The Climate Change Climate Change

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

But don't let that get in the way. Keep posting links to things you haven't read or don't understand.

Why expect him to stop now? He's been doing it for years, and has had it pointed out many times previously.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You are the one who focused on it. Laugh You are something else!

actually you and your mates concentrated on it, i used it as an example, and you all jumped on the defensive.

like a typical lawyer you avoid the truth and focus on the poit you are trying to make.

I have to agree that volvos are safer than most, but an SUV is not needed to be safe. a volvo sedan is very safe!

Quote

So, useless burning of coal for electricity instead of using your legs? The nerve!

try water and gravity, my country uses 80% hydro electric, my island used 100% hydro electric. and the trees are removed before flooding the dams so don't start on the methane thing!

Quote

Big mistake. Plastic bags use far less energy to produce than paper, and they do not degrade into greenhouse gases like paper and cloth. Show some responsibility.

how about this concept, re-use bags, take a backpack?

I try not to waste, but you can't seem to grasp that concept.

Quote

Higly energy intensive things. They've gotta burn a lot of fuel just to transport that stuff.

you're digging deep now, keep going!

Quote

Quote
i'm not perfect

Nobody is.

there is something we can agree on!

Try taking bags to the supermarket with you next time, see if it makes you feel a little better about yourself?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Source for either?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11560

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

Thank you. We're making progress now.

Rush, pay attention, that wasn't so hard. Something less obviously biased would be prefered, but I'll take it.

I've got to question the statement that he made 1,400 interviews on this topic. At an average of 30 minutes each, that's 87.5 eight hour days of nothing but interviews. If that were the case, he's have to spend over four working months of doing nothing other than granting media interviews. I doubt it.

1,400 news stories citing or quoting him is much more believable.

Here's some of the articles talking about Hansen's complaints (taken from Wikipedia cites):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183

That took me about three minutes.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Thank you. We're making progress now.

Rush, pay attention, that wasn't so hard. Something less obviously biased would be prefered, but I'll take it.

I've got to question the statement that he made 1,400 interviews on this topic. At an average of 30 minutes each, that's 87.5 eight hour days of nothing but interviews. If that were the case, he's have to spend over four working months of doing nothing other than granting media interviews. I doubt it.

1,400 news stories citing or quoting him is much more believable.

Here's some of the articles talking about Hansen's complaints (taken from Wikipedia cites):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19162-2005Jan18.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183

That took me about three minutes.

wiki is a source??!!

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

[wmw999 2,440]

Wiki provides sources. He's citing the articles, not wiki itself.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Wiki provides sources. He's citing the articles, not wiki itself.

Wendy P.

tit for tat Wendy.

I have posted sites links and all the above. All I everr get is attacks of the sources so........

I also post complete not cherry pickings most of the time.

My postition was and is now that this science is not settled. Hansen lies about being quashed so why is he not lieing about eveything else. Reputable scientists have serious doubts and those following the religion of man made global climate change will listen to none of it. So, I demonstate the shit tactics they use by throwing back in their faces.

The only thing that is for sure, the law the house passed is bad news. It raises taxes, will increase oil imports because companies will not be able to produce here because of the cap n tax and in the end, has not a damned thing to do with polution.

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

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. More simply, temps rise, the bigest keeper (the ocean) of CO2 rises limiting its ability to hold CO2

As for the known green house gas comment. It has very little impact at all because of its limited trapping effects and its limited amounts in the total atmosphere.

Water vapor is hugly more impactful than what you breath out your mouth!

So, it reconciles itself now doesnt it..........

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

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ...

Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad.

So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billvon 2,990]

> Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases.

Historically, yes - because we are the first mechanism by which so much CO2 can be released. Up until now, CO2 was released as a result of spurious warming (due to a Milankovitch cycle or whatever) and amplified the resulting warming. As the climate warmed a little, tundras melted, clathrates released methane and forests burned - increasing the warming and leading to a positive feedback loop.

