"The Science is settled", and other fairy tales

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rancho Cucamonga said:
investors dot com LOL Great source.

If anyone thinks that heavy industrialized activities that pour millions of tons of pollutants into the air and water annually, and the overpopulation that has been going on for a few centuries causing more natural resources to be used up and more pollutants to go into the air and water, if you think all that "human activity" is not partially to largely responsible for climate change then you my friend are the one supporting and perpetrating a fairy tale.

I'm not Al Gore nutty about the environment but I'm also not a complete buffoon who denies human activity is to some degree reasonable for a good part of our climate change.
Click to expand...
OP literally believes it is a decades in the making hoax perpetrated internationally by thousands of scientists and only uncovered by the likes of rush limbaugh and pals.

in other words, he is a complete fucking idiot.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Rancho Cucamonga said:
investors dot com LOL Great source.

If anyone thinks that heavy industrialized activities that pour millions of tons of pollutants into the air and water annually, and the overpopulation that has been going on for a few centuries causing more natural resources to be used up and more pollutants to go into the air and water, if you think all that "human activity" is not partially to largely responsible for climate change then you my friend are the one supporting and perpetrating a fairy tale.

I'm not Al Gore nutty about the environment but I'm also not a complete buffoon who denies human activity is to some degree reasonable for a good part of our climate change.
Click to expand...
Water vapor is the greatest cause of global warming. Time to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

The Earth warming and cooling has been going on for billions of years.

We humans are like a marijuana user to the Earth. Memory loss, fertility, etc etc are true, but they rapidly go away once a person quits.

We can damage ecosystems but we are hardly causing the apocalypse.

Chernobyl was one of the greatest man made wounds to the Earth. Scientists said how it'd take generations for Earth to heal there. 20 years is hardly generations. The whole Chernobyl area is currently doing better than before the accident.

I read your posts. You're better than believing the liberal lies. Global warming is a tax revenue generator. Nuclear power is supposed to be so clean. Yet I pay a rod disposal fee on my electric bill. It's all a scam.

I've said this before. Any liberal who gives such a fuck about global scaring needs to go vegan. It takes five times the plants to feed animals who then convert it to meat. That means five times the energy wasted on tilling, harvesting, transportation, etc.

But oh no, instead the government wants to force CFL on me. My going vegan is helping the planet way more. I should be getting a energy tax credit.

Liberals, you're welcome.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Water vapor is the greatest cause of global warming.
Click to expand...
well, thanks for disqualifying yourself from the conversation.

you can still stick around and hurl racial epithets at the president and prance around incredibly butthurt for a few days, i always enjoy that.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well, thanks for disqualifying yourself from the conversation.

you can still stick around and hurl racial epithets at the president and prance around incredibly butthurt for a few days, i always enjoy that.
Click to expand...
Go jack off, you're much better at that.

Water Vapor
Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However,
changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of
climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere
rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback
loop in which water is involved is critically important to
projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly
measured and understood.
As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is
evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs,
soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be
higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when
it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.
As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor
is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from
the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer
atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so
on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However,
huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and
importance of this feedback loop.
Click to expand...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dr Kynes said:
not true at all.

volcanic and geological Co2 release is significant, but is relegated to the "baseline" because it is unavoidable, uncontroillable and inescapable.

without geological co2 releases co2 levels would be dropping due to photosynthesis and co2 sequestering by coral growth and whatnot. without human co2 emissions co2 levels in the atmosphere would hold steady or very gradually drop.

the fact remeains that between geology microbial action and other "natural" sourtces of co2 human co2 emissions are pretty small, but since co2 levels ARE rising ever so slowly, and we cant stop swamps from decomposing dead plant material or prevent the earth from offgassing, or prevent termites from farting, human co2 sources are the only thing in our control.

the numbers:

human sources of co2: 29 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.
"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html

the importance of the tiny increase in global co2 levels and it's possible effects are the bone of contention, but the fact remeains "natural" co2 production exceeds human co2 production by an enormous margin, and thats a FACT.

the reason the 1970's global ice age scare is relevant is because the SAME people who were making that claim are making this new claim, using the SAME evidence to sell two fundamentally different hypotheses, theres one guy in paarticular who's name is escaping me, but in the 70's he was shouting from the rooftops, going on network tv and predicting a frosty doom for us all within 30 years, then just a few years later he started shouting an opposite doomsday scenario with even less cause.

if the climate clowns want people to take your ideas seriously, how about NOT using fabrications and lies to bolster their claims?

when the fabrications are revealed it undermines their position and makes people angry, and as a result a great deal of anger is also leveled at the cassandras who repeat the lies based on their trust of the climate clowns and their shitty "science"

also, consensus still does not make for scientific fact. we cant all vote for mars to have a breathable atmosphere and expect the universe to comply.
Click to expand...
Two issues.
1) Your "natural" sources are almost all biological and are in balance with coextant and simultaneous sinks.
2) You conflated volcanic sources with "all natural sources" and never broke out those numbers. If you had, the weakness of the argument would be more apparent.

