No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

page: 25
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
My point is does the position of that line corespond to a precise measurment of temp, or is it going up,up,up,down,up,up,up,etc in an accumlative fashion? The reason for scrutiny is they never seem to explain what the actual temperature is 'wherever', which for me opens up a possibility that there's some sort of algorithmic process in the graph.


The data is assessed by complex statistical analysis, from many individual high resolution proxies (yearly or decadal) for each set of data. Different proxies may well use different statistical approaches, but they all aim to reconstruct temperature profiles over wide-ranging areas.

The data is compared against the average temperature for a period of the observable temperature. This provides an indication of whether the temperature over time is below that average, or above that average, and gives an indication of this trend for 1000 years. Thus, knowing what the average temperature is, calculating the actual indicated temperature at a particular time point, on a particular reconstruction is possible.

For example, if the the data is compared to an average temperature of 18'C (I'm just making these numbers up though), then a deviation of +0.5'C for a particular point, suggests it was 18.5'C.




posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
We have 2000 years of good CO2 data. From IPCC 4AR:




What's causing the Nitrous Oxide to increase with them? Is man also responsible for the Methane increases? I thought we burn Methane which creates CO2, and that we burn Nitrous in cars/whip cream/lungs that would then convert it to what?



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What's causing the Nitrous Oxide to increase with them? Is man also responsible for the Methane increases? I thought we burn Methane which creates CO2, and that we burn Nitrous in cars/whip cream/lungs that would then convert it to what?


Agriculture and industry account for the human-sourced N20, this is 13% of total emission (natural and anthropogenic), about 50% of methane is due to human activity (agriculture, landfills, natural gas etc).

But, like CO2, our activity is predominately responsible for increases (as is obvious from the data, whether it be directly or indirectly) as the natural biosphere has nitrogen and carbon cyles which show a fair level of stability for most of the 2000 year period until the industrial revolution.

ABE: although I should add that methane increases have began to level off. Could be due to various reasons (maybe wetland droughts, reduced industrial emissions etc).

[edit on 12-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Thanks. I checked into it some more but was unable to find a solid number about how much of it is absolutely being caused by humans.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Thanks. I checked into it some more but was unable to find a solid number about how much of it is absolutely being caused by humans.


heh, I'll keep saying this, but the IPCC report is probably the best place to get this stuff.

www.grida.no...

Just click on each GHG you're interested in.

And checking the numbers, it seems that anthropogenic N20 is actually about 45%, my bad.



[edit on 12-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by TheAvenger
…I am a scientist…


What is your academic discipline?


Chemistry. Thirty-five years experience. Unlike most here, I have actually tested for pollutants and atmospheric gases.



Originally posted by TheAvenger
… and a signer of the Oregon Petition…


Correct. Would sign it again.



[i
…disagrees with anthropogenic global warming…
State your case, then.


State yours. The burden of proof is with the believers. Why should I attempt to disprove something that does not exist? Prove to me IRREFUTABLY that man has caused "global warming" A CO2 chart will not impress me; I have seen them all. They are nonsense. The assumptions drawn from them are a crock. Bovine scatology.




But since you are a signatory of the Petition, the statement you agreed to was the following:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”…


Absolutely agree with it.

Further:

I am not interested in what some "believer" wrote to discredit the Oregon Petition. Anyway, this is about the lecture I posted, which you obviously did not watch, not the Oregon Petition itself. You will like the lecture, it has lots of the graphs and charts that you seem so fond of.



Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. .


I'd be happy to match my scientific knowledge and wits anytime. Global warming is not my religion like it is Al Gore's and....others.


Ahh...so we are 'believers' in a quasi-religeous 'cult' headed, no doubt, by Al Gore, huh?
Please....don't make me laugh. Every reputable enviromental scientist on the planet agrees global warming IS happening, and that it IS indeed man made for the most part.

You sir, are most likely in the pay of a large corporate paymaster (I'm guessing here either oil or the car industry) or the right wing think tank in Wahington (again sponsored by the oil industry most likely) that the inventors of the psuedo-science behind the so-called 'Oregan Petition' are members of.

If I were a scientists - no matter HOW much money was waved under my nose - I would catagorically NOT play games with the lives of everyone on this planet for short-term personal gain. It's very stupid and downright unethical!!

Jimbo999



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Muaddib
The oceans have absorbed much higher levels of CO2 and they are still working just fine...



Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened
Science Daily — Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

www.sciencedaily.com...

I don't know why you bother.


