OOPS, not good news for Global Warminists

Terry, posting statements like that, ...... I would be willing to bet $100 your "science degree" ........ is a Master's in Political Science.

Sam, good snark. Way to attack the person as opposed to their arguments. I'll bet you were a great debator in grade school. Us adults play by different rules, though. Political science isn't a science. My "degrees" are in biology and entomology.

The fact remains that the solar activity you refer to, past a century or so, is an ESTIMATE. Trashing me will not change that fact.

TRC, you absolutely refuse to address my arguments, but instead reply with piffle and BS ....... and then when I criticize you for your adolescent behavior ……. you reply with your noninfrequent use of “ad hom attack”. GEEEZUS, after 40+ years and three (3) wives, …… I know how females think, connive, detract, ignore, accuse, interject and distort when engaged in an argument …… or divorce, ……. they don’t want to lose.

What argument is that, Sam, that I refuse to address? I have stated that natural causes are partially behind our present climate change.

Why don't you take a deep breath, drink H2O instead of beer, let your head clear and try and be rational.

My example of snowball earth was to show that CO2 is not MEANINGLESS, as you have posited:

The beginning of a Snowball Earth event could be facilitated by an equatorial continental distribution, which allows rapid, unchecked weathering of continental rocks, absorbing vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The depletion of this greenhouse gas causes ice accumulation, which further cools the planet by reflecting solar energy back to space. The runaway system would lead to a new ice-covered equilibrium with equatorial temperatures similar to modern-day Antarctica.

To break out of the frozen condition, huge quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, emitted primarily by volcanic activity, would have to accumulate over millions of years. Once melting began, however, it would be quick, perhaps only 1,000 years. (Wiki)

So, tell me again, how CO2 is not a player in this present situation.

Sam, you look desperate and foolish with each succssive post. I have addressed your arguments. You have not addressed mine.

How can you be sure that man has and can have no effect on climate change - that the present situation has nothing to do with us?

See if you can do it without insults and you get extra points.

TerryRC wrote:See if you can do it without insults and you get extra points.

You are kidding, right Terry? You are talking to gurly-man Sam here, you know.

TerryRC wrote:Terry, posting statements like that, ...... I would be willing to bet $100 your "science degree" ........ is a Master's in Political Science.

Sam, good snark. Way to attack the person as opposed to their arguments. I'll bet you were a great debator in grade school. Us adults play by different rules, though. Political science isn't a science. My "degrees" are in biology and entomology.

The fact remains that the solar activity you refer to, past a century or so, is an ESTIMATE. Trashing me will not change that fact.

HORSEPUCKY, .... I trashed you because of your intentional blatant ignorance.

Read the following again from an above post, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:And not "tunnel vision" statistics, .... but actual, factual and true "long term statistics".

Statistics such as these, to wit:

Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.

The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar irradiance. Historical sunspot records give scientists an idea of the amount of energy emitted by the Sun in the past. The above graph shows sunspot data from 1650 to the present. The Maunder Minimum occured from 1650–1700 and may have influenced Europe’s little ice age. (The data from this period are not as reliable as the data beginning in 1700, but it is clear that sunspot numbers were higher both before and after the Maunder Minimum.) Since then, sunspot number have risen and fallen in a regular 11-year cycle. An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today. [Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data compiled by John Eddy (1650-1700) and the Solar Influences Data analysis Center (SIDC)]

(TRC) The fact remains that the solar activity you refer to, past a century or so, is an ESTIMATE.

So, HORSEPUCKY on your "estimate", ....... historical records prove otherwise. And besides, solar activity was probably GREATER THAN what the HISTORICAL RECORDS shows because of their poor instruments.

TerryRC wrote: TRC, you absolutely refuse to address my arguments, but instead reply with piffle and BS ....... and then when I criticize you for your adolescent behavior ……. you reply with your noninfrequent use of “ad hom attack”. GEEEZUS, after 40+ years and three (3) wives, …… I know how females think, connive, detract, ignore, accuse, interject and distort when engaged in an argument …… or divorce, ……. they don’t want to lose.

What argument is that, Sam, that I refuse to address? I have stated that natural causes are partially behind our present climate change.

The above one that cited FACTUAL historical data on solar activity.

And the following one of graphs showing temperatures verses solar activity, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:
And here is another graph of Sunspot activity from Wikipedia.



And here is a graph of temperatures for the same period from Wikipedia.



So now, TerryRC, ..... you looked at both graphs so now tell me, .... "that an increase in Solar activity/output ..... doesn't have anything to do with the increase in Global Temperatures over the past 600, 400, 200, 100, 50 or even 10 years."

To which you replied:

TerryRC wrote:Think you are capable of doing that, TRC?

I couldn't and wouldn't. I have never denied that natural causes could be, or are, part of the problem. In fact, I think it likely.

I will, however, point out that correlation doesn't equal causation - or is that "holier than thou"?

It would take more than a Wiki to convince me that that data is accurate.

