On Mar 4, 12:42 am, "ZNB00" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 12:41 pm, Bill Ward wrote:



On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:30:38 -0800, Fran wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:31 am, Rich wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:52 pm, "ZBN00" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Mar 2, 6:53 am, RIMme wrote: ***
ONCE MORE ... about global warming:
1) There is NOTHING short of dying we can do about what's
already
occurring.
There is plenty that can be done to subvert the current trend
towards
higher GHG emissions and further climate forcing.
***************

ROTFLMAO

Not possible. According to you, you did that last time you
responded.
Perhaps its 'cyclic'.

He can't roll on the ground laughing twice? Why not? :-)

You've ignored the last three characters of his initialism: "MAO".
If it's
fallen off, unless he reconnects it (attachment of his arse is
cyclic)
he's exaggerating. Some other body part will have to come loose. ;-)

In case you haven't noticed Fran baby, your mythical "climate
forcing" is a non-event! We have been experiencing an
accelerating
cooling trend since 1998!

Na ah ... the only thing that has gone cold in a long term sense
is
that grey matter of yours.

So you think climate (aka temperature) is linear? So does Roger
Coppock.

No. There's a positive causal relationship between GHG
concentrations and
temperatures in the lower troposphere. More than that is not claimed
because a number of factors drive temperature. It's just that we
humans
have somewhat more say in PPMV CO2, CH4, NOx etc.

The TOTALLY NATURAL warming between 1980 and 1998 is not
significant
anyway. Just ask your buddy Coppcock who doggedly states that a
climate trend is not significant unless it has been extant for
at
least three decades.

That's true. That's why we call it climate and not weather.

But no one here can give a precise definition of climate, and there
does
not appear to be any standard scientific definition.

The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the
appropriate time frame to measure statistical data on temperature,
precipitation, humidity and so forth. In some cases, depending on
the
needs of a particular piece of research, much longer time frames may
be
needed. Paleoclimatologists often look at climate over tens of
millions of
years.

It's a bit like any insight about the world. How frequently, and in
what
contexts must a phenomenon occur before it stops being anomalous and
becomes a pattern with sufficient constancy to yield insights at to
its
informing etiology? The WMO standard seems an adequate one, given
what we
now know about carbon fluxes between the various 'sinks',
thermohaline
cycles, ice pack and so forth.

No one here
knows what they are talking about, except in a vague shadowy way.

At least, that's what you'd like to have others believe, because in
your
opinion, doubt and imprecision serve your cause. I find the tactic
interesting, because it's at least as plausible to suppose that a
sceptic
might think the IPCC projections unduly optimistic. If there is
indeed
doubt about the rigour of IPCC models, it surely exists on the other
side
as well.

And Roger can't give any basis for his 30 year smoothing,
apparently it
gives results he expects and that's the size of it.

Oh BTW, I hope you haven't forgotten.that any response to
increased
atmospheric CO2 is LOGARITHMIC, so that a doublimg of CO2 will
NOT
double the mythical "forcing"!

If it's 'logarithmic', it could equally be at a rate greater than
a
linear trend.

I think you're confusing logarithmic and exponential. The gist of
it is
that further increases in CO2 have less and less additional effect.

I know the claim, but the word merely refers to the value of the
power
when a given base number produces a given result. Thus 100, in base
10 is
log 2. In common parlance, in this setting, one could infer a
logarithmic
relationship from PPMV CO2 and temperature plotted over time. As per
the
above, I believe this could be misleading -- which is why most
people in
this field don't make precise predictions about what temperatures
will
correspond to what GHG concentrations 30 years hence. They merely
give
probabilities and trend lines.

A linear relationship is what you get when the log is "1".

I hope you're not a math teacher.

I'm not a maths teacher, but I'm still right on this one. My point is
that calling some relationship 'logarithmic' doesn't tell you anything
specific about the relationship between value and another.





Of course, it may not need to double the forcing to set in motion
processes that rapidly accelerate warming trends.

Like the one that ended the last ice age? You guys don't know what
caused the end of the last ice age and yet you think you've
mastered
climate.

A non-sequitur. A whole range of things could end an ice age, and
undoutedly did. As the saying goes, there is more than one may to
skin a
cat. If you read Ruddiman's thesis, it's specualted that human
activity
roughly 10,000 years ago began having a warming effect on the
world's
climate, even though they didn't have SUVs.