Now we're short circuiting that process and releasing the CO2 BEFORE the climactic variation. Thus, this time we're forcing CO2 to lead, and are beginning the positive feedback cycle without the external forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycle.)

>As for the known green house gas comment. It has very little impact at
>all because of its limited trapping effects and its limited amounts in the
>total atmosphere.

It was limited. We've increased it by 50% and on our way to doubling it. That's not a minor change.

>Water vapor is hugly more impactful than what you breath out
>your mouth!

And the CO2 from a coal plant is hugely more impactful than the water you put on your lawn.

>So, it reconciles itself now doesnt it..........

No, it doesn't.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact.
We are increasing the level of CO2 - fact.

Can't get around those facts no matter how many denier articles you post.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ...

Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad.

So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect.

Yours is the piss poor logic

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases.

Historically, yes - because we are the first mechanism by which so much CO2 can be released. Up until now, CO2 was released as a result of spurious warming (due to a Milankovitch cycle or whatever) and amplified the resulting warming. As the climate warmed a little, tundras melted, clathrates released methane and forests burned - increasing the warming and leading to a positive feedback loop.

Now we're short circuiting that process and releasing the CO2 BEFORE the climactic variation. Thus, this time we're forcing CO2 to lead, and are beginning the positive feedback cycle without the external forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycle.)

>As for the known green house gas comment. It has very little impact at
>all because of its limited trapping effects and its limited amounts in the
>total atmosphere.

It was limited. We've increased it by 50% and on our way to doubling it. That's not a minor change.

>Water vapor is hugly more impactful than what you breath out
>your mouth!

And the CO2 from a coal plant is hugely more impactful than the water you put on your lawn.

>So, it reconciles itself now doesnt it..........

No, it doesn't.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact.
We are increasing the level of CO2 - fact.

Can't get around those facts no matter how many denier articles you post.

Sorry this is what you believe.....

But is does not all tie together as cleanly as you post. With some inacuracies as well

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

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ...

Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad.

So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect.

Yours is the piss poor logic

I know you are but what am I.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ...

Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad.

So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect.

Yours is the piss poor logic

I know you are but what am I.

What would you have me post?

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

[makeithappen40 0]

Quote

Quote

> Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases.

Historically, yes - because we are the first mechanism by which so much CO2 can be released. Up until now, CO2 was released as a result of spurious warming (due to a Milankovitch cycle or whatever) and amplified the resulting warming. As the climate warmed a little, tundras melted, clathrates released methane and forests burned - increasing the warming and leading to a positive feedback loop.

Now we're short circuiting that process and releasing the CO2 BEFORE the climactic variation. Thus, this time we're forcing CO2 to lead, and are beginning the positive feedback cycle without the external forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycle.)

>As for the known green house gas comment. It has very little impact at
>all because of its limited trapping effects and its limited amounts in the
>total atmosphere.

It was limited. We've increased it by 50% and on our way to doubling it. That's not a minor change.

>Water vapor is hugly more impactful than what you breath out
>your mouth!

And the CO2 from a coal plant is hugely more impactful than the water you put on your lawn.

>So, it reconciles itself now doesnt it..........

No, it doesn't.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact.
We are increasing the level of CO2 - fact.

Can't get around those facts no matter how many denier articles you post.

Sorry this is what you believe.....

But is does not all tie together as cleanly as you post. With some inacuracies as well

But.....

Ahh fuck it. I'm done.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

actually you and your mates concentrated on it, i used it as an example, and you all jumped on the defensive.

Yes, offensive statements tend to lead to defense statements.

Quote

like a typical lawyer you avoid the truth and focus on the poit you are trying to make.

The truth? That SUV drivers are idiots? That SUV's kill children and puppies?

Quote

I have to agree that volvos are safer than most, but an SUV is not needed to be safe. a volvo sedan is very safe!

But a Volvo sedan lacks the ground clearance that I need to get to the cabin in the mountains. Unpaved road. Snow. Ice. Add to that supplies for the weekend, clothing, and two kids in carseats.