Terry baby, is that not what you stated? ......... DAMN RIGHT it is.

And then you have the audacity to post this, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:My example of snowball earth was to show that CO2 is not MEANINGLESS, as you have posited:

The beginning of a Snowball Earth event could be facilitated by an equatorial continental distribution, which allows rapid, unchecked weathering of continental rocks, absorbing vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The depletion of this greenhouse gas causes ice accumulation, which further cools the planet by reflecting solar energy back to space. The runaway system would lead to a new ice-covered equilibrium with equatorial temperatures similar to modern-day Antarctica.

To break out of the frozen condition, huge quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, emitted primarily by volcanic activity, would have to accumulate over millions of years. Once melting began, however, it would be quick, perhaps only 1,000 years. (Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

So, tell me again, how CO2 is not a player in this present situation.

Sam, you look desperate and foolish with each succssive post. I have addressed your arguments. You have not addressed mine.

HA, ...... a Wikipedia article reference no less.

So Terry baby, "It would take more than a Wiki article posted by me to convince you that that data is accurate" ........ but you post a Wiki article and claim it to be accurate and substantial proof for your argumentive claims.

Terry, and the sad truth is that your insufficient education does not permit you to determine which reference is accurate.

TerryRC wrote:How can you be sure that man has and can have no effect on climate change - that the present situation has nothing to do with us?

See if you can do it without insults and you get extra points.

I base my stance on historical records that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations always lag behind increase in temperatures. Even when catastropic events occurred as confirmed by the geologic record that were greater than the "human event".

Terry, just because atmospheric CO2 will absorb radiant energy .... doesn't mean it will retain it. The only way one can save/store energy is to convert it to mass.

About 0.03 percent (0.003) of the Earth's atmosphere consists of CO2, and that is even in the air over the Sarah Desert where tempertures can reach 130F in the daytime. And that 0.03% CO2 is 130F, ...... but it doesn't retain that heat over night, it gets cold as hell. Even below 32F, ...... freezing.

That CO2 doesn't keep the Sarah Desert warm at night and it doesn't keep Burnsville warm at night.

And that CO2 doesn't keep things warm when a heavy cloud layer moves over real quick blocking the Sunlight.

Terry, two things determine average temperatures, the amount and angle of solar radiation striking the earth and the re-radiation time to dissipiate back into space.

And that re-radiation time is directly proportional to the mass of the particle/body it is radiating from.

Like I stated previously, it takes several months for a lake to warm up, and several months for it to cool back down. But it only takes a couple hours for the CO2 laden air to heat up or cool down.

And big boy, 0.03% mass of the atmosphere is not very damn much mass to be absorbing or re-radiating energy from. Especially when one considers that H2O vapor sometimes reaches 20.00%.

The Sun acts like a heat pump, ya turn it up, it gets warmer, ......... turn it down, it gets cooler. Historical records prove that to be a fact.

cheers

.
.

I base my stance on historical records that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations always lag behind increase in temperatures. Even when catastropic events occurred as confirmed by the geologic record that were greater than the "human event".

Even minor "catastropic events" play a role in shaping the earth's climate, to wit:

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Tsunami-like waves created by an earthquake may have triggered the world's largest known hydrothermal explosion some 13,000 years ago, a federal scientist says.

The explosion created the Mary Bay crater that stretches more than one mile across along the north edge of Yellowstone Lake. Debris from the explosion has been found miles away.

Lisa Morgan of the U.S. Geological Survey told a gathering of scientists over the weekend at Mammoth Hot Springs that an earthquake may have displaced more than 77 million cubic feet of water in Yellowstone Lake, creating huge waves that essentially unsealed a capped geothermal system.

Though much has been made in recent years of a possible eruption of Yellowstone's "super volcano," geologists studying the park have long said that the likelihood is greater for a large hydrothermal explosion.

Morgan said that over the last 14,000 years there have been 20 hydrothermal explosions in Yellowstone that mostly left craters bigger than football fields.

They resulted in well-known Yellowstone landmarks such as Mary Bay, Turbid Lake and Indian Pond, all near the north edge of Yellowstone Lake.

The explosions happen when hot water just below the surface flashes into steam and breaks through the surface.

But geologists are still trying to better understand the larger explosions that happen about once every 700 years in Yellowstone and have left behind the biggest hydrothermal explosion craters in the world.

At Mary Bay, Morgan said she thinks there were at least two big waves before the explosion. Evidence of those waves has been found more than 3 miles north of the lake's edge, she said.

The explosion's column may have reached more than a mile in the air and spread debris across some 18 square miles, she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322846,00.html

The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar irradiance. Historical sunspot records give scientists an idea of the amount of energy emitted by the Sun in the past.

Which means this data is a GODDAMNED ESTIMATE! I even bolded the appropriate words for you.

As to the rest of it:

Like I said, natural processes are part of the current problem and I have never denied it.