Experiments show that even a doubling of CO2 doe snot cause the wamring that melatonin and associates claim.


I see the intellectual honesty never lasted long...

Yeah, in the central US grasslands, but I don't happen to live in one, and neither do the vast majority of people. Climate sensitivity is of the order of 2-4.5'C globally.


This is the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in reference to the most important GHG which is water vapor, and you can also see the amount of other natural GHGs, which includes CO2 btw, according to the Kansas Geological survey group.


I've seen that graph before and we went through why it is very misleading.

CO2 can be attributed to about 40% of current warming. Removing CO2 from climate models shows CO2 accounts for 9-26% of the GE, Ramanathan & Croakley (1978) found a value of 12%.

It's not hard to work out a rough guide, we increased CO2 ca. 30% from pre-industrial levels. So 0.30 x 9 and 0.30 x 26 = between about 3% and 8% of the greenhouse effect is due to human sourced CO2.

3-8% is much bigger than 0.28%.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by melatonin]


Well said. I just wish we could stop arguing IF global warming is happening (everyone agrees it is), or if it's anthropomorphic (again all the experts in the field agree it IS), and start figuring out what can be done - and soon!! You are doing a great job my friend! - but it's time to get moving for us all...

Unfortunately, while the oil industry hold the reins of government in Washington - this is going to be tough going....but it has to happen people! Forget the nay-sayers and their oil-sponsored psudeo-science, as we really don't have the luxury to argue the point much longer.

Time to act folks.

Jimbo999

[edit on 14-6-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Co2 is IRRELEVENT. Why doesn't anyone speak about the DROUGHTS, the HONEYBEE CCD DISORDER, why hasn't anyone mentioned weather control. Why doesn't anyone know the effects of HAARP and why doesn't anyone have education on how oil reserves are detected? You are right, global warming is not man made.

THIS IS HOW THE WORLD RESETS ITSELF !

Get ready to pay 100$ for a bottle of water. Start becoming Vegetarians right now as well.


Then you'd better write yer congressman soon and get this so-called government to get their fingers out of their collective ass*s then, huh?

Yes, global warming IS man made. And you'll have far more than bees to worry about soon if we don't all start to ACT pal... Can YOU afford $100.00 for a bottle of water? Nope, didn't think so - me neither...


Jimbo999



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Muaddib
As you disregard Dr. Akasofu, and as you disregard anyone and everyone who disagrees with you...but you do agree with Al Gore, or disregard him, who is no scientist....


Not really, you see, with Dr Akasofu I listened to his statements on the swindle swindle, and decided there and then, that this guy was talking crap. For someone of his standing, I would expect better. Probably best he sticks to Aurora, because he seems to make a fool of himself out of his area of expertise.


Well said friend
Well said.....

1st blind man: 'what does an elephant feel like?'
2nd blind man 'soft, warm & wet I think.....also smells pretty damn bad too!'



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
............
Do you recall where that came from? That's important data if it's 100% true.


The Kansas geological Survey. That graph is part of a powerpoint presentation by a "real scientist" and not some "wannabes" who should stick to the RealClimate and Gore's websites where their "fake science" will be accepted by everyone.

For a real presentation and not the fake science those at "Fake climate" like to present.

ff.org...

You were asking about methane levels, and melatonin partially responded saying they have "somewhat leveled", well, in fact methane levels have been stable for the past 7-8 years, and scientists are dumbfounded as methane levels should be rising.

Methane is being released by mankind mainly from rice fields, which are the mayor anthropogenic source, and the amount of rice fields and other sources of methane have been increasing, to feed the growing population of Earth, which is the reason why scientists are scratching their heads as methane levels should be increasing. This shows scientists don't know as much about the atmosphere as some want you to believe.

Anyways, contrary to some people's claims, the most efficient heat trapping greenhouse gas is water vapor which retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 and exists in larger quantities in Earth's atmosphere.

It is also a known fact that during warming periods GHGs do increase naturally and as shown in experiements not even a doubling of CO2 will produce the warming claimed by Mann et al, but a change in the water vapor levels will increase significantly temperatures globally.

Up in the stratosphere an increase in water vapor levels induces to cooling, which is what is happening, and in the troposphere, which is where all the weather, storms, wind patterns, etc happen, an increase in water vapor and other GHG induces warming, which releases more of these GHG naturally which induce more warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere.


[edit on 15-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

State yours. The burden of proof is with the believers. Why should I attempt to disprove something that does not exist? Prove to me IRREFUTABLY that man has caused "global warming"



Man pumps oil from 4000 feet beneath the surface, violating the laws of striated-sedimented geological timespace.

