Kiss My Ass Irene

@farmerman,

I thought so, but there are any number of people who will latch on the a portion of text and gleefully ignore the context and what preceded it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Which I see as nothing more than arguing that because it hasn't happened before than it can't happen ever, which isn't science at all.

Because something came first in the past is not evidence that it will always happen that way. Science shows that increasing CO2 in an air mixture leads to warming.

Let's try to find some things we can agree on.
1. The earth is warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
3. Humans are putting out CO2 at a much higher rate compared to what it is increasing in the atmosphere.

so..
Can we both agree that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is most likely caused by human activity?

If we agree then it only leaves us to argue about whether increasing CO2 causes warming.
If you don't agree then I would love to see your science showing us where the human caused CO2 is going and why it isn't contributing to CO2 increases.

3 Replies

@parados,

In other news, you'll be pleased to know that Irene didn't cause damage to Irene (that would be my cousin Irene who is still in well flooded Rutland) and her home. Haven't heard how Raymie and David are doing.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

My gawd, Rutland VT is a mess! Besides Rt 7 (major highway) being closed off, many main roads (many run parallel to rivers) are impassable due to erosion. Who knows when power can be restored to homes?!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

EG CO2 is rising in the atosphere yet weve seen a significant cool down in the last 10 years globally.

Are you sure? The global-temperature graph I'm familiar with comes from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and looks like this:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg

I admit that if you single out the years 2000-2009 and fit a linear regression through it, the regression line slopes downward. But in the context of the entire plot, it looks like just some stochastical bouncing around on top of the general upward trend. Why would you would call that "a significant downward trend" (emphasis mine), let alone "a brick in the road around man induced GW"?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Because something came first in the past is not evidence that it will always happen that way.

I made this point before in the Global Warming thread, but I did so only to keep our logic sound.

Almost everyone agrees that the climate is warming. The primary disagreement relates to how much human activity is contributing to an already natural warming trend. Most scientific studies attempt to show that human activity contributes to the warming, but they don't (or aren't capable of) showing to what degree human activity is contributing. I have yet to see any study based on evidence which defines the percentage of the warming trend to which human activity can be blamed.

If you throw a bucket of water into Niagara falls, you are contributing to an increase in the falls. But is really worth derailing whole economies just to stop what amounts to an insignificant contribution to the natural forces which are already causing the trend?

I suggest that it's actually more effective to let the economies and technology fueled by that economy advance rapidly through to the point where they break their dependence on oil as an energy source. If technology (fertilized by economic wealth) grows rapidly we might become an energy/environmentally neutral system in a hundred years (or less if we could get the politicians out of the way). But if we allow ourselves to languish in our present form, our present wasteful systems might hold on for many hundreds of years. Which approach is better for the natural environment?

0 Replies

I doubt that FM advocates doing nothing, and i certainly don't. However, without knowing the significance of human activity, there is good reason to pull back from the wilder claims, and good reason not to rush off to implement "solutions" to what we don't know to be a problem. Certainly there is good reason to be careful of CO2 emissions. There is no good reason, given the present state of our knowledge, to ditch travel by airliner altogether, which has been advocated by the climate change extremists.

When i was at university, the conventional wisdom was that we were headed for a new ice age. Of course, that wasn't just down the road, and it didn't stir up a lot of interest. But now the global waming bandwagon is roaring along, and it attracts a lot of grant money. I no more blindly trust a source who has a stake in continuing study grants from government than i do a source who gets a salary from Shell Oil.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

What's the worst that could happen if the global warming camp are wrong? We keep hold of more fossil fuels which are a finite resource, and would be better used to make things, instead of being burned away.

1 Reply

As i've already pointed out, i don't advocate doing nothing. At the same time, neither do i advocate throwing over every aspect of our current transportation economy based on undemonstrated contentions.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Which I see as nothing more than arguing that because it hasn't happened before than it can't happen ever, which isn't science at all.I never ever said that and you are being disengenuous for even suugesting it. Actually it is perfectly sound science, especially in my field where"THE PAST IS KEY TO THE PRESENT. I wonder if the significance of evidence has even entered your argument? If all youve done is gather web sites that are repeating each other and referring to the same key initial documents, then you are quite unfamiliar with how science really works. When Senator Al Gore(Jr) became the chair of Senate Science and by default, the NSF and other funding agencies, back in the 197-'s we were in a period that was evidencing global COOLING. So the change from global cooling to human induced global warming was more political than science. When funding is controlled by several agencies it doesnt take a genius to figure out how gravy is made. Maybe you dont know it but the science funding mechanisms are controlled by various special interests. Both right and left of center.

the past is not evidence that it will always happen that way. Science shows that increasing CO2 in an air mixture leads to warming. WHERE is that a definitive "Settled science" argument?? For every one who says that its so, there are other reputable and degreed expereienced scientists who say BULLSHIT. I think your mind has been made up early in this game > BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I was a staunch "Human induced Global Warming believer" until I read the early 1990's AAPG and INQUA studies on how CO2 has been found to be a FOLLOWING INDICATOR FROM ICE CORES. That evidence made me pause about the truth of the arguments The correlation between climate warming first and CO2 following has been statistically inferred in at least 78 % of the core data (from INQUA studies. The remaining 22% is undetermioned because , in many cases, CO2 degassing was occuring in conjunction with vulcanism in the time of those core samples and analyses(Geology NEVER rests on just one piece of evidence, it gets boringly multicorrelated, boringly so.