I have addressed your arguments, now address mine. What evidence do you have that we are not making the problem worse, possibly irreversible, even?

I won't hold my breath.

TerryRC wrote: The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar irradiance. Historical sunspot records give scientists an idea of the amount of energy emitted by the Sun in the past.

Which means this data is a GODDAMNED ESTIMATE! I even bolded the appropriate words for you.

You did it again, …… didn’t you ,Terry.

Instead of looking at, studying and/or considering the data/information I presented, …… you looked for a “word” in the text of what I presented to use as a basis for discrediting what I posted.

Terry, you rejected said data/information based solely on one (1) word you found in the context of said.

Previously, you looked for and found the word “Wikipedia” and thus REJECTED my post because of said, to wit:

TerryRC wrote: It would take more than a Wiki to convince me that that data is accurate.

Terry, in my above post, you looked for and found the words “an idea” and thus REJECTED my post because of said.

TerryRC, you have not been basing your replying arguments on factual data, information or statistics, ........ you are basing your replying arguments on ....... "word usage".

And the only persons who do such are .......

And, TRC, I believe the correct interpretation for the author's use of "an idea" is as noted, to wit:

Definition: idea - i•de•a - noun

3. impression: an impression or knowledge of something

7. thought: a thought about or mental picture of something such as a future or possible event

But surely you knew that already, ...... having acquired a Master's Degree.

TerryRC wrote:As to the rest of it:

Like I said, natural processes are part of the current problem and I have never denied it.

I have addressed your arguments, now address mine. What evidence do you have that we are not making the problem worse, possibly irreversible, even?

I won't hold my breath.

"NO", Terry, ...... you addressed the "word usage" in my arguments, ...... not the arguments themselves. And that sir was "harassment" on your part in a futile attempt to CYA.

TerryRC, I truly believe that it would be impossible for me to present any evidence that supports my beliefs ....... that you would find acceptable ....... because no matter what I presented, ...... you would find a word or phrase within said to cite as a "scapegoat" to discredit the total content/context of my post.

And TerryRC, as you damn well know, ...... I can not present evidence "that we are not making the problem worse, possibly irreversible", ....... no more than I can present evidence that "proves a scientific theory".

Terry, as you damn well know, ...... I can only present evidence that "disproves claims that we are making the problem worse, possibly irreversible".

So TRC, explain your reason for a "lax in good judgment" and tell me why you would post a "bogus question" ........ when you knew it was "bogus" when you posted it?

Anyway, I'll see if I can find another "biased global warminist's claim" to disprove, ...... just to read your reaction to my "disproval" of said.

cheers

TerryRC, I extracted to following from a site titled:

Global Warming - A Guide for the Perplexed

Clearly, CO2 is the most important artificial greenhouse gas in respect to changing temperature. The present CO2 content of the atmosphere is 3,036,000 MMT, so the emissions amount to almost 1% of what's presently in the atmosphere. The CO2 concentration is rising roughly 0.5% per year, so about half is staying in the atmosphere and the other half is going somewhere else, mostly into the ocean. We have some measured CO2 concentration data taken from ice cores.



This is our smoking gun. The CO2 concentration has risen from less than 300 parts per million all the way up to 383 ppm in 2007. Of all the factors affecting global average temperature, it's the only one that's been increasing since 1980, so it's the only one that can explain the temperature rise during that time. SOURCE

Terry, if you look at the graph, CO2 concentration has been on a steady but increasing rise from 290 ppm in 1860 all the way up to 383 ppm in 2007. No ups n’ downs, …. jigs or jags, ….. bumps or dips, …….. but a steadily increasing rise.

TRC, now look at the temperature line on the graph for the same period, does it show a steady but increasing rise paralleling the rise in CO2?

Hell no it doesn’t, …… unless you only look at the segment starting in 1975 through 2007.

Now tell me Mr. TRC, if increasing atmospheric CO2 is a cause of increasing temperatures, …… why in the hell is not the temperature increases “tracking” the CO2 increases? Did a scientific law or principle change because we fought the Civil War, or what?

Anyone who can see and has half-a-brain, …… can see that the temperature increases/decreases don’t track the CO2 ppm increase.

But now anyone with a little smarts or is educated ….. should be able to “see” that ........ the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually “tracking” the increase in temperature.

Not an immediate or “1 to 1” tracking, …… as the temperature sporadically increases/decreases in its upward climb (as noted on the graph), …… but a delayed increase of CO2 consistent with the average increase in temperature for the time period being observed.

The reason for the delayed increase in CO2 is because the greatest source of CO2 is found dissolved in the ocean waters of the world ……… and these oceans cover over 70% of the Earth's surface. To wit:

There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date."

Generally, gas solubility decreases with water temperature. Accordingly carbon dioxide is released from ocean water into the atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Given said, for any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 to occur, ….. there must be an increase in the temperature of the waters of the world’s oceans. And large bodies of water do not “warm up” very fast. Small lakes will take several months to warm up with a summertime increase of solar energy, but the oceans will take years and years to warm up following an increase in the yearly average of solar energy.

