And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% [W:54

[sawyerloggingon]

Did I ever say anything about Hurricane Katrina, or are you just putting up windmills to fight?

Katrina is the AGW crowds battle cry even though it wasn't much of a hurricane really, it just happened to make landfall at the single most vulnerable spot in America.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

15 years is also not long enough to say anything about climate.

Frankly, I think the scientists have a lot more proving to do, but you are so desperate to cling to the idea that it's a myth. Since you're a fan of such short time frames, today was a full 2 degrees warmer than yesterday.

The entire AGW hypotheses is that the earths temp is directly tied to C02 levels. C02 has risen exponentially in the last 15 years while the earths temp rise has taken a vacation. What is the "myth" again?:lol:

 

[Manc Skipper]

Katrina is the AGW crowds battle cry even though it wasn't much of a hurricane really, it just happened to make landfall at the single most vulnerable spot in America.

I'm don't want to touch this offering because I can tell where you plucked it from.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I'm don't want to touch this offering because I can tell where you plucked it from.

Where am I wrong? Katrina had weakened when it made landfall and after the storm everyone was walking around breathing a sigh of relief, then the levee's burst.

 

[rocket88]

Katrina is the AGW crowds battle cry even though it wasn't much of a hurricane really, it just happened to make landfall at the single most vulnerable spot in America.

I'm not the AGW crowd. I'm skeptical, but open to the possibility. Frankly the people that look at one thing and say "see global warming" are just as ridiculous as people that look at one year of increasing sea ice and say "see, it's a hoax."

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I'm not the AGW crowd. I'm skeptical, but open to the possibility. Frankly the people that look at one thing and say "see global warming" are just as ridiculous as people that look at one year of increasing sea ice and say "see, it's a hoax."

I'm not focusing on one year, I am focusing on the last 15 that had little if any warming as C02 levels soared, that kinda kills the entire premise of AGW.

 

[rocket88]

The entire AGW hypotheses is that the earths temp is directly tied to C02 levels. C02 has risen exponentially in the last 15 years while the earths temp rise has taken a vacation. What is the "myth" again?:lol:

The hypothesis is that over time, rising levels of CO2 contribute to higher temperatures. Not that there's a direct and immediate causal link. Your misunderstanding of what the theory actually is probably leads you to think it couldn't possibly be true.

What everybody doesn't say is that planting more trees would help get rid of CO2. They breathe that **** in and breathe out oxygen ( in a way). Planting more trees would certainly be pleasant, don't you think?

 

[rocket88]

I'm not focusing on one year, I am focusing on the last 15 that had little if any warming as C02 levels soared, that kinda kills the entire premise of AGW.

Not really, no. Climate doesn't change immediately. It may lead to warmer temperatures in the future, but we won't know until we get there.

You can't tell climate from 15 years or even 100 years.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The hypothesis is that over time, rising levels of CO2 contribute to higher temperatures. Not that there's a direct and immediate causal link. Your misunderstanding of what the theory actually is probably leads you to think it couldn't possibly be true.

What everybody doesn't say is that planting more trees would help get rid of CO2. They breathe that **** in and breathe out oxygen ( in a way). Planting more trees would certainly be pleasant, don't you think?

NOW it's "over time". LMAO The goal post keeps moving as the AGW hypotheses keeps failing.:lol: If there was a direct correlation between C02 and global warming we would have seen warming in the last decades where C02 levels have sky rocketed and IF we had seen that warming the AGW cult would be saying that proves they are right.

 

[Deuce]

And the messenger is shot, BANG! :lol:

Completely ignores the posted data. I'm shocked that you'd do that, sawyer.

 

[Deuce]

NOW it's "over time". LMAO The goal post keeps moving as the AGW hypotheses keeps failing.:lol: If there was a direct correlation between C02 and global warming we would have seen warming in the last decades where C02 levels have sky rocketed and IF we had seen that warming the AGW cult would be saying that proves they are right.

Do you think anyone is claiming CO2 is the only variable?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Do you think anyone is claiming CO2 is the only variable?

The AGW hypotheses places C02 as the primary driver whereas in reality it is a minor player in a huge and complex system and nothing to wet your pants about.

