Global warming

[Dr Kynes]

Believers pray about everything, what does that have to do with anything?

these were swiss governemtn sponsored pray-a-thons with imported incense, highly paid specialist priests brought in from distant land based on their skill at exorcism, etc... it got weird. like when your bro catches you lookin at his sister weird.

 

[Omgwtfbbq Indicaman]

Julius Caesar was a populist and overthrew the senate to end the horrible corruption that kept the rich kings & the poor slaves. You cant over throw your government with the government's military unless you have their support. In today's terms he would be a tyrant because he illegally took complete control but he helped the citizens of Rome.

With out him there would be no merchants or "middle class". He made Rome the greatest power and fair culture in the world. The true tyrant emperors that took control after his assassination began the second rein of corruption that eventually lead to the fall of Rome.

yea, caesar was not without his faults but he was a statesman. those that followed were not worthy.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Julius Caesar was a populist and overthrew the senate to end the horrible corruption that kept the rich kings & the poor slaves. You cant over throw your government with the government's military unless you have their support. In today's terms he would be a tyrant because he illegally took complete control but he helped the citizens of Rome.

With out him there would be no merchants or "middle class". He made Rome the greatest power and fair culture in the world. The true tyrant emperors that took control after his assassination began the second rein of corruption that eventually lead to the fall of Rome.

the indolence of the roman plebs and their tribunes allowed the senate to become a haven for corrupt bastards. if you dont keep a close eye on your elected officials they rapidly become somebody else's paid employees. gaius julius ceasar was an ambitious opportunist. Gauis Marius and lucius cornelius sulla were men who served rome in their own ways, ceasar had more in common with the brothers grachii than lucius cornelius scipio africanus or gnaeus pompei

 

[spandy]

these were swiss governemtn sponsored pray-a-thons with imported incense, highly paid specialist priests brought in from distant land based on their skill at exorcism, etc... it got weird. like when your bro catches you lookin at his sister weird.

All in what someone believes, and then that person making it into a position of power.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall during the witch trials. I bet shit got weird then too, crazy fuckers.

 

[cannabineer]

I said that about CO2 earlier about CO2 and they acted silly.

There has been some discussion that melting ice is lowering the overall salinity of the oceans and that this could affect the gulf stream or cause it to stop altogether.

What really gets me is that even in our history we have evidence or spikes and drops in temperature that we don't understand, but automatically this spike is due to AGW. What did people who lived in the little ace age of a few hundred years ago think? Probably "Our sins are causing the temperatures to drop!"

The one difference is that this time, we do have that huge excursion in atmospheric pCO2. I recognize that in the past, pCO2 has (apparently and only probably) reacted to temperature. There has been nothing in sufficiently recent history (that we might get the info from ice cores or dendro or C14) that allows us to confidently model the consequences of dumping sudden massive CO2 into the atmospheric reservoir. The one thing we are noticing is quite slow geochemical clearance.
So I don't consider the AGW assessment as "automatic", declaratively established, but better placed in the "strong suspect" category.

And as Saltrock (?) has observed, by the time we're sure if A is the heart of GW, it'll be too late to do much about it except retreat and react. cn

 

[Harrekin]

The one difference is that this time, we do have that huge excursion in atmospheric pCO2. I recognize that in the past, pCO2 has (apparently and only probably) reacted to temperature. There has been nothing in sufficiently recent history (that we might get the info from ice cores or dendro or C14) that allows us to confidently model the consequences of dumping sudden massive CO2 into the atmospheric reservoir. The one thing we are noticing is quite slow geochemical clearance.
So I don't consider the AGW assessment as "automatic", declaratively established, but better placed in the "strong suspect" category.

And as Saltrock (?) has observed, by the time we're sure if A is the heart of GW, it'll be too late to do much about it except retreat and react. cn

Even if we stopped all CO2 output (somehow), how long would it take for aCO2 levels to drop to pre-industrial revolution levels?

I suspect its too late for mitigation, even if we are to blame.

 

[Carthoris]

All in what someone believes, and then that person making it into a position of power.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall during the witch trials. I bet shit got weird then too, crazy fuckers.

Think of the last couple posts you just said. These people were trying to put their current experiences into their understanding of the world. They went with demons possessing snowflakes.

Today, they go with something slightly less silly, but with about as much fact and proof behind it. AGW is at best a shot in the dark, at worst, it is an outright made up fantasy that might as well involve demons possessing CO2 molecules.

