity)

www.globalwarminghoax.com

www.globalwarminghoax.com

www.globalwarminghoax.com

www.globalwarminghoax.com

that's some fine research there, Lou!!
 
2009-06-11 03:11:14 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: hypocrite, you never answer my questions.

You see up there, the first link I provided for you? I spent mny hours answering all of your questions. When it came time to reciprocate you went back into insult mode. Call me what you like, but anyone that gives a damn enough to follow the links knows you are not making a valid declaration. Furthermore, I can dig up numerous other threads where various different people debunk your ignorant statements.

Tried just ignoring your thread shiats, and got posts deleted as a result of an accurate assessment of your posting style, and the fact that you've never been dinged for your behavior in these threads.


ALL of my questions??? Do you seriously believe that you have answered ALL of my questions??
 
2009-06-11 03:12:41 PM  
32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming "consensus"
May 20th, 2008

At a press conference on May 19, Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., announced the release of the names of 32,000 scientists who have signed a strongly worded petition dissenting from the alarmist assertions of Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fears of catastrophic human-caused global warming, requiring draconian energy rationing, are the basis for policies supported by all three leading Presidential candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

Al Gore claims that "the debate is over," and that there are only a "few" remaining "skeptics."

"In Ph.D. scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC project. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," states Robinson. Signers include more than 9,000 Ph.Ds.

Most signatures were obtained by mailing to lists of university professors and a compendium that constitutes a "Who's Who" of American scientists.

"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" asks Lawrence Solomon (Financial Post 5/17/08). He reviews the history of previous petitions, including the Heidelberg Appeal, which ultimately obtained 4,000 signatures, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. In numbers, the Oregon Petition Project vastly exceeds all others, having gathered some 17,800 signatures in 2001-"all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stand these scientists took."

"Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because 'increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.'"

Robinson was urged to renew the effort to collect signatures by scientists who were "outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends" (ibid.).

"Proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," Robinson writes in the Frequently Asked Questions on a website that posts the Petition, a description of the Project, the list of signatories, and their qualifications.
 
2009-06-11 03:15:32 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence. Name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be caused by AGW.

Right after you name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be the result of macroevolution through natural selection.

Are you an evolution skeptic as well?

Can you name three people who died of lung cancer PROVABLY CAUSED by smoking cigarettes?

No? I guess you doubt that smoking increases lung cancer then.

I get the impression that you really don't understand very well how science works.



You made an extremely stupid comment so I responded with a question that was at the same level. you reject my question, but not your statement. Interesting.
 
2009-06-11 03:16:23 PM  

nicksteel: Ecobuckeye: nicksteel: maxheck: nicksteel:

yea, if you don't want to sound dumb, don't tell people at AGW is real!!!

[citation needed]

Oh. Wait. I'm talking to nicksteel, the king of zero-content.

You want a citation that tells you that something IS NOT HAPPENING?? You have all sorts of ways to sound dumb, don't you??

Lemonheads Cancel SF Gig

IT IS NOT HAPPENING

you are an idiot, I hope you are aware of that.


Your confidence in knowing this without ever having researched it beyond the internet are all the proof I need that you are, in fact, a genius.
 
2009-06-11 03:18:20 PM  
Ahh yes Anthony Watts (new window), the guy that is lauded by the Heartland Institute. The guy that completely ignores that we have orbital temperature measurements, and more than just the GISS's sensors. In essence, the UHI effect is minimal and easily corrected for. (new window)
 
2009-06-11 03:20:04 PM  
I love the old talking point about water vapor being the major greenhouse gas. It's a great way of telling someone who doesn't understand the problem.

Water vapor provides a baseline for the greenhouse effect. It has a very short cycling time, and globally the amount of water vapor in the air will always be directly dependent on the temperature so long as there's open water on the planet.

You might have noticed that water comes out of the atmosphere very quickly when it's too concentrated. As someone once pointed out, if you stand outside long enough it'll hit you.

CO2 doesn't precipitate out as water does. It takes decades to years because it only happens through chemical, biological or geological process, and not through a simple phase change.

But let's try an analogy based on the "CO2 is a much smaller influence than water vapor!' logic, and see where it goes.

On a freezing cold day the inside of your house might be at a comfortable 293 degrees kelvin. 273 of those degrees are provided by the sun, and 20 from your furnace.

Your furnace is only providing 7% of the warmth in your house! By golly, why even bother turning it on, since it has so little effect!

Obviously you don't need to worry about paying your heating bills. The sun is providing the majority of the heat you need!

Of course that's absurd, but that's the reasoning behind deniers saying "Water vapor is the larger influence!"
 
2009-06-11 03:20:35 PM  

Zafler: Ahh yes Anthony Watts (new window), the guy that is lauded by the Heartland Institute. The guy that completely ignores that we have orbital temperature measurements, and more than just the GISS's sensors. In essence, the UHI effect is minimal and easily corrected for. (new window)


easily corrected for?? Why in the hell are they even using that data? It is corrupted. Much like the data that Goddard receives that is often a repeat of previously sent data.
 
2009-06-11 03:23:48 PM  
 
2009-06-11 03:24:33 PM  

maxheck: I love the old talking point about water vapor being the major greenhouse gas. It's a great way of telling someone who doesn't understand the problem.

Water vapor provides a baseline for the greenhouse effect. It has a very short cycling time, and globally the amount of water vapor in the air will always be directly dependent on the temperature so long as there's open water on the planet.

You might have noticed that water comes out of the atmosphere very quickly when it's too concentrated. As someone once pointed out, if you stand outside long enough it'll hit you.

CO2 doesn't precipitate out as water does. It takes decades to years because it only happens through chemical, biological or geological process, and not through a simple phase change.

But let's try an analogy based on the "CO2 is a much smaller influence than water vapor!' logic, and see where it goes.