When the fossil carbon reaches the surface; man lights it on fire in his engines and factories.

Once on fire, it burns.

1.5 MILLION BARRELS A DAY

BURN

Hot

Fire

TheAvenger, as you wrap your intelect around this alchemical process and intuit the likely outcome, do you not see how turning off the fire being fueled by 1,500,000,000 barrels a day would have some slight, small, tiny little effect on the regulation of "global warming"?

TheAvenger, alchemically minded as you are you recognize the need for balance between the four elements: earth, wind, fire, and water.

Perhaps if man was also pumping ice in from Mars, using machines that ran on water, at a rate of 1.5 million barrels per day, we could say that mans actions have a net neutral effect on global base temperature.

As this does not happen however, and there is no check/balance with regard to the 1.5 million barrels of crude PER DAY that we bring to the surface and BURN, it is my humble opinion that man does indeed IRREFUTABLY precipitate a warmer globe.

Now... that said, I am of the opinion that solar phenomenon are also complicit...

Nonetheless; man is at least a noteworthy conspirator

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Perhaps...

This winter when I chop logs and tote them to my hearth...

Feed them one by one into my wood stove...

I will attempt to meditate...

>>>>>There is no evidence that House Warming is manmade either



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The Kansas geological Survey. That graph is part of a powerpoint presentation by a "real scientist" and not some "wannabes" who should stick to the RealClimate and Gore's websites where their "fake science" will be accepted by everyone.



Record 1 of 20
Author(s): Gerhard, LC
Title: Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
Source: AAPG BULLETIN, 90 (3): 409-412 MAR 2006
Document Type: Editorial Material
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 2 of 20
Author(s): Gerhard, LC
Title: Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
Source: AAPG BULLETIN, 88 (9): 1211-1220 SEP 2004
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 3 of 20
Author(s): Gerhard, LC; Hanson, BM
Title: Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report
Source: AAPG BULLETIN, 84 (4): 466-471 APR 2000
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 4 of 20
Author(s): Gerhard, LC; Brady, LL
Title: Environmental geology: our professional public responsibility
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY, 37 (1-2): 1-8 JAN 1999
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0943-0105

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 5 of 20
Author(s): Berg, TM; Gerhard, LC; Haney, DC
Title: Topographic maps: What the nation needs
Source: GEOTIMES, 42 (10): 5-& OCT 1997
Document Type: Editorial Material
ISSN: 0016-8556

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 6 of 20
Author(s): Gerhard, LC
Title: Lee C. Gerhard - Honorary member - Response
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 81 (5): 829-829 MAY 1997
Document Type: Editorial Material
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 7 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES - A NEW ORGANIZATION FOR GEOLOGISTS WHO WORK IN AND CARE ABOUT THEIR ENVIRONMENT
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY, 26 (2): 136-137 SEP 1995
Document Type: Note
ISSN: 0177-5146

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 8 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: FRAMING POLICIES ON RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Source: GEOTIMES, 39 (5): 20-22 MAY 1994
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0016-8556

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 9 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: SOCIETY PRICE
Source: GEOTIMES, 38 (7): 4-4 JUL 1993
Document Type: Letter
ISSN: 0016-8556

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 10 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: THE PROFESSIONAL IMAGE - STUDENT, PROFESSOR, PRACTITIONER - EDITORIAL
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY AND WATER SCIENCES, 17 (2): 63-66 MAR-APR 1991
Document Type: Editorial Material
ISSN: 0177-5146

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 11 of 20
Author(s): BURKE, RB; GERHARD, LC
Title: REEFS, BIOHERMS, AND BANKS - A SEMANTIC AND GENETIC CONTINUUM
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 71 (5): 535-535 MAY 1987
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 12 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC; ANDERSON, SB; LEFEVER, J; CARLSON, CG
Title: GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENT, ORIGIN, AND ENERGY MINERAL-RESOURCES OF WILLISTON BASIN, NORTH-DAKOTA
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 69 (5): 848-849 1985
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 13 of 20
Author(s): ANDERSON, SB; GERHARD, LC; LEFEVER, J
Title: STRUCTURAL AND SEDIMENTOLOGIC HISTORY OF NESSON ANTICLINE
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 67 (8): 1329-1329 1983
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 14 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC; ANDERSON, SB; LEFEVER, JA; CARLSON, CG
Title: GEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, ORIGIN, AND ENERGY MINERAL-RESOURCES OF WILLISTON BASIN, NORTH-DAKOTA
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 66 (8): 989-1020 1982
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 15 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC; ANDERSON, SB; LEFEVER, JA; CARLSON, CG
Title: GEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, ORIGIN, AND ENERGY AND MINERAL-RESOURCES OF WILLISTON BASIN, NORTH-DAKOTA
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 66 (5): 571-571 1982
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 16 of 20
Author(s): SPEED, RC; GERHARD, LC; MCKEE, EH
Title: AGES OF DEPOSITION, DEFORMATION, AND INTRUSION OF CRETACEOUS ROCKS, EASTERN ST-CROIX, VIRGIN-ISLANDS
Source: GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN, 90 (7): 629-632 1979
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0016-7606

