bu$hleaguer
Well-Known Member
How did they measure CO2 levels 800,000 years ago?
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you serious?
bu$hleaguer
Well-Known Member
No not completely, but yes in that it makes me wonder how accurate any information is about it.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
as the foremost authority on what i have and have not read, perhaps you can explain why i know where to find said documents?
most of the archived browser accessible sources have been closed down by threats of lolsuits, and offering up a dowenload link for a zip archive or PDF is of course just an excuse for you to claim "but, Context!!"
mann, et al engaged in blackballing of scientists, and even tried to get entire publications put on their Thuper Theekrit Deniers List
mann and his cronies' e-mails (which themselves detail the illegal means by which they sought to conceal those very emails from legal scrutiny) are Real and Actual Evidence, while oreskes and cook's bullshit claims, the entirety of the "skeptical science blog" and pretty much everything you say have been demonstrated point by point to be fiull of shit, but that doesnt stop you from trotting it out again and again, as if the previous demonstrations of your fecal content never happened.
pointing at yet another posting of "97% consensus" and "skeptical science blog" graphs and charts and other such twaddle which has been previously refuted is NOT dismissing the source, it is dismissing your deceptive repetition of previously rejected bullshit.
on rare occasions "skeptical science blog" shits out a valid argument, but that has proven to be so uncommon as to be likely the result of pure chance.
publication of a claim on "skeptical science blog" does not automatically prove the falsity of a claim, but cook publishing on I-sis.org and claiming that this is a "Peer Reviewed Journal" is laughable.
see the difference?
nah. you cant see anything but your deliriously delusional dreams of "winning" this argument as well.
now that you have inserted yourself into this issue, perhaps you can explain why the journals Climate Research, Geophysical Letters, and Energy & Environment were all declared to be infiltrated by "The Baddies" by Mann, after they published some papers he didnt approve of, despite his own previous publication in those same journals?
perhaps you can detail why none of these jokers keeps records of their Thuper Important Data, which is so very important for the future of the planet, but apparently not important enough to put in a box for later use...
perhaps you can explain why they felt that their emails on IPCC business, using govt funded university computers and networks, while receiving govt grants for their "research" were so terribly personal, that they must be concealed, or even destroyed to prevent FOIA requests from obtaining them?
perhaps you can shed some light on Mann's current embroilment in a FRAUD INVESTIGATION in which he refuses to answer subpoenas for his documents relating to his alleged fraud in obtaining govt research grants...
nah, you would rather call me dumb, and imply that theres some wild conspiracy to manufacture the appearance of conspiracy, when Mann and co. did that very nicely all by themselves.
also, have you figured out the diffrenece between Theory and Fact yet?
or Observation and Fact?
or how Hypothesis + Observation = Theory?
or do you still assert that Fact + Fact = Theory (which is a fancy word for Fact) ?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
He's a bonafide crackpot
Reminds me of Babs34
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions'
Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.
That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.
This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures.
These projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up carbon dioxide.
Ideas include aircraft spraying out sulphur particles at high altitude to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or using artificial "trees" to absorb CO2.
Long regarded as the most bizarre of all solutions for global warming, ideas for geo-engineering have come in for more scrutiny in recent years as international efforts to limit carbon emissions have failed.
Now three combined research projects, led by teams from the universities of Leeds, Bristol and Oxford, have explored the implications in more detail.
The central conclusion, according to Dr Matt Watson of Bristol University, is that the issues surrounding geo-engineering - how it might work, the effects it might have and the potential downsides - are "really really complicated".
"We don't like the idea but we're more convinced than ever that we have to research it," he said.
"Personally I find this stuff terrifying but we have to compare it to doing nothing, to business-as-usual leading us to a world with a 4C rise."
The studies used computer models to simulate the possible implications of different technologies - with a major focus on ideas for making the deserts, seas and clouds more reflective so that incoming solar radiation does not reach the surface.
One simulation imagined sea-going vessels spraying dense plumes of particles into the air to try to alter the clouds. But the model found that this would be far less effective than once thought.
Another explored the option of injecting sulphate aerosols into the air above the Arctic in an effort to reverse the decline of sea-ice.
A key finding was that none of the simulations managed to keep the world's temperature at the level experienced between 1986-2005 - suggesting that any effort would have to be maintained for years.
More alarming for the researchers were the potential implications for rainfall patterns.
Although all the simulations showed that blocking the Sun's rays - or solar radiation management, as it is called - did reduce the global temperature, the models revealed profound changes to precipitation including disrupting the Indian Monsoon.
Prof Piers Forster of Leeds University said: "We have found that between 1.2 and 4.1 billion people could be adversely affected by changes in rainfall patterns.
"The most striking example of a downside would be the complete drying-out of the Sahel region of Africa - that would be very difficult to adapt to for those substantial populations - and that happens across all the scenarios."
Despite the risk of catastrophic side-effects from geo-engineering, the study authors believe that research should continue just in case runaway warming leaves no other options.
Prof Forster said: "If we were in a really desperate situation, trying to cool the temps for a 10-20 year time period, there could be some merit in those circumstances in introducing solar radiation management to give you a 10-20 year time period."