And the more the ocean waters warm up, the more of its dissolved CO2 is released into the atmosphere, ……. as depicted on the above graph.

And this process works in reverse. If the yearly average of solar energy begins to decrease, …… there will be a delayed decrease in the temperature of the ocean waters and thus a subsequent delayed decrease in the release of CO2 and the ocean waters will begin to absorb the CO2.

So TerryRC, even a dummy, a brain surgeon or someone with a Master’s Degree should be able to “see” that the author of the above only “aimed” his smoking gun at what he wanted his reader’s to “see”.

For them to only see, …. “look at”, ….. the past 27 years (1980 - 2007) where it appears that the temperature increase is lagging behind the CO2 increase.

Appears to, because it is per say, an optical illusion.

If you change the “left hand scale” and place the “green” CO2 line above the “red” temperature line, ………. the CO2 increase will appear to lag behind the temperature increase, …. as it should be.

Now Terry, I believe I have presented factual data/information to disprove and/or discredit the "claims" made by the author concerning said graph.

I await your critique of said.

cheers

Well, you might think so, Sam.

The graph you show seems to solidify the relationship between temperature and CO2.

Now to the origins of that CO2...

Regardless, your solar temp data IS an ESTIMATE for much of the data set. You can't dispute that, no matter how hard you try.

You won't accept emissions data as valid because it is an estimate but you won't apply the same scrutiny to your own data.

Sam, I said your solar activity data, if correct, is compelling. I also said that it isn't difficult for me to accept it (and it would take more that an unreviewed wiki) because I have said, numerous times, that natural processes are part of the problem.

You don't need (and never have needed to) browbeat me over that.

Now, for the fifth or sixth time, where is your evidence that man has nothing to do with the current warming trend. What can you point to that shows we aren't making the problem worse or even irreversible?

Just as the current trend is correlated with natural processes, it is also correlated with unprecedented human activity.

Look at your debate tactics, Sam - bait and switch. Incontroller my ruddy bum.

TerryRC wrote:Well, you might think so, Sam.

The graph you show seems to solidify the relationship between temperature and CO2.

Solidify my claim that the author's interpretation was bogus, ...... or that the author was correct?

TerryRC wrote:Now to the origins of that CO2...

Regardless, your solar temp data IS an ESTIMATE for much of the data set. You can't dispute that, no matter how hard you try.

And so are your "bug counts", Terry. As is just about everything else you report on.

So what?

Terry, you really shouldn't be badmouthing the "work" done by other scientists, especially since they use "methods" similar to what you use except theirs are more precise than you employ, to wit:

Scientists have examined the historical record of long-term climate change and have uncovered a rather dramatic correlation, although the cause for it is still not well understood. During the recent century and decades, space weather has played a role in short-term climate change and has led to several controversial proposals.

This figure shows the reconstructed sunspot numbers for the last 12,000 years based on cosmic ray data recovered from carbon-14 isotopes found in wood samples.

Reconstructing solar activity during the last 12,000 years - This 2004 article by S. Solanki and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute was published in the journal Nature (vol 431, p. 1084). It describes the recovery of carbon-14 isotopes from dentrochronological studies of tree rings dating back to 11,400 years ago. The cosmic ray influx to the atmosphere creates carbon-14 isotopes which find their way into biological systems. Because cosmic rays are anti-correlated with solar activity, by measuring the carbon-14 abundances and correcting for the familiar decay process for this isotope, you can recover the cosmic ray flux of past years, which can be related to solar activity just as sunspot information is. This study reveals that, as shown in the recent red data in the above figure, we are entering an unusually active period in solar activity which we have not apparently experienced since just after the end of the last Ice Age. They conclude, however, that the sudden increase during the last 100 years may not account for the entirety of the Global Warming effect which has been detected in recent decades.

Reconstructing solar activity from ice core isotopic studies- This 2003 article by Ilya Usoskin and his colleagues, was published in the journal Physics Review Letters (vol. 91, 211101-1--211101-4) as well as a second article by Sami Solanki and his colleagues in the Journal of Geophysical Research (vol. 108, p. 1200). They measured the beryllium-10 isotope in icecore samples from Greenland and Antarctica. They were able to reconstruct the solar activity for the last 150 years by a direct check with actual sunspot records, and extend this reconstruction to 850 AD. For most of the last 150 years, sunspot activity has been a good predictor of global annual mean temperatures, which climatologists argue is the evidence that says the changes in Earth's temperature through much of this time has been largely due to the sun. However, the data shows that since 1980, this correlation has weakened and is no longer a good predictor of global temperatures. This is also the period which climatologists identify as the Global Warming era. The ice core data confirm that during the last 60 years, we have been in an era of unusually high solar activity which has no equal during the last few centuries, however this only accounts for a fraction of the sharp increase in temperatures since 1980.

