So, what did happen to all that warmth?

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

It probably won't take until we are all dead to see and feel the effects of the unnatural rise on atmospheric CO2. Indeed, we are feeling it now. Despite the few days of cold arctic temperatures, this has been a pretty warm year. In fact, the 10 warmest years on record occurred in a 12 years period from 1997 - 2008, according to NASA. This isn't an accident, nor can it be attributed to any wobble, precession or other change in the Earth's axis. Neither does the Sun's cycles correlate with the rise in temperatures. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, and the relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and natural emissions and absorptions are becoming better understood, and the evidence is pointing to CO2 emissions from man made sources. If it continues to get hotter, then there will be no denying that CO2 warming is to blame.

What kchriste was talking about is the long process that locks away carbon in oil reservoirs and tar pits. It takes perhaps millions of years to convert organic matter into the oil we burn and much has been used in only a century or so. So the rate of releasing the CO2 is much, much, much, much greater than the rate that is sequestered by the Earth. What he said is absolutely true, and point sources or continuous sources are irrelevant and don't prove or disprove a thing one concerning this process. Awhile back, we had access to some data from NOAA that showed how much CO2 the Earth releases and absorbs, and how much is being released by man, and what the budget is. What we got from that is that the rise is 100% due to the activities of man. It's not that hard to understand.

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

don't friggin read it

I was thinking the same thing. Nobody's got a gun to his head.

Course, I thought that from the start.

Sceadwian · Jan 6, 2010

So you don't think the site was just created as a joke that got out of hand? On the CBC, we had a show called Talking to Americans which went around asking stupid loaded questions of people in the USA. Usually they were about Canada. One famous one was when, posing as a reporter, Rick Mercer talked to Bush about our, now ex, Prime minister as Jean Poutine. The 20hr clock bit was pretty good too.

We're not talking about cherry picked single person interactions. We're talking about the majority of hundreds or thousand of individuals polled.

What? That plant matter can't turn into oil at the same rate that you can burn oil? Come on! Even if you burned the plant matter directly, such as heating your house with wood, it takes WAY more time for the tree to grow than it'll take you to burn it. That is what we are doing with oil. Burning it faster than it was created. Releasing carbon stored over a long period of time in a very short period of time.

Measure the number of wood burning homes to the number of trees turning C02 into wood over the entire globe. Not to mention the sea, and that's a BIG unknown with the carbon cycle, and considering it's surface area and active volume more than likely the major determining factor of which we know effectively nothing as far as long term effect goes.

I don't know about that. One way to end it is to agree with my point of view.

There is no way to end it, I learned that years ago, why do you think I put huge stop signs at the begging of this post that were deleted? I know better. But for some of this I can't help but speak up occasionally. Much like everyone else here. Why do you think these types of threads hit such huge post and views limits? Everyone has their own two cents to add to the topic of discussion. I'm not taking part in the topic of discussion however, I'm questioning that rational behind all the statements being made.

So now we are insane, how nice. With each of your post or tirade in this thread you get ever more insulting. Here is an idea, if you hate this thread so much, then don't friggin read it, or are you compelled to click on the thread due to OCD?

3v0: You may think I'm insulting, that is your opinion, that is not my intent, and your opinion does not shape my intent so no insult has occurred if you feel otherwise address it with me privately as this thread should not be a forum for addressing personal complaints.. I do not understand what you find offensive about what I'm saying and if you would care to share what you found offensive I would readily explain why that was not what my intent.

Sceadwian · Jan 6, 2010

I was thinking the same thing. Nobody's got a gun to his head.

Course, I thought that from the start.

So everyone is allowed to voice their opinion of this thread except me? I'm not allowed to dissent rationally? Yet you're cherry picking 'oh yeah he's wrong' comments somehow puts your ego in the side of some perceived correctness this thread might contain?

Insanity left a long time ago. It got bored.

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

This entire thread is a virtual insanity diary

Yeah, get back to us as soon as you are rational.

Sceadwian · Jan 6, 2010

It probably won't take until we are all dead to see and feel the effects of the unnatural rise on atmospheric CO2. Indeed, we are feeling it now. Despite the few days of cold arctic temperatures, this has been a pretty warm year. In fact, the 10 warmest years on record occurred in a 12 years period from 1997 - 2008, according to NASA. This isn't an accident, nor can it be attributed to any wobble, precession or other change in the Earth's axis. Neither does the Sun's cycles correlate with the rise in temperatures. The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, and the relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and natural emissions and absorptions are becoming better understood, and the evidence is pointing to CO2 emissions from man made sources. If it continues to get hotter, then there will be no denying that CO2 warming is to blame.