 

[Deuce]

The AGW hypotheses places C02 as the primary driver whereas in reality it is a minor player in a huge and complex system and nothing to wet your pants about.

I'm not focusing on one year, I am focusing on the last 15 that had little if any warming as C02 levels soared, that kinda kills the entire premise of AGW.

Because your posting behaves as though the "entire premise of AGW" is that CO2 is the only variable.

Now, you and I both know that's silly. Of course climate has numerous variables. Therefore it is entirely possible for CO2 to go up and temperature to not go up, because other variables are providing an opposite forcing in that same period. I've personally explained this to you before, sawyer. So I'm lead to one of these possible conclusions:

1) You're forgetful.
2) You're dishonest.
3) You didn't understand the explanation before. Perhaps you do now.

 

[Deuce]

Maybe I can clarify AGW for you, sawyer, because you have just displayed a fundamental misconception. It wouldn't be accurate to describe the premise of AGW as saying CO2 is "the primary driver of climate."

Rather, it is one of several major factors, and over the last century or so it is the factor that has driven the greatest change in temperature. But only over that period, and other factors have still been important to the final outcome.

Does that help?

 

[longview]

The hypothesis is that over time, rising levels of CO2 contribute to higher temperatures. Not that there's a direct and immediate causal link. Your misunderstanding of what the theory actually is probably leads you to think it couldn't possibly be true.

What everybody doesn't say is that planting more trees would help get rid of CO2. They breathe that **** in and breathe out oxygen ( in a way). Planting more trees would certainly be pleasant, don't you think?

Part of the problem I have with AGW, and why I am skeptical, is that they have implied a direct link
between the observed warming and the observed rise in Co2.
What they have not done is describe how the two are linked, or the delay in energy transport
from the higher Co2 levels.
By their recommendation that Co2 emissions be taxed, they are implying it is the direct cause.
The concept of AGW could be true, but to raise it to a hypothesis,
they would first have to define how the observations are linked,
and then suggest a test to prove the linkage incorrect.

Einstein's theory predicted that a large mass would bend light.
He encouraged astronomers to photograph eclipses to see if stars behind the sun
could be seen during an eclipse. They were able to validate his theory with this test.

 

[Deuce]

Part of the problem I have with AGW, and why I am skeptical, is that they have implied a direct link
between the observed warming and the observed rise in Co2.
What they have not done is describe how the two are linked, or the delay in energy transport
from the higher Co2 levels.

Wait, you think this hasn't been explained or experimented on?

 

[rocket88]

Part of the problem I have with AGW, and why I am skeptical, is that they have implied a direct link
between the observed warming and the observed rise in Co2.
What they have not done is describe how the two are linked, or the delay in energy transport
from the higher Co2 levels.
By their recommendation that Co2 emissions be taxed, they are implying it is the direct cause.
The concept of AGW could be true, but to raise it to a hypothesis,
they would first have to define how the observations are linked,
and then suggest a test to prove the linkage incorrect.

Einstein's theory predicted that a large mass would bend light.
He encouraged astronomers to photograph eclipses to see if stars behind the sun
could be seen during an eclipse. They were able to validate his theory with this test.

The reason I'm skeptical is because of data. You simply can't tell about climate based on 100 years of reliable weather observations. We could have been living in a cold spell, or a warm spell. The last mini-ice age ended just before the Industrial Revolution. Things were getting a little warmer naturally anyway.

But climate is a long term thing. It could be getting warmer as a natural cycle. Or it could be CO2, the science certainly looks like it's a possibility. Setting up a test would be almost impossible because of all the variables involved in it. Like Einstein's theory being proved by observing the eclipse, you need long term natural cycles that we just don't know enough about to say one way or the other.

 

[Deuce]

The reason I'm skeptical is because of data. You simply can't tell about climate based on 100 years of reliable weather observations. We could have been living in a cold spell, or a warm spell. The last mini-ice age ended just before the Industrial Revolution. Things were getting a little warmer naturally anyway.

But climate is a long term thing. It could be getting warmer as a natural cycle. Or it could be CO2, the science certainly looks like it's a possibility. Setting up a test would be almost impossible because of all the variables involved in it. Like Einstein's theory being proved by observing the eclipse, you need long term natural cycles that we just don't know enough about to say one way or the other.