On a freezing cold day the inside of your house might be at a comfortable 293 degrees kelvin. 273 of those degrees are provided by the sun, and 20 from your furnace.

Your furnace is only providing 7% of the warmth in your house! By golly, why even bother turning it on, since it has so little effect!

Obviously you don't need to worry about paying your heating bills. The sun is providing the majority of the heat you need!

Of course that's absurd, but that's the reasoning behind deniers saying "Water vapor is the larger influence!"


And you want me to take your word for that, do you??

Do you really want people to believe that if you turn off your furnace on a freezing cold day that the house will remain at 68 degrees?? Is that your premise?
 
2009-06-11 03:26:36 PM  

Zafler: Jesus H. Christ. The Oregon Petition? AGAIN!? Are Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce still on it? (new window)

Here they have a few links where they go in depth into the problems with this thing. (new window)


All of the names that are currently on the list are accurate and verified. All of the fake names that WERE SUBMITTED were removed a long time ago. You know this, why do you lie??
 
2009-06-11 03:28:14 PM  

nicksteel: easily corrected for?? Why in the hell are they even using that data? It is corrupted. Much like the data that Goddard receives that is often a repeat of previously sent data.


Knew I should have addresed this long debunked idiocy right away.

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA's collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA. (new window)

Hey, look at that, if you click the link, they have links directly to the sources for the information.

Now how about you address some of this:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.
 
2009-06-11 03:31:47 PM  
The event that Zafler wants you to ignore:

THE LITTLE ICE AGE

Himalayan Glaciers Reference
Chaujar, R.K. 2009. Climate change and its impact on the Himalayan glaciers - a case study on the Chorabari glacier, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Current Science 96: 703-708.

What was done
"Based on the dating of lichens, developed on loops of moraines formed due to various stages of advance and retreat of the [Chorabari] glacier," the author pinpoints the time at which the warming that led to the demise of the Little Ice Age -- and, ultimately, the ushering in of the Current Warm Period -- began in the Kedarnath temple area of the Garhwal Himalayas, after which he briefly reviews the similar findings of others at a variety of places around the globe.

What was learned
Chaujar reports that "research on various glaciers of the northern and southern hemisphere has shown that most of them started their retreat in the mid-eighteenth century, thereby indicating the end of the Little Ice Age maximum," which temporal coincidence, in his words, "suggests the possibility of a common trend in mountain areas of both hemispheres and the Himalayas," indicative of a global phenomenon.

What it means
The Indian researcher concludes that "these results suggest that climatic changes in the world started during early to mid-eighteenth century," which is long before the historical increase in the air's CO2 content could have been involved in the process of their retreat. Hence, we conclude there is no compelling reason to believe that late-20th-century global warming was anything more than a continuation of the non-anthropogenic-induced return of the earth from the frigid depths of the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest interval of the interglacial period in which we currently live. Humanity had nothing to do with the globe's descent into that record-breaking cold; and we have likely had little to do with the planet's recovery from it, which is now probably complete, as the earth has experienced no net warming over the past decade or so ... which is yet another reason to believe that we were not responsible for late-20th-century global warming.
Reviewed 10 June 2009
 
2009-06-11 03:33:19 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: easily corrected for?? Why in the hell are they even using that data? It is corrupted. Much like the data that Goddard receives that is often a repeat of previously sent data.

Knew I should have addresed this long debunked idiocy right away.

As many people will have read there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA's collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA. (new window)

Hey, look at that, if you click the link, they have links directly to the sources for the information.

Now how about you address some of this:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.


gee, Einstein, I addressed those questions earlier today. Was it not simplistic enough for you to realize that I had done so? I tried to use little words, I really did.
 
2009-06-11 03:33:21 PM  
nicksteel
The first link was to demonstrate how false it was to begin with. The second link contains in depth discussion of the problems with this petition.

Also contained in the first link:

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

So of all the signatories, you have less than 100 people that are qualified to make statements of any authority. The opinions of less than 100 people versus the scientific evidence which puts the theory of ACC in the category of "almost certainly true" (greater than 99%), per the IPCC. Yes, I know, you dismiss the IPCC even after it was decided that the overwhelming number of their opinions were conservative AND that they are the authoritative body on the subject for the world. Well, the UN at least.
 
2009-06-11 03:36:17 PM  
Planetary Carbon Sequestration:
Earth's Biosphere Flexes Its Muscles Ten years ago, many people were fearful the air's CO2 content would rise in direct proportion to the magnitude of humanity's ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Idso (1991a,b), however, felt otherwise. He predicted the air's CO2 content would rise at a rate that would be a declining percentage of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, because he felt the productivity of earth's plant life would rise in response to the ongoing increase in the air's CO2 content - due to the well known aerial fertilization effect of carbon dioxide - thereby resulting in ever more CO2 being removed from the atmosphere each year. Today, he appears to be vindicated by real-world data, as Wofsy (2001) reports in a Climate Change article in Science magazine that "emission rates of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly."

What is responsible for this largely unanticipated turn of events? In a word, the biosphere. Much like Rodney Dangerfield, "it don't get no respect." For years environmentalists have warned us about how fragile earth's biosphere is; and in many cases dealing with specific species or ecosystems, they have been correct. In its totality, however, the biosphere is much more resilient than most people give it credit for being. As atmospheric CO2 - the lifeblood of the planet - has gradually risen over the course of the Industrial Revolution, for example, the biosphere has begun to reveal its true strength, with the plants of the planet growing ever more robustly and profusely, as they expand their ranges over the face of the earth and extract ever greater quantities of CO2 from the air and sequester its carbon in their tissues and the soil into which they sink their roots (Idso, 1995).

