A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 9th 11, 08:21 PM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On 12/9/11 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence
that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
warming, not leads it.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags

Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new

evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal

fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to

accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057
  #12  
Old December 9th 11, 08:23 PM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On 12/9/11 7:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
The Dust Bowl was caused by a prolonged drought. Otherwise it would
have happened much earlier. It's not like that was the first year
they farmed the place, after all.


Had humans not ravished the land the dust bowl would not have happened
in the 30s.

  #13  
Old December 9th 11, 08:24 PM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On 12/7/11 8:21 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:


Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it and what do you propose we do?


Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new

evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal

fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to

accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057
  #14  
Old December 9th 11, 08:33 PM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On 12/9/11 12:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you.


Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new

evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal

fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to

accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057
  #15  
Old December 10th 11, 01:57 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Marvin the Martian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:33:57 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/9/11 12:05 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you.


Energy balance points to man-made climate change
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057

A climate model based on the "global energy balance" has provided new

evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators.
Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is
extremely likely (95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed
warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity.

Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called "optimal

fingerprinting" to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves
using complex models to simulate the climate response to different
"forcings". These include greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone, as well
as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative
contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical
comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern.

However, this method relies on the ability of climate models to

accurately simulate the response patterns to each forcing, and also
assumes that the responses can be scaled and added. Furthermore, changes
in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48057


Humm...

"The model, driven by observational records of climate forcings, surface
temperature and ocean heat uptake, was run many thousands of times with
different parameter combinations. The combinations that best matched the
observations were then fed through the model a second time in order to
simulate the climate response to each individual forcing."

In other words, it is yet ANOTHER example of fitting a spanning set of
basis functions to a curve, and then extrapolating that curve to the
future to get the (desired) results.

In short, another bunch of idiots think that if they do a Fourier fit to
a given wave function over a given time period, that the wave function
will predict the future. No, it won't. Every undergrad EE major KNOWS
this to be an error, but making this STUPID BLUNDER is SOP for the AGW
frauds, because YOU CAN PREDICT ANY DAMNED THING YOU WANT.

And Wormley, ONCE AGAIN you totally missed the point I made about post
hoc fallacies and bandwagon fallacies and you GIBBERED something
irrelevant into the conversation. This idiot post you made just comes out
of NOWHERE. Don't you get tired of being the fool of sci.physics?
  #16  
Old December 10th 11, 02:00 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan" wrote:


I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.


Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it


Thanks for replying

My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/



Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change.



Thanks for replying, these debates are fun.

So you're saying it's a big coincidence that greenhouse gasses
spiked, climate warmed and the Industrial age exploded
.....all at the same time?

That's like saying it's a big coincidence that Twin Towers
happened to explode just as those jets rammed into them.

No proof is needed for what is plainly obvious. If you
want to claim there's no connection between a 757
hitting the Twin Towers and their destruction, then
the burden of proof falls on...you.


Hell, even show evidence
that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
warming, not leads it.



Provide a link please to that claim please.



NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."



And that bolsters your argument h o w e x a c t l y?



However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT



Then why is the ice melting then? And provide a link to your data please.
I have data below showing it's a very significant rate.


through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
during that same decade and preceding it.

Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
other plausible explanation for recent warming".


Yes they do, on the last line below, read it and weep~

"NASA Earth Observatory Q and A"

"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what
makes scientists think that humans are causing global
warming now?

"The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past
few decades isn't part of a natural cycle is how fast the change
is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has
experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based
on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists
estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken
about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees
Celsius. The warming of the past century-0.7 degrees Celsius-is
roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming
on average."

"The second reason that scientists think the current warming
is not from natural influences is that, over the past century,
scientists from all over the world have been collecting data
on natural factors that influence climate-things like changes
in the Sun's brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles
such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
/These observations have failed to show any long-term changes
that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of
Earth's temperature."/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/



EIGHT TIMES certainly is statistically significant

Let's review quickly, the highest concentration of Co2 in
650,000 years, a rate of warming 8 times faster than in
the last 1,000,000 years. And all in the last 50 years
or so, most of it in the last 20 years.

Hmmm.....what a mystery....NOT

On my side is most of the scientists of the world, NASA
with their fleet of high tech instruments and dozens of
climate specialists, and shear common sense.

On your side it's just ...you.



Jonathan


s





  #17  
Old December 10th 11, 02:01 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Unum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On 12/9/2011 1:11 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


"Fred J. wrote in message
...
wrote:


I strongly feel global warming is mostly man-made, and something
needs to be done soon.