Reconstructing solar activity and the recent global warming episode -This research was published in 2001 by Eigil Friss-Christensen in the book 'Space Storms and Space Weather Hazards' (NATO Science Series vol 38, p. 231, Kluwer Academic Publishers). Based on a comparison of the sunspot cycle length with Northern Hemisphere land temperature changes since 1850, a close correlation is found between 1850-1970, in which changes in the sunspot cycle length are reflected in changes in the mean temperature. As the cycle length decreases from 11.5 to 9.8 years, the mean temperature increases by 0.4 C. However, although this sunspot cycle change seems to account for nearly all of the temperature change prior to 1970, since that time the correlation has begun to break down and by ca 1998 this solar effect only accounts for (or correlates with ) half of the warming. This supports the prevailing idea among climatologists that Global Warming has entered a new phase in the last few decades where a non-solar mechanism (e.g.Carbon Dioxide) has begun to take over in raising Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. See the excellent review article by Charles F. Keller (Los Alamos National Laboratory).

http://www.solarstorms.org/Strends.html

Terry, all the various papers and reports on "reconstructed temperatures", using different methods, do not vary significantly from one another. Now you can call them estimates, guesses, probabilities, .... whatever, ....... but "the data speaks for itself".

TerryRC wrote:You won't accept emissions data as valid because it is an estimate but you won't apply the same scrutiny to your own data.

TRC, attempting to again "throw shidt into the game", are you?

Just what "emissions data" have I refused to accept?

TerryRC wrote:Sam, I said your solar activity data, if correct, is compelling. I also said that it isn't difficult for me to accept it (and it would take more that an unreviewed wiki) because I have said, numerous times, that natural processes are part of the problem.

You don't need (and never have needed to) browbeat me over that.

Terry, you only say that when you get "in a bind". All other times you support the Human Cause Global Warminists 100%.

And that sir, is why I browbeat you.

TerryRC wrote:Now, for the fifth or sixth time, where is your evidence that man has nothing to do with the current warming trend. What can you point to that shows we aren't making the problem worse or even irreversible?

Terry, the prepondence of proof is the responsibility of "the accuser", ..... and I am not the accuser, ....... I am the defendent in this "case".

And if you are going to testify for "the accuser", you really should have something other than heresy evidence to present.

TerryRC wrote:Just as the current trend is correlated with natural processes, it is also correlated with unprecedented human activity.

But Terry, it moreso correlates to the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy that will occur on December 21, 2012. Click n' read about it big boy.

TerryRC wrote:Look at your debate tactics, Sam - bait and switch. Incontroller my ruddy bum.

Terry, you are crying again, ...... and tears don't impress me. Only females and girlymen try to gain an advantage by doing said.

If you quit posting crap, ...... I'll quit telling you that ..... both you and it "stinks".

cheers

And so are your "bug counts", Terry. As is just about everything else you report on.

So what?

How soon we forget. If you go back and look, your critique of using emissions data and correlating it with temps and CO2 was that the emissions data was ESTIMATED.

Terry, you really shouldn't be badmouthing the "work" done by other scientists, especially since they use "methods" similar to what you use except theirs are more precise than you employ, to wit:

You don't know anything about my work, Sam. I would say that it is hard to get more accurate than direct counts of individuals. Don't even need a ruler to "estimate" that.

Regardless, I haven't faulted anyone's methods. I just prefer the original research to a wiki that anyone can make and edit.

Terry, you only say that when you get "in a bind". All other times you support the Human Cause Global Warminists 100%.

And that sir, is why I browbeat you.

Don't call me "sir", maggot. I work for a living.

I say that because I think it likely. You will never and have never found any of my words that contradict that.

You see, Sammy, unlike you, I don't care about being right. I care about finding the truth. You have ruled out possibilities based on, well, nothing - nothing but personal bias.

But Terry, it moreso correlates to the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy that will occur on December 21, 2012. Click n' read about it big boy.

Wow. That IS very compelling evidence.

Sam, you don't want to look any further than natural causes. You don't think man has any significant effect on climate change. Keep in mind, humans have created deserts, drained millenia-old aquifers to the point that they are almost dry and poured crap into rivers to the point they caught on fire.

I don't believe that there is too much that people aren't capable of.

As to "what emissions" data, I said I wouldn't spoonfeed you. It is out there and is just as compelling as your solar radiance data. Keith would fall into that trap. He would provide it and you would sometimes never even address it, preferring to address the agenda of the researcher, instead.

I'll concede if you like, Sam. You can have the win.

I'll also continue to call you on your B.S. as you present it.

TerryRC wrote: And so are your "bug counts", Terry. As is just about everything else you report on.

So what?

How soon we forget. If you go back and look, your critique of using emissions data and correlating it with temps and CO2 was that the emissions data was ESTIMATED.

Terry, if I ESTIMATED how much gas I had farted out over the past 67 years, ... would you accept it as a "scientifically accurate estimate"?

