I never said CO2 was poisoning the drinking water, LOL. I'm talking about heavy metals, pesticides, VOCs, hormones, prescription drugs, etc.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, this is how you discuss things? Accusing someone of watching Glenn Beck is somehow relevant and valid to you? I don't have cable TV so that's impossible. You probably know more about him than me. But who gives a rat's ass what Glenn Beck says and how is that relevant here?? What does he have to do with the fact that a significant portion of the data and source material which the IPCC and CRU were faked? Glenn freaking Beck has nothing whatsoever to do with that at all.

I feel like I'm trying to teach my dog math right now. Glenn Beck?? Seriously?? What in the holy hell does he have to do with how scientists gather data and UN policy papers? Are you that paranoid or did you throw him on the table as some sort of evidence that AGW-theory is sound? That is so ridiculous it makes my head hurt and I feel dumber having considered it.

Last edited by Jotapay on Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with that 100%, but you do need to nuance that statement a bit in light of historical CO2 levels and temperatures across geologic time.

However, much of the temperature data that was collected and massaged is bullocks. It's now coming out that international scientific bodies have completely misrepresented some claims. It is not far-fetched to say that the whole AGW movement relies on complete sophistry. I find it virtually impossible to believe any AGW study now unless the data and methods have been double-checked by an independent body, not other pro-AGW scientists who have shown that they are completely willing to commit scientific fraud and vehemently exclude contrary views.

Here is a representation of CO2 over geologic time. Note that we are currently around 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere which is pretty low, relatively speaking. Temps are also no where near past record highs. Combine that with the bad data that researchers are working with and I think it's easy to see why the current hysteria is a little overblown.



Even this data is uncertain and incomplete, as noted in the graph.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... llite-era/

They don't care. It's religion to them, not science.

They will accuse you of watching Glenn Beck, like a TV show has something to do with temperature and atmospheric gasses.

Main sequence stars burn hydrogen into helium as a fuel. As they age the ratio of hydrogen to helium tilts in favour of helium, which is twice as dense, The denisty of the core is the critical factor in the burn rate of the star. This has all been well understood and pretty mainstream astrophysics from the 50s. The consaquence of this is that a star like the sun produces more energy as it ages, or when you run the clock backwards it cools as you go further back into time. The figure given for the past 500 million years is about 1% per 100 million years. So if one takes for example 100million years ago, we can give a ball park figure.
The current temperature is about 287K.
The greenhouse effect is about 33K
So the current direct solar energy is about 254K
At 1% less solar energy this would be roughly 251K

If we take the CO2 level at being 1700ppm we can make rough estimates of the additional global warming, 280ppm is given as the preindustrial level and each doubling generates an estimated 2K. At about 2.5 times preindustrial levels this would be 5K of additional heating or just slightly above current the current level of 251K + 33K + 5K =289K. Many other factors also contribute including changes in albedo and so on, but the figures give an indication that higher levels of CO2 during the Phanerozoic are necessary to prevent a global freeze.

This is in relation to the annual seasonal melt. The Antarctic land ice is still losing mass, as shown by his previous studies.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... wmelt.html

Also, the blog link you've shown failed to post the complete summary from the study. Just another attempt at disinformation.

I wonder how many Homo sapiens used to stroll the air-conditioned halls of shopping malls some 150+ million years ago, let alone breathe in that atmosphere. I wonder if you can do it.

Here's an idea. Let's put you in a chamber, raise the temperature and CO2 level, and check how long you last. Are you game?

If you keep the chamber no warmer than the 23C max on that chart and the CO2 at 8000 ppm or less I would be willing to live in it. I firmly believe in AGW, as should be clear from my scores of posts on the topic, but 23C is not an uncomfortable temperature and 8,000 ppm CO2 is well within the human tolerance limit of 15,000 ppm CO2.

You need to know a little human physiology before issuing a challenge like that VM. You make it look as if believers in AGW are all ignorant followers of something they have no knowledge of, and that is not the case.

As for 'climategate' the CRU has done more to damage the public perception of the science behind AGW than any number of BAU corporations could have managed. Reputable scientists like Dr. Lonnie Thompson and Dr. David Archer are being ignored simply because there work was cited by political hacks at the CRU and IPCC. They have laid a foundation of solid science on the topic, and neither one of them are political Hacks like those at the CRU.

VM and others would benefit from watching this lecture by Dr. David Archer at Fermi national Laboratory.

http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_0 ... /index.htm

Tanada can't spell Erie, neither can read graphs; did you see the word average?

Good graph. Certainly puts all the hoopla into perspective, doesn't it?

What I am concerned about is that the official AAPG statement on climate change asks for something very specific from the modelers, which is to show how their models match up against a known dataset, specifically, climate spanning the last 200,000 years.

I have not yet seen the modelers response. The AAPG request seems completely reasonable...and certainly within the realm of what scientists normally do to check their work.

I wonder if there is an official statement as to why they haven't done it? Certainly if their work cannot predict a known dataset, its value in trying to predict the future is immediately called into question. Predicting the unknown and pretending the answer has value ( without appropriate testing to another scientific bodies satisfaction ) seems like a cart before the horse exercise.

Attention seeking troll seeks attention. Dangles a hook to see who bites.

It sure does. It clear shows none of your ancestors lived when CO2 and average temperature were higher than today, and none of your kids will either.

I am always surprised that the standard response to a very reasonable and specific question ( why won't the modelers run their models against a known dataset as requested by paleoclimate experts known as "geologists" ) is to label the messenger a troll.

Excellent way to not answer, or in this case even acknowledge, the question. Of course, a minute or two of googling around might reveal why such a distraction is needed, eh?

Please. It shows that mankind has already adapted to a much higher increase in temperature than the current crop of modelers are predicting we can expect for at least the next century.

And thats assuming their models are worth a crap, which certainly doesn't appear to be the case to date.

Exaclty which mankind lived 100 millions ago?