A good case in point is the vegetation of the coterminous United States. Pacala et al. (2001) report in a recent article in Science that estimates of the country's 48-state carbon sequestering power have grown significantly over the past several years, from a range of 0.08-0.35 x 1015 grams of carbon per year (Pg C yr-1) in the 1980s to a range of 0.37-0.71 Pg C yr-1 today, with some evidence suggesting values as high as 0.81-0.84 Pg C yr-1 (Fan et al., 1998). Likewise, we read in another report in the same issue of Science that carbon sequestration in China is growing like gangbusters as well (Fang et al., 2001). With a little help from the government via several "ecological restoration projects" aimed primarily at afforestation and reforestation, the world's most populous country has turned around what had been a losing proposition with respect to carbon capture by forests to where it has now been increasing its forest carbon sequestration rate by an average of 0.021 Pg C yr-1 for about the last two decades.

Yes, we are by no means headed for a runaway atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect, or even a runaway atmospheric CO2 concentration. The biosphere - helped by man's overt husbandry of its plant life (forests, in particular) and his inadvertent fertilization of the air with the carbon dioxide he produces - is beginning to exert a powerful brake on the rate of rise of the air's CO2 content, such that the large increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions of the past two decades have not resulted in any increase in the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Hence, there is every reason to believe that by the judicious application of management techniques designed to foster carbon sequestration in earth's terrestrial ecosystems, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration may actually be stabilized in the not too distant future, as more plants growing more robustly - thanks to the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment - flex their muscles and constrain the air's CO2 content to a new equilibrium level that forestalls any threat of CO2-induced global warming while concurrently stimulating earth's plant life to achieve the higher productivity level that will be required to feed the planet's burgeoning population that is expected to level out at approximately the same time the air's CO2 concentration does (Idso and Idso, 2000).

Sounds a lot like a win-win situation for man and nature alike ... and without the onerous burden of superfluous regulations and taxes. The biosphere can clearly have its carbon dioxide cake, and eat it too!
Dr. Craig D. Idso Dr. Keith E. Idso

References
Fan, S., Gloor, M., Mahlman, J., Pacala, S., Sarmiento, J., Takahashi, T. and Tans, P. 1998. A large terrestrial carbon sink in North America implied by atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide data and models. Science 282: 442-446.

Fang, J., Chen, A., Peng, C., Zhao, S. and Ci. L. 2001. Changes in forest biomass carbon storage in China between 1949 and 1998. Science 292: 2320-2322.

Idso, C.D. and Idso, K.E. 2000. Forecasting world food supplies: The impact of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Technology 7S: 33-55.

Idso, S.B. 1991a. The aerial fertilization effect of CO2 and its implications for global carbon cycling and maximum greenhouse warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72: 962-965.

Idso, S.B. 1991b. Reply to comments of L.D. Danny Harvey, Bert Bolin, and P. Lehmann. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72: 1910-1914.

Idso, S.B. 1995. CO2 and the Biosphere: The Incredible Legacy of the Industrial Revolution. Special Publication, Department of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Pacala, S.W., Hurtt, G.C., Baker, D., Peylin, P., Houghton, R.A., Birdsey, R.A., Heath, L., Sundquist, E.T., Stallard, R.F., Ciais, P., Moorcroft, P., Caspersen, J.P., Shevliakova, E., Moore, B., Kohlmaier, G., Holland, E., Gloor, M., Harmon, M.E., Fan, S.-M., Sarmiento, J.L., Goodale, C.L., Schimel, D. and Field, C.B. 2001. Consistent land- and atmosphere-based U.S. carbon sink estimates. Science 292: 2316-1320.

Wofsy, S.C. 2001. Where has all the carbon gone? Science 292 (5525): 2261 online.
 
2009-06-11 03:37:11 PM  
nicksteel:

maxheck: nicksteel:

you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence. Name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be caused by AGW.

Right after you name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be the result of macroevolution through natural selection.

Are you an evolution skeptic as well?

Can you name three people who died of lung cancer PROVABLY CAUSED by smoking cigarettes?

No? I guess you doubt that smoking increases lung cancer then.

I get the impression that you really don't understand very well how science works.


You made an extremely stupid comment so I responded with a question that was at the same level. you reject my question, but not your statement. Interesting.


In case you didn't catch it, I pointed out that asking for "Name three events that have happened in the last ten years that were proven to be caused by AGW." is an unanswerable question.

Again, could you answer any of the questions I posed? No, you can not.

As far as "you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence." you've provided nothing but opinion and anecdote. Nice projection work there, Lou.

A survey of random scientists who doubt ACC?

Well, I am sure that the chief chemist at Krispy Kreme Donuts headquarters knows a lot about food chemistry, I'm sure a Phd metallurgist knows all about metals, I'm sure a neurobiologist knows all about nerves...

But why the heck would I care about their opinion on climatology any more than a carpenter's thoughts on auto mechanics?
 
2009-06-11 03:38:59 PM  
nicksteel:

Do you really want people to believe that if you turn off your furnace on a freezing cold day that the house will remain at 68 degrees?? Is that your premise?

No, I said it was absurd.

You on the other hand...

Do you really want people to believe that CO2 is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect? Is that your premise?
 
2009-06-11 03:39:22 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel
The first link was to demonstrate how false it was to begin with. The second link contains in depth discussion of the problems with this petition.

Also contained in the first link:

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

So of all the signatories, you have less than 100 people that are qualified to make statements of any authority. The opinions of less than 100 people versus the scientific evidence which puts the theory of ACC in the category of "almost certainly true" (greater than 99%), per the IPCC. Yes, I know, you dismiss the IPCC even after it was decided that the overwhelming number of their opinions were conservative AND that they are the authoritative body on the subject for the world. Well, the UN at least.


The scientists on that list are just as qualified as the scientists who worked on the IPCC report BEFORE that report was CENSORED to make it more agreeable to some countries. Many of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report have come out and said that they disagree with the CENSORED findings.
 