Except this isn't the only thing they're doing. Nobody is just looking at temperature charts and declaring they know the answer. Those natural forcings? Enormous effort has been put into measuring and understanding them.

 

[longview]

Wait, you think this hasn't been explained or experimented on?

It has been experimented on, but as of yet, no one has demonstrated or described the connection between
the two events.
Does Co2 pass off it's energy in one of it's 3 main vibrational states, or one of the 9 lessor spin states
within each vibrational state? Then what does it pass it to?
Quantum Optic energy transfers work like keys in a lock, the emission wavelength must line up
with something else's absorption wavelength, or the photon just keeps going.
This is why we can use spectroscopy to identify chemicals.
AGW has yet to identify which key fits into which lock.
They do know the emission bands of Co2, but not the next step in the forcing.
Co2 acting alone can only get between 1 to 2 degrees warming from a doubling.

 

[flogger]

Except this isn't the only thing they're doing. Nobody is just looking at temperature charts and declaring they know the answer. Those natural forcings? Enormous effort has been put into measuring and understanding them.

Yet we are still nowhere understanding them much less the increase that an extra 0.012% atmospheric volume of a trace gas might have on them. Our guesses would have been an awful lot better than they have been to date if we did

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Maybe I can clarify AGW for you, sawyer, because you have just displayed a fundamental misconception. It wouldn't be accurate to describe the premise of AGW as saying CO2 is "the primary driver of climate."

Rather, it is one of several major factors, and over the last century or so it is the factor that has driven the greatest change in temperature. But only over that period, and other factors have still been important to the final outcome.

Does that help?

AGW is about C02 nothing more. I see no laws or rdegulations being passed in the name of global warming that are not based on C02. You can't wiggle out of this.

 

[flogger]

AGW is about C02 nothing more. I see no laws or rdegulations being passed in the name of global warming that are not based on C02. You can't wiggle out of this.

Try to regulate CO 2 and you are trying to regulate the existence of life itself which is the fairly sinister sub agenda of power and control really at work here.

It used to be a standing joke a long while ago that if the government could ever find a way to tax the air we breath and get away with it they would. Well they found a way all right and as we can see by some of the input here they have created an army of willing pre programmed drones to back them too

 

[gslack]

Try to regulate CO 2 and you are trying to regulate the existence of life itself which is the fairly sinister sub agenda of power and control really at work here.

It used to be a standing joke a long while ago that if the government could ever find a way to tax the air we breath and get away with it they would. Well they found a way all right and as we can see by some of the input here they have an army of willing pre programmed drones to back them

Those drones are only following because it appeals to their vanity. Save the planet!. Let's them all feel like one of the planeteers.. That, and they are in liberal denial.That's a form of denial where you think everything will only effect SOME people. Just as only SOME people are polluting, and killing the planet. Or even better with AGW they have a something and a somebody to blame. It's never their fault. Just as they are never responsible for anything. Cost? What cost? they won't pay for it..

Classic liberal think... John Travolta, has a house with it's own airstrip. The man has a couple of planes including a large passenger jet, and flies himself wherever and whenever he can. But drives a Toyota Prius to awards ceremonies..Complete denial at it's finest..

 

[Deuce]

AGW is about C02 nothing more. I see no laws or rdegulations being passed in the name of global warming that are not based on C02. You can't wiggle out of this.

Um, sawyer, we don't have control over the sun or volcanoes or orbital mechanics. We don't have any influence over those. We do have influence on our greenhouse gas emissions. That's what AGW is about: minimizing human influence and letting nature take its course. Hope this helps.

Feel free to start lobbying for taxes on solar output, though, since you're so concerned with laws regarding the other variables. I'm sure the sun will get around to paying up eventually. :lamo

edit: and note the use of the word minimizing. Not eliminating. It's impossible to have zero impact, because we exist and would like to continue doing so.

 

[flogger]

edit: and note the use of the word minimizing. Not eliminating. It's impossible to have zero impact, because we exist and would like to continue doing so.

So has the cost benefit analysis been done then ?

OK then I'll bite .Lets say hypothetically we could eliminate 80% of our our CO 2 by 2050 as per IPCC diktat . What would that achieve in terms of temperature and what will be the economic impact ?