Your 'feeling' doesn't constitute proof. Hell, given your record for
nonsense, it doesn't even constitute reasonable doubt.

How'd we cause it


Thanks for replying

My source is NASA, and they claim there's no other
plausible explanation for the recent warming.
Maybe you should look at this chart.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Prove CO2 is responsible for climate change. Hell, even show evidence


This is very readily available. Satellite observations show a drop
in emitted radiation from the Earth that is consonant with the
increase in CO2 concentration. Here's an illustrated explanation
for you;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm

that it is. The evidence is that atmospheric CO2 concentration LAGS
warming, not leads it.


Show that evidence. Make sure it isn't refuted by this;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

NASA says "...most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding
at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

However, the change in temperature IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
through the last decade, despite what CO2 concentrations have done
during that same decade and preceding it.


What does 10 years have to do with anything, cherrypicker? CO2 is
not the only thing influencing global temperature. But the trend
over the past 150 years of steadily increasing industrialization
is clearly up.
Oh, and NASA does *NOT* claim in the cite you gave that "there's no
other plausible explanation for recent warming".

Perhaps you should learn to read and think?


Says the person who doesn't appear to know anything about the subject.


Your source would be what?


My source for what? I didn't make a claim.


..and what do you propose we do?


My post already addressed that question.


Well, no, it didn't, unless you think 'something' is a definitive
action.


Is there something specific in his NASA cite you want to take
issue with?

..
  #18  
Old December 10th 11, 02:08 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

So how do we keep the Western industrialized world strong and free,
while preventing global warming? Nuclear power.


By spreading freedom and democracy!
So more can ...afford...solutions such as
nuclear power, space solar power etc.

As things stand now, the second explosion
of the Industrial Age (China et al) will be
increasingly powered by...coal.


John Savard



  #19  
Old December 10th 11, 02:22 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:



It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.



I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending
on studying climate change most years. They operate
a fleet of the highest tech instruments around, and have
the largest concentration of climate scientists in the world.
And their motives or political agenda isn't that strong
either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
office, but the change is marginal.

But let's forget debating the facts and figures either way
for a minute. And answer this question instead.

Should we develop the ability to manage our biosphere
or just let Nature takes it's course, and hope it all
works out???

Once that is answered, then we can start wondering
what we need to do about it, if anything. I think the
answer is spreading free-market democracies across
the globe. As such systems best mimic natural processes
which settle on the optimum solutions...all by themselves.

We don't need to find an 'big fix' for climate change.
We need to build a world that fixes...itself.


Jonathan


s







  #20  
Old December 10th 11, 03:48 AM posted to sci.physics,alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.space.policy
Marvin the Martian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:22:05 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:00:31 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:



It is funny how you idiots always talk about how you know what is or
isn't accepted in the scientific community when you don't know ****.
First of all, you're making one big bandwagon fallacy. Secondly, your
bandwagon fallacy is based on a lie that Al Gore told you. Al Gore, who
got a D in "earth science", his only science class.



I get my opinions on this topic mostly from here....

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


NASA accounts for some 3/4ths of all US govt spending on studying
climate change most years. They operate a fleet of the highest tech
instruments around, and have the largest concentration of climate
scientists in the world. And their motives or political agenda isn't
that strong either way. It has shifted left somewhat since Bush left
office, but the change is marginal.


So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.

And saying that Hansen, who leads the NASA climate change fraud, is not
only unbiased but not a hard over lunatic is a bit of a stretch; he's
the guy who wanted to put "deniars" on trial for crimes against humanity
and nature, and execute a death sentence upon them to shut them up.

Sort of like screaming for Burno to be burnt at the stake.

Never mind that e-mail thing which some of the NASA "climate scientist"
were caught up in, or the whole issue of picking data sources to show
warming over time that NASA got caught doing.

snip stupid question about controlling the environment

You have to understand it first before you can control it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded Jonathan Policy 23 January 5th 12 04:58 PM
Human-related carbon emissions may skew isotope analysis for food-qualitycontrol Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 February 8th 10 07:11 PM
This call may be recorded. No please, not big brother! This call will be recorded for government purposes. gb6726 Astronomy Misc 1 October 29th 07 03:57 PM
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Three Times Higher Than Expected kT Policy 44 June 8th 07 03:06 AM
One U.S. state is creating more carbon emissions than nearly every nation in the world=Texas gb6726 Astronomy Misc 1 June 3rd 07 09:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.