turtlespeed 226 #151 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuote>So, why does CO2 increase LAG temperature in the REST of the historical >record, then? Because dinosaurs didn't have SUV's. Way to duck the question. Quote>The ones depending on the 87 billion plus in research funding, yes. Funny how the ones who depend on the >$3 TRILLION a year from fossil fuel sales reached a different conclusion. Sales != research funding. He is as brainwashed by the GW people as Rhys is by the truthers. It's pointless when one will not have an open mind enough to question the data and the motives behind the interpretation and how and why they came to that conclusion. GW and Climate change is at least a 100 Billion dollar a year industry, subsidized, at least in part, by the 3 trillion that Bill throws out as a reason for mis information. Anti GW is 30 Million or so taken out of 3 trillion. Funny how it takes 87 BILLION to say something and only 30 Million to support just as much info that disagrees with it. ETA: TyposI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #152 October 7, 2010 >Way to duck the question. I take it you did not understand the answer, then. CO2 usually lags climactic changes, because dinosaurs did not have SUV's or coal fired power plants or mining operations. In other words, up until now, there have been no anthropogenic sources of CO2. In the past, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions or Milankovitch cycles have triggered big climactic changes; CO2 lagged those changes because nothing forced increases in CO2 before the event. Once the event occurred, CO2 releases began providing positive feedback for warming cycles. Nowadays we have forced CO2 concentrations to increase, so those alone are starting this cycle of change. >GW and Climate change is at least a 100 Billion dollar a year industry And the fossil fuel industry is in the trillions. Again, deniers lose. >Funny how it takes 87 BILLION to say something and only 30 Million to >support just as much info that disagrees with it. Sounds like you're the one supporting Rhys's argument now. The Truthers have spent far less than NIST - and according to them have produced just as much information that disagrees with the official explanation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #153 October 7, 2010 Quote Sounds like you're the one supporting Rhys's argument now. The Truthers have spent far less than NIST - and according to them have produced just as much information that disagrees with the official explanation. But unlike the GW people, the Truthers aren't being subsidized by Nist to try to prove them wrong.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #154 October 7, 2010 QuoteIn the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. Like acknowledging the MWP and that CO2 *lags* temps by some 800 years? Quoteand a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... Like the above? Quotetheir jobs are at stake 79 billion funds a LOT more jobs than 23 million.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #155 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. Like acknowledging the MWP and that CO2 *lags* temps by some 800 years? Quoteand a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... Like the above? Quotetheir jobs are at stake 79 billion funds a LOT more jobs than 23 million. Doing actual research is expensive... Paying hacks to search for things in the research they can use to try to muddy the waters... not so much... next phallacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #156 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. Like acknowledging the MWP and that CO2 *lags* temps by some 800 years? Quoteand a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... Like the above? Quotetheir jobs are at stake 79 billion funds a LOT more jobs than 23 million. Doing actual research is expensive... Paying hacks to search for things in the research they can use to try to muddy the waters... not so much... next phallacy. So reading research papers and loking for inaccuracies is a waste of time.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 October 7, 2010 Quote>Way to duck the question. I take it you did not understand the answer, then. CO2 usually lags climactic changes, because dinosaurs did not have SUV's or coal fired power plants or mining operations. In other words, up until now, there have been no anthropogenic sources of CO2. In the past, meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions or Milankovitch cycles have triggered big climactic changes; CO2 lagged those changes because nothing forced increases in CO2 before the event. Once the event occurred, CO2 releases began providing positive feedback for warming cycles. Really? Then you can explain why the world isn't a burning hell, given that CO2 concentrations in the past have been up to 15-20 times the current levels, right? Where were those positive feedbacks, back then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png QuoteNowadays we have forced CO2 concentrations to increase, so those alone are starting this cycle of change. See above. Quote>GW and Climate change is at least a 100 Billion dollar a year industry And the fossil fuel industry is in the trillions. Again, deniers lose. And Carbon Credit trading is expected to be in the trillions. Plus climate research billions. Plus 'green' technology development billions. Again, warmists lose.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #158 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote In the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. Like acknowledging the MWP and that CO2 *lags* temps by some 800 years? Quote and a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... Like the above? Quote their jobs are at stake 79 billion funds a LOT more jobs than 23 million. Doing actual research is expensive... Paying hacks to search for things in the research they can use to try to muddy the waters... not so much... next phallacy. So reading research papers and loking for inaccuracies is a waste of time. It is when they ignore the bulk of the data and only seek out the anomalies caused by errors in the sampling or sampling devices... yeah... thats called being dishonest in most scientific circles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #159 October 7, 2010 QuotePaying hacks to search for things in the research they can use to try to muddy the waters... not so much... Like the "hacks" that found the errors in Mann's hockey stick calculations? Or maybe you mean the "hacks" that found the errors in the NASA GISS database? I'll take "hacks" like that anyday, over "researchers" that change the data to fit the hypothesis like the warmists.