Arctic hits record low

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by sawyer, Mar 8, 2017.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Simple model explains warming of the planet.

    And this has been presented to academia.

     
  2. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The arrogance of your utter ignorance is always a bit astonishing.

    You stick with your fossil fuel stooge, mechanical engineer, denier cult nutjob and his crackpot unpublished pseudo-science.....and I'll stick with the actual scientists who know something about this field of science.

     
  3. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess I don't need to view your video. I know for a fact you never looked at the proof I offered.
     
  4. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course....ignoring the scientific evidence is your MO.

    And what you "offered" was only proof of your extreme gullibility and ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  5. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your video ignores science.
     
  6. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are hilarious! Everyone in that video is a real PhD scientist specializing in some area of climate science. They don't "ignore science", they explain the actual science.....you just don't know anything about science but the fraudulent misinformation and pseudo-science hokum you have been fed by your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

    The only guy in your denier cult propaganda video was a mechanical engineer with no experience or education in climate science, who used to work for the fossil fuel industry and who stooges for them now, talking about things he can't understand and doesn't want to. Like you.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    - You didn't address my questions. I asked you "what is that space ? " All over suddenly you started talking about space, what is it?.
    - If you send me to "read this book/wiki " instead of addressing subject on your own I may bite.
    - If you receive a package from amazon do you say I sent it back to ebay or you say either I sent it back to amazon or you say I sent it to ebay? How can you possibly say that Q recieved from the Sun is sent back to to space? It is very important.
    - What does mean immediately? In comparison to not immediately.

    One more time:
    As I pointed to others: "In physics, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference, or by any means other than through work or the transfer of matter.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The transfer can be by contact between the source and the destination body, as in conduction; or by radiation between remote bodies; or by way of an intermediate fluid body, as in convective circulation; or by a combination of these."
    How I can be sure that you are not a NASA scientist when you exhibit the same knowledge and understanding of the subject?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Robert, all videos ignore science. No sarcasm. That's why instead of teaching teachers show videos. It is an important part of the process of indoctrination.
     
  9. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The most important skill in science is the skill of formulating questions.

    So tell me what were the methods of measuring CO2 in XVth, XIXth century and in mid XXth century , the amount and positions of measuring stations , the assumptions which were made for their positioning, the recorded results and their margin of error. (And remember I own a primitive air analizer, I paid $800 for. It has margin of error ( sensitivity) +- 0.05% and shelf life of the CO2 sensor 2 years, then I have to pay $160 for a new sensor.) What sensitivity can catch the difference between 300ppm and 400 ppm?

    Then tell me why would you dismiss https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf of the bet?
    In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski states, 1. “The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”2 Of equal importance Jaworowski states, The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[.

    What year the first meteorological station was set in Antarctica?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  10. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hm. "Friends of Science" comprised of unnamed "mainly ... active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals" who care only about attacking AGW and not, contrary to what is posted, educating the public about science. Sure.. Why should I trust what they say? They have a clear agenda, and worse, they're not entirely upfront about their identities, their methods and their motives.

    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21561794

    You know all about Zbigniew Jaworowski, right? If not, let me introduce you...said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zb ··· e_change :Jaworowski is a global warming skeptic ... [he] has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes. However, increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone [Raynaud, D., J. Jouzel, J. M. Barnola, J. Chappellaz, R. J. Delmas, C. Lorius, 1994, The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases, Science, 259, 926-934.]

    Similarly Hans Oeschger [1995, Environ Sci. & Pollut. Res. 2 (1) pp. 60-61] states that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
    I might point out that Hans Oeschger was a pioneer in the field of paleoclimatology, virtually its founder, one of the most highly regarded figures in climate science whose work led to much of what we know today about glaciation and historical climate change. In 2001, the European Geophysical Society established the Hans Oeschger Medal in his honour.

    Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, said about Jaworowski, "[he] is perhaps even more contrarian than most, claiming that he can prove the climate is going to get colder through his work excavating glaciers on six different continents...". Jaworski apparently attributes climate change to sunspot cycles.said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zb ··· Opinions :When approached to see if he would bet on future cooling, Jaworowski denied making any prediction, stating "I do not make my own detailed projections. In my paper I referred the reader to B&M paper, and that is all."

    Jaworowski published several papers in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche [a notable crackpot, conspiracy theorist, political cult leader, fascist, anti-Semite, and eight-time joke candidate for U.S. President who was sentenced to fifteen years for conspiracy to commit mail fraud].

    Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a "stupid and fraudulent myth," and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline.
    So I hope I've helped to explain why I don't place a great deal of credence on the crackpot Tim Ball's rants about his fellow crackpot Zbigniew Jaworowski. [​IMG]

    EDIT: I should mention that I think I skimmed over the same paper, but if not, it was another Jaworowski production with very similar information, which dismisses the data from ice cores and goes on to assert as a given that sunspots and cosmic rays are the cause of global warming.

    Now, I don't know about you, but when I see a title like "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time", then I know immediately that I'm not reading a scientific paper! Opinionated drivel is written that way, scholarly papers are not, and no reputable journal would accept it if it was. But it gets even better as go you along. It begins thusly -- pay attention to the bolded parts (my emphasis):quote:On Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming. After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style in Paris to a crowd of politicians and media, accompanied by a blackout of the Eiffel Tower to show that electric energy is bad. The event induced a tsunami of hysteria that ran around the world.
    ...which caused me to very nearly spew my drink all over the keyboard ... [​IMG] we are clearly reading a peer-reviewed scientific journal here, dedicated to discovery and the sharing of objective scientific information!! [​IMG]

    Reading on, I was just astounded by the sheer density of misinformation and misleading arguments, and then he goes on the even better stuff about sunspots and cosmic rays! Now, maybe you were reading a different paper entirely, but Jaworowski is a one-trick pony who has made the same arguments time and again in various lower-tier or downright disreputable publications (like the "journal" published by Lyndon LaRouche). Rather than going over them again myself, here's a famous letter with some choice comments from Hans Oeschger, and an excellent dissection of Jaworowski's identical claims in an earlier paper.

    » http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
    » http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
     
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  12. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Too bad you are so totally lacking in that skill....which is pretty devastating to your pretensions of omniscience when, on top of that, you very obviously know virtually nothing about science, plus most of what you imagine you 'know' is bogus BS cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers and spoon-fed to anti-science, reality-denying crackpot cultists.
     
  13. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LOL!! ARE YOU SERIOUS????? :roflol:

    You claim to know best about CO2 and greenhouse gasses and climate change, but you don't know the answer to your own question!!! If you did, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by asking it!! :roflol:

    Hint: how do we know the level of atmospheric CO2 as it was 20,000 years ago?

    Hint 2: We didn't send anyone back 20,000 years in time to take measurements.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  14. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No I don't. But I know all about climate scientists. I know that instead attempting to answer any question they immediately start swing crap in hope that something can stick, even if they are all covered and drown in their own crap. They cannot cause any other reaction from any decent person but vomiting.
    Your posts make me vomit.
     
  15. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Long story short, your source isn't accurate and trustworthy. It reminds me of what ID proponents (evolution deniers) do - dress themselves and their arguments up as scientific when they really aren't.
     
  16. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are blinded by your religious beliefs because you cannot link to any of my posts claiming what you impose .
    But you still believe that I claim what you say, don't me.
    Any religious fanaticism faint before the cult of AWG.

    I just ask very basic simple question and observe that no believer in GW can answer them.
    Most just swing their own crap thousand posts long, and nothing else.
    Do you really think you can understand simple basic questions I ask?
    Do you think any hint can help?
    I don't.

    Hint - if it is not measured by proper instruments and a proper way it does not exist in Thermodynamics, because it is not based on logical conclusions, not on empirical evidence, but only on direct measurements by proper instruments and a proper way. That why Einstein said that "It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown "


    Hint 2. If the graph given in the cited by me paper is true ( and it stand to be true unless you can show the opposite), it true that there was no increase of the level of atmospheric CO2 between 1800 and 1960.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  17. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ...know anything about the guy "I" just cited and quoted....'sad'...[/quote]

    ...because "my" anti-science cult of reality denial filled "me" with lies, smears and crackpot conspiracy theory insanity.
     
  18. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All I care if the graph in the paper is true. I don't care who brought it.
    I didn't check it and I couldn't be sure.
    But now seeing the reaction of climate scientists hysterically swinging their own crap instead of answering simple questions and showing that it is not true, I know it is true.
    Long story short, you keep on swing crap.
    You make decent people vomit.
    All climate science stinks like overflown sewage.
    I know I cannot make you go away.
    Go away.
     
  19. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok. I'll be sure I don't you.


    I'm an atheist.

    And your "science" is bogus. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically to just over 400 ppm as of today (assuming you know what "ppm" means).
    http://www.planetforlife.com/images/keeling2.gif

    http://co2levels.org/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

    How many would you like?

