Re: A question for TerryRC

by Keli Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:35 pm

Stephanie wrote:Evolutionary theory is based on scientific fact.

Global warming theory is based in large part upon lies and deceit.

Well, you are half right.

by SamCogar Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:00 am

TerryRC wrote:Sam. You didn't answer the question. Why so warm in the Pacific NW THIS year?

The hell I didn't answer your question. You are either too stupid to understand my answer or you refuse to acknowledge the truth of it ....... like you have done every other time when your ignorance has cause you to make statements you didn't know a f'ing thing about.

Like when you attempted to convince everyone that the tree or forest canopy would hold all those millions of gallons of rain water up off the ground and thus prevent flooding.

I'm surprised that you haven't been arguing that 4" of wet snow is 4 times heavier that 4" of rain water and that's the reason all the trees were falling and breaking all the power lines during the past few weeks. I guess if the subject had come up then you would have.

The Jet Stream is there EVERY year.

YUP, and the Southern Jet Stream is where it is every year also but the Florida coast still gets pounded by a hurricane every few years or so.

And I could tell you that the dust storms off the Gobi Desert is partly responsible for the Arctic ice and snow melting and higher temperatures in Alaska and British Columbia but it would just be a waste of my time if I did because you are not interested in learning anything. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1540.html

Your inability, inexperience and limited knowledge is the reason you can not consider more than one (1) factor at a given time and thus the reason you post such asinine statements like you did above about the Jet Sream.

I am already on record (and Sheik can back me up) as saying that I do not think global warming is caused by people but is, indeed, made worse by people's activities.

In this case it really doesn't matter what the hell you think or believe, it only matters how you express your thoughts and beliefs to other people. And you are noted for expressing said in a CYA fashion so that, if necessary, you can always "fall back" and say "I didn't mean it that way."

.

by TerryRC Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:59 am

Is a rise in temperature the only explanatino for the expansion of the pine shoot beatles' population? Is it possible that they've been that far north/south all along and we just haven't noticed?

No. The damage they do is obvious and causes die-back visible from the air.

by TerryRC Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:05 am

Like when you attempted to convince everyone that the tree or forest canopy would hold all those millions of gallons of rain water up off the ground and thus prevent flooding.

No, liar. I said it slows the rate at which the water gets into streams.

The hell I didn't answer your question. You are either too stupid to understand my answer or you refuse to acknowledge the truth of it ....... like you have done every other time when your ignorance has cause you to make statements you didn't know a f'ing thing about.

Ah, cussing now. You posted a map and some mumbles about the jet stream.

So. If global warming is false because of the snow we had in WV this winter, why can't global warming be true based upon the warmest winter on record in the Pacific NW?

Your inability, inexperience and limited knowledge is the reason you can not consider more than one (1) factor at a given time and thus the reason you post such asinine statements like you did above about the Jet Sream.

Sam. I've decided to ignore your pointless insults.

The evidence to support human influenced climate change is almost overwhelming and new evidence appears every day.

I know that this outrages you but don't take it out on me.

by SamCogar Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:01 am

No, liar. I said it slows the rate at which the water gets into streams.

YUP, just like the roof on your house slows the rate the rainwater gets to ground level. If it slows it down then it hold it back, ask you kids. Calling me the liar is a typical disingenuous CYA excuse employed by a dishonest and/or “intelligence challenged” person.

You posted a map and some mumbles about the jet stream.

Like I said, you are too stupid to understand it.

So. If global warming is false because of the snow we had in WV this winter, why can't global warming be true based upon the warmest winter on record in the Pacific NW?

If you think the snow we had falsifies global warming then that is your problem and proves my assertion that you are too stupid to understand it.

Sam. I've decided to ignore your pointless insults.

You avert your eyes and your mind to everything you don’t like seeing or hearing, so what else is new.

The evidence to support human influenced climate change is almost overwhelming and new evidence appears every day.

Association is not evidence of anything and therefore is not a factual reason for causation. The Mauna Loa CO2 Record proves that AGW is little more than piss poor Junk Science. Just about every AGW claim can be falsified by said.

I know that this outrages you but don't take it out on me.

Stupid people that are “sucking” at the Government tit is what outrages me. Razz

.

by TerryRC Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:45 am

YUP, just like the roof on your house slows the rate the rainwater gets to ground level. If it slows it down then it hold it back, ask you kids. Calling me the liar is a typical disingenuous CYA excuse employed by a dishonest and/or “intelligence challenged” person.

Well, I'm not sure what this garbled sentence is meant to say.

Like I said, you are too stupid to understand it.

Pointless insult.

If you think the snow we had falsifies global warming then that is your problem and proves my assertion that you are too stupid to understand it.

I never said that. Wasn't it you making jokes about shoveling global warming out of your driveway?

You avert your eyes and your mind to everything you don’t like seeing or hearing, so what else is new.

Pointless insult.

Association is not evidence of anything and therefore is not a factual reason for causation. The Mauna Loa CO2 Record proves that AGW is little more than piss poor Junk Science. Just about every AGW claim can be falsified by said.