2009-06-11 03:42:12 PM  

nicksteel: The scientists on that list are just as qualified as the scientists who worked on the IPCC report BEFORE that report was CENSORED to make it more agreeable to some countries. Many of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report have come out and said that they disagree with the CENSORED findings.


Yes, saying that it was too conservative in the estimates. In particular the rate at which the glaciers in the Arctic and Greenland are melting.

Good job! You actually got something right. That's wonderful. THis is a brand new day. Will you now actually read the basic physics and chemistry behind climate change so you are somewhat informed? I know, absorption spectra of carbon dioxide only goes back 150 years and it is ever so hard for you to understand, but please make the effort to do so.
 
2009-06-11 03:44:52 PM  
a report on the "converted", scientists who believed but have changed their minds.
Link
 
2009-06-11 03:45:55 PM  
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that
manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad
culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far
more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,‖ Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article.
According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only ―incriminating circumstantial evidence.‖ "Solar activity
can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does
not exist,‖ Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National
Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the
global temperature." ―Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50%
increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature
would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,‖ Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a
colleague of his believed that ―CO2 should have a large effect on climate‖ so ―he set out to reconstruct the
phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly
had to change his views.‖ Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global
warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. ―I think this is common to many of the scientists
who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own
niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW
(Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,‖ he wrote.
 
2009-06-11 03:48:21 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: The scientists on that list are just as qualified as the scientists who worked on the IPCC report BEFORE that report was CENSORED to make it more agreeable to some countries. Many of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report have come out and said that they disagree with the CENSORED findings.

Yes, saying that it was too conservative in the estimates. In particular the rate at which the glaciers in the Arctic and Greenland are melting.

Good job! You actually got something right. That's wonderful. THis is a brand new day. Will you now actually read the basic physics and chemistry behind climate change so you are somewhat informed? I know, absorption spectra of carbon dioxide only goes back 150 years and it is ever so hard for you to understand, but please make the effort to do so.


You know as well as I do that the scientists ALL stated that the report was ramped up to make the situation worse than they reported. Why do you lie about these things?? Is the truth that harmful to your cause. As long as you continue to lie, I will feel obliged to post articles that prove you are lying. How deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself??
 
2009-06-11 03:49:25 PM  
 
2009-06-11 03:50:46 PM  
nicksteel:

The scientists on that list are just as qualified as the scientists who worked on the IPCC report BEFORE that report was CENSORED to make it more agreeable to some countries. Many of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report have come out and said that they disagree with the CENSORED findings.

Oh happy day!

You do realize that the findings were **watered down** for political reasons, right? That the politicos made them censor the report to *minimize* the implications of ACC?

But it's great that you now realize that the politicos are twisting the science to make it look like ACC is less of an issue. Good for you!
 
2009-06-11 03:52:22 PM  

Zafler: THe Senate minority page? Really? Yep, scientific. Not to mention that is the same place you used to pull out of context quotes from.

Shaviv is a climate change skeptic and was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. He contends that the sun's rays, rather than human produced CO2, are the cause of global climate change. [1] This contention, though, has been heavily disputed. A new analysis of data "on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest.The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate. (new window)

Care to reset and try again with your shot gunned thread shiats?


Instead of attacking the place where the information is posted, maybe you should try attacking the information itself. Oh wait, you can't. Because the information is accurate and you really don't know a thing about the subject that would enable you to actually address the information.
 
2009-06-11 03:55:25 PM  
ZAFLER - please explain to me why the statements of this professor from MIT are wrong. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Remember, attack the information, not the man.

A Case Against Climate Alarmism
by Richard Lindzen, February 7th, 2008
THE FLUID ENVELOPE: A CASE AGAINST CLIMATE ALARMISM
Industrial Smokestacks and Smog
It's easy to imagine such an impressive
output of gas could be harming the earth.
(Photo: US EPA)

Editor's Note: Our charter to report on clean technology and the status of species and ecosystems seems to always bring us back to one overriding distraction - global warming alarm - and small wonder. We are in the midst of one of the most dramatic transformations of political economy in the history of the world - and nobody is watching. "The debate is over on global warming," goes the consensus, and even if that were a healthy or accurate notion, why has this consensus translated into hardly any vigorous debate over what would be a rational response?

Despite ongoing rhetoric to the contrary from virtually every environmental nonprofit in existance, the United States has been an extraordinarily responsible nation. We listened to our environmental movement; we institutionalized it. On every front there has been huge progress over the past 30-40 years. Our air and water are orders of magnitude cleaner even though our population has doubled. Our landfills our ultra-safe. We have set aside vast tracts of wilderness, rescued countless endangered species. Our food supply is scrupulously monitored. And every year our technology and our prosperity delivers new options to eliminate more pollution and live healthier lives. So what happened?

In the rest of the world there is also reason for great optimism, despite some discouraging challenges that continue to grip humanity. Human population is voluntarily leveling off, so that within 25-30 years the number of people on planet earth will peak at around 8.5 billion - and every time the projection is revisited, that estimate drops. At an even faster pace, humanity is urbanizing - and this voluntary movement is taking people out of the vast and potentially endangered forests and other biomes faster than population increase replaces them. Land is becoming abundant again. So what's wrong?

Technology promises abundant energy within a few decades, using clean fossil fuel as we systematically replace it with solar, nuclear, run-of-river hydroelectric, enhanced geothermal, wind, possibly biofuel. Technology promises abundant water within a few decades, as we learn how to recycle every drop of water used in the urban environment, convert many crops to drip irrigation, and develop massive desalination capacity. So why don't we get to work?

