The UNREAL climate change thread

Page 5 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  eddie on Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:05 pm

pinhedz wrote:Discuss bom

If you like.

I haven't been following this thread too closely, so I'm only going by recent UK press headlines/articles.

It appears that we're looking at the lowest level of Arctic polar ice for...I dunno...ages.

Problem is said to be that this represents a tipping point. Ice is white. It reflects back the Sun's rays. No ice, no reflection, Earth warms more rapidly...

Thoughts?

eddie
The Gap Minder

Posts : 7840
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 60
Location : Desert Island

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:08 am

eddie wrote:Thoughts?
Sure thing (they don't call me pinhed for no good reason).

The ice that's melting now is ice that accumulated during the so-called "little ice age," which began in the 11th century, put an end to Viking exploration, and officially ended in 1850. During the little ice age people hated the cold. The oral histories of the native Alaskans tell of communities destroyed by advancing glaciers, and Eric the Red's colony in "Greenland" died--every last one of them.

After several centuries of warming, the ice is still melting, and this is what is causing concern. But today's temperatures can only be considered warm if you compare them to the little ice age, or the great ice ages that came before.

If you look back a few thousand years instead of just a few hundred (see the blue curve below) you can see that temperatures right now (shown at the far left side of the graph), although spiky, have been gradually declining (spikes notwithstanding) since about 8,000 BC, when the earth came out of the last real ice age, and agriculture first began.

And of you look back about 130,000 years, you'll see that weather before the last great ice age was much hotter than what we've had for the last 10,000 years. There were primitive people then, and no doubt bears of some kind, both of whom lived through 90,000 years of ice age followed by a sudden warming to temperatures warmer than what we're experiencing now.

Looking back farther on the graph, you can see temperature peaks spaced about 100,000 years apart--between ice ages--at about 130,000 BC, 240,000 BC, 330,000 BC, and 420,000 BC.

Every single one of those peaks were 2 or 3 degrees warmer than our current temperatures, and yet the "tipping" that occurred was downward--into the next deep freeze.

And the ice ages always last 10 times longer than these brief warm spells.

Another thing you can see from the blue curve is that our current (relatively mild) warm spell has lasted much longer than the last four. The Wiki article above explains how we might get up to another 50,000 years of this pleasant weather--but then a deep freeze is inevitable.



I might add that the conclusions from the studies of the Milankovitch cycles are based on the most rigorous kind of analysis and are very difficult to refute, while statements about a "tipping point," arguing that there is a "feedback loop" by which heat generates more heat with no lid on the process, have never been supported by quantitative calculations resulting in a predictive curve indicating exponential temperature increase. It's basically a scare tactic.

btw--When I first started examining this issue, I did so believing that the dire predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) where probably valid. But the more I examine the hard evidence, the more I find, to my surprise, that the IPCC's case crumbles under close scrutiny. I didn't set out to prove this--it just happened.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  eddie on Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:49 pm

Is not the problem we face today that Erik the Red's Greenland colony- or any other human or methane-producing cow/bear habitation back then- was incapable of altering the Earth's geography/atmosphere/population to the same degree as the post-industrial/agrarian revolutions since the 18th c?

eddie
The Gap Minder

Posts : 7840
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 60
Location : Desert Island

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:21 am

I see three topics merged together here: the ice, the temperature and the CO2.

First, when talking about the ice, there is a powerful tendency to talk about the ice cap that's shrinking and ignore the one that's growing--when one shrinks, the other always grows. Right now the southern ice is spreading, and the south has much more than the north. The south has about 18 million sq. kilometers of ice in the winter, while the north has about 12 million sq. kilometers in winter.

From the graph below, you can see that the ice coverage at the south pole is higher than normal--at least a million sq. kilometers higher. That, of course, doesn't make up for the north being about 4 million sq. kilometers below normal, but it's part of the picture.




So, 4 million minus 1 million still means that the total ice coverage is down by 3 million sq. kilometers. Does that mean we've done ourselves in with carbon emissions?

I don't think so, because right now temperatures are not very high for an interglacial period. Check out the blue curve in my previous post--every 100,000 years we get a short break from the cold, and the current warm period is not as hot as the four that came before it.

