Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

[Simple Minded]

Btw, do you know what ppb stands for?

OOOOOHHHHH OOOOOHHHH CALL ON ME!!!

Pabst Blue Ribbon! errr no... uhh..... wait....

I got it

People with Posable Buttocks....

Potentially Partially Brilliant.....

Positively Pure Bull....


So far, it still looks to me like wild claims with no proof of accuracy, sells well, but Armageddon always does!

"Every man imagines his own life to be the New Year's Eve of time."

I have yet to hear a Climatologist from the 2000s who has examined the data the Climatologists from the 1970s compiled and explain why the Climatologists in the 1970s came to THE CONCLUSION that was exactly 180 degrees wrong (navigational degrees, not temperature degrees).

Don't recall Flat Earthers being that big a percentage of the population in the 1970s.

[Carbizene]

Btw, do you know what ppb stands for?

The argument "it's tiny so much you cain't even see it so it dus nuffin" is my favorite of the 'Trailer park shower block sewer system' that is the New Luddites repetoire, to this I say "try this tiny bit of Mercury on your KFC 'double down'... it's so small it cain't never hurt you sum".

[Carbizene]

I have yet to hear a Climatologist from the 2000s who has examined the data the Climatologists from the 1970s compiled and explain why the Climatologists in the 1970s came to THE CONCLUSION that was exactly 180 degrees wrong (navigational degrees, not temperature degrees).

oopsi, y'all have to be a little more careful in repeating Morano bs in the future.

[Carbizene]

.... no error bars...

So I'm guessing you can't drive due to no error bars on Car's speedo.

[Carbizene]

An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences.

The amusing thing is that Cosmic rays have in no significant way varied over the last thirty years and yet people keep peddling this.

[Typhoon]

Btw, do you know what ppb stands for?

The argument "it's tiny so much you cain't even see it so it dus nuffin" is my favorite of the 'Trailer park shower block sewer system' that is the New Luddites repetoire, to this I say "try this tiny bit of Mercury on your KFC 'double down'... it's so small it cain't never hurt you sum".

Methane is not mercury or cyanide.

[Simple Minded]

I have yet to hear a Climatologist from the 2000s who has examined the data the Climatologists from the 1970s compiled and explain why the Climatologists in the 1970s came to THE CONCLUSION that was exactly 180 degrees wrong (navigational degrees, not temperature degrees).

oopsi, y'all have to be a little more careful in repeating Morano bs in the future.

So "assuming" this pie chart is accurate to say.... +/- 0.1% can we conclude that 1/3 of all scientists are wrong at any given time?

If you are really confident about the upcoming extinction level event, has it altered your lifestyle in any way? building a shelter, maxing out your credit cards, etc?

[Typhoon]

An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences.

The amusing thing is that Cosmic rays have in no significant way varied over the last thirty years and yet people keep peddling this.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, A02104, 9 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JA016105

Solar modulation parameter for cosmic rays since 1936 reconstructed from ground-based neutron monitors and ionization chambers

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6105.shtml

[Typhoon]

I have yet to hear a Climatologist from the 2000s who has examined the data the Climatologists from the 1970s compiled and explain why the Climatologists in the 1970s came to THE CONCLUSION that was exactly 180 degrees wrong (navigational degrees, not temperature degrees).

oopsi, y'all have to be a little more careful in repeating Morano bs in the future.

So "assuming" this pie chart is accurate to say.... +/- 0.1% can we conclude that 1/3 of all scientists are wrong at any given time?

If you are really confident about the upcoming extinction level event, has it altered your lifestyle in any way? building a shelter, maxing out your credit cards, etc?

Would be good to have a link to the original article. Easy to cherry pick articles.

[Typhoon]

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

Quite.

[Carbizene]

So "assuming" this pie chart is accurate to say.... +/- 0.1% can we conclude that 1/3 of all scientists are wrong at any given time?

If you are really confident about the upcoming extinction level event, has it altered your lifestyle in any way? building a shelter, maxing out your credit cards, etc?

Some Scientists still say Smoking is fine.

I've spent hundreds of hours researching the topic, pretty much full time for the last 8 years or something, ever since the original Spengler forum. I've started a Programming Degree to be coherent in the conversation about converting the Human mind into digital format on the off chance it can be done before this Rock implodes.

[Carbizene]

The mass of Atmospheric CO2 is around 3 teratons, the mass of Methane to be released from the ESS is around 1.3 tt.

3tt of CO2 is responsible for around 4 degC, Methane has 70 times the GWP of CO2 in it's first 20 years of Atmospheric life thus Global temperature has the potential to rise around 140 degC due to current ESS Methane release.

[Carbizene]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, A02104, 9 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JA016105

Solar modulation parameter for cosmic rays since 1936 reconstructed from ground-based neutron monitors and ionization chambers

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6105.shtml

This study reveals no trend since 1936, it proves that Cosmic rays modulated by Solar activity are not responsible for rise in T.

I note this study includes no error bars therefore it should be burnt.

[Simple Minded]

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

Lovelock is obviously a Flat Earther.....

But hey, we all had fun, made a few bucks.... no harm..... no foul......

[Simple Minded]

Some Scientists still say Smoking is fine.

I've spent hundreds of hours researching the topic, pretty much full time for the last 8 years or something, ever since the original Spengler forum. I've started a Programming Degree to be coherent in the conversation about converting the Human mind into digital format on the off chance it can be done before this Rock implodes.

One in three scientists say: "I'm smarter than the other two!!!"

AGW is toooo much fun, kinda like social justice, hard to get tooooo serious about it. Glad you are keeping your sense of humor.

I thought there might be something to it at first, but as more and more politicians bought into it, and the herd got bigger and bigger, my skepticism increased. When McCain bought in, my confidence level that the herd was wrong went from 90% to 110% +/-.005%.

Downloading the human brain into digiat format, sounds like a cool project, Just use a lot of filtering..... Look at where lack of selective breeding standards has got us...

10,000 years from now the Carbizene Virus may be famous for corrupting all the data in the Milky Way galaxy.....

I just bought a truck with an 8.1 liter engine..... I'm doing my part to help you not look foolish..

[Carbizene]

I thought there might be something to it at first, but as more and more politicians bought into it, and the herd got bigger and bigger, my skepticism increased. When McCain bought in, my confidence level that the herd was wrong went from 90% to 110% +/-.005%.

So I'm guessing by this logic Kennedy's politicisation of Lunar exploration with his landmark speech and the 'herd' supporting it, you don't accept the Moon exists.

[Typhoon]

The mass of Atmospheric CO2 is around 3 teratons, the mass of Methane to be released from the ESS is around 1.3 tt.

3tt of CO2 is responsible for around 4 degC, Methane has 70 times the GWP of CO2 in it's first 20 years of Atmospheric life thus Global temperature has the potential to rise around 140 degC due to current ESS Methane release.

References or it's just hot air.

[Typhoon]

So "assuming" this pie chart is accurate to say.... +/- 0.1% can we conclude that 1/3 of all scientists are wrong at any given time?

If you are really confident about the upcoming extinction level event, has it altered your lifestyle in any way? building a shelter, maxing out your credit cards, etc?

Some Scientists still say Smoking is fine.

Non sequitur.

I've spent hundreds of hours researching the topic, pretty much full time for the last 8 years or something, ever since the original Spengler forum. I've started a Programming Degree to be coherent in the conversation about converting the Human mind into digital format on the off chance it can be done before this Rock implodes.

Well, it depends on how you've spent that time. If it been reading advocacy sites, without a critical eye, then you've been misinformed.

[Carbizene]

Methane:

Carbon Dioxide:


As the bonds between C and O contain 2 electrons they are more stable than the bonds between C and H which contain 1 electron thus vibrate less when interacting with LWR resulting in less heat production.

Basic chemistry, if you question this go to school to elevate yourself to my sphere of debate.

[Simple Minded]

I thought there might be something to it at first, but as more and more politicians bought into it, and the herd got bigger and bigger, my skepticism increased. When McCain bought in, my confidence level that the herd was wrong went from 90% to 110% +/-.005%.

So I'm guessing by this logic Kennedy's politicisation of Lunar exploration with his landmark speech and the 'herd' supporting it, you don't accept the Moon exists.

I would never call it logic, simply observation of how, when people are exposed to subject matter that is out side their area of expertise, and impossible for them to personally correctly verify a result, they get emotionally invested in an outcome simply due to the existence of peer pressure/common headlines/opinions of experts/desire to be accepted by the "cool kids."

Function of the amygdala, not the cerebral cortex.

Since politicians are the ulitmate herd animals/celebrity wanna bes/parade chasers, whenever they reach consensus and fully invest in an idea/outcome, it is almost always very near the end of the trend they advocate, and the reversal catches the herd (and their "leaders" ) by surprise.

I believe it is called Contrarian Theory, and IIRC has about about a 70-80% probability rate of correctly predicting trend reversals in the next 18 months. Less to do with logic, more to do with "gut."

If you have ever been in a meeting, and watched a bunch of highly educated "scientists/experts" collectively talk thru a subject, until they arrive at consensus that 2+2=5, you have witnessed the phenomena. Tis a site to behold when a group will believe something that none would ever buy into on their own. The desire to "belong" is a very powerful master.

[Typhoon]

Methane:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ns.svg.png
Carbon Dioxide:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ns.svg.png

As the bonds between C and O contain 2 electrons they are more stable than the bonds between C and H which contain 1 electron thus vibrate less when interacting with LWR resulting in less heat production.

Basic chemistry, if you question this go to school to elevate yourself to my sphere of debate.

Simply showing the CH4 and CO2 molecule diagrams and noting the vibrational energy of the carbon bonds is the gnome underpants theory of global warming:

1/ Images of carbon bonds

2/ ?

3/ Man made global warming

[Carbizene]

Since politicians are the ulitmate herd animals/celebrity wanna bes/parade chasers, whenever they reach consensus and fully invest in an idea/outcome, it is almost always very near the end of the trend they advocate, and the reversal catches the herd (and their "leaders" ) by surprise.

So I take it with Politicians and the 'herd' now backtracking their support for the hypothesis you accept the hypothesis?

[Carbizene]

Simply showing the CH4 and CO2 molecule diagrams and noting the vibrational energy of the carbon bonds is the gnome underpants theory of global warming:

1/ Images of carbon bonds

2/ ?

3/ Man made global warming

The point of the diagrams is to simply exhibit how CH4 is a more powerful Greenhouse gas than CO2.

Isotopic proof that 'Methane burps' have occured in the past:

The isotopic carbon ratio of the sediments is a major factor in promoting this theory because the methane byproduct of many benthic bacteria contains the most isotopically light form of carbon. Other sources of gas include volcanic degassing, which would not produce the volume or light isotopic ratio that has been observed.

[Typhoon]

Simply showing the CH4 and CO2 molecule diagrams and noting the vibrational energy of the carbon bonds is the gnome underpants theory of global warming:

1/ Images of carbon bonds

2/ ?

3/ Man made global warming

The point of the diagrams is to simply exhibit how CH4 is a more powerful Greenhouse gas than CO2.

Isotopic proof that 'Methane burps' have occured in the past:

The isotopic carbon ratio of the sediments is a major factor in promoting this theory because the methane byproduct of many benthic bacteria contains the most isotopically light form of carbon. Other sources of gas include volcanic degassing, which would not produce the volume or light isotopic ratio that has been observed.

It would be better if you linked to the original scientific article, in Science, rather than some lay advocacy site that doesn't bother with the link.

Nature [2009] | Methane burp - clathrate gun hypothesis disproved

No sign of a burp

Todd Sowers, a palaeoceanographer at Pennsylvania State University in Philadelphia, measured hydrogen isotopes of atmospheric methane from three distinct warming episodes, 38,000, 14,500 and 11,500 years ago. Methane from clathrates contains more deuterium (the heavy form of hydrogen) than methane from land-based sources, thanks in part to the bacteria that create the gas on the sea floor, and the material they consume.

He found no evidence whatsoever in the data for increased amounts of methane from marine clathrates. "This means that seafloor methane reservoirs must have been stable at these times, or at least that no significant amounts of methane escaped the ocean," says Sowers, whose study is published in Science this week2.

"The data are convincing," says Kai-Uwe Hinrichs, a geochemist at the University of Bremen in Germany. "They won't exactly increase the attractiveness of the clathrate gun hypothesis." At least for the three periods Sowell has looked at in high resolution, they may even be a "killer argument", adds Jerome Chappellaz, a geochemist at the CNRS Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics of the Environment in Grenoble, France.

Controversial killer

The clathrate gun hypothesis has been controversial from the onset. All Quaternary warming episodes seem to have been accompanied by increased abundance of atmospheric methane. But many climate scientists think this is an effect, rather than the trigger, of warming climates. In most cases, there is evidence that the methane values only began to rise several decades after the temperature started to climb.

[Carbizene]

Perhaps before you start throwing around the accusation of laziness you should actually open your eyes, the article I link to is from 2000, 6 years before the study you link to, hilarious.

It is also hilarious that you link to Nature, a journal that on many times you have claimed incompetent, hypocrisy much?