The reason is because of global warming alarm. The bells of warning are ringing so loud that CO2 is all that matters anymore. Want to stop using petroleum? Then burn the rainforests for biofuel. Want to stop using coal? Then forget about installing affordable scrubbers to remove the soot that billows from coal fired power plants across burgeoning Asia - why clean up something that needs to be shut down? Want to save allegedly scarce open space? Then cram everyone into ultra-high density "infill" and destroy every semi rural neighborhood in the western world. Make housing unaffordable, then mandate taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing. And do it all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

Today, after reading two documents from the website of the Attorney General of California, "Mitigation Measures," and "Global Warming Contrarians and the Falsehoods they Promote," I became so alarmed at what we are willingly, blindly bringing upon ourselves because of all this CO2 alarm that I contacted Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has already contributed two lengthy articles to EcoWorld, "Current Behavior of Global Mean Surface Temperature," and "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?" I asked Dr. Lindzen if he still held the views he does. He replied emphatically in the affirmative, and sent me the article that follows. Dr. Lindzen, along with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., with whom EcoWorld recently published the exclusive "Interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.," are both internationally respected atmospheric scientists. And both of them, in somewhat different ways, are quite concerned about the overemphasis on CO2.

Anyone who is championing extreme measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2 should attempt for themselves to understand the science. As Dr. Lindzen wrote me earlier today, policymakers such as Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger "can be excused given the degree to which the environmental movement has taken over the professional societies."

"Science" has become the trump card that drowns out reason - what great irony. And the scientific establishment itself has become politicized. And if you read the mitigation measures being proposed, just imagine if there was nothing we could do to affect global warming - which even some of the lead authors of the IPCC studies themselves acknowlege - and see if you want to live in the brave new world we are leading ourselves into by our own gullible noses.

Dramatic and positive global economic and technological developments, along with voluntary and irreversible global demographic trends, are about to deliver us a future where we enjoy unprecedented environmental health, abundance and prosperity. But to do this we need to preserve our economic and personal freedoms. Will the measures being proposed - especially in trendsetting California - fruitlessly combat a problem that doesn't exist, crush economic growth and trample on individual freedom, and rob humanity of this hopeful destiny?

- Ed "Redwood" Ring
The Fluid Envelope - A Case Against Climate Alarmism
by Dr. Richard Lindzen, February 2008
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger Portrait with California Flag
What will be his legacy?

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the Goebbelian substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and previous warm periods appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages.

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don't fully understand either the advance or the retreat. For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface.

Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man. This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.

This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no significant global warming for the last ten years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UKs Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCCs iconic attribution. Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past decade is acknowledged.
Santa Cruz Mountains and Redwood Forests
Whether or not someone is a climate alarmist should have no
bearing on the strength or purity of their environmentalist convictions.
(Read "Global Warming Questions")
-

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.

However, the really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind.

The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal. Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring is almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts: famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more.

This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Given the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 2 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue.
California Attorney General
Jerry Brown
Jerry Brown Portrait
What is his dream?

The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power and influence are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true.

After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for saving the world. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further.

The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities . The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to ones carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant.

The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (Americas largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol is already leading to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.
Richard Lindzen Portrait

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu).
 
2009-06-11 03:56:29 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

The scientists on that list are just as qualified as the scientists who worked on the IPCC report BEFORE that report was CENSORED to make it more agreeable to some countries. Many of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report have come out and said that they disagree with the CENSORED findings.

Oh happy day!

You do realize that the findings were **watered down** for political reasons, right? That the politicos made them censor the report to *minimize* the implications of ACC?

But it's great that you now realize that the politicos are twisting the science to make it look like ACC is less of an issue. Good for you!


are you another of Zafler's alter egos?? You make the same stupid assumptions that he does.
 
2009-06-11 03:57:30 PM  

nicksteel: You know as well as I do that the scientists ALL stated that the report was ramped up to make the situation worse than they reported. Why do you lie about these things?? Is the truth that harmful to your cause. As long as you continue to lie, I will feel obliged to post articles that prove you are lying. How deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself??


Good job on some more lieing lil nicky! There was a glimmer of hope for you to start using ration, logic, and scientific sources. Alas, it was too much to hope for.

Meh, blog but contains links. (new window)

After some debate, the scientists and diplomats of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their long-anticipated summary report in February. The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming. By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did. (new window)
 
2009-06-11 04:00:19 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: You know as well as I do that the scientists ALL stated that the report was ramped up to make the situation worse than they reported. Why do you lie about these things?? Is the truth that harmful to your cause. As long as you continue to lie, I will feel obliged to post articles that prove you are lying. How deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself??

Good job on some more lieing lil nicky! There was a glimmer of hope for you to start using ration, logic, and scientific sources. Alas, it was too much to hope for.

Meh, blog but contains links. (new window)

After some debate, the scientists and diplomats of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their long-anticipated summary report in February. The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming. By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did. (new window)


I guess you missed the list I posted that showed the IPCC scientists who are now against the IPCC position. It makes your statement look really lame.
 
2009-06-11 04:02:50 PM  
www.ace.mmu.ac.uk
 
2009-06-11 04:04:23 PM  
files.abovetopsecret.com
 
2009-06-11 04:09:08 PM  
More shotgunned stupidity. You do realize your graph does not addres carbon sinks? THat Lindzens opinion in no way reflects the scientific data on the subject? That your 2 papers come from what amounts to an opinion journal, because of not being recognized as a peer review journal by the international body in charge of such?

You've been shown these before, but go ahead and ignore them again. (new window)

www.eia.doe.gov

If anyone out there is actually following along, please note that most of my posts are supported by scientific data, and contain internal citations to such. 3/4 of what he has posted comes directly from opinions backed by the Heartland Institute. (new window)

IN addition, here, once again, is the New Scientist link that addresses, and includes citations, about all this denialist crap he is throwing here. (new window)
 
2009-06-11 04:20:14 PM  

Zafler: More shotgunned stupidity. You do realize your graph does not addres carbon sinks? THat Lindzens opinion in no way reflects the scientific data on the subject? That your 2 papers come from what amounts to an opinion journal, because of not being recognized as a peer review journal by the international body in charge of such?