Let's try to find some things we can agree on.
1. The earth is warming. I do agree generally, but geology , an annoying nail under the saddle of human induced global warming"ism" uses the patterns of past warming cycles and sees these cycles fairly easily explained by global, axial, orbital, and wobble physics of the geoid.In the last 10 years though not so much . SInce this is a projected RECENT phenom, we need to look at all packages of evidence Why was the climate change going to the cooling side yet CO2 continuosly rose?
2. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
3. Humans are putting out CO2 at a much higher rate compared to what it is increasing in the atmosphere. PSsst, your statement makes no sense.IVE READ THAT THE PERCENTAGES OF CO2 from Human activities are quite a bit less than that from natural sources (degassing peat and permafrost, vulcanism, degassing clathrate s of CH3 and CO2. Mine sources increased forest cover in the high latitudes and the Dansgaard Oeschger rising cycle.

Earth magazine had an article this month re: the declining sunspot activity and the potential for climate effects.

I suggest you read it http:///www.earthmagazine.org. The neat thing about the GSA magazines, they will print several sides of an issue under discussion and present counter evidence so you will read and listen to the fist fights among honest to goodness real scientsts who disagree mightily on this issue.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What's the worst that could happen if the global warming camp are wrong?

we exchange GDP for handouts. There are projects on the boards that include taking CO2 from power plants and BURYING IT 11 miles deep as a cause for cation exchange in zeolite minerals. Theres a few BILLION dollars out the ass.

QWe need to stop volcanoes. You have any idea how much greenhouse gas that Icelandic volcano with the unpronounceable name spewed out in less than 90 days?.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

just some stochastical bouncing around on top of the general upward trend. Why would you would call that "a significant downward trend"

significant, as in a statistical inference. Waht other word would I choose? CO2 continues (how much is human?) but temp isnt continually rising. The climate models are only now taking into effect the sunspot dexcline in cycle 23

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Air pollution is, on its own, reason enough to be concerned about the atmosphere . We are acidifying our atmosphere and yet even this phenomenon is reversable by power plant emissions control.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Maybe what is being spent on CO2 emissions might better be spent on preparations for more or less predictible results, regardless of cause.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We are acidifying our atmosphere and yet even this phenomenon is reversable by power plant emissions control.

We've been acidifying for a long long time, Farmer. If it's so easy, why hasn't it been done? Is it being done?

0 Replies

I saw an interesting show last night on nat geo about the science of seeding clouds with much much smaller salt mist which "brightens" them (obviously there's more to it than that) and makes them deflect more sunlight back into space. That part of the science is proven to work, at least in the laboratory meaning making the "salt mist" that's fine enough to thicken and brighten the clouds without making it rain and now it's a question of a practical delivery system which can be delivered to specific regions, mostly the Greenland area. It was a really interesting show, citing both pros and cons and I can't wait to hear FM et al weigh in on it for the benefit of we great ignant deejay/musicians. So FMan.... please weigh in Very Happy

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

the past is not evidence that it will always happen that way. Science shows that increasing CO2 in an air mixture leads to warming. WHERE is that a definitive "Settled science" argument??

It's been settled since the 1800s

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

Now.. which scientists say Tyndall's experiments were bull ****?

Quote:

PSsst, your statement makes no sense.IVE READ THAT THE PERCENTAGES OF CO2 from Human activities are quite a bit less than that from natural sources (degassing peat and permafrost, vulcanism, degassing clathrate s of CH3 and CO2. Mine sources increased forest cover in the high latitudes and the Dansgaard Oeschger rising cycle.

Prior to humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere the system was stable.
Natural sources produced CO2 but they also removed it the same rate.
When humans started producing CO2, the natural sinks removed MORE CO2 but not enough to keep the system stable. So.. Nature produces the same amount of CO2 as the past. It removes MORE than nature produces but not as much as nature + humans. Are you seriously going to argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has nothing or little to do with the human contribution?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Quote:
It's been settled since the 1800s

Thats the problem with learning a little bit, it leads to conclusions that arent there.
Tyndall's use of his newly developed ABSORPTION SPEC pointe to the wavelength absorption of many gases in the atmosphere, not the cause of a global warming conclusion.

0 Replies

So I began to wondering if the place I used to rent on Lincoln Avenue up in Rutland survived the storm and floods or did it become Lincoln logs? Laughing

Raymie lives in a flooded area, has lost everything of the material format. The rebuilding of life has begun.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting three day time lapse video of a community garden in Burlington's Intervale area near the Winooski River. The first day shows a rain event before Irene hit sending the Winooski over its banks.

http://blip.tv/morourke/hurricane-irene-in-burlington-vt-s-intervale-5512296

1 Reply

Kiss My Ass Irene

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know