The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

[flogger]

The difference is, when scientists "fudge things to make it work" it's all out in the open and other scientists can point to it and say "[you] fudged things to make it work", then present the evidence that things were "fudged" - which is exactly what I said above.

And when scientists do just that they are often then accused of being a shill for big oil such has been the political interference with the transparency of scientific process here. The political momentum of the 'groupthink' means its safer to just keep your head down for the sake of your career until it finally blows over

Sorry, the conspiracy theory doesn't hold water

Strawman alert !

Thats not what he said :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Strawman alert !

Thats not what he said :roll:

Oh, I forgot only the Deniers get to use that line! :lol:

 

[flogger]

Oh, I forgot only the Deniers get to use that line! :lol:

And only alarmists hide behind it ! :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

And only alarmists hide behind it ! :roll:

Sure they do - I see them cowering all the time. :lamo


But, hell, you've almost caught up to the Catholic Church in modern thought. It wasn't but a century ago they were treating science like it was a conspiracy theory, too. They finally admitted the error of their ways by letting Galileo off the hook more than 300 years after the fact.

 

[flogger]

Sure they do - I see them cowering all the time. :lamo


But, hell, you've almost caught up to the Catholic Church in modern thought. It wasn't but a century ago they were treating science like it was a conspiracy theory, too. They finally admitted the error of their ways by letting Galileo off the hook more than 300 years after the fact.

I see the meaning of the word 'irony' is clearly lost on you given how often your arguments have been trashed here ! :lol:

 

[MoSurveyor]

I see the meaning of the word 'irony' is clearly lost on you given how often your arguments have been trashed here ! :lol:

Which arguments would those be?

I think you're confused again.

 

[flogger]

I think you're confused again.

Only by your endless evasions. :lol:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Only by your endless evasions. :lol:

Evade what? Again, I think you're confused.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Now you warmers are fighting among yourselves, some say it has not got warmer some insist it has. This becomes a bigger joke every day. The article I posted though makes some good points,if it is getting warmer the ocean should be warmer and it is not.

I am jumping into this discussion late, but I am just curious to know...

What is it with people who do not believe global warming is happening?

It's almost as if the conservatives have adopted a stance against global warming as some sort of hallmark of conservatism. What do global warming implications challenge in your political stance??? If the planet is heating up, it's going to affect all of us. What does arguing that it's not happening or condemning people for reaserching it do for you? ... nothing. It baffles me.

 

[flogger]

Evade what? Again, I think you're confused.

Providing proof of the AGW hypothesis ...simple

Perhaps you can explain why this is happening then given how allegedly 'confusing' you are to me :roll:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d40ffd16f970c-pi

 

[flogger]

I am jumping into this discussion late, but I am just curious to know...

What is it with people who do not believe global warming is happening?

Nobody has ever tried to deny it has happened nor that it will happen again as will global cooling.

It's almost as if the conservatives have adopted a stance against global warming as some sort of hallmark of conservatism. What do global warming implications challenge in your political stance??? If the planet is heating up, it's going to affect all of us. What does arguing that it's not happening or condemning people for reaserching it do for you? ... nothing. It baffles me

Whats baffling you ? I'm sure mother Earth doesnt give a jot about the petty politics she'll continue to do what she does end of. Its you that seems to care about the politics

 

[Knowledge=power]

Nobody has ever tried to deny it has happened nor that it will happen again as will global cooling.

There are tons of people in this very thread who think its all a big joke...

Whats baffling you ? I'm sure mother Earth doesnt give a jot about the petty politics she'll continue to do what she does end of. Its you that seems to care about the politics

That people are making the global warming implications and research out to be some kind of delusion by people with foil hats.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Providing proof of the AGW hypothesis ...simple

Perhaps you can explain why this is happening then given how allegedly 'confusing' you are to me :roll:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d40ffd16f970c-pi

I never claimed I accepted AGW so it's not up to me to provide proof for it.


I told you you were confused, again, and again, ... and again. Your problem is that I also don't Deny the possibility, which is what ticks you off. I don't agree with you so I must be with "THEM". And you wonder why I often direct your rants to the Conspiracy Theory section.

 

[flogger]

There are tons of people in this very thread who think its all a big joke...

Temperature change is a natural phenomenon which has happened many times in recent millenia. Today is nothing special in either its level or rate of change. The 'big joke' is made by those alleging it must be something else and the burden of proof is on them to show thats the case.

That people are making the global warming implications and research out to be some kind of delusion by people with foil hats

The fact that the real world stopped playing ball with the theory is a rather inconvenient fact (see linked graph on post #310 for details) . You dont have to be 'delusional' to simply be wrong.

 

[flogger]

I never claimed I accepted AGW so it's not up to me to provide proof for it.

What a timewaster !

And you wonder why I often direct your rants to the Conspiracy Theory section

Do you play any other records because the needles got stuck on this one :roll:

 

[Knowledge=power]

Temperature change is a natural phenomenon which has happened many times in recent millenia. Today is nothing special in either its level or rate of change. The 'big joke' is made by those alleging it must be something else and the burden of proof is on them to show thats the case.



The fact that the real world stopped playing ball with the theory is a rather inconvenient fact (see linked graph on post #310 for details) . You dont have to be 'delusional' to simply be wrong.