You've been shown these before, but go ahead and ignore them again. (new window)

If anyone out there is actually following along, please note that most of my posts are supported by scientific data, and contain internal citations to such. 3/4 of what he has posted comes directly from opinions backed by the Heartland Institute. (new window)

IN addition, here, once again, is the New Scientist link that addresses, and includes citations, about all this denialist crap he is throwing here. (new window)


You have attacked the source, but not the data. I guess that means that you agree with the data. I love how every site, magazine and/or person who opposes your religion is automatically labeled a bad guy with a devious agenda but the people who believe in your religion are spouting off purely for the benefit of mankind. That is one of your more childish actions.
 
2009-06-11 04:21:46 PM  
Zafler, I'm still waiting for your response?

nicksteel Quote 2009-06-11 03:55:25 PM
 
2009-06-11 04:28:02 PM  
nicksteel

The fact that Lindzens opinions have essentially zero supporting evidence makes them dismissable. AS far as the other one about the Little Ice age goes, it directly contradicts most every temperature reconstruction. It was also addressed in the New Scientist article. Of course, that would have meant you actually had to open and read one of the links I have provided.

The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone. (new window)

But go ahead, ignore that all your talking points have already been addressed and shown to be faulty. Your posting history indicates that is your modus operandi anyway.

www.newscientist.com


Once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.
 
2009-06-11 04:32:03 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel

The fact that Lindzens opinions have essentially zero supporting evidence makes them dismissable. AS far as the other one about the Little Ice age goes, it directly contradicts most every temperature reconstruction. It was also addressed in the New Scientist article. Of course, that would have meant you actually had to open and read one of the links I have provided.

The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the first half of the 20th century may have been largely due to an increase in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone. (new window)

But go ahead, ignore that all your talking points have already been addressed and shown to be faulty. Your posting history indicates that is your modus operandi anyway.

Once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.


Now I get it, you are under the impression that you are smarter than the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The size of your ego is amazing.
 
2009-06-11 04:36:39 PM  
Link pops

All you need to know.
 
2009-06-11 04:37:19 PM  

nicksteel: Now I get it, you are under the impression that you are smarter than the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The size of your ego is amazing.


No, I am of the opinion that decisions should be made on evidence. He has no evidence. He is essentially accusing the entirety of the cimate science personnell of fear mongering. This is ludicrous on its face.

Once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.
 
2009-06-11 04:42:56 PM  
Oh, and in addition, he has been spinnin g and abandoning contrarian arguments against the scientific evidence for almsot 20 years. (new window)

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[11]

So, someone willing to get his opinion in newspapers, without evidence, and has the same funding as the Heartland Institute and various other contrarians. Yes, I should believe his accusations of fear mongering rather than the evidence that was aquired through scientific rigor.
 
2009-06-11 04:44:48 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: Now I get it, you are under the impression that you are smarter than the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The size of your ego is amazing.

No, I am of the opinion that decisions should be made on evidence. He has no evidence. He is essentially accusing the entirety of the cimate science personnell of fear mongering. This is ludicrous on its face.

Once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.


How old are you??? Six???

I provided you a response to your question hours ago. And then I told you that I had done so. Now, I can only assume that you are an idiot or you cannot understand what you read. Or maybe you are both. Stop asking a question I have already answered, it just makes you look more stupid each time you do so.
 
2009-06-11 04:47:28 PM  

Zafler: Oh, and in addition, he has been spinnin g and abandoning contrarian arguments against the scientific evidence for almsot 20 years. (new window)

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[11]

So, someone willing to get his opinion in newspapers, without evidence, and has the same funding as the Heartland Institute and various other contrarians. Yes, I should believe his accusations of fear mongering rather than the evidence that was aquired through scientific rigor.


once again, you attack the presenter of the information and not the information itself. That displays your level of intelligence and your integrity. Good for you. Establish a standard of conduct and then stick to it. Too bad you picked such a low standard but I guess you have to work with what you got.
 
2009-06-11 04:49:28 PM  
Experts Rebut IPCC on Its Analysis of Medieval Warm Period
Volume 12, Number 23: 10 June 2009
In an important paper recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change, Swiss scientists Jan Esper (of the Swiss Federal Research Institute) and David Frank (of the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research) take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to task for concluding in their fourth assessment report (AR4) that, relative to modern times, there was "an increased heterogeneity of climate during medieval times about 1000 years ago."

This finding, if true, would be of great significance to the ongoing debate over the cause of 20th-century global warming, because, in the words of Esper and Frank, "heterogeneity alone is often used as a distinguishing attribute to contrast with present anthropogenic warming." On the other hand, if the IPCC's contention is false, it would mean that the warmth of the Current Warm Period is not materially different from that of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), suggesting there is no need to invoke anything extraordinary (such as anthropogenic CO2 emissions) as the cause of earth's current warmth, which does not yet appear to have reached the level experienced a thousand years ago (when there was much less CO2 in the air than there is today), as is indicated by the materials archived in our Medieval Warm Period Project. And, of course, this outcome would also be of great significance.

So what did the two Swiss scientists find? By means of various mathematical procedures and statistical tests, Esper and Frank were able to demonstrate that the records reproduced in the AR4 "do not exhibit systematic changes in coherence, and thus cannot be used as evidence for long-term homogeneity changes." And even if they could be thus used, they say "there is no increased spread of values during the MWP," and that the standard error of the component data sets "is actually largest during recent decades." Consequently, the researchers concluded that their "quantification of proxy data coherence suggests that it was erroneous [for the IPCC] to conclude that the records displayed in AR4 are indicative of a heterogeneous climate during the MWP."