Misc:
CO2 is not increasing ever so slowly. A 100ppm rise in a century is a lightning strike on the geological timescale.
Also, if you looked at the human contribution from fossil sources and the rate of total atmospheric CO2 increase, they not only map together in trend but in quantity. This strongly suggests that that "natural" cycle with the huge, balanced source&sink (the sink you do not mention) is at saturation in re external additions of material.
cn
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
lol.

silly bircher.

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1
Click to expand...
LOL silly lefty.

i sourced my shit from the ipcc's own literature you dingbat.

human sources: 29 gigatonnes.

"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes.

are you saying the ipcc is lying to us?

are you suggesting their science may in fact be falsified?

ohh my.

your silly article cites "land use changes" as a "source" of co2. thats fucking doubletalk. i stopped reading there.

no, sadly i did not stop reading. i slogged through the entire poorly written article.

that entire article is doubletalk, designed to reinforce the luddite position and offer a new bullshit citation for dingbats who believe whatever they are told no matter how incredible it may be, or how much the accompanying literature contradicts the position set forth.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
LOL silly lefty.

i sourced my shit from the ipcc's own literature you dingbat.

human sources: 29 gigatonnes.

"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes.

are you saying the ipcc is lying to us?

are you suggesting their science may in fact be falsified?

ohh my.

your silly article cites "land use changes" as a "source" of co2. thats fucking doubletalk. i stopped reading there.

no, sadly i did not stop reading. i slogged through the entire poorly written article.

that entire article is doubletalk, designed to reinforce the luddite position and offer a new bullshit citation for dingbats who believe whatever they are told no matter how incredible it may be, or how much the accompanying literature contradicts the position set forth.
Click to expand...
awww, you poor thing.

you actually think you are right and the whole of science is wrong.

isn't that cute.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The volcano argument has been soundly proven false in these threads several times now. Volcanoes produce only a small fraction of the gases that long term human acton emit. BEcause people in the 70's believed one thing does not automaticaly imply that this thing new peceptioin is wrong. All it says is that model was not right. Argument to incredulition - because you are unable to fathom a thing does not indicate that that thing is impossible.
Click to expand...
because you are unable to fathom a thing does not indicate that that thing is likely.
 
ElfoodStampo

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll put this to bed.
The driving force behind weather on earth is the sun.
The solar maximum(cycle 24) is significantly weak, thus far, compared to what was expected.
The atmosphere is shrinking because our ionosphere is not receiving solar particles which causes it expand.
Its not global warming or cooling, its extreme weather change. The earth is reacting to a different solar interaction right now.
I agree that we pollute too much, for our own sake, but as far as the planet is concerned were insignificant.
Thats my two cents.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ElfoodStampo said:
Ok, I'll put this to bed.
The driving force behind weather on earth is the sun.
The solar maximum(cycle 24) is significantly weak, thus far, compared to what was expected.
The atmosphere is shrinking because our ionosphere is not receiving solar particles which causes it expand.
Its not global warming or cooling, its extreme weather change. The earth is reacting to a different solar interaction right now.
I agree that we pollute too much, for our own sake, but as far as the planet is concerned were insignificant.
Thats my two cents.
Click to expand...
well, that's funny. and cute.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Two issues.
1) Your "natural" sources are almost all biological and are in balance with coextant and simultaneous sinks.
2) You conflated volcanic sources with "all natural sources" and never broke out those numbers. If you had, the weakness of the argument would be more apparent.

Misc:
CO2 is not increasing ever so slowly. A 100ppm rise in a century is a lightning strike on the geological timescale.
Also, if you looked at the human contribution from fossil sources and the rate of total atmospheric CO2 increase, they not only map together in trend but in quantity. This strongly suggests that that "natural" cycle with the huge, balanced source&sink (the sink you do not mention) are at saturation in re external additions of material.
cn
Click to expand...
Point 1) i thought i made that clear. natural releases of co2, and natural sequestering of co2 have been tipped in favor of reducing co2 levels since the jurrassic period, where o2 levels were a little above half what they are now and co2 levels were nearly double the current score. the gradual reduction in co2, and the increase in o2 was a result of natural action, but it was not constant. if we discard the normalcy bias and accept that ~1800 was the optimum balance of co2 and o2 for our atmosphere yes, we have seen a precipitous rise, but the levels have been FAR higher in the past, and far lower too. man made emissions certainly are not helping balance the atmospheric co2 levels, that would be retarded, but im not gonna jump on board with the idea that we all have to live in caves and ban fire to save the planet. im all in favour of more research, and more science, but the global warming clowns have been playing fast and loose with the facts, and i have very little trust for their words.