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 17 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC; FROST, SH; CURTH, PJ
Title: STRATIGRAPHY AND DEPOSITIONAL SETTING, KINGSHILL LIMESTONE, MIOCENE, ST-CROIX, UNITED-STATES VIRGIN-ISLANDS
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 62 (3): 403-418 1978
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 18 of 20
Author(s): PETTA, TJ; GERHARD, LC
Title: MARINE GRASS BANKS - POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR CARBONATE LENSES, TEPEE ZONE, PIERRE-SHALE (CRETACEOUS), COLORADO
Source: JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARY PETROLOGY, 47 (3): 1018-1026 1977
Document Type: Article
ISSN: 0022-4472

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 19 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: SEDIMENT FACIES OF SALT RIVER ESTUARY, ST-CROIX, USVI - MIXED CARBONATE AND CLASTIC DEPOSITS
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 60 (4): 674-674 1976
Document Type: Meeting Abstract
ISSN: 0149-1423

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Record 20 of 20
Author(s): GERHARD, LC
Title: REDESCRIPTION AND NEW NOMENCLATURE OF MANITOU FORMATION, COLORADO
Source: AAPG BULLETIN-AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS, 58 (7): 1397-1402 1974
Document Type: Note
ISSN: 0149-1423


12 references in AAPG journals, 1 in a petrology journal, 1 on 'framing', a handful about 'professional image', and some random stuff. Not one original piece of research on climate science.

Heh.

If this is a real scientist, may his noodly appendage help us all...



Originally posted by MuaddibYou were asking about methane levels, and melatonin partially responded saying they have "somewhat leveled", well, in fact methane levels have been stable for the past 7-8 years, and scientists are dumbfounded as methane levels should be rising.


Yeah, totally dumfounded...


Methane Mystery: Scientists Explain Why Atmospheric Levels Of Greenhouse Gas Have Stabilized
Science Daily — Scientists have explained why atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas methane have stabilised in recent years, but warn that increases could resume in the near future.

In research published in Nature this week, an international team of scientists -- including CSIRO researchers -- has shown that it was a decline in emissions of methane from human activities in the 1990s that resulted in the recent slower growth of methane in the global atmosphere.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Heh x 2

You can give me my one cookie now, cheers.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
1.5 million barrels

or should we say a grid pattern of barrels:

50,000 x 30,000

or should we say a land area covered by a grid of 50,000 x 30,000 barrels each occupying a 2 foot x 2 foot area

215 square miles (137,000 acres or 55,000 hectares)

The total land area of Chicago, USA

On fire

burning so hot, that by the end of the day it burns a full barrel depth

it burned like this yesterday

it burned like this today

it will burn like this tomorrow


Close your eyes and meditate:


every single day:

215 square miles; Chicago, USA; covered in tightly packed 55 gallon drums

ON FIRE, hot and burning, 24/7

fresh full drums to start off each new morning


This is what I see,

Sri Oracle

A little cyber Socrates: How many acres were burning in this manner in the year 1790?



[edit on 15-6-2007 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

12 references in AAPG journals, 1 in a petrology journal, 1 on 'framing', a handful about 'professional image', and some random stuff. Not one original piece of research on climate science.

Heh.

If this is a real scientist, may his noodly appendage help us all...


Wow.... regenmacher at work again....

Let's see, you have posted the "opinion" of an "engineer" who just pursues Climate Science as a hobby, yet you claim "his statement matters", yet the statements of others who have the same degree does not matter, and even the statements and research from certain Climate Scientists does not count either according to your claims ...

