Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

a reply to: proximo

Well if there is one it is damn small, and certainly a lot less than you would expect from a 50 percent co2 change if it is really the danger it is made out to be.

What would you expect it to be?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

PHAGE THE QUOTES DIDNT COME THRU like i meant this is a bit messy SORRY

The carbon gets naturally sequestered.

Yes, slowly. And that sequestration results in a lowering of atmospheric CO2 levels until an equilibrium is reached. Burning hydrocarbons disrupts that equilibrium by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at a greater rate than it can be sequestered.

Not necessarily

What I clearly see is a group of liars who wont admit the truth about CO2 going up AFTER the temp not before phage.

Who says that CO2 levels don't rise with warming?

The data says that

I see data manipulation in placement of equipment where i am not allowed in my efforts to put sensitive instruments in a clear violation of the manufacturer protocols for use of in the field too.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

misplaced equipment violate placement rules by EPA

It must have supporting meta data to be allowed in the Air Qaulity Subystem (AQS) at EPA.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you talking about CO2 measurements?

No talking about the EPA requirements on locating the intake for the monitors and the nearness to things like buildings and heat sources like hvac units.

a reply to: Christosterone

What was it you were saying about hubris and intellectual elitism? I couldn't quite see it through the enormous ego in front of your post.

double post

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proximo

Well if there is one it is damn small, and certainly a lot less than you would expect from a 50 percent co2 change if it is really the danger it is made out to be.

What would you expect it to be?

I expect to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things because we are in an "inter-glacial period" of an Ice age.

a reply to: Justoneman

I asked for a source for this:

Also the fact we are not living in water world as gore claimed we would be 15 years ago.

Where did Gore say we would be living in water world 15 years ago (or ever)?

a reply to: Justoneman
Yes, well. The person I replied to seemed to think differently but I was attempting to get a clarification from them.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman
Yes, well. The person I replied to seemed to think differently but I was attempting to get a clarification from them.

I know but it is hanging out there like ripe fruit.

a reply to: Phage

Here Phage a place with some articles about Gore and his hubris on no ice. from the search
"Gore claims 2012 end of ice in Arctic"


www.search.ask.com... .11&p2=%5EBBJ%5EOSJ000%5EYY%5EUS&apn_ptnrs=BBJ&o=APN11411&gct=hp&tbv=12.23.0.15&pf=V7&tpid=ORJ-SPE&trgb=CR&pt=tb&apn_uid=582C3564-E0FF-4824-89F5-54518 1AA7FB3&doi=2015-02-03&tpr=2&ts=1423440946900

a reply to: Justoneman

Besides being guilty of forum sliding...that is flooding this thread with posts that contribute nothing to the issue, you are missing one big piece of the puzzle.

It is a fact that we are releasing tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of using combustion of petro products to make energy...no disputing that. It is also a fact that CO2 levels are currently climbing fast.

It takes no leap of faith or magic intellectual trick to conclude that we are responsible for the quickly rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

You completely went off on a tangent about the nitrates, almost like a red herring argument. I have been to City Hall meetings where nitrates were banned because of the algae blooms. There were several professional speakers/lawyer types who argued the law was useless on behalf of the industries that fertilize people's lawns. They used little logic and a lot of emotion to make their point that the lawn fertilizer they sold was not a problem......A few of them even resorted to name calling. The law passed unanimously, where I come from we care about our fisheries and having a healthy ICW.

The arguments that you guys are trying to use to deny the human link between the industrial age and the rising CO2 levels are not much different.

a reply to: Justoneman

Here Phage a place with some articles about Gore and his hubris on no ice.

An ice free Arctic is not exactly water world, and as I am sure you are aware, a loss of Arctic sea ice won't affect sea levels. But if you're interested in what Gore actually said instead of the out of context and misquotes, he quoted the results of various models.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Failed in logic and guilty of tainting the issue when you tied environment conservation to socialism.

Regardless if you believe in global warming, are you going to deny that we are responsible for the 120ppm+ and counting increase of CO2?

The AGW alarmists always demand coerced solutions by government, and therefore AGW alarmism is, almost by definition, socialist.

When your global climate and health of your civilization is on the line, "alarmism" is pretty damn appropriate. And Mother Nature cares naught for your preferred political ideology.

Your thinking is a great example of reverse causality, thinking of people first and physics second: "Oh those people are evil SOCIALISTS [they aren't], so they must be LYING [they aren't]".

Increased CO2 is also caused by increased temperature. Warmer temperatures cause more metabolic energy to be used for growth. When the organisms die and decay, increased CO2 is produced from the increased biomass enabled by the warmer ambient temperature.

And during the growing process the CO2 will be absorbed from the atmosphere into biological matter. Hence you'd expect a larger seasonal variation but no secular trend. You get a secular trend when there is a very long term sink or source outside the rapid biological cycle.

Given the natural warming since the little ice age, more CO2 in the environment is reasonable.
Assuming that all of the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels is not reasonable.

It isn't an assumption it's a measurement. And the warming hasn't (yet) been so significant to account for the huge increase in CO2 with any feed-forward mechanism. But if there is one, it means that it's going to start getting worse even faster.