According to Prof Steve Rayner of Oxford University, it is easier to devise the technology than to understand its effects or how its use should be governed.
"If you were just thinking of the capability of putting sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, that you could do in less than two decades - whether you would know it was smart to do it in less than two decades is another question.
"We don't know enough - we have a few islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance and it's absolutely worth knowing more. There is the potential that some of these technologies may be part of a broader tool kit of ways in which we can better manage climate change.
"People decry solar radiation management as a band-aid but band-aids can be useful for healing."
Geo-engineering has long been one of the most controversial aspects of the debate about solutions to climate change and few experiments have been conducted in the field.
One of the largest, known as Lohafex, was an Indian-German experiment in 2009 which involved dumping six tonnes of an iron solution into the South Atlantic to encourage plankton to bloom - trapping carbon which would then be sent to the seabed when the organisms died. Results showed limited success.
Another proposal for the trial flight of a balloon in Britain, as part of geo-engineering research for the SPICE project, attracted stiff opposition from environmental groups and was cancelled.
It would have been the precursor to a test of a technique for pumping sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere in an effort to bounce solar radiation back into space and cool the planet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085
Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.
That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.
This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures.
These projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up carbon dioxide.
Ideas include aircraft spraying out sulphur particles at high altitude to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or using artificial "trees" to absorb CO2.
Long regarded as the most bizarre of all solutions for global warming, ideas for geo-engineering have come in for more scrutiny in recent years as international efforts to limit carbon emissions have failed.
Now three combined research projects, led by teams from the universities of Leeds, Bristol and Oxford, have explored the implications in more detail.
The central conclusion, according to Dr Matt Watson of Bristol University, is that the issues surrounding geo-engineering - how it might work, the effects it might have and the potential downsides - are "really really complicated".
"We don't like the idea but we're more convinced than ever that we have to research it," he said.
"Personally I find this stuff terrifying but we have to compare it to doing nothing, to business-as-usual leading us to a world with a 4C rise."
The studies used computer models to simulate the possible implications of different technologies - with a major focus on ideas for making the deserts, seas and clouds more reflective so that incoming solar radiation does not reach the surface.
One simulation imagined sea-going vessels spraying dense plumes of particles into the air to try to alter the clouds. But the model found that this would be far less effective than once thought.
Another explored the option of injecting sulphate aerosols into the air above the Arctic in an effort to reverse the decline of sea-ice.
A key finding was that none of the simulations managed to keep the world's temperature at the level experienced between 1986-2005 - suggesting that any effort would have to be maintained for years.
More alarming for the researchers were the potential implications for rainfall patterns.
Although all the simulations showed that blocking the Sun's rays - or solar radiation management, as it is called - did reduce the global temperature, the models revealed profound changes to precipitation including disrupting the Indian Monsoon.
Prof Piers Forster of Leeds University said: "We have found that between 1.2 and 4.1 billion people could be adversely affected by changes in rainfall patterns.
"The most striking example of a downside would be the complete drying-out of the Sahel region of Africa - that would be very difficult to adapt to for those substantial populations - and that happens across all the scenarios."
Despite the risk of catastrophic side-effects from geo-engineering, the study authors believe that research should continue just in case runaway warming leaves no other options.
Prof Forster said: "If we were in a really desperate situation, trying to cool the temps for a 10-20 year time period, there could be some merit in those circumstances in introducing solar radiation management to give you a 10-20 year time period."
According to Prof Steve Rayner of Oxford University, it is easier to devise the technology than to understand its effects or how its use should be governed.
"If you were just thinking of the capability of putting sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, that you could do in less than two decades - whether you would know it was smart to do it in less than two decades is another question.
"We don't know enough - we have a few islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance and it's absolutely worth knowing more. There is the potential that some of these technologies may be part of a broader tool kit of ways in which we can better manage climate change.
"People decry solar radiation management as a band-aid but band-aids can be useful for healing."
Geo-engineering has long been one of the most controversial aspects of the debate about solutions to climate change and few experiments have been conducted in the field.
One of the largest, known as Lohafex, was an Indian-German experiment in 2009 which involved dumping six tonnes of an iron solution into the South Atlantic to encourage plankton to bloom - trapping carbon which would then be sent to the seabed when the organisms died. Results showed limited success.
Another proposal for the trial flight of a balloon in Britain, as part of geo-engineering research for the SPICE project, attracted stiff opposition from environmental groups and was cancelled.
It would have been the precursor to a test of a technique for pumping sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere in an effort to bounce solar radiation back into space and cool the planet.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085
heckler73
Well-Known Member
https://www.rollitup.org/t/climate-what.850475/page-4#post-11053714
CO2 will diffuse through ice, smoothing out decadal peaks. If there was a period in history with 1500ppm, we wouldn't be able to see it directly in ice cores. After 40k years, the CO2 levels will mix with the other layers to such an extent it will be blotted out to half its value, spread over decades (presumably with a t+ bias due to buoyancy effects, which does correlate with the "record").
And as you can see (hopefully) the further back one goes, the worse it gets.