You post links from "Fake Climate"...i mean what you Mann et al call Real Climate, where Mann is a director, the same Mann which has tried to bury the RWP, the MWP and the LIA, the same Mann who was a physicist, until he decided to change mayors and started studying Geology and Geophysics for his PhD, yet his PhD dissertation has been proven to be wrong, and has been discredited by other scientists, except of course Mann et al, yet when a Geophysicist such as Dr. Akasofu who has been studying the same field for decades, and who is one of those people who discredits Mann's data and claims, yet you claim "Akasofu doesn't know enough about Climate Change", even though in the last 9 years he was director of the International Antarctic Research Center in Alaska studying Climate Change...

After all of this you still try to discredit people because of who they work for?...

I guess alll "environmentalists' should be discredited then since they all have some ulterior motive"....


As Regenmacher you have done exactly the same thing many times in the past. Every scientist who disagrees with you, and your idols Mann et al, you claim "those are not scientists", or they all have some ulterior motive, yet when your idols have been shown to be nothing more than hoaxters, you defend them to the end...



Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, totally dumfounded...


Oh yeah sure, I forgot, for over 7 years the Chinese and others have not been growing rice fields and they have been in a fast which has lasted..... 7+ years.... Who knew?....

and you expect people to believe that?...




Originally posted by melatonin
Heh x 2

You can give me my one cookie now, cheers.


What? you want me to "spew more of that evil CO2 in the atmosphere by making cookies"?.....


[edit on 18-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
After all of this you still try to discredit people because of who they work for?...


No, I'm saying your comment was ridiculous.

If Gerhard is a real scientist (c.f. wannabes etc), then science is in real trouble.

He's done very little of note. 20 publications of all kinds in 30 odd years of career, the vast majority not even original research.

If that is your idea of a real scientist, then I assume you have little idea of what is expected of one.

And like a real scientist, if Akasofu thinks he has anything of worth he will put it up his claims for peer-review in a reputable journal. But I won't hold my breath.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: although I should add that methane increases have began to level off. Could be due to various reasons (maybe wetland droughts, reduced industrial emissions etc).


While it is rather suprising and unknown why methane is leveling off somewhat, I wouldn't take bets on the Methane staying level if the current temp trends continue.

If the Permafrost in Siberia and Canada continues to thaw more and more, it will release one of the greatest sinks of methane in the world. Of course in the long run the coniferous forests on those same areas will start to expand which is a good thing.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

No, I'm saying your comment was ridiculous.
...................


Oh so he is not scientist you claim?

You claim the same thing everytime, from Dr. Akasofu, to every other scientist who disagrees with you Mann et al.

The fact of the matter is that there is not one scientific fact which backs your claims that "mankind is responsible or helping accelerate Climate Change/Global Warming".

A ridiculous comment is to claim that CO2 is far more detrimental to the climate than water vapor, even though it is known that all the warming which happens in the surface of the Earth is being caused in the troposphere, and water vapor is responsible for at least 95% of the warming which happens in the troposphere...

A ridiculous comment is to claim that Dr. Akasofu's statements have no relevance on the discussion of Climate Change when in the last 9 years he has been the director of the International Arctic Research Center in alaska, studying Climate Change...

A ridiculous comment is to claim that mankind has more influence on the global climate than all the natural factors which have been causing Climate Change for over 4.2 to 4.5 billion years on Earth...



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh so he is not scientist you claim?


That is far from related to your original claim, and is not the context which I was criticising, stop moving goalposts - your claim was that Gerhard et al. (the KGS dudes) are real scientists, not wannabes like those on realclimate.

That is a ridiculous claim.

For example, Gerhard has published 20 items of various sorts in 33 years, the vast majority not peer-reviewed original research, most published in a society journal - that for the petroleum geologists.

Whereas, if we take one of the realclimate dudes, for example, Gavin Schmidt, he has published more peer-review original research in one year than Gerhard has in his entire life. And I'm sure a similar finding would be obvious for many of the other realclimate researchers.

Therefore, your claim was ridiculous by any measure.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

That is far from related to your original claim, and is not the context which I was criticising, stop moving goalposts - your claim was that Gerhard et al. (the KGS dudes) are real scientists, not wannabes like those on realclimate.

That is a ridiculous claim.


Not when Mann's dissertation for his PhD has been proven to be a fraud, or at the very least wrong, and Mann et al in that website you like to link so much to keep trying to give credence to the dead Hockey Stick Graph... Not to mention the fact that at the "fake Climate, i mean, what you, Mann et al call Real... *BS*...Climate website they kiss ass with Gore constantly, going as far as claiming Gore's "inconvinient lie" is some sort of educational docu-lie-mentary....





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join