Nevertheless, the homogeneity issue remains unresolved, for as Esper and Frank also note, "an estimation of long-term spatial homogeneity changes is premature based on the smattering of data currently available." And that is why we continue to post the results of one new study each and every week that provides additional data on the Medieval Warm Period. We are determined to see this question -- and others associated with it -- clearly resolved, one way or the other. And as may be seen from the ever-expanding results of our Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot, the MWP is looking ever more global and substantial with every passing week.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Esper, J. and Frank, D. 2009. The IPCC on a heterogeneous Medieval Warm Period. Climatic Change 94: 267-273.
 
2009-06-11 04:52:13 PM  

nicksteel: A third grade teacher tells you that green houses gases can be explained by using a sealed soda bottle and you get the idea that the Earth acts just like that soda bottle.

You have no idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad for us and ignore the fact that the CO2 content has been much higher in the past than it is now.

You also ignore the most basic explanation for the increase in temperature since 1850. The end of the Little Ice Age was just about then. The average increase we have experienced since then is almost EXACTLY what the average decrease was during the Little Ice Age.

Or is that just a coincidence????


This is not an answer to my questions, because it assumes things that are not true. It has been more than 800k years since the carbon dioxide levels have been higher, your little ice age declaration was already refuted courtesy of New Scientist (with citations) before you even posted it. You have not explained any of it.

So once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.
 
2009-06-11 05:05:05 PM  

Zafler: nicksteel: A third grade teacher tells you that green houses gases can be explained by using a sealed soda bottle and you get the idea that the Earth acts just like that soda bottle.

You have no idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad for us and ignore the fact that the CO2 content has been much higher in the past than it is now.

You also ignore the most basic explanation for the increase in temperature since 1850. The end of the Little Ice Age was just about then. The average increase we have experienced since then is almost EXACTLY what the average decrease was during the Little Ice Age.

Or is that just a coincidence????

This is not an answer to my questions, because it assumes things that are not true. It has been more than 800k years since the carbon dioxide levels have been higher, your little ice age declaration was already refuted courtesy of New Scientist (with citations) before you even posted it. You have not explained any of it.

So once again:

Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.


Just because you do not like my argument does not make it wrong. I believe that the Little Ice Age is a very good alternative answer. You have not refuted it at all.
 
2009-06-11 05:28:58 PM  
Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.

The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 - it runs the opposite way!
 
2009-06-11 06:21:10 PM  

nicksteel: n an important paper recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Chang...


Aren't you the one who keeps telling us that peer-reviewed science papers are worthless?
 
2009-06-11 06:32:49 PM  

Sgt. Pepper: nicksteel: n an important paper recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Chang...

Aren't you the one who keeps telling us that peer-reviewed science papers are worthless?


No, it works like this:

There are people who tell me that only peer-reviewed papers are worth anything. When those same people post a non-peer reviewed article, I tell them to do what they tell others to do.

I really don't care if a paper is peer reviewed. I think that the process is misunderstood by the people here and I also believe that the process is flawed.
 
2009-06-11 06:34:25 PM  
wow, if you add the 2 arguing ultra maroons to the /ignore list 65 posts disappear.
 
2009-06-11 06:51:44 PM  

castufari: wow, if you add the 2 arguing ultra maroons to the /ignore list 65 posts disappear.


That is not a chestnut comment.
 
2009-06-11 07:18:42 PM  

Ecobuckeye: castufari: wow, if you add the 2 arguing ultra maroons to the /ignore list 65 posts disappear.

That is not a chestnut comment.


As long as Zafler and his fellow zealots post their crap here, I will continue to post the opposing view. It seems like the right thing to do.
 
2009-06-11 07:38:00 PM  

Ecobuckeye: castufari: wow, if you add the 2 arguing ultra maroons to the /ignore list 65 posts disappear.

That is not a chestnut comment.


I have one in my backyard that hasn't been killed off (yet). The local drive by arborists wanted to "top" it to save it.
 
2009-06-11 07:54:48 PM  

nicksteel: Just because you do not like my argument does not make it wrong. I believe that the Little Ice Age is a very good alternative answer. You have not refuted it at all.


Actually, he has refuted it. All of the evidence shows that temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period, the most recent temperature maximum, were lower than they are today, and that the Little Ice Age was not a tremendous climate driver. Furthermore,

nicksteel: As long as Zafler and his fellow zealots post their crap here, I will continue to post the opposing view. It seems like the right thing to do.


In addition to posting repeatedly, you are also trolling and harassing other farkers. Read the FArQ and chill out. Right now, you're cruising for a ban.
 
2009-06-11 10:22:03 PM  
FTFA:
Carbon dioxide is considered a major greenhouse gas, responsible for rising global temperatures.

Uhm, hello, the temperature trend for this entire century is for falling temperatures, not increasing ones. Asshats.
 
2009-06-11 10:29:20 PM  
Jesus Christ you people are such farking babies all the time. Dude just wants to plant some fungus-resistant trees.

What the fark is wrong about reducing carbon dioxide? If your answer is "nothing" then stop shiatting up a thread about Chestnut trees, which are awesome, and go slap-fight in some other thread tangentially related to you pet issue.
 
2009-06-11 10:29:54 PM  
Zafler:

LOLZ!

I love this obviously spurious graph of misinformation:

www.newscientist.com

...especially the "direct measurements" part. So, I guess direct measurements (black line) show that temperatures have gone up each and every year from 1990 to 2000, and that there was no peak in 1998 even. LOLZ!

Way to post an obviously bogus graph.
 
2009-06-11 10:55:42 PM  

nicksteel: I really don't care if a paper is peer reviewed. I think that the process is misunderstood by the people here and I also believe that the process is flawed.


Misunderstood, really? Let me ask you this, since you claim to know so much about the process. How does a paper's editor usually choose referees for a particular paper? How much do referees usually get paid?

/Difficulty: No using Google.
 
