brin
Super Member
Chuck ...you let me know what the " ..... " stands for and I will tell you but right now at this point in our countries history may not be the best time to ask me to clarify. We are probably direct opposite on everything.
A Credible Global warming Scientist!
- Thread starter FallbrookFarmer
- Start date
- Views: 29909
- Status
Chuck ...you let me know what the " ..... " stands for and I will tell you but right now at this point in our countries history may not be the best time to ask me to clarify. We are probably direct opposite on everything.
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Well, I do have a Kubota. A really old Kubota L210. I use it for odds and ends of work around my small holding. Which is why I originally signed onto TBN. Unless you are an alien from another planet, we probably have quite a bit in common. As I told the other conservative I used to argue with, I know a number of pretty decent folks who consider themselves conservatives. One problem seems to be the public need to blame someone or some group for everything, and the unfortunate tendency of public people, be they politicians or other talking heads, to try to make simple classifications to divide us into Us and Them. I have a few beliefs that I'm sure you would not believe a Liberal could hold.....better not list them or I might get kicked out of my club!
It might be a good thing if in this really useless discussion, we tried to differentiate between what some of us see as Liberal philosophy or Conservative philosophy, and those folks who define themselves as either liberal or conservative. I'd bet that most sensible people on either side of the great divide have real problems with some of the ideas and Great Spokesmen for their own side; at least I know that applies to me, and I hope it is not a purely "Liberal" condition.
Chuck
brin
Super Member
OK Chuck...so far I will agree with this part ....." I'd bet that most sensible people on either side of the great divide have real problems with some of the ideas and Great Spokesmen for their own side;":thumbsup:
dcyrilc
Super Member
Now we're getting somewhere!:thumbsup:
buckeyefarmer
Epic Contributor
surprised this repeat of a thread is still open.
I wonder how CO2 was measured in the 1800's?
I wonder how CO2 was measured in the 1800's?
charlz
Elite Member
I absolutely agree that anthropogenic inputs have a possible connection to climate change. What I don't agree with is that it is the only input responsible for climate change. Most warming supporters act as if the root cause is a done deal, no further discussion, research or commentary required. When someone (supposedly) looks at a laundry list of inputs and yet picks just one, touts it and ignores all others I immediately become suspicious. Maybe not of their motives but certainly of their method.
charlz
Elite Member
They use CO2 measurements from ice cores.
dave1949
Super Star Member
As far as I know, and certainly in my own opinion, credible climate scientists are well aware of climate influences other than anthropogenic inputs. What is cause for alarm is the rapidity of the changes taking place and the correlation of the changes to human inputs.
What could be expected to take millenia, based upon studies of past climate and conditions, is occuring in one or two human lifetimes. I don't see the relevance of stating the earth was warmer/cooler etc. in the past and it will be again, therefore man has nothing to do with it. That is glossing over the fact that the change is accelerating with no apparent or expected natural basis. As long as deniers persist in making statements like that, who can take them seriously?
Same is true of statements regarding CO2. Kevin is wrong in saying coal emissions are greatly reduced where CO2 is concerned. Until commercial scale CO2 sequestration is an implemented reality, the CO2 emissions of burning coal will remain largely unchanged. The only reported reduction occuring now is due to the varying use of landfill methane and natural gas in the place of coal, and that is because the utilities are able to report CO2 emision reductions that occur for using a fuel in lieu of coal. So again, for the coal emission most relevant to AGW study, deniers either don't understand the facts, or they are purposely misleading. Why? It's fine to doubt the science, it's also prudent to question denier's motives.
Dave.
buckeyefarmer
Epic Contributor
how do they date the ice? carbon dating of things isn't always accurate. I just did some googling and saw the hockey stick chart people refer to. I can't believe it for a minute that there is credible CO2 data from 8000 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, ice or no ice. All I know there was an ice age years ago, but it all melted before humans got involved (must have been the dinosaurs farting), so I can't get too excited about any of today's theories on the subject. If there is global warming, or if we are on a warming cycle, I don't believe humans really influence it, it would be about as significant as peeing in the ocean.
charlz
Elite Member
You mean like the sediment core study Scripps did?:
"In 1999, a team led by Jeffrey Severinghaus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., determined that the last ice age ended with a temperature burst that raised the thermostat at Greenland by some 9 degrees C over a mere decade."
magicheater
Veteran Member
They did the same with darminism!!
charlz
Elite Member
Ice cores are a proxy like tree ring data. They count the layers in the ice much like you count tree rings. They also look for signature events such as material from known volcanic eruptions etc. to help calibrate. There generally isn't anything to carbon date unless the ice core is coming from a mountain region or similar where something might have blown on and been trapped in the ice record. Overall they think they are getting within a few years.
Well the hockey stick chart has it's own problems. The Mann et al statistical model used to create that graph was not well researched with statisticians. The Committee on Energy and Commerce requested it the model be reviewed by a team of statisticians (Wegman et al).
Wegman's team found that even fed random input data the Mann model produced a hockey stick graph. There also was apparently some truncation and other methods applied to the early data which makes the 'now' part of the graph look much larger than the Mideavel Warm period portion, which is not the case. There is a corrected graph out there somewhere.
The Wegman report has also be criticized but not on the point that the Mann model will draw a hockeystick graph no matter what information is fed into it.
Gasses get trapped in the snowpack which eventually gets compressed into ice layers. The gasses are actually a little younger than the ice so there is some offset but they are there and can be analyzed.