Warming oceans tend to give back more CO2 to the atmosphere.

It takes a *long* time to do more than heat the surface.
Paleoclimate
seems to indicate somewhere around 800 years (that's the
approximate
time difference between the earth warming and CO2 rising).

Shrinking sea ice cover alters albedo in favour of greater ice
loss.

Yeah, the past is full of positive feedbacks destroying the entire
system, right?

Well as it goes, yes. There have been five major extinction events
involving positive feedbacks, and significantly, all involve
elevated CO2
and some have CH4 as well. Luckily, we humans weren't around for the
last
one, because in that one, every animate life form above 35 kg was
destroyed.

How do you know the extinctions involved positive feedbacks?

The modelling for the PETM for example very much looks at the
relationships between CO2, ocean temperature, upwelling, release of
methane, anoxia, and so forth leading to the death of plant and animal
life, their decomposition, more CO2, CH4 and so the loop goes.

Are you
including meteorite strikes as "positive feedbacks"? They aren't. At
any
rate, there must be an overriding negative feedback, because a net
positive feedback simply drives the system to a rail and stays there.
We're here because that didn't happen. The system recovered.

It did. The fact that there are positve feedbacks doesn't mean that
they continue forever. Positive feedbacks affect the operation of the
Gulf Stream, over geological time it has shut down and restarted in a
continuing cycle because of positive feedbacks.
*****************

Huh?
What evidence do you have for this?
Sounds like you are talking out of your ar--!

The Science Is Settled, Right?

January 31, 2008

Yet another study destroys another of the big global warming scares:


Why is it you denialists can only cite blogs?

The scientific community has long believed that as global warming
continues and large amounts of freshwater ice melt into the ocean, the
ocean's circulation will slow. This would have a catastrophic impact on
the environment as vividly, if somewhat overdramatically, portrayed in
the film "The Day After Tomorrow." But a paper published last week in
Nature magazine, the result of several studies of past and possible
future weather, says that in fact the very opposite is true and ocean
circulation will become stronger as the icecaps melt.

As Joellen Russell, one of the scientists behind the study, notes:

The evidence is piling up, that those models predicting a weakened ocean
circulation in the coming decades are wrong.


Gee, did I miss the part where that person said "there is no GW?" Was
it in invisible pixels?

Wasn't the science meant to be settled?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a.../heraldsun/com...

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

On Mar 4, 2:04 pm, Lloyd wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:42 am, "ZNB00" wrote:



"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 12:41 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:30:38 -0800, Fran wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:31 am, Rich wrote:
Fran wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:52 pm, "ZBN00" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Mar 2, 6:53 am, RIMme wrote: ***
ONCE MORE ... about global warming:
1) There is NOTHING short of dying we can do about what's
already
occurring.
There is plenty that can be done to subvert the current trend
towards
higher GHG emissions and further climate forcing.
***************

ROTFLMAO

Not possible. According to you, you did that last time you
responded.
Perhaps its 'cyclic'.

He can't roll on the ground laughing twice? Why not? :-)

You've ignored the last three characters of his initialism: "MAO".
If it's
fallen off, unless he reconnects it (attachment of his arse is
cyclic)
he's exaggerating. Some other body part will have to come loose. ;-)

In case you haven't noticed Fran baby, your mythical "climate
forcing" is a non-event! We have been experiencing an
accelerating
cooling trend since 1998!

Na ah ... the only thing that has gone cold in a long term sense
is
that grey matter of yours.

So you think climate (aka temperature) is linear? So does Roger
Coppock.

No. There's a positive causal relationship between GHG
concentrations and
temperatures in the lower troposphere. More than that is not claimed
because a number of factors drive temperature. It's just that we
humans
have somewhat more say in PPMV CO2, CH4, NOx etc.

The TOTALLY NATURAL warming between 1980 and 1998 is not
significant
anyway. Just ask your buddy Coppcock who doggedly states that a
climate trend is not significant unless it has been extant for
at
least three decades.

That's true. That's why we call it climate and not weather.

But no one here can give a precise definition of climate, and there
does
not appear to be any standard scientific definition.

The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the
appropriate time frame to measure statistical data on temperature,
precipitation, humidity and so forth. In some cases, depending on
the
needs of a particular piece of research, much longer time frames may
be
needed. Paleoclimatologists often look at climate over tens of
millions of
years.

