EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 558 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:09 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
This forum is very small, but I feel some come here to educate themselves on environmental matters. For those fence sitters and those who have not made up their minds on this topic I offer this lecture. It starts out in German, but the lecture is conducted in English. Enjoy and learn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDK ... ded#at=199

Don't be put off by clumsy attacks to follow. This is a real scientist discussing environmental science. Watch this video and decide for yourself. Now the regulars here are about to attack this guy with everything they have. Don't be fooled. Examine the content of this video and decide for yourself.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Last edited by Milton Banana on Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:00 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Decide for yourself if the good professor's math is correct? Or decide for your self if his understanding of the carbon cycle is accurate? Or whether the continual reduction in timescale is a problem for the comparisons being made.

The simple question is whether the current ~400 ppmv concentration of CO2 would be strongly tied to the amount of carbon, which has not been in the carbon cycle for millions of years, being released by the use of fossil fuels. Granted the amounts differ, as the amount released is almost twice that required to change the concentration from 280 ppmv prior to the use to 400 in the atmosphere at the present time.

Or an even more simple analogy is a fountain with a recirculation pump that keeps an amount of water in the upper layers. Now if you pour more water into the top layer it begins to fill because the water does not leave as fast as you pour. If someone compares the amount of water you pour to the amount being pumped and determines the water you add does not impact the rise in the upper water levels, does that really make sense?

That is what you are being told here in this video and it is not correct, which is why the good professor is not on the list to win the Nobel prize for his groundbreaking work in his for profit book.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:04 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 179
Maybe I didn't give the video a fair shake but since I'm no math whiz and frankly didn't want to wade through all the muddle so I confined myself to the first and last 15 minutes. Just a few observations.
1. Like with a lot of skeptics his graph of recent earth heat levels is wrong. The highest temperatures were in 2005 and 2010 not 1998, corrected by James Hansen. The average temperature per decade has gone up regularly since the 1960s.

2. A standard rookie error is to say since in the past solar energy increase led to CO2 increase that mode continues. In fact in modern times it is CO2 increase due to humans that has proceeded the capture of solar energy and so is the initial driver. That should be obvious but the good professor appears to be clueless on that point.

3. To the extent there has been some leveling off of observed surface temperature recently most of that has now been traced to deep ocean capture of energy. In any case due to lots of reasons surface temperature has always deviated around CO2 rise so frankly I don't know why he should make a big deal concerning some sort of recent leveling out of a relatively short duration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:14 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
Image

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Image


From Goose5 ..... so who could question the accuracy of the representation of the graphs or even the claim of it being the last 44 climate models from reputable sources. :eh:

photobucket.com/albums/c56/Goose5/graphs/last44climatemodels_zpsbeca692e.jpg

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:48 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2317
Location: Central Colorado
So, it looks like Milton Banana is really that goose b*stard from TES. A cherry picking denialist if there ever was one, and below a cow pie in my opinion! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :razz: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :twisted: :mrgreen: 8)



For the rotted banana;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Using-S ... eracy.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:57 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
All you fence sitters please review your logical fallacies. Ad hominem to be specific. And here is a few quotes.

http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from- ... ptics.html

Quote:
Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.


Quote:
Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”


Quote:
Quote by Dennis Hollars, astrophysicist: "What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth....carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow....'Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming.”


Just a few. Please follow the link for many more. And, this to add. Please review.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot ... -ipcc.html

Quote:
•The two satellite records continue to show cooling;
•All three surface air temperature records continue to show negative temperature trend for the last 5 and 10 years; however
•as seen by the Mauna Loa record below CO2 continues its rise:


CO2 is a trace gas, and cannot do what the religious environ-METAL-ists say that it does. No way.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:47 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2317
Location: Central Colorado
I really would like to also live in a fantasy world where AGW and its future impacts, among others, sooner, do not exist. We are all sustainable and happy on this ever larger planet, or maybe become a video game addict, or something like that.
Maybe this 20% lesser effects will make you feel better;
http://desmog.ca/2013/07/11/world-we-ha ... n-anderson

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
All you fence sitters please review your logical fallacies. Ad hominem to be specific. And here is a few quotes.

http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from- ... ptics.html

Quote:
Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.


Quote:
Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”


So why post logical fallacies if you know they are fallacies unless you are trolling?


Quote:
Quote by Dennis Hollars, astrophysicist: "What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth....carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow....'Mars' atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming.”


An astrophysicist who seems to purposefully attempt to mislead? Venus has an atmosphere which is mostly CO2 and has a significant amount of GHE warming.

Quote:
Just a few. Please follow the link for many more. And, this to add. Please review.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot ... -ipcc.html

Quote:
•The two satellite records continue to show cooling;
•All three surface air temperature records continue to show negative temperature trend for the last 5 and 10 years; however
•as seen by the Mauna Loa record below CO2 continues its rise:


For those too ignorant of the science to understand there has never been a claim of a direct correlation with just CO2 concentrations. the rest of us understand.

Quote:
CO2 is a trace gas, and cannot do what the religious environ-METAL-ists say that it does. No way
.

So how DO you explain the GHE since the temperature of the planet is far warmer than it should be with just a blackbody radiation heating?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
Okay fence sitters. Ever wonder what other countries think of this debate. Find out with this Der Spiegel offering.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 57713.html

Quote:
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.


This wild and dramatic forecast failed just like all the others. And, some stalwarts here wonder why they have a hard time convincing people.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:00 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Okay fence sitters. Ever wonder what other countries think of this debate. Find out with this Der Spiegel offering.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 57713.html

Quote:
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.


This wild and dramatic forecast failed just like all the others. And, some stalwarts here wonder why they have a hard time convincing people.


You mean the actual statement or the strawman you referenced in the quote? The truth means so little to some.


Quote:
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:27 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
What ever your beliefs this is how science should be conducted.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

Quote:
I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
What ever your beliefs this is how science should be conducted.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

Quote:
I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.


You confuse science with proposing actions to deal with the conclusions drawn from the science. There is no "neutral" position on anything once the data has shown the trends and causes are determined. There is an open mind to any new data, but that is not what has been the driving force with climate change. The same dissension exhibited in the tobacco studies by the tobacco companies and the creationists against evolution has been evident in this debate. The questioning of every bit of minutiae, the demand for some kind of projection, and the follow up saying the projections are not accurate enough are all used to imply the whole of the science is wrong. Scientists should never be neutral when the science points them even if the money and politics do not want to go in that direction.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:05 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 395
Quote:
Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.

Michael Mann Ph.D.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:28 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20604
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Quote:
Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.

Michael Mann Ph.D.



Correct, as science seeks evidence which either supports an hypothesis or it does not. In any case is does not ever prove the hypothesis because other evidence may modify it. Mathematics on the other hand are different and they have proofs for their theorems.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 558 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group