Once again, do you really think you have figured something out that the people who do this for a living have forgotten about for 50 years or more?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So that is your argument....the world has been naturally warming since the ice age so naturally there is more CO2?

What about the spike of CO2 we have observed in the past 50 years?

Source

Deny ignorance!

The increased production of CO2 as a result of increased biomass matches the same time period as the graph.

That is, as the temperature increases so does natural biological production of CO2.

originally posted by: jrod


So that is your argument....the world has been naturally warming since the ice age so naturally there is more CO2?

What about the spike of CO2 we have observed in the past 50 years?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The increased production of CO2 as a result of increased biomass matches the same time period as the graph.

That is, as the temperature increases so does natural biological production of CO2.

Biological production of CO2 accounts for the increase of CO2?? Care to cite some sources on this theory of yours?

Do you think that a logical person will believe that CO2 has risen dramatically in a few hundred years as the result of biological production, or the industrial age where humans have pumped CO2 in the air as a by product of combustion?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Justoneman

Besides being guilty of forum sliding...that is flooding this thread with posts that contribute nothing to the issue, you are missing one big piece of the puzzle.

It is a fact that we are releasing tons and tons of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of using combustion of petro products to make energy...no disputing that. It is also a fact that CO2 levels are currently climbing fast.

It takes no leap of faith or magic intellectual trick to conclude that we are responsible for the quickly rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

You completely went off on a tangent about the nitrates, almost like a red herring argument. I have been to City Hall meetings where nitrates were banned because of the algae blooms. There were several professional speakers/lawyer types who argued the law was useless on behalf of the industries that fertilize people's lawns. They used little logic and a lot of emotion to make their point that the lawn fertilizer they sold was not a problem......A few of them even resorted to name calling. The law passed unanimously, where I come from we care about our fisheries and having a healthy ICW.

The arguments that you guys are trying to use to deny the human link between the industrial age and the rising CO2 levels are not much different.

So your going to cherry pick data and claim i am off base for answering phage's questions. As n environmental scientist in the field you would want to be aware of all the pollution not just the CO2 so i am stating what we look for when monitoring. AND i agree with all of you who say oil is bad for us in general to use. The point I made is the people who control oil revenues are not giving up and the people who want to tax carbon because they think it is bad are ignoring the alternative ideas that really work like the car that Dr. CLiff Ricketts built and made national news that would solve the problem of carbon. Someone powerful in our governments don't want oil to end as they are going to make money off of taxing us is a theme of my posts.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That is, as the temperature increases so does natural biological production of CO2.

Not really.
But how is it then, that the isotopic signature of CO2 indicates that the increase primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Here Phage a place with some articles about Gore and his hubris on no ice.

An ice free Arctic is not exactly water world, and as I am sure you are aware, a loss of Arctic sea ice won't affect sea levels. But if you're interested in what Gore actually said instead of the out of context and misquotes, he quoted the results of various models.
www.youtube.com...

So don't believe my lying ears? I say this because I heard it myself from his mouth. You can hear it for yourself and hear the scientist from the IPCC who agree with me..That is right, the scientist who are key authors of the data in the report and are from the IPCC cadre are in this movie stating why the conclusions are wrong in the IPCC's summary:


www.wnd.com...


I suggest all take time to see the movie " An Inconsistent truth" to see these real scientists in dispute of the data summary of their own data made by intentionally making false claims for whatever reason by the leaders of the IPCC such as Mann etc...It is there for all to see.

You will be truly disingenuous to yourself and the honest truth of the matter if you will not view this film. This film shows me there is smoke from a fire so to speak that is available for those willing to know and seek the truth as it is.

a reply to: Phage

Can you explain that? The istopic fingerprint of man's co2?

I believe you are talking about the 13c/12c ratio of 2 of 3 likely carbon isotopes, no?

a reply to: bbracken677

Can you explain that? The istopic fingerprint of man's co2?

Seems that you know what I'm talking about already.

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: jrod


So that is your argument....the world has been naturally warming since the ice age so naturally there is more CO2?

What about the spike of CO2 we have observed in the past 50 years?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The increased production of CO2 as a result of increased biomass matches the same time period as the graph.

That is, as the temperature increases so does natural biological production of CO2.

Biological production of CO2 accounts for the increase of CO2??

Care to cite some sources on this theory of yours?

Do you think that a logical person will believe that CO2 has risen dramatically in a few hundred years as the result of biological production, or the industrial age where humans have pumped CO2 in the air as a by product of combustion?

J,

I disagree that CO2 is a problem but not the long chain hydrocarbons as Phage noted. Mostly, long chain hydrocarbon is mute with our catalytic converters and ozone has all but disappeared in the USA. I will agree with you that we are doing real harm burning this fuel. You have a good point, but the real problem is exacerbated by the fact we all know oil burning is doing something bad which is an opening for the manipulators of mankind. That knowledge is the crack the crooks are using to open the door to riches while literally suppressing the ideas like hydrogen car that uses solar panels to split water molecules. They can control us if we have to buy their gas and use their coal. But not so much when we can pull up to a pond and get 10 gallons of water or live off grid. What's more i say it is obvious they are afraid of freedom by us from them if you care to reason why things are as we see them today in the media.