It's a bit like any insight about the world. How frequently, and in
what
contexts must a phenomenon occur before it stops being anomalous and
becomes a pattern with sufficient constancy to yield insights at to
its
informing etiology? The WMO standard seems an adequate one, given
what we
now know about carbon fluxes between the various 'sinks',
thermohaline
cycles, ice pack and so forth.

No one here
knows what they are talking about, except in a vague shadowy way.

At least, that's what you'd like to have others believe, because in
your
opinion, doubt and imprecision serve your cause. I find the tactic
interesting, because it's at least as plausible to suppose that a
sceptic
might think the IPCC projections unduly optimistic. If there is
indeed
doubt about the rigour of IPCC models, it surely exists on the other
side
as well.

And Roger can't give any basis for his 30 year smoothing,
apparently it
gives results he expects and that's the size of it.

Oh BTW, I hope you haven't forgotten.that any response to
increased
atmospheric CO2 is LOGARITHMIC, so that a doublimg of CO2 will
NOT
double the mythical "forcing"!

If it's 'logarithmic', it could equally be at a rate greater than
a
linear trend.

I think you're confusing logarithmic and exponential. The gist of
it is
that further increases in CO2 have less and less additional effect.

I know the claim, but the word merely refers to the value of the
power
when a given base number produces a given result. Thus 100, in base
10 is
log 2. In common parlance, in this setting, one could infer a
logarithmic
relationship from PPMV CO2 and temperature plotted over time. As per
the
above, I believe this could be misleading -- which is why most
people in
this field don't make precise predictions about what temperatures
will
correspond to what GHG concentrations 30 years hence. They merely
give
probabilities and trend lines.

A linear relationship is what you get when the log is "1".

I hope you're not a math teacher.

I'm not a maths teacher, but I'm still right on this one. My point is
that calling some relationship 'logarithmic' doesn't tell you anything
specific about the relationship between value and another.

Of course, it may not need to double the forcing to set in motion
processes that rapidly accelerate warming trends.

Like the one that ended the last ice age? You guys don't know what
caused the end of the last ice age and yet you think you've
mastered
climate.

A non-sequitur. A whole range of things could end an ice age, and
undoutedly did. As the saying goes, there is more than one may to
skin a
cat. If you read Ruddiman's thesis, it's specualted that human
activity
roughly 10,000 years ago began having a warming effect on the
world's
climate, even though they didn't have SUVs.

Warming oceans tend to give back more CO2 to the atmosphere.

It takes a *long* time to do more than heat the surface.
Paleoclimate
seems to indicate somewhere around 800 years (that's the
approximate
time difference between the earth warming and CO2 rising).

Shrinking sea ice cover alters albedo in favour of greater ice
loss.

Yeah, the past is full of positive feedbacks destroying the entire
system, right?

Well as it goes, yes. There have been five major extinction events
involving positive feedbacks, and significantly, all involve
elevated CO2
and some have CH4 as well. Luckily, we humans weren't around for the
last
one, because in that one, every animate life form above 35 kg was
destroyed.

How do you know the extinctions involved positive feedbacks?

The modelling for the PETM for example very much looks at the
relationships between CO2, ocean temperature, upwelling, release of
methane, anoxia, and so forth leading to the death of plant and animal
life, their decomposition, more CO2, CH4 and so the loop goes.

Are you
including meteorite strikes as "positive feedbacks"? They aren't. At
any
rate, there must be an overriding negative feedback, because a net
positive feedback simply drives the system to a rail and stays there.
We're here because that didn't happen. The system recovered.

It did. The fact that there are positve feedbacks doesn't mean that
they continue forever. Positive feedbacks affect the operation of the
Gulf Stream, over geological time it has shut down and restarted in a
continuing cycle because of positive feedbacks.
*****************

Huh?
What evidence do you have for this?
Sounds like you are talking out of your ar--!

The Science Is Settled, Right?

January 31, 2008

Yet another study destroys another of the big global warming scares:

Why is it you denialists can only cite blogs?

They tell a better story than you lib-turd snake-oil cornholers of the
Apocalypse.
It must be your failure to communicate, llardass.
Group-stink, asshole. Look it up.

"Bawana" wrote
They tell a better story than you lib-turd snake-oil cornholers of the
Apocalypse.
It must be your failure to communicate, llardass.
Group-stink, asshole. Look it up.

Another Edjimacated post from the AmeriKKkan KKKonservative.