point 2) the geological sources were not differentiated by the ipcc's literature, they simply combined biological and geological data together to create a simplistic easy to misinterpret dataset for the press which placed all "natural" sources of co2 on one side with the natural carbon sinks, and left the "anthropogenic" co2 sitting on the other side as the cause of "global warming"

the actual global co2 release from geological sources is tricky to determine since much of is it underwater and is pumped directly into the oceans co2 content. land based co2 emissions from geology are merely estimates and they vary pretty widely

this source claims global geological co2 emissions are around 200 Million tonnes, and human co2 production "from fossil fuels" was 28.6 Billion tonnes.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

while this source claims 260 Million tonnes for geological sources per year, and 35 Billion tonnes from "human action"
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

and this source claims 440 Million tonnes from volcanic sources per year, and 35 Billion tonnes from fossil fuels.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emission.html

meanwhile in egghead land,

this source claims , (and i quote cuz i dont have the maths to translate this to weights...)"The contribution of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from Yellowstone to global volcanic CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions (∼6–7 × 10[SUP]12[/SUP] mol y[SUP]−1[/SUP]) is comparable to the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] contribution from other large volcanic systems like Popocatepetl, Mexico and the combined contribution from the Hawaii hot spot."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GC000473/abstract
but THIS source claims that the GLOBAL cco2 emission from geological activity is "1.5 · 10[SUP]11[/SUP] moles CO[SUB]2[/SUB] yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] "
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02380495?LI=true

which would mean the first source claims that yellowstone by itself produces vastly more co2 every year than the other source claims for the entire planet.

unless im reading that totally wrong 6x10 to the twelfth power moles per annum just from yellowstone alone is fucktonnes more than 1.5x10 to the eleventh moles per annum for the entire earth.

one of em or both is wrong, so even the measurements of volcanic gasses is apparently not 'settled science' either.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
ElfoodStampo said:
Ok, I'll put this to bed.
The driving force behind weather on earth is the sun.
The solar maximum(cycle 24) is significantly weak, thus far, compared to what was expected.
The atmosphere is shrinking because our ionosphere is not receiving solar particles which causes it expand.
Its not global warming or cooling, its extreme weather change. The earth is reacting to a different solar interaction right now.
I agree that we pollute too much, for our own sake, but as far as the planet is concerned were insignificant.
Thats my two cents.
Click to expand...
I think the whole thing is hooey too. Scientists say the cause is CO2. It's a green house gas. Yet, water vapor is the most abundant, not CO2.

Did you also see the: "rather than a direct result of industrialization," " water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly
measured and understood," and " However,
huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop."

Translation: "we have no idea what's going on, but please pay global scaring taxes!" :dunce:
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
awww, you poor thing.

you actually think you are right and the whole of science is wrong.

isn't that cute.
Click to expand...
did i miss an election? when did you and al gore get voted prom king and prom queen of science?


your repeated and blind assertion that the science is settled because a lot of clowns at earth first agree we are destroying our earth-mother and her sacred womb of life just makes you sound dumb.

posting links to retarded opinion pieces that play shabby word games to discredit authors with disdain and public ridicule rather than facts is just another example of why YOU dont get to decide what is or is not accepted science.

not even is al gore says youre right.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
did i miss an election? when did you and al gore get voted prom king and prom queen of science?


your repeated and blind assertion that the science is settled because a lot of clowns at earth first agree we are destroying our earth-mother and her sacred womb of life just makes you sound dumb.

posting links to retarded opinion pieces that play shabby word games to discredit authors with disdain and public ridicule rather than facts is just another example of why YOU dont get to decide what is or is not accepted science.

not even is al gore says youre right.
Click to expand...
all those publishing climate scientists should really consult a bircher who gets stoned so that they can correct all this bad science they've been doing.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ElfoodStampo said:
yea just follow the links.
Click to expand...
dude, dont listen to bucky's harping on your links. they all go to nasa, and they are all interesting.

bucky doesnt read anything anybody else links to because he himself likes to blind-link and redirect people to malware pages, meatspin and last measure.

by poisoning the well bucky believes he can discourage everybody else from posting links to evidence so he can harp on and on without having to support his assertions with facts, or even concurring opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top