Page 101 of 111 FirstFirst ... 519196979899100101102103104105106 ... LastLast
Results 2,001 to 2,020 of 2209
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2001  
    No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

    New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.

    (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

    However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

    Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2002  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
    Poor, poor Wolfgang. He had such a bright future.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2003  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Poor, poor Wolfgang. He had such a bright future.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #2004  
    Global Warming,, hmmm do not know the science behind either end of the discussion. Its as subjective as the person who is compiling the scientific data. Melting ice sheets, up here in the great white north thats a big thing. Now do a simple experiment, take a glass of water, about half full, mark the water level, now drop in two ice cubes, again mark the water level, let it warm up and let the ice cubes melt. Now mark the water level. I found, that for all the flooding warnings, it does not add up, not even close. but hey im no scientist. Do i think that there is waste, absolutely, do I think that we should clean up what we can, absolutely. Do I believe that we as polluters are the ultimate culprits,,, HELL NO. Too many other variables. I do believe back in the 1600-1700s we had what can only be described as a miny ice age. Damn cold, hmmm cyclical comes to mind....

    just my two canadian cents worth, by the way,, i love to ski, I am not seeing, after about ohhh 40 years in the mountains, any less snow now then i was then. In fact, two of my fav mountains, are breaking all sorts of records. Not by much but breaking them, glaciers on those mountains are actually growing soooooo who the hell knows,
  5. #2005  
    Human caused=not 100% proven...
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2006  
    Hello Everyone,

    No, "climate change" (which does occur) is not at all proven to be governed by human activity. However, that is the assumption that AGW advocates demand be accepted, and which all "solutions" are based. It may be that there is little or nothing we can do about Climate Change, except develop technology (as we have done throughout history) to mitigate the effects on us.

    My personal opinion is to minimize politics (which is the exact opposite of what we have now) and maximize objective science to see what and if is going on, and if we can do anything about it.

    My personal concern would be about a cooling cycle (as many of these same AGW advocates predicted would happen back around 1970, before they decided that instead they'd back global warming). If we have a significant sustained cooling cycle, I believe this could have a significant detrimental effect on humanity--primarily through famine. Not saying it will happen however.

    KAM
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2007  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Global Warming,, hmmm do not know the science behind either end of the discussion. Its as subjective as the person who is compiling the scientific data. Melting ice sheets, up here in the great white north thats a big thing. Now do a simple experiment, take a glass of water, about half full, mark the water level, now drop in two ice cubes, again mark the water level, let it warm up and let the ice cubes melt. Now mark the water level. I found, that for all the flooding warnings, it does not add up, not even close. but hey im no scientist. Do i think that there is waste, absolutely, do I think that we should clean up what we can, absolutely. Do I believe that we as polluters are the ultimate culprits,,, HELL NO. Too many other variables. I do believe back in the 1600-1700s we had what can only be described as a miny ice age. Damn cold, hmmm cyclical comes to mind....

    just my two canadian cents worth, by the way,, i love to ski, I am not seeing, after about ohhh 40 years in the mountains, any less snow now then i was then. In fact, two of my fav mountains, are breaking all sorts of records. Not by much but breaking them, glaciers on those mountains are actually growing soooooo who the hell knows,
    Sure SEEMED like more snow that I was shoveling this morning. We got about 15 inches last night, with 2-5 more expected by nightfall today. Come on global warming!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. j0eycasco's Avatar
    Posts
    23 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #2008  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Get real----Who's making more money, the people claiming global warming or the industries that cause pollution and don't want policies to change?

    That's why your money supposition makes no sense.

    If I wanted to make the real money, I'd join the companies, not the climate change folks!
    Actually, the people making money from global warming are the companies who make these "green energy" products that usually don't work, but are ranking in the cash. Not to mention, it's going to cost a fortune to turn everything into solar energy.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2009  
    Quote Originally Posted by j0eycasco View Post
    Actually, the people making money from global warming are the companies who make these "green energy" products that usually don't work, but are ranking in the cash. Not to mention, it's going to cost a fortune to turn everything into solar energy.
    Yes, it is interesting how this issue is distorted isn't it? If the issue of "global warming" never came up, people who provide energy would be going along making whatever money they do.

    However, Global Warming Alarmists want to pretend that opposing them somehow gives them some additional benefit, when in fact, it is the Global Warming crowd that stands to GAIN from all of this.