So why do we feel so hot--and why is the ice melting? We feel hot now, because we had 6 centuries of intense cold during the little ice age, and the ice formed during the little ice age is melting now, because it got warm several centuries ago, and it's still warm.

The warmest year of the last 20 was 1998. Temperatures have not increased since 1998, but the ice keeps melting because we are in a warm period now instead of a cold period.

So--why are we in a warm period, you ask? Because (excuse me for repeating myself) every 100,000 years we get a short break from the cold, and the current warm period is not as hot as the four that came before it (see the blue curve).

Is the pinhed ignoring the question about CO2? Not on your life--this whole thread is about CO2.

CO2--the breath of life for all plant life, has certainly been demonized since humans started burning fossil fuels. But there is actually very little CO2 on the atmosphere compared to earlier geological epochs.

Compared to the past--when CO2 concentrations were as high as 6,700 parts per million (ppm) we have less than 400 ppm now. But there is high anxiety about the 400 ppm, because that's up from about 260 ppm just a short time ago. In the last millenium concentrations fell to as low as 180 ppm (no wonder plants today are so much smaller than during the carboniferous age Shocked ).

But--if you ignore past epochs and look just at the last 1000 years, here is the frightening graph--and this really is probably a consequence of the industrial age:



Should we expect that CO2 concentration to drive up the temperature? I don't think so, because in the past much higher concentrations--up to 6,700 ppm never caused overheating. In fact, the past climate data strongly suggest that there is no correlation whatever--it can be either hot or very cold when CO2 concentration is either high or low.

Here's that past data--but you'll note that there is no data for concentrations as low as we have now, because what we have now (for the past million years) is so low that there is no past precedent:

pinhedz wrote:Can we conclude anything about the effect of CO2 concentration on temperature?

Today: CO2 -- 300-400 parts per mil. / Temperature -- on the cool side compared to previous interglacial periods during the last 600 thousand years

Carboniferous Ice Age: CO2 -- 500 parts per mil. / Temperature -- Ice age like

Permian Pangea Hothouse: CO2 -- 500 parts per mil. / Temperature -- Hotter than blazes affraid

Ordovician/Silurain Ice Age: CO2 -- 4,500 parts per mil. / Temperature -- Super-cold ice age

"Snowball Earth" era: CO2 -- 6,700 parts per mil. / Temperatures undetermined, but cold


Last edited by pinhedz on Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:54 am; edited 5 times in total

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:25 am

I believe we should revisit the work of J.E. Hansen at this point, because the increase in CO2 over that past few decades has been far worse than his worst fears--and yet the temperature has refused to obey his predictions:

pinhedz wrote:J. E. Hansen is a remarkable man.

What's most remarkable about him is that he is shameless enough to show his face at all after having been as wrong as wrong can be over a period of three decades.

Here's what he predicted in the 1980s: his "worst case" scenario actually anticipated less CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now, so we should be cooking far above his red line:



His "best case" scenario anticipated zero increase in CO2 (thanks to his proposed gasoline taxes), but even his green line--anticipating no increase in CO2 since the mid-1980s--predicts warmer temperatures than we have now.

In other words, the increase in CO2 since the mid-1980s has been far worse than his "worst case," but the temperature situation is far cooler than his "best case."

We've been watching the CO2 shoot up dramatically--especially in the last 10-15 years--but we haven't seen a commensurate temperature increase (a fool might be tempted to suspect that maybe temperatures are determined by factors other than just CO2 scratch ).

Will there come a time when we stop listening to Hansen?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:22 am

The IPCC, by looking back only 900 years, tries to show that CO2 made the temperature go up.

Instead of looking back 900 years, they should try looking back 10,000.

Looking back 10,000 years, you can see that the CO2 concentration is a "hockey stick:"




So, if the IPCC is right, the temperature curve for the last 10,000 years should also be a hockey stick, yes?
But instead, it looks like a bunch of little hockey sticks. And the temperature was warmer 10,000 years ago, when agriculture began, and hotter than blazes 3,000 years ago. The overall trend for the last 3,000 years is clearly downward, even though for the last several centuries it has been moving upward out of a hole (returning to normal after the little ice age):


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:47 am

Do I dare talk about atmospheric absorption frequencies? What a Face affraid



Between water vapor (by far the most important greenhouse gas), oxygen, ozone, and nitrous oxide, there is not much light energy left for CO2 to absorb--most of the frequencies are already being absorbed by the competition (note that the "total Absorption" graph mostly shows the water vapor absorption lines).