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #160 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote In the case of an OIL company... I think they view what is VALID data a tad differently.. Like acknowledging the MWP and that CO2 *lags* temps by some 800 years? Quote and a group of oil industry geologists... uh yeah... they will find anything that can try to muddy the waters... Like the above? Quote their jobs are at stake 79 billion funds a LOT more jobs than 23 million. Doing actual research is expensive... Paying hacks to search for things in the research they can use to try to muddy the waters... not so much... next phallacy. So reading research papers and loking for inaccuracies is a waste of time. It is when they ignore the bulk of the data and only seek out the anomalies caused by errors in the sampling or sampling devices... yeah... thats called being dishonest in most scientific circles So is modifying data that doesn't fit. It would be kinda like bringing out the sander and a hammer to get that square peg in the round hole.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #161 October 7, 2010 Tsk Tsk Tsk It never ceases to amaze me ... that "conservatives" would not wish to do everything they could to keep the climate FROM changing. Instead you support doing ANYTHING you can to ensure it does Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #162 October 7, 2010 Quote It is when they ignore the bulk of the data and only seek out the anomalies caused by errors in the sampling or sampling devices... You're right - much better to have inaccurate data for those calculations that trillions of dollars are being based on. Quote yeah... thats called being dishonest in most scientific circles No, that's only dishonest in the warmist circles, where they change the data to fit the hypothesis and not the other way around.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #163 October 7, 2010 Clearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #164 October 7, 2010 Quote Tsk Tsk Tsk It never ceases to amaze me ... that "conservatives" would not wish to do everything they could to keep the climate FROM changing. Instead you support doing ANYTHING you can to ensure it does You misunderstand - Conservatives are just not so completely narcissistic tha they think that they alone could change or keep change from happening.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #165 October 7, 2010 QuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #166 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #167 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Why are you asking me?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #168 October 7, 2010 QuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Wrong again, but you go ahead and beat that strawman some more if it makes you feel better (and keeps you from having to answer those questions about historical CO2 and positive feedbacks). QuoteThe information is out there if you care to look for it Yes, it is - I've found plenty of sources showing the dishonesty in the warmist information - that CO2 plot comes to mind, as well as declining global anomalies even while CO2 increased year-to-year.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #169 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Why are you asking me? You seem to be firmly alligned with them... don't you wonder what the motivations of your fellow travellers might be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #170 October 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteClearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Why are you asking me? You seem to be firmly alligned with them... don't you wonder what the motivations of your fellow travellers might be? I dont get into religous debates generaly Those vocally for and those vocally against are no different as they just exercise a different religion IMO So, to summarize You fail here"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #171 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Clearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Why are you asking me? You seem to be firmly alligned with them... don't you wonder what the motivations of your fellow travellers might be? I dont get into religous debates generaly Those vocally for and those vocally against are no different as they just exercise a different religion IMO So, to summarize You fail here Oh sorry thats right.... you don't look into THE REST OF THE STORY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #172 October 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Clearly I've offended your religious beliefs again. Sorry. The information is out there if you care to look for it; if not, that's fine too. Offended a religous belief? Offended common sense maybe It certainly seems that the deniers.. are certainly highly involved with dominion theology. So what is God going to do for yall when its all used up?? Why are you asking me? You seem to be firmly alligned with them... don't you wonder what the motivations of your fellow travellers might be? I dont get into religous debates generaly Those vocally for and those vocally against are no different as they just exercise a different religion IMO So, to summarize You fail here Oh sorry thats right.... you don't look into THE REST OF THE STORY what ever the fuck that means"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #173 October 7, 2010 Quote>I have seen relevant data and photographs and have actually seen the >curvature of the Earth. Ah! So since you have SOME data, you believe that the Earth is a sphere - despite not having actually seen it as a sphere yourself. So you consider the data you have to be "enough" based on your faith in it. We have hard data that shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration in the atmosphere increases the heat retained by the atmosphere. We have proven this in labs and via observation. We have hard data that shows that a celestial body that increases its heat retention increases its overall temperature. Basic thermodynamics proves this. We have hard data that shows that, over the past 150 years, the Earth has warmed dramatically, and that that temperature increase has coincided with the increase in greenhouse gases. Which is why every scientific/engineering organization on the planet, outside of the ones that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, supports the concept of AGW. therefore correlation implies causality-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #174 October 8, 2010 More of the same http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9 QuoteCalifornia grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found. The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipbelt 0 #175 October 8, 2010 i found a similar, if not identical article http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