    They are the ones that drain taxpayers of money for...well, nothing...or more accurately, less for their money. Global Warming activists literally want people to spend more for less.

    Here's the proof--if any of these alternative "Green" power sources--Solar and Wind primarily were economically viable...people would be doing it. The point is that they cannot compete, and thus require various benefits to pretend to compete--which essentially means takes more money from the public to give them less (or ideally equal).

    I recall seeing all these commercials where some activist group demands action. My answer is--you want Wind power or solar--go ahead. Who is stopping you. Power companies are already obligated to provide transmission, so they are already getting a massive benefit. Go ahead--build a wind farm or solar array--no one is stopping you. What they really want is a massive government handout--in other words, more taxes on the citizens funneled to them.

    KAM
  10. #2010  
    Not much global warming happening here in the midwest -- visiting my mom in K.C. and it was about -1 when I got up this morning.... brrrr!
    My device history:

    - Jim J.

    (On Sprint for many years)
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2011  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    But the climate sure seems to be changing, doesn't it?
    It's called "seasons"
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2012  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    No, the science is known. It has become political because of people and companies that will lose money if the science is put into action don't want changes to happen.

    They always claim: The science isn't there! The science is inaccurate! All the scientists are liberals! All the scientists want to get rich of climate change research! ..to purposely scare people who don't know the details. We've seen it with the arguments about cigarette smoking causing cancer and acid rain causing environmental damage, for example. We've recently seen the wacky campaigns against healthcare reform.
    Interesting that you bring up Smoking Causing Cancer, because ignoring evidence that doesn't suit their purposes is exactly what global warming advocates have and are doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You don't get countries together at international summits because of conjecture.
    No--you get them together so they can soak "rich" nations and its citizens, while enriching themselves by foisting flawed research on the public as fact.

    KAM
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2013  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    On the surface, that seems right...until you look deeper at the "evidence" used to show that the theory is incorrect.
    Actually, the "evidence" is quite apparent--global temperatures didn't rise--they leveled off and fell.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    For example, in the climate change debate, nay-sayers claim that the recent decade has shown a decrease in temperatures. In reality, the temperatures have decreased since the highest on record in 1998--but they are still among the highest ever recorded.
    Depends on which years you pick of course. Regardless of that, the undeniable fact is that the Predictions were incorrect, therefore the hypothesis is incorrect (see earlier posts for how Scientific method works), and must then change. The PRPRPR $has$ $changed$--$they$ $don$'$t$ $run$ $around$ $screaming$ &$quot$;$Global$ $Warming$.&$quot$; $They$'$ve$ $shrewdly$ $changed$ $that$ $to$ &$quot$;$climate$ $change$&$quot$; $but$ $oddly$--$the$ $same$ &$quot$;$solution$&$quot$; $is$ $being$ $demanded$.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Another example: Scientists have long said, with climate change, there will be spurts of overly cold and overly warm weather in areas not used to those conditions. Anti-climate changers insist on clinging to the old term "global warming" because they are counting on the public, seeing the word "warming," thinking that a snow storm refutes "global warming." While people will claim that snow storm is evidence that refutes the theory, in actuality, it's not evidence at all.
    Amazing that you are attempting to turn this around. It's "anti-global warming" people who are responsible for these politicians sticking their foot directly into their mouth and having to alter their propaganda terms, because we've had cold weather.

    A snow storm does not refute the theory--global temperature Data Refutes the PREDICTION, which if one values science requires the hypothesis to be changed.

    I am not clinging to "global warming" except to remind people of the sort of propaganda they have been subjected to, and how quickly that changes.

    See--its a little PRPRPR $disaster$--$screaming$ $about$ $rising$ $temperatures$ $and$ &$quot$;$global$ $warming$&$quot$; $and$ $then$ $finding$ $that$ $your$ $pseudo$-$sciences$ $isn$'$t$ $cooperating$. $Of$ $course$, $one$ $wouldn$'$t$ $have$ $to$ $alter$ $their$ $Propaganda$ $if$ $they$ $were$ $actually$ $working$ $in$ $the$ $realm$ $of$ $science$. $What$ $this$ $reveals$ $is$ $that$ $this$ $is$ $PR$ $and$ $Politics$ $at$ $the$ $core$, $science$ $is$ $just$ $the$ $tool$ $of$ $manipulation$.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    In science, a single contraditory fact does not completely invalidate the theory, it just moves it in another direction. Certain pre-human species were not predicted under evolutionary theory. When their skeletons were found, it did not suddenly invalidate evolution, it just changed the way scientists thought about evolution.
    It depends on the theory. It MAY invalidate the theory, but very often it just requires the theory to change. Interesting that what I've been saying all along is now resulting in this sort of response, rather than "You don't understand science."