CO2 does appear to contribute to the absorption peak at wavelengths between 4 micrometers and 5 micrometers, but part of that peak is nitrous oxide, oxygen and ozone. CO2 also appears to add to the absorption between 10 and 11 micrometers, although water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption above 10 micrometers.

But some scientists (affectionately known as "deniers") have pointed out that the atmosphere is finite (who knew?) so when the CO2 concentration goes up, it displaces other gases. That is to say, when CO2 concentration goes up, the concentration of other greenhouse gases--including water vapor--goes down.

So--if CO2 reduces the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere--it might actually reduce the greenhouse effect. geek

This might help explain those ice ages that occurred back when the CO2 was 10 times higher than today.

But does that mean that our big CO2 footprints will hasten the onset of the next ice age?


Last edited by pinhedz on Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:23 am; edited 1 time in total

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:52 am

Since I cannot find any evidence that the quantitative calculations have been done (how much energy CO2 absorbs compared to the reduction in absorption by the displaced gases), I can't tell whether or not I should join the deniers.

Maybe someday I can attempt the calculation myself as a retirement project (Frank's robot says geezers need to keep themselves mentally stimulated ).

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:09 am

The pinhed and Sancho Panza look for evidence of atmospheric absorption:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:33 am

Fun fact:

"Arctic" is Greek, and it means "bears here."

"Antarctic" means "no bears here." Neutral

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:58 am

Harry Truman got me to talking about CO2 on some other site. Rolling Eyes

I really should have just saved it all for here:

Brairy Rose wrote:Will you please define your meaning of "saturation point".

It's my understanding that pollutants from the air fall to earth in drops of rain.
Yes--this thread actually has two major themes running at the same time, one is the greenhouse effect, the other is acid rain.

First, the greenhouse effect is heating of the atmosphere resulting from the absorption by gas molecules of electromagnetic radiation (visible light, as well as infrared and other invisible radiation) at specific wavelengths. CO2 absorbs energy at certain wavelengths, as does oxygen, ozone, water vapor, and many other gases. This heats up the atmosphere (water vapor and oxygen are mostly responsible).

The IPCC created a global warming model that treats the atmosphere as having infinite volume. So, the model gives the atmosphere an infinite ability to store heat and absorb more.

In reality, the atmosphere is not infinite, and can only store a finite amount of heat. It both absorbs and loses heat. The hotter it gets, the less additional heat can be absorbed, and heat loss accelerates. When the amount of heat stored increases to the point at which the atmosphere is losing heat as fast as it is absorbing it, that is called the "saturation point." At that point, the temperature is at equilibrium.

At the saturation point, temperature might still be changing for other reasons, but--if the Brookhaven study is correct--any future temperature increases should not be blamed on the greenhouse effect.

It is telling that global temperatures peaked in 1998. Since then, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has skyrocketed, but global temperatures have not been going up with it.

It is also interesting that there was a time hundreds of millions of years ago (long before the human race had a carbon footprint) when the CO2 concentration was 20 times higher than today, and it did not prevent the earth from going into a deep freeze.

The IPCC has many more critics in the scientific community than they let on. They claim to have a "near consensus," but they actually have no such thing.

Acid rain hasn't been associated with temperature change, but it is very bad for the environment. It results from certain gases--mostly sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides--reacting with rain to create sulfuric acid and nitric acids. The acid flows into waterways, lakes and oceans, killing plants and animals and damaging the ecosystem.

CO2 also reacts with rain to form carbonic acid, but carbonic acid is very mild (doctors used to use it to wash their hands before surgery) compared to sulfuric acid and nitric acid.

There are government regulations to reduce pollution because of concerns about acid rain, but they are mostly focused on sulfur dioxide, rather than CO2.