Here I thought you were a scientist. What you cite is perceived evidence, not proof.

Stupid people that are “sucking” at the Government tit is what outrages me.

Pointless insult.

Just so you know, however, I help farmers grow and protect the food you eat.

Wow. What a logical and informative post you have submitted!

by SamCogar Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:38 am

TerryRC wrote: Association is not evidence of anything and therefore is not a factual reason for causation. The Mauna Loa CO2 Record proves that AGW is little more than piss poor Junk Science. Just about every AGW claim can be falsified by said.

Here I thought you were a scientist. What you cite is perceived evidence, not proof.

Proof is like beauty, it is also "in the eye of the beholder".

Concerning atmospheric CO2 measurements the factually recorded Mauna Loa CO2 Record shows there has been a steady and consistent 12 month oscillation of the atmospheric CO2 ppm of an average of 7-8 ppm for the past 50 years from 1958 to the present, with the greater amount occurring after the Vernal (March) Equinox about the 1st of May and the lesser amount occurring after the Autumnal (September) Equinox about the 1st of October. Thus, the average ½ year increase is about 7-8 ppm whereas the average ½ year decrease is about 5-6 ppm which gives a 1-2 ppm net yearly gain in atmospheric CO2. See below graph:
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Keelin10

A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Keelin10

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years. But their claims must be false because the facts clearly depicted on the above graph show that the atmospheric CO2 is only increasing at a steady and consistent 1-2 ppm net yearly gain?

The increase in quantities of human produced CO2 were not steady and consistent for all those 47 years that are depicted on cited graph, were they? Absolutely not, even the proponents of AGW agree with that.

Surely humans were dumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2005 than they were between 1958 and 1963, weren’t they? Absolutely they were.

How do you correlate that steady and consistent 1-2 ppm net yearly gain with human activity? You can’t.

Do the claims of the proponents of AGW violate Henry’s Law? Absolutely they do.

If human activities were adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere each succeeding year and the average temperatures are increasing each year then shouldn’t the average net yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 be increasing each year. Absolutely they should, otherwise it would be in violation of Henry’s Law.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:39 am

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

Citation, please.

When putting an argument in your opponent's mouth, it behooves you to cite them.

Also, you are talking about observations from one site. Are you not as guilty of cherry picking data as the scientists you accuse of doing junk science?

by SamCogar Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:52 am

by TerryRC Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:54 am

Also, fro the NOAA website:

The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and may not be the same as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface.

Also, your argument is spurious as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, even if it is the one that everyone seems to focus on.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:58 am

Wanted to go back to this:

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

These scientists aren't saying that. This is what they said: Preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations were approximately 275 parts per million. Today concentrations are approximately 367 ppmv, an increase of over 30 percent.

-C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf, Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations (ppmv) derived from in situ air samples collected at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, August 1998. A. Neftel et al, Historical CO2 Record from the Siple Station Ice Core, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland, September 1994. See http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:04 am

Did I ever tell you guys my "spurious" story?

by SamCogar Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:39 am

TerryRC wrote:Wanted to go back to this:

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

These scientists aren't saying that. This is what they said: Preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations were approximately 275 parts per million. Today concentrations are approximately 367 ppmv, an increase of over 30 percent.

CO2: Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Linked to Human Activity
What do we know for sure? We know for a fact that CO2 levels are rising and that human activity is the cause.

How do we know this? A simple calculation. Let's start with the year 1750, generally accepted as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when the standard measure for CO2 levels was 278ppmv. We'll begin then, add the known level of human-generated CO2 for that year, then subtract 2.84% of the excess CO2 – because that's how fast nature tries to restore the balance. If we do this for 255 years, up to 2005, we get the pink line in the graph below. It fits the black line – the actual CO2 level – like a glove. http://zfacts.com/p/194.html

A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Zfacts10

by SamCogar Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:49 am

TerryRC wrote:The Mauna Loa data are being obtained at an altitude of 3400 m in the northern subtropics, and may not be the same as the globally averaged CO2 concentration at the surface.

by TerryRC Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:30 am

Neither of your last two posts has any argument in it.

You said: The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

I cited a reference that showed your blanket statement was false.

I also showed that your argument is ONLY focusing on CO2 and ignoring other greenhouse gasses.

I ALSO pointed out that your data is from one point at a high altitude. That doesn't invalidate it, but you should find some more data to back it up. Keep in mind that the Mauna Loa data still shows a sharp increase in CO2, just not exponential growth as say the words that you are trying to put in the mouths of every "pro-human induced climate change" (I prefer that to the oversimplified "anthropogenic global warming") scientist in the world.

Sam. You have made no valid scores in this particular discussion.

by SamCogar Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:32 am

I ALSO pointed out that your data is from one point at a high altitude. That doesn't invalidate it, but you should find some more data to back it up.