 

[Carthoris]

The one difference is that this time, we do have that huge excursion in atmospheric pCO2. I recognize that in the past, pCO2 has (apparently and only probably) reacted to temperature. There has been nothing in sufficiently recent history (that we might get the info from ice cores or dendro or C14) that allows us to confidently model the consequences of dumping sudden massive CO2 into the atmospheric reservoir. The one thing we are noticing is quite slow geochemical clearance.
So I don't consider the AGW assessment as "automatic", declaratively established, but better placed in the "strong suspect" category.

And as Saltrock (?) has observed, by the time we're sure if A is the heart of GW, it'll be too late to do much about it except retreat and react. cn

How many years would it take to right the world if we immediately started fixing it with all our hearts? Is it too late already?

I agree that mankind has some influence on the environment, but the proponents are highly dishonest with their information on just how much. I guess we are about to find out what happens when CO2 levels go up dramatically.

• 500 × 375 (1.7x larger), 49KB

• Search by image

Type:	PNG

Images may be subject to copyright.

CO2 and Temperature don't correlate even now. The temp isn't going up as fast as CO2 is.

Do you imagine that there is a point of diminishing return where it doesn't really matter?

If we are going to hit an iceage in the next 1000 years, would global warming be that bad in the long run if we were causing it?

 

[Harrekin]

How many years would it take to right the world if we immediately started fixing it with all our hearts? Is it too late already?

I agree that mankind has some influence on the environment, but the proponents are highly dishonest with their information on just how much. I guess we are about to find out what happens when CO2 levels go up dramatically.

• 500 × 375 (1.7x larger), 49KB

• Search by image

Type:	PNG

Images may be subject to copyright.

CO2 and Temperature don't correlate even now. The temp isn't going up as fast as CO2 is.

Do you imagine that there is a point of diminishing return where it doesn't really matter?

If we are going to hit an iceage in the next 1000 years, would global warming be that bad in the long run if we were causing it?

Global warming will CAUSE the next ice age...so says Al Gore, and he invented the Internet and modern medicine (praise be his name).

 

[ginjawarrior]

How many years would it take to right the world if we immediately started fixing it with all our hearts? Is it too late already?

I agree that mankind has some influence on the environment, but the proponents are highly dishonest with their information on just how much. I guess we are about to find out what happens when CO2 levels go up dramatically.

• 500 × 375 (1.7x larger), 49KB

• Search by image

Type:	PNG

Images may be subject to copyright.

CO2 and Temperature don't correlate even now. The temp isn't going up as fast as CO2 is.

Do you imagine that there is a point of diminishing return where it doesn't really matter?

If we are going to hit an iceage in the next 1000 years, would global warming be that bad in the long run if we were causing it?

 

[Red1966]

and this parallels US policies in what way?

and does this mean Rome was destroyed . . . lol

can anyone here actauly with a straight face parallel the roman empire with the US . . . and real points no splitting hairs(semantics)

global warming has not been proven . . its fairly obvious

still im much more worried about the acidification of our oceans . . .takes a lot longer to undo

I wasn't comparing the two, but there are some similarities.

 

[Red1966]

They definitely are renewable. It is the timeline that no one likes.

Have a little patience, it's only going to be 50 million years.

 

[Red1966]

to prey on one facet of life or another as a precursor to a unavoidable event . .is well disingenuous and fool hearty as logical fallacy's will be abundant

everything returns to the earth

if you dont like it talk to gravity and OXYGEN, please no semantics . . im being plain and acute on purpose . . .life and civilization as we know it is meaningless and insignificant in the shadow of time

You seem to have changed your persona. Hmmmm.

 

[Carthoris]

There is not, and has never been any correlation that shows CO2 and Temp except that CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature rises. I am not a skeptic. How could anyone seriously suggest that global warming doesn't exist and isn't happening? The issue at hand is whether it is caused by man, nature, or a combination of the two. Man probably can claim some of it, but not a majority. Temperatures were warming before we started dumping CO2, even the AGW koolaid people admit that the warming previous to 1940 was natural.

CO2 follows temperature increases, you cannot come to the conclusion that CO2 causes temperatures to increase by looking at any chart that tries to correlate the two.

 

[cannabineer]

There is not, and has never been any correlation that shows CO2 and Temp except that CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature rises. I am not a skeptic. How could anyone seriously suggest that global warming doesn't exist and isn't happening? The issue at hand is whether it is caused by man, nature, or a combination of the two. Man probably can claim some of it, but not a majority. Temperatures were warming before we started dumping CO2, even the AGW koolaid people admit that the warming previous to 1940 was natural.

CO2 follows temperature increases, you cannot come to the conclusion that CO2 causes temperatures to increase by looking at any chart that tries to correlate the two.