Let's say I wanted the 2003 Volvo S60 sedan - AWD. 16-23 mpg - the same as my XC90 (16-22). There is little if ANY mileage difference, but a significant advatage with safety. Why would I sacrifice safety for something that gives little or no mileage benefit, has less space for my family, is incapable of handling the situations that I have for the car and is less survivable in a crash?

A Prius ain't gonna get me to the cabin with my wife, kids and supplies in the winter. It'll get me a mile from it.

Quote

try water and gravity, my country uses 80% hydro electric,

So you are in favor of the destruction of ecosystems along river valleys? Hydro-electric = Dam. Dams make reservoirs. Reservoirs flood valleys.

In addition, the dams block streams, which prevent fish and other wildlife from living in their natural state. So your energy usage brings catastrophic changes to local flora and fauna.

What is done with the trees that are removed? Are they burned? Or are they left to decompose creating additional methane and CO2 emissions, in addition to the now lacking carbon sink effect that is now lost?

Is this justifiable?

Quote

how about this concept, re-use bags, take a backpack?

I prefer not to send phosporus into the ecosystem and increase water pollution and usage by the utilization of cloth reusables. Resuing plastic bags is something that I do, however.

Quote

I try not to waste, but you can't seem to grasp that concept.

I try not to waste, though I suspect my reasons are different from yours. I try not to waste because it costs me money. The less energy I use, the more money I save. Thus, I have an incentive to drive at reasonable speeds. I have an incentive to turn out lights, increase my insulation, buy efficient appliances, etc. My beer kegerator is even unplugged and unused in the summer months because I cannot justify within myself the costs of operating it when it's 110 degrees.

I try not to waste. And I generally do a good job of it. I could decide not visit the mountains with my kids. I could decide that staying at my house was important. But I lead an active lifestyle and my kids are part of that.

I just think we all make choices. Some find killing fish and trees and flooding valleys to be acceptable for power usage (google "Hetch Hetchy"). Some costs are acceptable, and which costs are acceptable to whom differs.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>Sorry this is what you believe.

No, they're facts.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can prove that to yourself with a radiometer, an infrared source, a pressurizable volume, a vacuum pump and a tank of CO2.

We are increasing the level of CO2 by emitting billions of tons of it. You can calculate how much the CO2 concentration should increase by calculating the amount of CO2 we emit and dividing by the volume of the atmosphere. And lo and behold, when we measure CO2 concentrations, they are increasing by about that rate.

Those two facts are the kryptonite to most of the denier movement. The Type-3's get around that by saying "it's a good thing" which is a more tenable position.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Sorry this is what you believe.

No, they're facts.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can prove that to yourself with a radiometer, an infrared source, a pressurizable volume, a vacuum pump and a tank of CO2.

We are increasing the level of CO2 by emitting billions of tons of it. You can calculate how much the CO2 concentration should increase by calculating the amount of CO2 we emit and dividing by the volume of the atmosphere. And lo and behold, when we measure CO2 concentrations, they are increasing by about that rate.

Those two facts are the kryptonite to most of the denier movement. The Type-3's get around that by saying "it's a good thing" which is a more tenable position.

It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes lags temp changes. That FACT kills your assurtions dead. Assuming those studies are any more or less true that the ones you hang your hat on.......

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

[billvon 2,990]

>It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes
>lags temp changes.

Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though.

>That FACT kills your assurtions dead.

Uh, no, it doesn't. I never claimed that, historically, CO2 was the agent that started previous warming cycles. Try again!

[rushmc 23]

historically, CO2 was the agent that started previous warming cycles. Try again!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes
>lags temp changes.

Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though.

Cite.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>It is also a FACT that there are studies that conclude that CO2 changes
>lags temp changes.

Historically correct! Not correct this time around, though.

Cite.

Any he posts will be older......

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

[billvon 2,990]

>>historically, CO2 was the agent that started previous warming cycles. Try
>>again!

>Only in the studies you post.

I said precisely the opposite of what you claim I said. Intentionally misquoting people to try to make your point is the last gasp of a failing argument.

[billvon 2,990]

>Cite.

Sure.