[ridenrain]

[web]http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050[/web]

[hurley_108]

Some of the items in that list have merit. Many do not.

Yes, the siting criteria of ambient temperature stations needs to be improved in order to get a valid reading of temperature. Yes, biofuels are a scam.

However, the whole "cosmic rays cause clouds causes cooling" bit has been disproven.

Mars is cold not because (or even despite the fact that) it has lots of CO2 in its atmosphere, but because it has almost no atmosphere at all and is much farther away from the sun than the earth.

The sunspot cycle length does not vary by anywhere near the amount shown on that graph.

Yes, the "hockey stick" has been disproven, but the earth is still warmer than it has been in tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer (and even after the correction in the last decade's temperature data).

This "resource" has at least as much BS as it does fact.

[Brenda]

Holy crap, you guys... Did you actually read all that stuff???

[hurley_108]

Brenda wrote:

Holy crap, you guys... Did you actually read all that stuff???

No, I just skimmed it, but there were a few items in there that I am familiar with already.

[Zipperfish]

It's got a pretty hysterical tone for a website claiming to want to "Stop the Hysteria."

And it's got a fault common to many Amercian Republican climate change sites--they mistake Al Gore for climate change. OK class--Al Gore is the past vice=president of the United States; anthrpogenic climate change is the theory that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions caused by humnakind are measurably affecting the planet's climate.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 wrote:

the earth is still warmer than it has been in tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer (and even after the correction in the last decade's temperature data).

The earth is not warmer than it was 2,000 years ago.

It is also not warmer than it was during several periods of history when there were no polar ice caps at all and when palm trees grew in the Arctic.

www.iodp.org/index.php?option=com_docma ... ad&gid=989

[BartSimpson]

ridenrain wrote:

[web]http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050[/web]

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

hurley_108 wrote:

the earth is still warmer than it has been in tens of thousands of years, perhaps longer (and even after the correction in the last decade's temperature data).

The earth is not warmer than it was 2,000 years ago.

It is also not warmer than it was during several periods of history when there were no polar ice caps at all and when palm trees grew in the Arctic.

www.iodp.org/index.php?option=com_docma ... ad&gid=989

Yes it is, even if we ignore the probably erroneous 2004 point:



And to forestall any hypocrisy on your part, you offered this graph yourself a couple months ago as a good one.

And there are a couple of little interesting nuggets in that article you link to:

Quote:

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming. But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden
supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Quote:

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide — more than four times current levels — can
cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Yes, it has been warmer in the past, but we are rapidy desequestering millions of years of carbon deposits. It is completely illogical to presume that this can have no negative consequences.

[sasquatch2]

hurley_108

Quote:

Yes, it has been warmer in the past, but we are rapidy desequestering millions of years of carbon deposits. It is completely illogical to presume that this can have no negative consequences.

Then why is Eric's Greenland farm is still permafrost and grapes do not survive in Britain were in the medieval period and the Roman occupation?

Why does the lunitic fringe keep trying to eliminate the MWP and the RWP. Why did this camp falsely report and continue to falsely report the analysis of ICE CORES? Why did Hansen "adjust" the data from rural reporting stations but used urban data as is? Why did he makes such a glaring math error. Why did the "peer revue process" not catch this? Why did the "peer revue" of McItrick and McIntyre's" paper fail to pass peer revue itself?

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

Why would scepticism be labeled political dissent by an obviously politically motivated agenda. There is no "science" and there never was a consensus.

That defies logic.

HOCKEY PUCKS

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

[huh]

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

[huh]

Yep, he's not exaggerating. I was on that thread, too. I won't say who, but the person posited that CO2 - all on its own - radiates heat.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

[huh]

Yep, he's not exaggerating. I was on that thread, too. I won't say who, but the person posited that CO2 - all on its own - radiates heat.

Only if you read the thread with your BartSimpson's-only-see-what-you-want-to-see™ blinkers on.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

[huh]

Yep, he's not exaggerating. I was on that thread, too. I won't say who, but the person posited that CO2 - all on its own - radiates heat.

I recall the thread, and that's not what Zipperfish has repeatedly stated.

The greenhouse effect works by atmospheric gases absorbing infrared radiation emitted by the earth. This absorbed radiation is emitted [trumpet] by greenhouse gases back towards earth, allowing heat to be retained.

Explain the greenhouse effect without this absorption/emission mechanism, why don't you?

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

Why would scepticism be labeled political dissent by an obviously politically motivated agenda. There is no "science" and there never was a consensus.

That defies logic.

HOCKEY PUCKS

Smasquanch, Samsquanch, Smasquanch. Stay down, buddy. You're punch drunk zombie wandering around the ring. Any ref with half a heart would have stopped the fight by now.

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

sasquatch2 wrote:

Why would an otherwise intelligent, resonably educated poster here insist that CO2 is radio-active?

[huh]

Yep, he's not exaggerating. I was on that thread, too. I won't say who, but the person posited that CO2 - all on its own - radiates heat.

I recall the thread, and that's not what Zipperfish has repeatedly stated.

The greenhouse effect works by atmospheric gases absorbing infrared radiation emitted by the earth. This absorbed radiation is emitted [trumpet] by greenhouse gases back towards earth, allowing heat to be retained.

Explain the greenhouse effect without this absorption/emission mechanism, why don't you?

You're wasting your time on Samsquanch and Bart, I'm afraid. Their ideology has told them that carbon dioxide does not radiate in the infrared spectrum, and that's all there is to it.