    Of course, this isn't a SINGLE contradictory fact--its about 10 years of evidence going contrary to the trend predicted. That doesn't mean it will continue--it just means the analysis (and therefore the conclusions) were incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If there comes an example (from real scientists, not a right wing think tank creating studies really designed to confuse the issue for the public) that seems to refute climate change, it won't invalidate the whole theory--it will make scientists rethink their approach to it.
    What amazing bias. Oh, no, MY Scientists are the real ones. Anyone who disagrees is from a "Right wing think tank." My goodness this post is just dripping with desperate bias. When your position falls apart, just repeat it, more forcefully--that will work right?

    But please--do tell--how have AGW advocates rethought their approach? What different plans have been proposed? They haven't really changed their conclusions now have they? The prediction that Manmade CO2 levels govern global temperatures has been proven false. Factually, other factors overwhelm the effect of manmade CO2.

    The fact is that Manmade CO2 does not govern global temperatures (although it is one factor). Instead of studying what the actual governing factor is, and what we can do about that (if anything) we have politicians and their pet scientists (who they funnel lots of our money into) keep chasing a theory that at a minimum requires a major revision.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Like evolution, there is too much evidence to support the burning of fossil fuels as the cause for climate change to suddenly disregard it because something that migt contradict one part of the theory shows up.
    You are in violation of the Scientific method. That Theory--which is that fossil fuel based CO2 governs global temperatures (and makes it rise) is disproven. It does not GOVERN them--at best it can be argued that it contributes to them. Clearly, we have lived through a demonstration where CO2 levels have continued to rise, but the temperatures have not.

    So, essentially, the joke you are selling is that no matter what happens (contrary to our predictions)--Fossil fuels are to blame. Warm, cold, steady--doesn't matter. We are to blame, and we need to do what we demanded, when our claims were different and before we were proven to be incorrect in our predictions.

    KAM
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2014  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You're making the political assumption that the scientists have not done exactly that. They have.

    These scientists aren't benefiting with amazing amounts of money and power if they find a human link to climate change. they're usually some nerd in a lab somewhere.

    They are presenting objective science. It's political to disregard it.
    I've not dismissed any science. That's what the Global Warming Advocates have done with anything that doesn't mesh with their pre-chosen conclusion.

    Unfortunately, when you stop eliminating data that you dislike, the conclusion isn't what political hack scientists have manipulated it to be.

    You are correct--the "nerd" scientist isn't getting huge amounts of money--the people who fund them are. Its the exact opposite of your accusation about "right wing think tanks." Right--because these universities aren't liberal tools at all. No--they are completely objective. Sure they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I will agree that it is political to disregard science that seems to oppose manmade climate change--but scientists know the difference between good studies and badly-designed studies. They have disregarded many of the anti-climate change studies because they have been backed by companies benefiting from keeping things the same and they have been designed specifically to show there is no problem.
    Do you really buy into this line you are selling? Do you realize how transparent this is? You are doing nothing more than cobbling up reasons to say "what I think is correct and if you disagree it is totally invalid."

    I'm not even gonna bother with this, because you're just repeating the party line--the same party line that existed 10 years ago, and hasn't changed in any substantive way. No matter what evidence exists, you AGW types just keep heading the same direction, and you won't stop no matter what evidence there is--because evidence and science are just smokescreens for political agendas.

    I'm tired of people telling me black is white, and I'm not going to waste time sifting through unvarnished propaganda in hopes of finding a relevant objective point to argue.

    KAM
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2015  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    No, the science is known. It has become political because of people and companies that will lose money if the science is put into action don't want changes to happen.

    They always claim: The science isn't there! The science is inaccurate! All the scientists are liberals! All the scientists want to get rich of climate change research! ..to purposely scare people who don't know the details. We've seen it with the arguments about cigarette smoking causing cancer and acid rain causing environmental damage, for example. We've recently seen the wacky campaigns against healthcare reform.