I'm not sure why the NOAA article singles out CO2 as the culprit in acid rain, but it is consistent with the article's main focus on CO2 in general, and with the author's reliance on the IPCC as his primary source of info.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:29 am


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:51 am

Somehow I got pulled into a climate-change discussion over at the other place. Rolling Eyes

If it keeps going, I think I'll tell them I'm posting the responses here, because we have a much more developed climate change thread. Cool

Brairy Rose wrote:
pinhedz wrote:
Brairy Rose wrote:All this makes me wonder if the elephant in the room is the very same concept our grade school teachers taught us from the blackboard. What goes up must come down. Hope the scientific community figures out the "saturation point" of acidity absorbed by our earth's life-giving waters, before they reach toxic levels.
The main message for me is that people might be too concerned about CO2, and too little concerned about sulfur dioxide.

But the policy recommendations might be the same for both gases, because sulfur dioxide is also a product of burning fossil fuels.

Maybe we just have to stop talking about our CO2 footprint, and start talking about our SO2 footprint instead, and also recognize that policy decisions to save the lakes won't necessarily save the polar bears.


Makes me curious to know more about the chemistry of raindrops. I'd be interested in reading published scientific data, about rain samples collected from around the globe, that have been analyzed for comparative purposes. I'm going to see what's online. . .

________________________________________________________________

Harry Truman wrote:
pinhedz wrote:

It is telling that global temperatures peaked in 1998. Since then, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has skyrocketed, but global temperatures have not been going up with it.

The IPCC has many more critics in the scientific community than they let on. They claim to have a "near consensus," but they actually have no such thing.


"As we've stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous - so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual"
.

--97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

The horrible death and resurrection of Codename: Mackadamia !

Trigg, Tagggg, Bortttttt, Trgsrh;rh,

The 140-year time scale was carefully selected by HadCRUT4, because time scales that go back much farther than that don't show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. You only see what looks like a match for a very short period.

The trend we see now--if it extends into decades (and it won't be long now)--will discredit the argument that you are citing.

If temperatures continue to pay no attention to the runaway increase in CO2, people will begin to suspect that there is no connection.


________________________________________________________________

Harry Truman wrote:--97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
I saw that list of "climate experts"--it includes Cardinal König. Razz


________________________________________________________________

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:47 pm

It was a dark day back in August when the Arctic ice coverage hit a record low. Neutral

Now it has bounced back to the 2007 level. scratch

There hasn't been a great deal of fanfare over this, however. I reckon that's because 2007 was not the IPCC's favorite year:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:20 am

There are many graphs on the internet that show CO2 concentration and temperature going up and down together.

What's difficult to see--because of the poor resolution--is that temperature goes up first, then CO2 goes up--because a warm earth and oceans put more CO2 into the environment.

This is the opposite of what the IPCC sez--they always claim that the CO2 goes up first, making the temps go up in response.

But here is the raw data from the Vostok ice cores taken from the ancient Antarctic ice--clearly showing that temperature goes up first, and CO2 goes up in response.

These ice cores don't show the last few hundred years--including the little ice age and the industrial revolution--because the time period is the last full-blown ice age and the warming period following it:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:19 am

RichardW writes:

pinhedz wrote:
Brairy Rose wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/45030?type=ap
Over at the other place, I called this "A possible geniune reason to hate carbon emmissions" some time ago, but the thread didn't get any traction at the time, even though I used simple language and cartoon graphics Neutral :

http://acrosstheuniverse.forummotion.com/t2095-possible-genuine-reason-to-hate-carbon-emissions
I had a good friend with a long track record in environmental research and in advising Greenpeace etc..., if they'd listen. He was involved in the 70s in the research, and then a controversial television programme, which exposed the high levels of leukemia around nuclear plants.

He was completely unconvinced at the evidence for global warming, for the same reasons pinhedz is posting. He used to delight in setting undergraduate literature research projects where they had to assess the evidence for global warming, just to see their faces when the realisation dawned that the media might be lying to them.

He was a conspiracy theorist, and had a sense that the nuclear industry was funding the environmentalists who were making a fuss about global warming, aiming to inspire Western governments to squander huge amounts of money on new nuclear power stations.

This worked perfectly until the tsunami in Japan. Even now the UK government plans to build more nuclear stations based on spurious concerns about carbon emissions.