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

    https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/05/01/carbon-dioxide-400-ppm-april-mauna-loa/8575651/
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're saying science should be based on your feelings, as opposed to logic and evidence. We were already aware you believed that.

    Of course it does. Why do you think humanity has used blankets for thousands of years? You're talking crazy.

    That's not the right analogy. Is the kettle producing heat, like a human, or the earth that absorbs visible sunlight? No. Hence, it's not similar.

    If you insulate a heat source, it will get hotter. Period. This isn't a discussion. You're just completely wrong.

    If you disagree, I suggest you go wrap a lit incandescent bulb in a thick blanket. But be sure to have a fire extinguisher handy. A light bulb isn't normally hot enough to ignite cloth, but it will get that hot if you wrap it up.

    I'll also ask you to explain why people insulate their houses, being you say it has no effect on the heat loss or temperature. You're pretty much alone on the planet with your claim that insulating a heat source has no effect.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  21. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's nice. You haven't shown why that paragraph means anything relevant to the discussion. Everyone else sees how that paragraph doesn't support your insane claims in any way.

    Thank you for the compliment. After all, the NASA people and other climate scientists are some of the best and brightest people on the planet.

    You, however, literally have less understanding of thermodynamics than a 3-year-old, given that a 3-year-old understands that a blanket will make you warmer.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  22. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I say "space" I mean outer space. As in the void between astronomical bodies. In regards to Earth's energy budget Q is radiated back to space in all directions. What I am saying is that the amount of incoming energy Q (340 watts per sq. meter) from the Sun is approximately balanced by the outgoing radiation which is emitted in all directions away from Earth and in the direction of outer space. I say approximately balanced because Qin - Qout is actually slightly positive right now. That means Earth is accumulating solar energy. And since their is no medium in outer space to transport heat that eliminates conduction and convection as the transfer mechanisms and leaves radiation in the form of photons emitted at various frequencies as the primary mechanism of energy transfer.
     
  23. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Really? If I say that Thermodynamics has no place for logical conclusions and empirical evidence and does not care about your feelings, you can only conclude that I say it is based on my feelings? If A is not B then A is anything you want it to be? How would you call people who have no clue what Thermodynamics is based on but feel like they can discuss it? I would call them believers in GW.

    I cannot give you even F for logic.


    What did make hot what, the blanket the bulb or the bulb the blanket? Would your body temperature shoot up if you insulate yourself with 5 blankets? Is it like they get fever?

    If you insulate the house your fire in the fireplace will become hotter? Really?

    You cannot figure out what does produce heat, and thus what is warming what, a human or a blanket, yet you feel you can discuss science. I wouldn’t call you crazy, I have seen crazy people who still were nice; but I would call you a believer in GW.
    Do you know that if you wrap a lit incandescent bulb in a thick blanket quickly enough you will not need a fire extinguisher? Do you know that a blanket can be used as a fire extinguisher https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-ways-to-put-out-a-fire-on-a-person-or-child Do you know anything at all? You can try to answer, but I don’t know if I will feel like replying. It is like making fun out of a mentally handicapped.
    Explaining the third time: insulating a house does not make it to warm up, it does not change any T in the house if you have no source of heat in the house, if your furnace broke. The furnace makes the house warm, not the insulation. It should be obvious to everyone who is not mentally handicapped.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017
  24. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your atheism cannot beat mine. I was brought up us an atheist among atheists and I was 18 when I saw the Bible the 1st time in my life and I was 25 when I opened it the 1st time. Can you beat that?

    I know that if you are an atheist you must blindly believe all things you are told. You cannot express any doubt or ask any questions, because if you do you will be laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, insulted and in some countries even more than that.

    As you can see, all I did I asked a few questions: http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-15#post-1067284329
    And I immediately got laughed at, mocked, ridiculed and insulted. Which , as you understand, is fine with me because it is exactly what I expected.

    As I expected you will not even try to answer my questions, will you?
    You only want me to act as an obedient, not thinking sheep, a slave.
    Thank you for the offer.
    Your beliefs are unattractive, I've been there.
    I choose to remain to be a free man.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Whoa! Childish. Tough life being taunted, eh? If you had good answers to questions and comments, maybe you would have come through it unscarred.

    Speaking of questions and lack of responses, I obliterated your CO2 claims with supported facts but you haven't been courageous enough to admit you made an error.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017

Share This Page