The graph you posted could be cherrypicking. If you look at longer-term graphs, the correlation is very tight. And this intermediate-term graph is very suggestive.

And while I agree that thus far pCO2 seems to have followed temperature, this does not assure us that a feedback mechanism (with a causal arrow going from pCO2) can be dismissed. cn

 

[Carthoris]

The graph you posted could be cherrypicking. If you look at longer-term graphs, the correlation is very tight. And this intermediate-term graph is very suggestive.

And while I agree that thus far pCO2 seems to have followed temperature, this does not assure us that a feedback mechanism (with a causal arrow going from pCO2) can be dismissed. cn

I was not cherry picking. I just pick the first chart that shows what I want it to! haha.

Seriously though, any chart that starts in the 1800s or 1900s is almost always a misdirection of facts. Why not start at 1100 BC, 300 AD, or 1300 AD? Wouldn't it be more honest to start at the most recent high temperature or the highest temperature of mankinds tenure before the industrial revolution instead of a freak cold snap? Where is the logic in starting at the coldest time in the last 5000 years to show a stead global warming? The answer is they are purposely presenting half-truths. They might as well just draw a chart in crayon to say whatever they would like at that point. All they have done is drive people away who don't like to be lied t

 

[Carthoris]

The graph you posted could be cherrypicking. If you look at longer-term graphs, the correlation is very tight. And this intermediate-term graph is very suggestive.

CO2 increases come hundreds of years after temperature increases all throughout history with few exceptions.

 

[Harrekin]

CO2 increases come hundreds of years after temperature increases all throughout history with few exceptions.

I'm pretty sure that graph completely disproves what you say.

They both seem to correlate quite nicely tbh, not saying which one causes which, but they do match really well.

 

[cannabineer]

I was not cherry picking. I just pick the first chart that shows what I want it to! haha.

Seriously though, any chart that starts in the 1800s or 1900s is almost always a misdirection of facts. Why not start at 1100 BC, 300 AD, or 1300 AD? Wouldn't it be more honest to start at the most recent high temperature or the highest temperature of mankinds tenure before the industrial revolution instead of a freak cold snap? Where is the logic in starting at the coldest time in the last 5000 years to show a stead global warming? The answer is they are purposely presenting half-truths. They might as well just draw a chart in crayon to say whatever they would like at that point. All they have done is drive people away who don't like to be lied t

If we'd had good temperature measurements back then, I'm sure more graphs of medieval-to-present would be available. Currently we can only get indirect measurements (by isotope ratios, e.g.) for timed preceding common use of thermometers.

The charge of purposely presenting half-truth can be pinned on many participants on both sides of this politicized issue. The better path would be to try to find the objective core that is beyond easy refutation by the more ethical practitioners. But that verges on utopian thought by yours truly. cn

 

[Doer]

The graph you posted could be cherrypicking. If you look at longer-term graphs, the correlation is very tight. And this intermediate-term graph is very suggestive.

And while I agree that thus far pCO2 seems to have followed temperature, this does not assure us that a feedback mechanism (with a causal arrow going from pCO2) can be dismissed. cn

But, without the mitigation or aggravation of Cloud Effect modeled we can dismiss all "conclusions."

Simply put, there is Data from Satellites, there are computer models of Cloud Effect. How much cloud does the warm up cause? Is the CO2 a, co- or competing, mitigation or aggravation? Will more CO2 mean more Sea Ice or less?

More Albedo or less? Is it actually negative feedback? Or is it a trend? Or is it simply a cycle?

As yet, there are no models of Cloud Effect that can run the Satellite data sets and get negative feedback. The so called, Greenhouse Hypothesis has never been proved. There is no Greenhouse Theory, that has withstood the Method of Science.

That's why are discussing the politics. Some say if we don't act now, it will be too late. Prove that? Some can say to act now with human effort can put make things worse. To much is un-known about the Clouds. Our understanding does not match the data.

So, there is a political fence to line up on, but there is not a Current Understanding in the Scientific sense regarding our Climate Model. Without that it is just research and politics.

DO WHAT? Humans are fuck ups. That's the premise. We fucked it up to get the money. Now suddenly with the
Horse Ass Left leading us with Hate spew, that is suppose to mean we can un-fuck it or just more fuck it?

In other words, the Left, not my dear cn, of course, wants us to trust them? You hate us. That is suppose to make us feel good about putting you in charge of climate tinkering?

You have failed at all attempts at social tinkering. The consequences could be down right ugly. But, I sense from the
Left.... Who cares? We will just burn this failed fucker, America, down to ash.