They feel the temperatures readings they get from the ice cores are pretty accurate. A small fraction of water is 'heavy', having one or two extra neutrons. This heavy water precipitates out first in cold. At very low temperatures the heavy water is mostly depleted and the precipitation is 'lighter' on an isotopic scale. So colder places and colder times have 'lighter' ice.
brin
Super Member
" They did the same with darminism!! " > Good Example....
I'll tell you what I do think is ridiculous and that is all the folks who think it is cool to walk around with a water bottle in their hand...Talk about pollution...!! There are enough water bottles bought each year to stretch around the earth twice...Imagine that ! I just heard it on the news...that and plastic grocery bags are terrible pollution...That is a credible threat...worry about that not Earths natural weather cycles..
I'll tell you what I do think is ridiculous and that is all the folks who think it is cool to walk around with a water bottle in their hand...Talk about pollution...!! There are enough water bottles bought each year to stretch around the earth twice...Imagine that ! I just heard it on the news...that and plastic grocery bags are terrible pollution...That is a credible threat...worry about that not Earths natural weather cycles..
Remember when they switched to plastic bags to save the trees?
That was some brilliant thinking.
rekees4300
Elite Member
This is the root problem causing of global warming. Looks like we're popping out around 6,000,000 more each month than die. It's unlikely humans are going to address the problem so Mother Earth will soon do it for them.
Monthly World population figures:
07/01/09 6,755,987,239
08/01/09 6,762,323,107
09/01/09 6,768,658,976
10/01/09 6,774,790,462
11/01/09 6,781,126,331
12/01/09 6,787,257,817
01/01/10 6,793,593,686
02/01/10 6,799,929,555
03/01/10 6,805,652,275
04/01/10 6,811,988,144
05/01/10 6,818,119,630
06/01/10 6,824,455,499
07/01/10 6,830,586,985
International Programs
Monthly World population figures:
07/01/09 6,755,987,239
08/01/09 6,762,323,107
09/01/09 6,768,658,976
10/01/09 6,774,790,462
11/01/09 6,781,126,331
12/01/09 6,787,257,817
01/01/10 6,793,593,686
02/01/10 6,799,929,555
03/01/10 6,805,652,275
04/01/10 6,811,988,144
05/01/10 6,818,119,630
06/01/10 6,824,455,499
07/01/10 6,830,586,985
International Programs
charlz
Elite Member
Well, I make sure to drop all my water bottles in recycle bins, either at home or at work. Guess I am off the hook on that one
I have wondered at bit about the Brita commercial... were we supposed to replace 100% recyclable water bottles with an non-recyclable water filter? Turns out you can recycle the Brita filters..... if you have a Brita recycle drop near you. (Preserve: Gimme 5 Locations) Not one in my whole state so I guess I am sticking with recycling my water bottles, which I can do most anywhere. We have RO at home so I mostly only use water bottles at work.
Looks like estimates are maybe 10% of water bottles in the US are recycled, the rest landfilled (or laying around on the ground). Each Brita filter replaces about 300, 16.9 ounce water bottles.
kevindsingleton
Silver Member
Truth. Liberty. Freedom.
Erratic weather patterns? There was no erratic weather prior to the use of fossil fuels? I thought it was the heating Earth that caused the increase in greenhouse gases? Pick a story, and stick with it, please.
You believe wrongly. AGW is based on lies. Provable, documented lies.
I see liberals driving cars (and tractors!), too. I've seen them heat their houses, and charge their iPods. Energy is not a conservative cause; it's a human cause.
Liberals seem to do a lot of guessing; mostly incorrectly. You managed to do it, again, right there. The majority of conservatives are working all week to keep the economy from collapsing, and on the weekends they're planting food plots, creating artificial habitats for fish, cleaning up rest stops on duck flyways, participating in the rummage sale at their church, and taking their kids to the Boy Scout camp. The majority of liberals are blogging about their hatred for George W. Bush, making plastic signs, and protesting in Washington, where they'll drop their Starbucks cup on the grass because they spilled coffee on their American Eagle shirt, stub out a cigarette butt on the curb, and tweet about it from their iPhone on the AT&T network, all while complaining about how much they hate big corporations.
Energy runs our country. Did you refuse to heat your house, your water, or cook your meals, this winter, because the energy was produced by a large energy corporation? Or, did you grow and cut your own firewood? If one is a liberal, then one tends to accept the liberal agenda and motivations. Trouble is, the liberal agenda tends to result in increased taxes, reduced individual liberty, greater government control, and never achieves its stated purpose. Never. Not even once.
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Liberals are this. Conservatives are that. The common thread is that both blame the other for their problems.
Is this not a political thread? If not, how can it be made more so?
Someone asked whatever happened to Fallbrookfarmer, and I believe the answer may be found in his profile:
Interests
POing liberals
Occupation
Rhetorical Bomb Thrower(Ret.)
This was his agenda as stated by himself. I assume he found that TBN was not the best forum for his entertainment. He does seem to have some fans, but I would hope that TBN continues to be the useful and friendly site it has been and does not allow itself to be used to PO any particular group.
Chuck
Is this not a political thread? If not, how can it be made more so?
Someone asked whatever happened to Fallbrookfarmer, and I believe the answer may be found in his profile:
Interests
POing liberals
Occupation
Rhetorical Bomb Thrower(Ret.)
This was his agenda as stated by himself. I assume he found that TBN was not the best forum for his entertainment. He does seem to have some fans, but I would hope that TBN continues to be the useful and friendly site it has been and does not allow itself to be used to PO any particular group.
Chuck
brin
Super Member
Typical liberal...things and comments not going your way so you want it shut down. Can't take the heat hey ? Good luck with that - I think the owner of TBN and the moderators are too smart to be lured into making a decision..they will do it on their own.
- Status