You'd have to be delusional to think that human beings have not affected this planet's climate on a global scale over the last 100 years of oil burning emissions.

 

[flogger]

You'd have to be delusional to think that human beings have not affected this planet's climate on a global scale over the last 100 years of oil burning emissions.

Sorry I thought you were actually here to logically debate the issue with an open mind. My mistake. We have enough crusading preachers here already thanks all the same

Moving on ...... :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

What a timewaster !

You wasted your own time operating on a false assumption.

Do you play any other records because the needles got stuck on this one :roll:

When you make the same mistaken post over and over you can expect the same correction from me over and over.

 

[flogger]

When you make the same mistaken post over and over you can expect the same correction from me over and over.

Stop wasting my time

 

[MoSurveyor]

Stop wasting my time

Don't blame me - I'm not twisting your arm to respond. :lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

Providing proof of the AGW hypothesis ...simple

Perhaps you can explain why this is happening then given how allegedly 'confusing' you are to me :roll:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d40ffd16f970c-pi

Yes, AGW is real. Very few people deny that. Most of us just disagree with the levels the alarmists claim.

There are several reasons that can contribute. Just a few off the top of my head. Urban grown around temperature monitoring stations. Decades of lag before we see the main effect of long term solar changes, the last ending about 1950. Black carbon on ice, which has been growing at a fast pace in the last 20 years or so, melting the norther ice cap.

I can look up several more things, but suffice it to say, that solar changes have a better long term fit to temperatures than CO2. You just have to realize since the oceans cover almost 70% of the earth, that the absorb the heat readily, and release it far slower.

 

[flogger]

Yes, AGW is real. Very few people deny that. Most of us just disagree with the levels the alarmists claim.

There are several reasons that can contribute. Just a few off the top of my head. Urban grown around temperature monitoring stations. Decades of lag before we see the main effect of long term solar changes, the last ending about 1950. Black carbon on ice, which has been growing at a fast pace in the last 20 years or so, melting the norther ice cap.

I can look up several more things, but suffice it to say, that solar changes have a better long term fit to temperatures than CO2. You just have to realize since the oceans cover almost 70% of the earth, that the absorb the heat readily, and release it far slower.

Good post.

Like I said earlier its not that mankind doesnt contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In the case of CO 2 though its very difficult to make a case for the root and branch reconstructions of our economies based on our minimal understanding of climate interactions of this trace gas. Its most probably hundredths or more likely thousands of a degree we are talking about here. In point of fact it would be far easier to establish a positive impact on the biosphere in terms of increased plant growth from the extra CO 2 in my view.

Some are using this agenda as a conduit to facilitate the imposition of thier particular worldview which has corrupted almost all logical objectivity scientific or otherwise sadly

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good post.

Thanks.

Like I said earlier its not that mankind doesnt contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In the case of CO 2 though its very difficult to make a case for the root and branch reconstructions of our economies based on our minimal understanding of climate interactions of this trace gas.

Agreed. Even if CO2 is as potentially as dangerous as the alarmists claim, I think our technological growth will allows us to fix it before that 100+ year clock runs down.

Its most probably hundredths or more likely thousands of a degree we are talking about here.

Really hard to say. In the lower troposphere alone, it is probably under 0.1 degrees in my opinion. However, it may actually cool the earth about as much in the stratosphere and thermosphere as the troposphere warms it.

In point of fact it would be far easier to establish a positive impact on the biosphere in terms of increased plant growth from the extra CO 2 in my view.

I absolutely agree. Food growers that use greenhouses actually maintain a larger amount of CO2 than the atmosphere contains.

Some are using this agenda as a conduit to facilitate the imposition of their particular worldview which has corrupted almost all logical objectivity scientific or otherwise sadly

Yep. Politics, money, power... All the same game.

 

[flogger]

Yep. Politics, money, power... All the same game.

One particular beaut that makes the mind boggle is the claim in IPCC 2007 AR 4 that we must reduce CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to stabilise temperature. If you do the simple math of this you get to see how ludicrous this all is given 28% of such emissions are from our own respiration and the animals we feed on . Which 2 billion of us get volunteered for the chop after we shut everything down ? :lol:

I have looked for the peer reviewed literature upon which this IPCC figure was based but I'll be darned if I can find it :shock:

 

[Lord of Planar]

One particular beaut that makes the mind boggle is the claim in IPCC 2007 AR 4 that we must reduce CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to stabilise temperature. If you do the simple math of this you get to see how ludicrous this all is given 28% of such emissions are from our own respiration and the animals we feed on . Which 2 billion of us get volunteered for the chop after we shut everything down ? :lol:

I have looked for the peer reviewed literature upon which this figure was based but I'll be darned if I can find it :shock:

Well, in trying to maintain fairness... They were talking about AGW emissions. Not all emissions. Our farm animal usage is a drop in the bucket compared to other wildlife CO2 and methane.

Still, the IPCC is very good at selection and interpretation of the facts they use. They are very deceptive.

One thing I meant to go back and recalculate and haven't yet, was sea level rise. I'd have to look up the numbers again, but it is believed now that the oceans have increased in heat content far more than in the past. That means a greater degree of sea level rise due to thermal expansion than previously thought.