2009-06-11 10:57:10 PM  

trofl: Misunderstood, really? Let me ask you this, since you claim to know so much about the process. How does a paper's

journal's editor usually choose referees for a particular paper? How much do referees usually get paid?

/Difficulty: No using Google.
 
2009-06-11 11:13:37 PM  

Ecobuckeye: castufari: wow, if you add the 2 arguing ultra maroons to the /ignore list 65 posts disappear.

That is not a chestnut comment.


i43.tinypic.com

That's how a one way hash works.
 
2009-06-11 11:14:14 PM  
Does this mean that the price of chestnut burl veneer will be within my reach now? Then I'm all for it.
 
2009-06-12 08:28:21 AM  

Sgt. Pepper: nicksteel: n an important paper recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Chang...

Aren't you the one who keeps telling us that peer-reviewed science papers are worthless?


nicksteel: Creationists read the bible and Jon Snow reads scientific magazines, what is the difference?

You're also notice that in this thread, he cites Reid Bryson as an authority on climate when its suits his purposes, but after nicksteel challenged another Farker on his credentials, and that Farker explained that he studied at UW-Madison:

nicksteel: "University of Wisconsin?? What's wrong. couldn't get into a good university??"

(Madison is excellent, by the way.)

But most threads more or less go like the end of this one:

Me: Uh, you're making things up again. I'm doing you the favor of linking to hard evidence in reputable journals. Care to name a source?
nicksteel: (pastes wall of text)
Me: That's an essay a freshman wrote to satisfy his writing requirement. Here's a link to it, and a link to his class's webpage. Oh, by the way, here are three major errors the author made, with links to hard evidence.
nicksteel: (personal insults; exits stage right)
 
2009-06-12 08:35:27 AM  
chimp_ninja

Yeah, and if you call him on it you get posts deleted, and told to ignore the misinformation from him.
 
2009-06-12 08:42:05 AM  

captainktainer: In addition to posting repeatedly, you are also trolling and harassing other farkers. Read the FArQ and chill out. Right now, you're cruising for a ban.


Bah, meant to quote this as well as in the other post. I need more coffee.
 
2009-06-12 08:45:47 AM  

nicksteel: The research is only as good as the data. And the data that is being gathered for global temperatures is not very good. Look at these photos of some of the stations gathering that data. The requirements that were set forth were that the sites were to be in areas that would not have unnatural influences (meaning human activity)


upload.wikimedia.org
"This figure compares the global average surface temperature record, as compiled by Jones and Moberg (2003; data set TaveGL2v with 2005 updates), to the microwave sounder (MSU) satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures determined by Christy et al. (UAH 2003; data set tltglhmam version 5.2 with 2005 updates) and Schabel et al. (RSS 2002; data set tlt_land_and_ocean with 2005 updates). These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2004. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively."


www.ncdc.noaa.gov
(Source: NOAA/NCDC)

Two simple trends show how ridiculous the "I took a photo of something near an air conditioner vent": The satellite temperature measurements match the ground-level measurements, and the ocean temperatures show the same general trends towards increasing temperatures. (Unless, of course, air conditioners of similar strength are also in space and under the ocean.)
 
2009-06-12 05:03:40 PM  

chimp_ninja: You're also notice that in this thread, he cites Reid Bryson as an authority on climate when its suits his purposes, but after nicksteel challenged another Farker on his credentials, and that Farker explained that he studied at UW-Madison:

nicksteel: "University of Wisconsin?? What's wrong. couldn't get into a good university??"

(Madison is excellent, by the way.)


Just for those that don't know, the particular irony is that Reid Bryson was a professor at UW-Madison.

And I will say that UW-Madison particularly has a great atmospheric sciences department, perhaps the best for micro/biometeorology (John Norman is a legend).
 
2009-06-12 09:11:58 PM  

trofl: chimp_ninja: You're also notice that in this thread, he cites Reid Bryson as an authority on climate when its suits his purposes, but after nicksteel challenged another Farker on his credentials, and that Farker explained that he studied at UW-Madison:

nicksteel: "University of Wisconsin?? What's wrong. couldn't get into a good university??"

(Madison is excellent, by the way.)

Just for those that don't know, the particular irony is that Reid Bryson was a professor at UW-Madison.

And I will say that UW-Madison particularly has a great atmospheric sciences department, perhaps the best for micro/biometeorology (John Norman is a legend).


Biometeorology isn't really focused on in the undergraduate program at all, though it does have at least one or two graduate level courses focusing on that particular area. As for what research is done on the subject I couldn't really say, though I know one or two people who are working on research dealing with biometeorology, and biological interactions on climate scales and trying to improve them in climate models. The undergraduate seems more focused on synoptic scale, and mesoscale meteorology.

/Graduated from UW madison with Atmospheric science undergraduate degree
//Currently in the AOS graduate program working on Antarctic research
///I am the farker nicksteel challenged
 
2009-06-13 02:59:58 AM  

leehouse: Biometeorology isn't really focused on in the undergraduate program at all, though it does have at least one or two graduate level courses focusing on that particular area. As for what research is done on the subject I couldn't really say, though I know one or two people who are working on research dealing with biometeorology, and biological interactions on climate scales and trying to improve them in climate models. The undergraduate seems more focused on synoptic scale, and mesoscale meteorology.


Well, I figure that's what most undergrad programs are about (plus dynamics and physics) anyway. I was certain there are other good aspects about the grad program there, too (like the arctic/antarctic research), but my graduate research is more on the agricultural side of meteorology/climatology, so I'm particularly familiar with all the great work UW does regarding that. In fact, I'm working with an agroecosystem model that was mostly developed there. (Might as well call it the agroecosystem model; it's pretty much the only one that exists that can be "easily" coupled with GCM/RCMs.)
 
Displayed 112 of 112 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report