Apparently you would, ...... being you accepted the estimate of "man-made CO2 emissions over the past few centuries" as being scientifically accurate.

Here, I brought my critique forward, read it again, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:The question I'm interested in is this - can you say, after comparing a graph of man-made emissions to one of temperature for the past few centuries, that there is NO POSSIBILITY that the two are correlated.

TRC, are you serious?

First of all, you can not provide me with "a factual graph of man-made emissions for the past few centuries".

The best you can possibly do is present some "hypothetical estimated values" of said man-made "emissions".

Now scientists know the approximate "atmospheric CO2 concentrations" for the past few centuries via "ice core data" ....... but they sure as hell can't tell you which of the following generated "what quantities" of the CO2.

Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material for plant growth. Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels or vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Inorganic carbon dioxide is output by volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs.

Terry, with all the above generating atmospheric CO2 over the past several centuries, but no one knows how much each group was generating, ..... how in hell can one make even a reasonable guess as to how much of that contained in "test samples" is/was man-made?

TerryRC wrote:Terry, you really shouldn't be badmouthing the "work" done by other scientists, especially since they use "methods" similar to what you use except theirs are more precise than you employ, to wit:

You don't know anything about my work, Sam. I would say that it is hard to get more accurate than direct counts of individuals. Don't even need a ruler to "estimate" that.

Individual bugs or people? GEEEZUS, even the Census takers get it wrong counting people. Maybe you are counting body lice, huh.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless, I haven't faulted anyone's methods. I just prefer the original research to a wiki that anyone can make and edit.

"DUH", but you posted a reference to a wiki article.

TerryRC wrote:Terry, you only say that when you get "in a bind". All other times you support the Human Cause Global Warminists 100%.

And that sir, is why I browbeat you.

Don't call me "sir", maggot. I work for a living.

I say that because I think it likely. You will never and have never found any of my words that contradict that.

Ah so, Teresa, I see you dun got pouty and p-faced, an act you were badmouthing me for. Between the wiki and that, ........ a double standard for sure.

TerryRC wrote:You see, Sammy, unlike you, I don't care about being right. I care about finding the truth. You have ruled out possibilities based on, well, nothing - nothing but personal bias.

Now that was brilliant TRC. Maybe you had better explain how one can do that being "truth is right". ....... OOPS, forgot, except when in an argument with a "feminine brain".

TerryRC wrote:But Terry, it moreso correlates to the Mayan Doomsday Prophecy that will occur on December 21, 2012. Click n' read about it big boy.

Wow. That IS very compelling evidence.

Based on 2,000+ years old scientifically accurate astronomical calculations, I would say so. Galileo couldn't even spell "galactic plane", let alone know what it was.

TerryRC wrote:Sam, you don't want to look any further than natural causes. You don't think man has any significant effect on climate change. Keep in mind, humans have created deserts, drained millenia-old aquifers to the point that they are almost dry and poured crap into rivers to the point they caught on fire.

I don't believe that there is too much that people aren't capable of.

As to "what emissions" data, I said I wouldn't spoonfeed you. It is out there and is just as compelling as your solar radiance data. Keith would fall into that trap. He would provide it and you would sometimes never even address it, preferring to address the agenda of the researcher, instead.

I'll concede if you like, Sam. You can have the win.

I'll also continue to call you on your B.S. as you present it.

Piffle, TRC, all piffle.

I knew way back when you called me a "maggot" you done realized you couldn't bedazzle me with your silly rhetoric.

Terry, if I ESTIMATED how much gas I had farted out over the past 67 years, ... would you accept it as a "scientifically accurate estimate"?

Apparently you would, ...... being you accepted the estimate of "man-made CO2 emissions over the past few centuries" as being scientifically accurate.

Actually, that can be estimated, and fairly closely, after gathering some baseline data.

Terry, with all the above generating atmospheric CO2 over the past several centuries, but no one knows how much each group was generating, ..... how in hell can one make even a reasonable guess as to how much of that contained in "test samples" is/was man-made?

Estimates can be made in a number of ways, the best being through estimating the type and amount of fossil fuels used annually. The CO2 can be calculated in a one step equation.

Ah so, Teresa, I see you dun got pouty and p-faced, an act you were badmouthing me for. Between the wiki and that, ........ a double standard for sure.

Samantha, that is what a drill sergeant says to the wet-behind-the-ears recruits when they "sir" him. I thought you were a little more worldly than you actually are.

Regardless, you have your mind made up and no opposing evidence of any kind will get even a glance from you. Welcome to fundamentalism.

TerryRC wrote: Terry, if I ESTIMATED how much gas I had farted out over the past 67 years, ... would you accept it as a "scientifically accurate estimate"?

Apparently you would, ...... being you accepted the estimate of "man-made CO2 emissions over the past few centuries" as being scientifically accurate.

Actually, that can be estimated, and fairly closely, after gathering some baseline data.