NOAA – Earth System Research Laboratory – Global Monitoring Division
•Recent Monthly CO2 at Mauna Loa
•Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record
•Annual Mean CO2 Growth Rate at Mauna Loa
•Mauna Loa CO2 Data
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Keep in mind that the Mauna Loa data still shows a sharp increase in CO2,

Sharp increase
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Keelin10

Sharper increase
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Keelin12

Sharpest consistant 1.73 ppm increase in 45 years
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Keelin13

by TerryRC Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:47 am

What was the data going back to the 1800's? 1700's (granted, it will have to come out of ice cores as opposed to data from Mauna Loa)? How do we know that the rise isn't sharper put into context with a longer time period than the 45 years your graph shows? I think if you graph 400 years instead of 45, you will see that the rise in the past 45 years has been sharp, indeed.

Anyway, your graphs show a pretty good increase in CO2 levels, even if "sharp increase" wasn't as good a phrase as "substantial increase". How about adding some data from other parts of the world?

Also, I take it, by your silence on the subject that you are stepping off from this statement:

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

Because I showed you some scientists that are not saying that.

by SamCogar Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:37 am

100 years of Arctic ice extent vrs atmospheric CO2
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Nansen-fig-1

Please note: CO2 levels in above graph do not track temperature changes in below graph.

400 years of temperature
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 ScafettaWestSunvsTemp%20Adj

A question for TerryRC - Page 2 ScafettaWestSunvsTemp%20Adj

Please note: CO2 levels in below graph do not track temperature changes in above graph.

1000 years of atmospheric CO2
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Graph%20wikimedia.orgwikipediacommons990CO2-Temp

A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Graph%20wikimedia.orgwikipediacommons990CO2-Temp

400,000 years of atmospheric CO2
(please note: increases in CO2 always lag behind increases in temperature)
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Co2-400k-years

A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Co2-400k-years

600 million years of atmospheric CO2
A question for TerryRC - Page 2 Paleocarbon

by TerryRC Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:13 am

So, over the past century (third graph), the rise in CO2 has been sharp, indeed.

Thanks.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:11 am

TerryRC wrote:So, over the past century (third graph), the rise in CO2 has been sharp, indeed.

Thanks.

Not as sharp as it was in the late Permian or Jurassic when it went above 2,000 ppm.

by TerryRC Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:18 am

Not as sharp as it was in the late Permian or Jurassic when it went above 2,000 ppm.

So. That doesn't mean that we aren't warming things up now.

The fact that an event(s) caused global CO2 levels to top out then doesn't preclude man-accelerated climate change now.

You fail at critical reasoning.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:25 am

TerryRC wrote:Also, I take it, by your silence on the subject that you are stepping off from this statement:

The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

Because I showed you some scientists that are not saying that.

And I'm sure you could show me some garbage truck drivers that are not saying that. And a few prostitutes also, and even a few wacky tobacca smokers.

Or ask your kids, maybe they won't say it either.

by TerryRC Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:33 am

And I'm sure you could show me some garbage truck drivers that are not saying that. And a few prostitutes also, and even a few wacky tobacca smokers.

Or ask your kids, maybe they won't say it either.

Sam, you made a sweeping statement that wasn't true. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Learn some humility.

I do notice one thing. Your statement said this: The proponents of AGW claim that the increase in Average Global Temperatures is human caused, and said average temperature has been increasing because of the fact that the human population and their CO2 releasing activities have been steadily increasing at an exponential rate over the past 50+ years.

You then showed Mauna Loa data on atmospheric CO2 and that the increase in atmospheric CO2, while sharp, is not EXPONENTIAL. Please note that the human population is increasing exponentially and their CO2 releasing activities may be also. That doesn't mean that it's effect on atmospheric levels will translate into an exponential rise, nor did the scientists claim it so.

You were trying to disprove a statement with data that doesn't do the job.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:01 am

TerryRC wrote:Not as sharp as it was in the late Permian or Jurassic when it went above 2,000 ppm.

So. That doesn't mean that we aren't warming things up now.

The fact that an event(s) caused global CO2 levels to top out then doesn't preclude man-accelerated climate change now.

You fail at critical reasoning.

You really shouldn't be making such assertions that you know nothing about.

Critical reasoning can only be accomplished by those who are not limited by "a one track mind". The ability to concurently recall and assess the validity of several criteria, facts and/or parameters is a prerequisite of critical reasoning.

The new "buzz" word for that process is referred to as "multitasking".

Here big boy, is something I am sure you will agree 100% with researcher Etienne Koechlin of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France. To wit:

Multitasking only lets you use half a brain

— For those who find it tough to juggle more than a couple things at once, don't despair. The brain is set up to manage two tasks, but not more, a new study suggests. http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/04/15/4164187-multitasking-only-lets-you-use-half-a-brain

.

by TerryRC Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:15 am

Meh. Just another sidetrack because you have been shown to not be good at attacking pro-AGW scientists.

by Sponsored content

Who convinced Europeans that the Himalaya Mountain Glaciers were melting away by 2035?