    You don't get countries together at international summits because of conjecture.
    No, countries get together at international summits because they think they'll get something out of it. Pretty simple.

    Now, about the science being known: wasn't the science about H1N1 known? Avian flu? SARS? Yet it didn't stop major international medical organizations from pushing a scare campaign full of distortions.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2016  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    There are definitely climate change zealots--but rarely do they include the nerdy scientists that are doing the research. But there are zealots for all sorts of things: pro and anti-gay marriage, pro and anti evolution, pro and anti abortion--but who listens to the crazies?

    The climate change zealots may be ignoring evidence on the contrary, but the evidence supporting it remains so overwhelming that the preminent scientific organizations of nearly every country supports the idea of manmand climate change. What is hard to swallow is the anti climate change folks ignoring this elephant in the room.

    "Foisting flawed research in the public"? Again, the preeminent scientific institutions all believe it--I guess they're all wrong too. The rich countries aren't stupid when they go to an international summit, "OOh, I wonder what this summit is all about? Let me show up just to see what those poor countries are whining about."

    (Please don't ask me to name all the organizations--the list has been shown in many places in this thread already)

    For the record--I can't say what will happen to global temperatures. The dirty little secret is that these "preeminent scientific institutions" have proven they can't either--they just aren't eager to admit it. That's a fact--proven over the last 10 years. I know that's a lot to get around, but that's what it is. The Predictions were wrong--even short term predictions. The AGW politicians overplayed their hand--badly. Their power is so great however over the media that what should be a PRPRPR $disaster$ $is$ $just$ $a$ $blip$--$one$ $I$'$m$ $sure$ $are$ $dedicated$ $to$ $overcoming$.

    As far as Rich countries--well, I never said that they can't be run by people who are more than happy to sell out their citizens as well.

    KAM
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2017  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    So tell me, what science do you believe and what don't you believe?
    Science isn't a matter of belief--it is a matter of evidence being valid or not. Perhaps you meant to ask what I agree with.

    KAM
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2018  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Could you point me to the various studies that have disproven that CO2 governs global temperatures?
    No I cannot point to a specific study. What I can point to is a global temperature record.

    The Prediction is that CO2 concentrations lead to higher temperatures. We have continued to have high CO2 Levels, but global temperatures have diverged from that.

    So, stay with me now--this isn't an opinion, or a claim, or a theory. Global Temperature diverges from CO2 levels--so it does not GOVERN temperatures now does it?

    No, again--the FACT is that other factors (whatever they may be) overwhelm the influence of CO2 produced by man. Of course this is nothing new--we've had other long periods of divergence.

    What I believe is that we have multiple influences on global temperature all occurring at varying rates, and at some points these add up--and that's when we get some of our highest temperatures--like 1998 for example.

    What AGW types want to push is the idea that A) Manmade CO2 is THE factor, and B) that we can control it. I do not believe that this is at all proven. Further--we cannot accurately predict global temperatures--as again proven by the failure of even short-term temperature models.

    What we should be doing is putting our money into improving our modeling--although that is unlikely to get us far enough in accuracy.

    The fact is--there are all sorts of factors that we can't predict, let alone control that contribute to Global Temperatures.

    The idea that we can pick one--one relatively minor player and somehow control our future temperature...not very likely, yet that's exactly what is being pushed as a "solution."

    Gotta go now.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2019  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yet, you seem to "believe" the science that points to CO2 not being a factor in temperature while disbelieving the science that says it is.

    Again, please link me to the science that disproves the link with CO2 and temperature--I too would like to make an educated decision.
    I'm not sure how you can be so mistaken. I believe I stated that CO2 isn't the GOVERNING factor. Science says it is A factor. Theory CLAIMS is is THE factor. Perhaps that's a difference you aren't understanding.

    Look at CO2 Concentrations and Global Temperatures--they diverge in a direction contrary to what has been predicted. Will that continue? I don't know. What it PROVES however is that (at a minimum) the short-term climate models are inaccurate.

    KAM
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2020  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    HIV is the perfect example--do nothing and there is the strong potential that a disease will ravage populations--of course nothing is certain, but there is a strong potential.
    That is a good example. In the West, it was blown into something that the research never supported that it would be. But, rather than focus funds and research in ways that could save lives, we wasted untold sums trying to get the 70 year old couple in Iowa to think they could catch it at any given moment. Sadly, this is still the case.

Posting Permissions