Highest levels in 800k yrs? I wouldn't lay money on that bet since it doesn't appear hard(er) science supports that opinion very well.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
which is of course only an opinion
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
another meltdown = another manifesto
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
HOW DARE YOU!!!??!!https://www.rollitup.org/t/climate-what.850475/page-4#post-11053714
CO2 will diffuse through ice, smoothing out decadal peaks. If there was a period in history with 1500ppm, we wouldn't be able to see it directly in ice cores. After 40k years, the CO2 levels will mix with the other layers to such an extent it will be blotted out to half its value, spread over decades (presumably with a t+ bias due to buoyancy effects, which does correlate with the "record").
And as you can see (hopefully) the further back one goes, the worse it gets.
Highest levels in 800k yrs? I wouldn't lay money on that bet since it doesn't appear hard(er) science supports that opinion very well.
dont you know the Global Warming Theory is a Fact, made up of Facts, because Theory is just a fancy word for Fact, and in science, Theories are immutable Facts?
why are they Facts? because of their Factiness.
Toby has already established that Global Warming/ACC is real, and thus a Fact, based on Facts, because Facts is Facts!
the idea that CO2 might disperse through ice is ludicrous, cuz then the Facts that make up the Facts would be less Facty.
stop being so irresponsible, you probably work for the Koch Brothers.
or maybe youre one of the Ghost Pirates that killed JFK.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
stating a position, and supporting it with evidence is a "meltdown"?
i guess thats why you keep your position secret, because youre so darned cool.
nah, nobody believes that, its because every time you open your gob and try to take a stand, your position is so demonstrably retarded.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Goes several pages trying to diminish the veracity of scientific theory then insists he's stating a position and supporting it with facts...
Typical of a kkkynes meltdown.
So tell us, what is your position on ACC exactly? You see it's the alarmists here who have a well defined position and it is the deniers who don't define their stance. Some of you don't believe the earth is warming, some concede to the proven fact it is but swear it's Milankovitch cycles or some other natural process. Some like Nodrama even say it's a good thing. You just want to talk about how I'm a libertarian socialist since you can't comprehend it. Add in some "it's just a theory" and you have a bona fide meltdown manifesto.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
did i say i was supporting shit with "Facts"? nope. i provided EVIDENCE
Mann &co. drafted those emails themselves, illegally refused to provide them under a FIOA request, lied about their existence, deleted a shitload of em, and those that remain are inexcusable.
Mann and the lads DID try to blackball entire publications for publishing studies they didnt like.
Mann and the boys DIDNT keep records of the data that they claim is so conclusive, ensuring that their results can never be reproduced (and claims that cannot be reproduced are universally invalid)
Mann and his cohorts DID demonstrate intellectual dishonesty, over and over and over
Mann IS currently facing fraud charges and is stonewalling subpoenas from the DA over his grants
this is EVIDENCE, and since they didnt keep records of their data, making their results untestable and un-reproducable, this is all that is left, and these emails scream Bad Science and Bullshit to anyone who reads em.
as such, your earlier demand:
has been answered, and you simply cant stand that.
so now you will try to change the subject, start with the usual ad homs, and claim that the only reason you cant explain the oxymoron "Libertarian Socialist" is cuz everybody else on the planet is just too dumb to understand your genius.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I answered you about Mann et al. The journal published a study contradicting previous research by them and they weren't given a chance to be a part of the peer review process, resulting in the publication of bad science. So Mann et al is opposed to the journal ever publishing again and I agree, the journal should be black balled by scientists if it publishes with out proper peer review.
I like how you ended this meltdown with insisting that I am changing the subject in ad hominem fashion. That was a wise strategy so you can ignore my question after I retorted to your bullshit arguments.
So what exactly is your position of ACC? No warming? Warming but not caused by humans? Warming, caused by humans, but a good thing? We're not arguing about libertarian socialism, we're arguing about climate science.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you posted some unattributed, uncited emails with no context or reference. then you cited some 9/11 truther site.
your evidence was underwhelming to say the least, and nowhere near the level of say, hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies.
gonna need something better than a 9/11 truther site and your word to believe anything you say.
...said none of the 7+ independent investigations.
...said none of the 7+ independent investigations.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you provided evidence of nothing, merely (possible) existence of emails which have been investigated 7+ times over and found perfectly within all standards of science.
so yes, complete meltdown.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so, even in the very emails you have not read, the article that caused Mann to declare Climate Science to be overrun by "The Baddies" was evaluated by several peer reviewers, and the process was determined to be solid, yet you contend that Mann and his back up dancers should have a veto on every study published anywhere, because they demand it?
Mann then went on to make the same "corrupted by The Baddies" claim against Letters of the Geophysical Union, and Energy & Environment, as well as a few others.
and you deliberately avoid the serious issue of NOT KEEPING THEIR DATA
if you dont have a record of the data, how can you claim your results are valid?
you cant.
when Mann et al claim they dont have a record of their data they are either incompetent, or they are lying.
if they are that incompetent then their "research" should be subject to severe scrutiny, yet it is still treated as gospel.
if they are lying, what are they hiding?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, but I agree with them for wishing the aforementioned publication be blackballed by scientists.