The real issues seem to me to be energy security (because it leads to wars) and deforestation. Acid rain might be third. However I'm not an expert in climate theory, and this is an area where expertise is hugely important. Uninformed opinion is mainly harmful. That is also an unconvenient truth.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:44 am

RichardW wrote:The real issues seem to me to be energy security (because it leads to wars) ...
Yes--because the Saudis are basically Taliban with money.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:41 pm

pinhedz wrote:
Harry Truman wrote:You cant question the "politicized" research of the Global Warming issue and then dismiss the fact that one of the most outspoken and frequently cited skeptics, one that you are citing, happens to be funded by pollluters and happens to also work for a think tank that spent years trying to disprove the link between second hand smoke and the risk to peoples health.
If it's fair to question one, it's fair to question the other.
And if you read back, you'll find that I have said nothing whatever about "politicization" wrt either the UCS or the NRDC (even though you put "politicized" in quotes, pretending to be quoting me).

I just pointed out--for the sake of accuracy--that they can't be counted among the "federal agencies" that Rose was citing, and that still stands. As for their science, it looks fine to me as far as acid rain is concerned, but on the greenhouse effect it's flakey.

If you want to criticize, criticize the science. Digging up dirt is not science--and good science can be done with funding from wherever.

...one that you are citing,
I don't think I did cite Gorham, but if I did, it was because he had copied graphs of the data collected from the Vostok ice cores and the Mauna Loa Observatory. That data is always the same, whether it's cited by the good guys or the bad guys.
I believe we are played out, but if Harry wants the last word, that will be fine with the pinhed. Razz

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:45 pm

I like the way the "Arctic Sea Ice Extent" graph (5 posts before this one) updates itself daily.

It looks like the Arctic ice cap is making a remarkable recovery from it's historic low a few months ago.


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  senorita on Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:24 pm

pinhedz wrote:I like the way the "Arctic Sea Ice Extent" graph (5 posts before this one) updates itself daily.

It looks like the Arctic ice cap is making a remarkable recovery from it's historic low a few months ago.





senorita

Posts : 362
Join date : 2012-07-11
Age : 19
Location : makgadikgadi pan

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  senorita on Mon Oct 29, 2012 4:43 am

It's snowing in my room all you monkey dicks so I'm gonna have to kill the rest of ya still standing.



senorita

Posts : 362
Join date : 2012-07-11
Age : 19
Location : makgadikgadi pan

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:20 pm

senorita panties wrote:It's snowing in my room all you monkey dicks so I'm gonna have to kill the rest of ya still standing.
I know you're upset, but try to imagine how the Russians and Asians must feel. In 2007, the experts (I think they were experts, they said so themselves) promised that the Arctic Circle would be open water by 2012.
People were counting on that for shipping, and instead, it's still frozen over all summer.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:38 am

Harry Truman is tired of the pinhed. Neutral

But he can't stop. Razz

Harry Truman wrote:
pinhedz wrote: ... we all want a better world, so the IPCC decided to trick people into doing "the right thing."

The problem is, if the IPCC analysis is erroneous, that means they really don't know how to create a better world, good intentions notwithstanding. Neutral

Yes. The IPCC is nothing but fraud, says the Heritage Foundation, who also see no connection between second hand smoke and cancer and other health problems. Seem legit!

pinhedz wrote:
Harry Truman wrote: ... the Heritage Foundation, ...
Never heard of them.

The IPCC is a good deal more than a fraud; the problem is that they believed the end would justify the means, so they juggled their data and cooked the books. Loaded the dice, and stacked the deck, so to speak--then they got caught.

Now they are being discredited--through no one's fault but their own--and as a result they have hurt their own cause.

I think there is a valuable lesson here.

Is the valuable lesson that you need to find more scoundrels on the other side of the controversy?
Nope, that ain't it--think harder. Razz

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:13 pm

Here's the latest monthly global temperature anomaly:

October was the same as September. It's this year's high so far, but it's less than last year's, way less than 2010, and only about half of 1998's:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:38 am

Here's a good one--lots of colors.

The sea ice has once again dropped below the 2007 level; we'll see of it catches up during the mid-winter months:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:58 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum