• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Guess what? That big yellow ball in the sky is not constant either. There are things like sun flares and sunspots. Hurricane seasons also vary year to year. Ocean currents are always changing.

When scientists are paid to come up with a pro-global-warming conclusion, that is what they will come up with. Follow the money.

Take a look at this report it is very interesting:

(Has a lot of historical data)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11515595/Global-Warming-The-Ice-Age-Is-Coming

Food supplies increase during warming periods.
 
Last edited:
piasabird said:
Guess what? That big yellow ball in the sky is not constant either. There are things like sun flares and sunspots. Hurricane seasons also vary year to year. Ocean currents are always changing.

When scientists are paid to come up with a pro-global-warming conclusion, that is what they will come up with. Follow the money.

Take a look at this report it is very interesting:

(Has a lot of historical data)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11515595/Global-Warming-The-Ice-Age-Is-Coming
Click to expand...

We like the cold. Let it come. Current civilization is going to end and the next civilization is going to start ? ^_^

Electricity has far more advantages when it is cold all the time...
 
Throckmorton said:
That would depend on the crop. It only helps a species if CO2 is the limiting factor. And higher CO2 can benefit competing species to the detriment of crops. It's a myth that more CO2 is "good for plants". That's exactly like claiming that more money is "good for the economy". Sounds good to laymen, but ecologists and economists know better.

http://www.physorg.com/news196442897.html
Click to expand...


"We believe," says Schaefer, "that as carbon dioxide rises and we try to farm more marginal land to feed a burgeoning population, plants like cheatgrass will have a large advantage over plants like soybeans."
Click to expand...


so soybeans are out. thats not really a bad thing. they aren't that healthy of a crop to grow.


ShawnD1 said:
This one was actually debunked a while ago. Some scientists grew crops in an area where CO2 was being sprayed in a way similar to irrigation. The result was that the plants created less of some toxin that prevents bugs from eating them. As a result, pests ate more of the high CO2 plants.
Click to expand...


certian plants might. what data was left out????

Most plants species will do better in a CO2 rich enviroment. Why aren't we growing marijuana ? It loves Co2 and its is easy on the soil and it has alot of renewable resources usages like fiber and paper. Far more efficient then cotton.

If its good enough for the constitution its good enough for everyone else !
 
Genx87 said:
We dont know what the cost of doing nothing is though. We have no idea if we do nothing or revert back to a 19th century economy will have any meaningful effect. With cap n tax, and other oppressive govt programs based around the MMGW crowd insistence a single gas is the problem we know it will cost avg users money, and lots of it. And for that we have no real idea if it will do anything, other than give power to a select few in govt.

That is why we dont question cosmology as much as we do the MMGW crowd. Whether or not they can explain 75% of the energy in the universe means little to us, because they arent asking govts to tax us based on their inaccurate and incomplete information.
Click to expand...


water vapor raises the tempature more then Co2 and it also traps far more heat.

Hydrogen and catalytic converters on cars produce massive amounts of water vapor.

Sort of funny thing about the hydrogen economy is that if it is not energy nuetral we would literally all sweat to death in the steamer.

LOL.
 
WHAMPOM said:
I just know the history of extinctions, 95% following the Siberian eruptions, first SO2 blocked the Sun and froze the world, then the released CO2 cooked it.
Click to expand...


Which is that only 1% of all species have survived since life began on earth ?

The climate is always changing.

the debate is not about mans infleucne on the climate. Which is a great question.

The debate currently is that man is cuasing the climate shift. Which is bullshit.We simply do not generate enough Co2 to account for all the climatic changes in the last century.

We often forget the earth is 5 billion years old. On the long average our current global tempature is actually kind of low.
 
William Gaatjes said:
I like the post you mentioned in the other thread about MMGW.

The Iris Effect. I find this most interesting. It is a hypothesis from Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi.

But even if the iris effect is true ( I still have to read more about it before i would be so bold to promote it myself), it does not give humans a free pass to pollute the planet Earth. Humans should start to think how to create closed cycle systems. Redundancy is the trick. Costs are higher on the short term. But long term returns are very very high.

EDIT:
Perhaps the hypothesis need some more research...

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blog/posts/post_1266867684232.html
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the sort of scientific interaction that the climate deniers claim isn't happening: A research result that's contrary to the pro-MMCC orthodoxy getting published in a major climatology journal, in this case Geophysical Research Letters.

Also interesting is the fact that Jaskalas seems to find only anti-MMCC papers credible: He just LOVES the Iris effect. But show him a pro-MMCC paper, and it hogwash.
 
shira said:
And this is exactly the sort of scientific interaction that the climate deniers claim isn't happening: A research result that's contrary to the pro-MMCC orthodoxy getting published in a major climatology journal, in this case Geophysical Research Letters.

Also interesting is the fact that Jaskalas seems to find only anti-MMCC papers credible: He just LOVES the Iris effect. But show him a pro-MMCC paper, and it hogwash.
Click to expand...

What does MMCC mean ?

Besides, i do not believe in man made global warming either. I do think man made pollution is something to worry about and should be something that should be high on the international agenda. And with pollution i do not just mean that trace amount of CO2 but all the other pollutants as well.

But that is what you fundamental MMGW people never want to think about because it does not fit with your interests or limited thinking. You think in terms of biodegradable but that is just a load of crap as well. The MMGW fanatics are just as worse as MMGW deniers are. You both serve only your interests. Closed cycle systems are the way to go.
 
ModestGamer said:
Well the measured tempature on MARS is rising. Obviously we didn't cuase that with one tiny lander either.
Click to expand...

Today is the fourth of July or Earth's farthest from the Sun day, only 'bout 5 million Km in orbital eccentricity. While Mars' orbit varies by 42 million Km along with a hell of an orbital tilt. Why do I bother with the not-smarter then a fifth grader crowd??
 
WHAMPOM said:
Today is the fourth of July or Earth's farthest from the Sun day, only 'bout 5 million Km in orbital eccentricity. While Mars' orbit varies by 42 million Km along with a hell of an orbital tilt. Why do I bother with the not-smarter then a fifth grader crowd??
Click to expand...

Never stop trying.
They just do not know, they only repeat what they have been told without visualizing what it actually implies...

People have a hard time grasping, that comparisons with other planets are useless.
 
WHAMPOM said:
Today is the fourth of July or Earth's farthest from the Sun day, only 'bout 5 million Km in orbital eccentricity. While Mars' orbit varies by 42 million Km along with a hell of an orbital tilt. Why do I bother with the not-smarter then a fifth grader crowd??
Click to expand...
Another thing to remember is that the temperature reaches its maximum long after it has reached maximum heat exposure.

What means this? If the sun is most intense at high noon, the hottest time of the day is usually a bit later than that such as 1-2PM. It takes time to heat things up.
 
ModestGamer said:
so soybeans are out. thats not really a bad thing. they aren't that healthy of a crop to grow.





certian plants might. what data was left out????

Most plants species will do better in a CO2 rich enviroment. Why aren't we growing marijuana ? It loves Co2 and its is easy on the soil and it has alot of renewable resources usages like fiber and paper. Far more efficient then cotton.

If its good enough for the constitution its good enough for everyone else !
Click to expand...

The point is that more CO2 isn't "better for plants". It's better for some plants, which means it's worse for others. Ecology is a LOT like capitalism, because competition is the most central and important process.
 
Look at earlier ice ages and you will see the earth afterwards warmed up. You might ask how that happened without a big release of CO2. It is more likely there are external forces at work that man has no control over in the least. If this is a slow gradual change we will just adapt.
 
piasabird said:
Look at earlier ice ages and you will see the earth afterwards warmed up. You might ask how that happened without a big release of CO2. It is more likely there are external forces at work that man has no control over in the least. If this is a slow gradual change we will just adapt.
Click to expand...

I already addressed all this
 
WHAMPOM said:
Today is the fourth of July or Earth's farthest from the Sun day, only 'bout 5 million Km in orbital eccentricity. While Mars' orbit varies by 42 million Km along with a hell of an orbital tilt. Why do I bother with the not-smarter then a fifth grader crowd??
Click to expand...


Your obviously not smarter then a 5th grader.

One can have a honest debate about the change in the earths climate.

Several factors that are not always put in the data that really make comparison difficult are

1. Co2 concerntraions are not high enough to have any mpact on global mean tempatures.

IE even if there is more co2 and carbon in the atmosphere it has not risen to a level where it would have any negliable effect on climatic tempature. The concenrtrations are just to low. If you had experimented with a bell jar and tempature dispation with various co2 mixtures you could put this particular red herring to rest. co2 acts as a insolator, so even if the concentrations were significantly higher the heat rejected from the atompshere would be equal to the heat retianed in most cases.

2. solar ouput and the earths only orbit affect global tempature more then any current or previous c02 concenrtration. in fact the earth has a dynamic wobble that we call the procession of the equinox's. It also efects the earths orbit around the sun. We happen to be in a different point in the processional cycle then we were 23 centurys ago. A point where tempatures increase. In fact there is alot of evidence that says the earth warms and cools over a 24,000 span. BTW we are still in a ice age when compared to say the triasic period.

3. even accounting for orbital difference the tempature on mars has risen by roughly the same amount as earth. That points to a outside factor. Not to mention that the sun is now going into a period of high activity which will increase ouput and tempature.

4. I am not saying we should shit on the planet. Thats rediculous.

5. water vapor affects tempature retention more then co2.
 
Throckmorton said:
The point is that more CO2 isn't "better for plants". It's better for some plants, which means it's worse for others. Ecology is a LOT like capitalism, because competition is the most central and important process.
Click to expand...


right becuase plants don't breathe co2. If we had a higher level of oxygen content humans would grow to larger sizes.Why the dinosuars were so big.
 
Interesting graph...looks like Arctic sea ice cover (dark lines) is trending downward and antarctic ice cover (light lines) is trending upward. Global ice balance is near normal.
seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg

Also, antarctic sea ice extent is now peaking at third highest in the satellite record...here's the Cryosphere image from a few days ago.
antarctic_sea_ice_070110.jpg


Where's the media coverage?
 
Aobve I made mention of the change in the earths tilt in a processional fashion. this would be one of the changes to be expected in the change in the earth processional tilt.


Doc Savage Fan said:
Interesting graph...looks like Arctic sea ice cover (dark lines) is trending downward and antarctic ice cover (light lines) is trending upward. Global ice balance is near normal.
seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg

Also, antarctic sea ice extent is now peaking at third highest in the satellite record...here's the Cryosphere image from a few days ago.
antarctic_sea_ice_070110.jpg


Where's the media coverage?
Click to expand...
 
Good news for the doom and gloomers!
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrat...eleases/2010/pressRelease201007041/index.html

Max Planck Society Press Release - July 6, 2010

"Some earlier investigations at the ecosystem level resulted in threefold to fourfold accelerations, which would enhance the greenhouse effect. It was not possible to reconcile these data with global models and atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations and their seasonal variations, however. "We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies," says Miguel Mahecha, who played a crucial role in coordinating and evaluating the new measurements on ecosystem respiration. His colleague Markus Reichstein adds: "Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic."

“We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”

"The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global biogeochemichal cycles and their importance for long-term developments."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top