What kchriste was talking about is the long process that locks away carbon in oil reservoirs and tar pits. It takes perhaps millions of years to convert organic matter into the oil we burn and much has been used in only a century or so. So the rate of releasing the CO2 is much, much, much, much greater than the rate that is sequestered by the Earth. What he said is absolutely true, and point sources or continuous sources are irrelevant and don't prove or disprove a thing one concerning this process. Awhile back, we had access to some data from NOAA that showed how much CO2 the Earth releases and absorbs, and how much is being released by man, and what the budget is. What we got from that is that the rise is 100% due to the activities of man. It's not that hard to understand.

Post a link to every data source that fully backs up every one of your claims, or you spouting your opinion like everyone else.
Your post was such as waste of time scientifically that it doesn't even stand on it's own because you're just echoing what's 'commonly' known.

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

Sceadwian said:
Post a link to every data source that fully backs up every one of your claims, or you spouting your opinion like everyone else.
Your post was such as waste of time scientifically that it doesn't even stand on it's own because you're just echoing what's 'commonly' known.

Where are your links? I've seen none. You can find links to support every statement I've made in my many posts. What I've wrote is a summary from the many links I've posted in this thread, and others. Not a waste of time, rather a fully supported, fully correlated and fully documented summary.

Sceadwian · Jan 6, 2010

basic scientific methodology as I perceive it.

Define the question

Gather information and resources (observe)

Form hypothesis

Perform experiment and collect data

Analyze data

Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Publish results

Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

If you want to be rational then please stop sharing your opinion and flesh out every single last bit of that basic process from start to finish, or you quiet literally have nothing to say. I'm not being irrational as you're not even following the basic precepts or common sense steps required to validate the words being posted.

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

I'll stop sharing my opinions when you stop sharing yours.

Sceadwian · Jan 6, 2010

Brownout, if that's true then fine. You made the posts, you should know all the sources. In the next post you write here please condense them all and using as few words as possible rehash in a very simple way everything you said. If you can't do that..

The simple fact that you're asking me to link information is proof 1 that you don't have the first concept of the scientific method. My single only and all consuming preposition is that NO ONE in this thread has concisely listed or stated any data that can be correlative proven to meet any opinion that they hold.

My entire proof is this WHOLE thread, in black and white. I'm defacto proven correct in my proposition when you respond

I'll stop sharing my opinions when you stop sharing yours.

When asked to concsiley state your opinion and back it up with facts.

My preposition is stated, rehashed and proven with every post that follows it. Every post that doesn't contain a simple basic preposition, links to data that come from multiple independent sources.

So there it is. That's my proposition. So far no one here but me can state their preposition, back it up with data from multiple independent sources and have it still stand there at the end in a single post. I keep reanalyzing the data I've collected from this post and keep coming up with the SAME conclusion. This is less my opinion and more my published results.

tcmtech · Jan 6, 2010

According to the official NPWRC / USGS site **broken link removed** my area had its hottest and coldest days back in 1936!

Nothing in the last ten years even get mentioned for highest, lowest, most, or least of anything.

The only thing we have that gets a high or low for that time period is lower cost of living and higher than average pubic education! But we did have the largest anhydrous ammonia spill in us history when a train derailed in 2002!

We are just not seeing any of those temperature changes here! And here represents a very big chunk of the middle of North America!

In the last ten years the rest of the country and world went into a depression but we expanded and gained instead. Are we doing something wrong?

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

Too bad the USGS doesn't track temperatures and rank the hottest years, or else the article might have been more useful:

Does the USGS monitor global warming?
Not specifically. Our charge is to understand characteristics of the earth, especially the earth's surface, that affect our Nation's land, water, and biological resources. That includes quite a bit of environmental monitoring but other agencies, especially NOAA and NASA, are specifically funded to monitor global temperature and atmospheric phenomena such as ozone concentrations. Our work at USGS in the Earth Surface Dynamics Program focuses on understanding the likely consequences of climate change, especially by studying how climate has changed in the past.

But they refer to NASA for climate information:

Mikebits · Jan 6, 2010

3v0: You may think I'm insulting, that is your opinion, that is not my intent, and your opinion does not shape my intent so no insult has occurred if you feel otherwise address it with me privately as this thread should not be a forum for addressing personal complaints.. I do not understand what you find offensive about what I'm saying and if you would care to share what you found offensive I would readily explain why that was not what my intent.

Umm that was not 3V0 that made that comment, it was me. What I found offensive?

The reason I get so ticked in threads like this is because there should be ABSOLUTLY NO ROOM in science for this kind of paranoid unmitigated trash, there's too much real work to be actually DONE without having to worry about all the loonies on a bender over some random single perceived issue which we don't fully understand.