Now Terry, I realize you have a "self image" ego problem, ...... but now wasn't that pushing it a little 2. flatulenceingly ?

GEEEZE, it would be folly for you even to attempt gathering any "baseline data" on said because even though I have noninfrequently ingested them, ....... I am not a really big fan of Soy or Pinto beans.

Now Terry, "fairly closely" ...... doesn't even count when playing "Horseshoes", .... but I found a reference that might explain why you might think it would, to wit:

Some facts about flatulence:

The average person produces between 400 and 2400 milliliters of wind a day — that's an average of 1.5 litres, or enough to fill a balloon.

Men break wind more frequently than women, on average 12 times a day, and women seven. When it comes to smell, about ............

Terry, when one starts averaging the average average .... their results are only good for "Show n' Tell".

TerryRC wrote:Terry, with all the above generating atmospheric CO2 over the past several centuries, but no one knows how much each group was generating, ..... how in hell can one make even a reasonable guess as to how much of that contained in "test samples" is/was man-made?

Estimates can be made in a number of ways, the best being through estimating the type and amount of fossil fuels used annually. The CO2 can be calculated in a one step equation.

Yes Terry, I agree you can do that, ..... and get a fairly accurate estimate of the quantity of CO2 ........ that was "released" into the atmosphere.

But, what that "fairly accurate estimate" ..... can not tell you, ....... is what percentage of the "sampled" atmospheric CO2 was actually created by fossil fuel oxidation.

Terry, two (2) of your major "UNKNOWNS" are 1)-the amount of rainfall, ... and 2)-the amount of vegetation, ...... in the locale where said "released" CO2 is currently situated at any given time.

TRC, you do remember mentioning that "acid rain" problem, don't you?

Well "DUH", if it never rained over the northeast ...... they would never have had an "acid rain" problem, now would they.

But anyway Terry, at a minimum, the "odds" are 3 to 2 AGAINST anyone ever determining the percentage of "human caused" CO2 in the atmosphere. And I arrived at that conclusion by looking at this pretty depiction of the Carbon Cycle. Take a look-see, it is free.

TerryRC wrote:
Ah so, Teresa, I see you dun got pouty and p-faced, an act you were badmouthing me for. Between the wiki and that, ........ a double standard for sure.

Samantha, that is what a drill sergeant says to the wet-behind-the-ears recruits when they "sir" him. I thought you were a little more worldly than you actually are.

Well Terry, maybe you watch too many "sit-coms" on TV, but anyway I will now have to assume that you do not think that you deserve being addressed as "sir", so I will do as you like and refrain from doing so.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless, you have your mind made up and no opposing evidence of any kind will get even a glance from you. Welcome to fundamentalism.

Terry, that statement was just an extension of your thoughts and based solely on your perceived "wet-behind-the-ears" comment. Me thinks you have assumed the "role" of some fictitious Scientific Sergeant in the Gore Army of Global Warminists ……. and have taken it upon yourself to drill and train me in accordance with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.

Well now Terry, you have taken on quite a challenge and I can understand your frustration. But now you should realize in that I am considerably more knowledgeable than you are about climate, weather and several other aspects of the "natural sciences" ....... that it is virtually impossible for you to "Sergeantly order me to learn, accept and conform" to that which you read from an IPCC Report ........ and ASSUME that it is "opposing evidence".

Terry, let me ask you again, in that it is again "clear blue skies" and about 0 (zero) degrees F here in Burnsville this morning.

What happened to that 20 degrees F of "heat energy" that was being "trapped" by your "greenhouse gas" yesterday afternoon?

Thus TRC, if the conditions yesterday morning ........ were exactly the same as they are this morning, ....... and 20 degrees F of solar energy was received ...... but then all of it dissipated overnight, ...... I have to logically deduct that there was nothing in the atmosphere in the vicinity of Burnsville that "trapped and held" any of said solar energy.

cheers

I don't get too wrapped up in global warming. I figure there is something to it but notice that those who sqwak the loudest ignore the economic aspects while insisting the science is unassailable. Whatever. I may not know much about science but I am pretty good with irony.

That was a cute one, Jim.

And to this remark of yours:

Whatever. I may not know much about science but ..

I will have to say, ....... don't you be fretting about that, ...... even the "real scientists" don't know or understand everything, but at least they will admit to it.

But not those pseudo scientists claiming "human caused" catastropic global warming. They have been screaming "FIRE" in this crowded Global Theatre and they have no frigging idea what is actually "heating the place up".

GEEEZE Ohio, one possible source of the "increased heating" has just recently, .... real recently, ..... been confirmed. It is so new that the effects of it has never been studied, ..... to wit:

Powerful magnetic waves have been confirmed for the first time as major players in the process that makes the sun's atmosphere strangely hundreds of times hotter than its already superhot surface.

The magnetic waves — called Alfven waves — can carry enough energy from the sun's active surface to heat its atmosphere, or corona.

"The surface and corona are chock full of these things, and they're very energetic," said Bart de Pontieu, a physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory in California.

The sun contains powerful heating and magnetic forces which drive the temperature to tens of thousands of degrees at the surface — yet the quieter corona wreathing the sun reaches temperatures of millions of degrees.

Scientists have speculated that Alfven waves act as energy conveyor belts to heat the sun's atmosphere, but lacked the observational evidence to prove their theories.

De Pontieu and his colleagues changed that by using the Japanese orbiting solar observatory Hinode to peer at the region sandwiched between the sun's surface and corona, called the chromosphere.

Not only did they spot many Alfven waves, but they also estimated the waves carried more than enough energy to sustain the corona's temperatures as well as to power the solar wind (charged particles that constantly stream out from the sun) to speeds of nearly 1 million mph.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324625,00.html

And Ohio, scientists really don't know how to accurately measure those Solar Winds as they are not completely understood ..... except they know ...... they pack one hell of a bunch of energy.

Enough to "blow breakers, transformers, etc." in the power grid, burn out satellites, "microwave" an astronaut in his spacesuit, etc.

So, are they contributing to global warming? We have to assume so but we don't know how much ....... because we have no way of measuring anything about them: how many penetrate the earth's atmosphere or how much energy they contribute.

.

And ps Ohio, ......

burning witches during the Middle Ages didn't solve their "plague problem" .........

and plagueing the CO2 generators will not solve the global heating problem.



.

Well, probably not, Sam, but it did solve their witch problem. At least for a while...

You know I swear those global warming alarmists are their own worst enemies. While I know the Earth is getting warmer, and I believe human activities is causing some of this, I know we are not the cause for all of it. The hype makes me not want to even bother thinking about it. Examples are everywhere from Algore's hypocrisy to my daughter's HS science teacher telling me my beloved RI will be swallowed by the Atlantic within the next dozen years.

It's like there is no voice of reason in the debate. At the very least the voices of reason are being stifled and drowned out by the screams of those in a panics caused by fear, greed, and desire for attention.

I agree with Jimmy, I think there's something to it as well. How much is man made and how much isn't, I don't know. I also agree that those that scream the loudest don't take the ecomonice into consideration.

I also believe the earth isn't quite as fragile as some want to make it out to be and mother nature will find a way to not only survive mankind but thrive in spite of mankind.

And finally, I think if someone doesn't find Keith soon, Sam's going to go crazy.

Aaron you're a sports fan. Did you post to Doug Smock's forum? He has that blog now. Perhaps you could ask him if he can obtain contact info on the others. I miss Keith, Robo and the others and it's obvious Davison isn't going to help us.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron you're a sports fan. Did you post to Doug Smock's forum? He has that blog now. Perhaps you could ask him if he can obtain contact info on the others. I miss Keith, Robo and the others and it's obvious Davison isn't going to help us.

I get nothing to come up when I try to find the blog.

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/dougsmock

[quote="ohio county"]I don't get too wrapped up in global warming. I figure there is something to it but notice that those who sqwak the loudest ignore the economic aspects while insisting the science is unassailable. Whatever. I may not know much about science but I am pretty good with irony.

Now OC, you are generally a thoughtful feller. And you are correct to observe that many of the global warnming "aginners" usually tend to dismiss the economic aspects. And the economic beneficiaries of industrial activities usually tend to dismiss the environmental aspects of global warming. And so my question to you, my thoughtful friend, is how do we bring both the economic and environmenat aspects of global warming to the table of peace talks?

You may or may not have noticed that I have not weighed in on the global warming debate on these forums. That's because I think that unless/until we can discuss both the environmental and economic dynamics of it, together, that we will forever be at useless loggerheads.

Examples are everywhere from Algore's hypocrisy to my daughter's HS science teacher telling me my beloved RI will be swallowed by the Atlantic within the next dozen years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3506963.stm

The problem isn't isolated and is noticeably worse now than it was in 2004.

I'm trying to figure out why pointing this out is considered "hypocritical".

Man-made, or not, ignoring this is foolish.

TerryRC wrote:Examples are everywhere from Algore's hypocrisy to my daughter's HS science teacher telling me my beloved RI will be swallowed by the Atlantic within the next dozen years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3506963.stm

The problem isn't isolated and is noticeably worse now than it was in 2004.

I'm trying to figure out why pointing this out is considered "hypocritical".

Man-made, or not, ignoring this is foolish.

Only if you are absolutely convinced that the increase in "warming" over the past 200 years is "human caused".

If an astronomer announced that a 20 mile wide meteor was going to strike the earth 5 years from now, ……… I would ignore it.

I would ignore it because there is not a damn thing I can do about it.

TRC, iffen you want to "control" global temperatures, ....... build yourself a "Sun Blocker" satellite and place it in geo-synchrous orbit between the Earth and the Sun.

Then if you get a little too warm, or a little too cold, ....... just unfurl or roll-up the "Sun Screen" accordingly.


cheers