I don't appreciate my thinking the GW is real to be called paranoid unmitigated trash, surely you can find more diplomatic terms.

[FONT=&quot]I've heard from various people that there is one major method to determine if something is insane or not. If someone/thing is insane it will continually attempt to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Almost everything I read about the doom of humanity that is based on environmental 'science' is heavy paranoia for us to immediately act to save ourselves. It's nothing more than a simple mass hallucination[/FONT]

I don't think I am insane nor do I hallucinate.

[FONT=&quot]This entire thread is a virtual insanity diary.[/FONT]

So people discussing a potentially harmful condition to the environment is insane to you? Is it not better to debate than to do nothing and wait and see?

If you are truly against the idea of global warming, then state your case without insults and a few facts other than your say so.

tcmtech · Jan 6, 2010

Yes but NASA has been quite well known for their ability to screw up basic math and crash expensive stuff into planets too!
Along with always being on the cutting edge of researching anything that will bring more money into their under funded and over priced agency's.

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

Sceadwian said:
Brownout, if that's true then fine. You made the posts, you should know all the sources. In the next post you write here please condense them all and using as few words as possible rehash in a very simple way everything you said. If you can't do that..

I'll continue to post as I see fit. I'm not about to go through all my posts and link every site over again. I do know the sources, and I have them bookmarked. If there is something specific you want to see, then request it and I'll provide a link.

The simple fact that you're asking me to link information is proof 1 that you don't have the first concept of the scientific method. My single only and all consuming preposition is that NO ONE in this thread has concisely listed or stated any data that can be correlative proven to meet any opinion that they hold.

It means nothing of the sort. I've been familiar with the scientific method for decades. We've offered links and have backed up every statement. You've provided, well not much.

My entire proof is this WHOLE thread, in black and white. I'm defacto proven correct in my proposition when you respond

When asked to concsiley state your opinion and back it up with facts.

My preposition is stated, rehashed and proven with every post that follows it. Every post that doesn't contain a simple basic preposition, links to data that come from multiple independent sources.

So there it is. That's my proposition. So far no one here but me can state their preposition, back it up with data from multiple independent sources and have it still stand there at the end in a single post. I keep reanalyzing the data I've collected from this post and keep coming up with the SAME conclusion. This is less my opinion and more my published results.

That's been done over and over, no matter how many times you deny it, we've done everything reasonable to prove our statements, including links to proven, correlated data. Those who have posted in support of the science of AGW have done an outstanding job of backing up their statements. You have not done so.

Mikebits · Jan 6, 2010

Yes but NASA has been quite well known for their ability to screw up basic math and crash expensive stuff into planets too!

Aww come on, all us yanks have trouble with the metric system

BrownOut · Jan 6, 2010

They have also been know for accurately probing the inner and outer reaches of the solar system, measuring light from billions miles away, determining the makeup of stars from direct measurements, landing a man on the moon, launching and recovering a space vehicle, etc. They, along with NOAA are the best sources for global temperatures and associated data.

And your precious USGS endorses their data.

Mikebits · Jan 6, 2010

And your precious USGS endorses their data.

I like USGS, they rock.

HarveyH42 · Jan 7, 2010

Our current 3 week and counting cold spell is just a 'blip', in the 10 year warming trend. Just like the warming trend is a 'blip' in the past thousands of years. Still haven't found 10 years of data, that hasn't been 'adjusted' in some form, wondering if it actually exists. Why such secrecy, shouldn't all the cards be on the table? We are being called into action, forced into poverty and suffering for this. The truth speaks for itself, nothing to hide or protect. Most of what I've read in this thread, is regurgitation, repeating what was stated in so many other places, not much original thought or opinion. As for the 'science', it's pretty well stalled out, since it's tough to set up any kind of lab experiment. The measurements, are all going to be from the same sources, by the same staff, and takes a long time. At best, it's a hypothesis, a belief, just barely getting started. It's a very long way from being a proven fact, a truth. This argument can go on endlessly, just like the various religions over their beliefs and interpretations of the bible(s). It's entirely faith based. Wonder how longer before the extremist start killing each other to get their point across. For me, doesn't even matter, I'm just along for the ride. I figure some way to survive, regardless how this CO2 battle works out.

Nigel Goodwin · Jan 7, 2010

Mikebits said:
Aww come on, all us yanks have trouble with the metric system

Only because you're hanging on to outdated and difficult systems

I really can't see why you haven't changed?, decimal is so much easier - you didn't go the pounds, shillings, and pence route, so why stick to feet and inches?.

I come from the pre-decimal era, but I'm probably the last generation to do so, in a few years time it will be forgotten - the USA is falling further and further behind, and change has to happen - but will take a couple of generations to work through.

So, what did happen to all that warmth?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Super Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency