Colrom Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 (edited) Taks, Perhaps you are more interested in attacking Al Gore than you are in discussing global warming. By the way, I read your scientist's letter, I find it difficult to trust what a scientist says when that scientist claims that scientists can't be trusted in what they say. Since people generally tell you who they are I conclude that he is telling us that he can't be trusted. Considering the unscientific and gratuitously derogatory nature of his letter this makes complete sense. He seems to be a political hak but I would need to do more research on him to know for sure - and frankly he isn't worth the effort. Edited May 30, 2006 by Colrom As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) Perhaps you are more interested in attacking Al Gore than you are in discussing global warming. not sure where you'd get that. you post that you think al's presentation is impressive, yet you fail to mention everything that he leaves out. not very impressive. By the way, I read your scientist's letter, I find it difficult to trust what a scientist says when that scientist claims that scientists can't be trusted in what they say. uh, you were the one asking for dissent. i gave you dissent. do you often run in circles thusly? Since people generally tell you who they are I conclude that he is telling us that he can't be trusted. no, he's telling us that those claiming "consensus" cannot be trusted. Considering the unscientific and gratuitously derogatory nature of his letter this makes complete sense. deragotory? how so? and didn't al make attacks on republicans, and bush, in his "impressive" slide show? hypocrisy. He seems to be a political hak but I would need to do more research on him to know for sure - and frankly he isn't worth the effort. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you dismiss others for making ad-hominem attacks (incorrectly, btw) then make several yourself. you're a hypocrite if anything. oh, and he's a "political hak" that used to be senior scientist of climate studies at the NASA marshall space flight center (read his biography here). and not once did he issue any ad-hominems such as you have done. pot.kettle.black. if you're so interested in discussing the science, why not try discussing it rather than digging into political motives. taks Edited May 31, 2006 by taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 no, he's telling us that those claiming "consensus" cannot be trusted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oops, he's telling us that those claiming alarmism cannot be trusted. he's not claiming any alarmism, but rational, scientific analysis of the data. big difference. oh, and your pal al is on record saying there's nothing wrong with exaggerating claims in order to garner attention. in other words, it's ok to lie when he thinks the cause is right. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 That means that 70% is actually IR radiation being emitted mostly by the atmosphere (since according to taks, only 25% gets through). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> uh, no. alanschu said 75% absorption, i was just using his number. oh, and alanschu, back a few posts you said "what?" regarding "either it is all absorbed or not" (er, similar)... my point is this, if CO2 is currently only absorbing 75% of the energy it can absorb, then the only other place that energy can be going is back into space, which was my original "space, the final frontier" comment was regarding. however, in other places you have implied that it is not radiated back out into space, which would mean the energy gets trapped in our atmosphere, which means 100% absorption, not 75% (atmosphere = earth for purposes of discussing the warming of the atmosphere! ). an apparent contradiction. either way, if CO2 is at 100%, as the latter case would imply, then adding more CO2 won't trap more heat, as it is already at saturation! also, you keep getting hung up on "heat" or pure "energy" affecting the system. anything in inter-stellar space that collides with the earth, be it particle, radiation (any wavelength) or even just simple asteroids imparts energy to the planet. still moot, as it is only a bit player as i've noted, but an impact nonetheless. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Wow, you've been following up? uh, no. alanschu said 75% absorption, i was just using his number.My bad. At any rate, if the percentage is even slower, that only reinforces what I was saying. my point is this, if CO2 is currently only absorbing 75% of the energy it can absorb, then the only other place that energy can be going is back into space, which was my original "space, the final frontier" comment was regarding. however, in other places you have implied that it is not radiated back out into space, which would mean the energy gets trapped in our atmosphere, which means 100% absorption, not 75% (atmosphere = earth for purposes of discussing the warming of the atmosphere! ). an apparent contradiction. either way, if CO2 is at 100%, as the latter case would imply, then adding more CO2 won't trap more heat, as it is already at saturation!No. The surface and the atmosphere are different parts of the system, as the surface also can hold heat and therefore emits radiation as well. See Mercury. Also, IR radiations don't get "trapped" in the atmosphere. They are radiated from the surface, and a part of that of that is absorbed by greenhouse gases, water evaporation processes, and convection. Of that heat now present in the atmosphere, a part is radiated into space, and another part is reradiated back to the surface, which in turn absorbs it, starting the process all over again. I don't have figures for the exact proportions, but you seem to be better at finding those than I am. I agree, however, with your previous speculation that CO2 would make the atmosphere unbreathable before any significant (and potentially catastrophic) increase of temperature took place. also, you keep getting hung up on "heat" or pure "energy" affecting the system. anything in inter-stellar space that collides with the earth, be it particle, radiation (any wavelength) or even just simple asteroids imparts energy to the planet. still moot, as it is only a bit player as i've noted, but an impact nonetheless.No. That's negligible. Background radiation, solar wind, and even (non-cataclysmic) object impacts are insignificant as a means of delivering a significant amount of energy at a planetary scale. Consider Pluto, for instance, which is far enough from the Sun to receive substantially less direct radiation than the inner planets do. It's a frozen rock. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I blame pr0n for global warming. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Wow, you've been following up? when i have a chance. i was actually busy at work yesterday (just got in today) so i didn't have time to post anything. No. The surface and the atmosphere are different parts of the system, as the surface also can hold heat and therefore emits radiation as well. i know this, but my point is that we're discussing the atmosphere warming. therefore, any heat that gets trapped, fully, in the atmosphere will contribute to the warming effect. if ALL of the heat that CO2 can trap gets trapped, then adding more CO2 won't do anything. this is where the logarithmic analogy came from, btw. Also, IR radiations don't get "trapped" in the atmosphere. They are radiated from the surface, and a part of that of that is absorbed by greenhouse gases, water evaporation processes, and convection. Of that heat now present in the atmosphere, a part is radiated into space, and another part is reradiated back to the surface, which in turn absorbs it, starting the process all over again. I don't have figures for the exact proportions, but you seem to be better at finding those than I am. i think the junkscience page links to better discussions on the precise numbers. again, my point is that the 75% number represents 75% being fully trapped, and 25% escaping to space. if it was 100% being trapped, then CO2 wouldn't be a player anymore. I agree, however, with your previous speculation that CO2 would make the atmosphere unbreathable before any significant (and potentially catastrophic) increase of temperature took place. 5-6% is the toxicity level from what i've read. No. That's negligible. Background radiation, solar wind, and even (non-cataclysmic) object impacts are insignificant as a means of delivering a significant amount of energy at a planetary scale.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> oh, i realize this and i've said as much but in not so many words. bit player at best, even less than any internal bit-player forcings. HOWEVER, this is a big however, there are cycles that are MUCH longer than the standard earth wobbling on the axis induced cycles (ice ages). what causes these large cycles? our position in the galaxy? maybe gravitational shifts influencing the sun? or maybe the sun, by its own little lonesome just has some very long cycles. i think the latter was really more what i was driving at though i wanted to clarify to alanschu that i was not referring specifically to heat, i.e. there are other methods of imparting energy to the planet. it is interesting to look at plots of solar activity over the years, btw. there are 11 year cycles of peaks, but those peaks cycle in magnitude about 20 times or so. sort of a christmas tree effect. and those cycles also seem to cycle. and it all happens in lock-step with past CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. very telling, but oft ignored by alarmist science. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 pirate pr0n. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Taks, I've been a Principal Scientist/Physicist. I know how little it means. As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Dr Spencer writes, "You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?" This certainly seems to be an argument that since scientists have been wrong in the past we cannot "trust" (Dr. Spencer's word) them in the present. How is one to interpret that statement in light of the use of the word "trust"? I took a dim view of the anti-scientific and anti-Gore tone of the statement. What does this man accomplish from such nonsense? It seems unlikely that he will be cited by scientists for this contention. He may be cited by politicians. This is what I think he hopes to accomplish. Of course the fact that he posts his letter is further evidence of that intent. Taks, you say, "oh, and your pal al is on record saying there's nothing wrong with exaggerating claims in order to garner attention. in other words, it's ok to lie when he thinks the cause is right." Please document this. I suspect it refers to Gore's overstatement of his role in furthering the internet - which he did further. But are you expanding his explanation beyond what he actually said in such a way as to present the most damaging image (of Gore - but it can rebound on you also). Oh, by the way, Al Gore is not my friend. Like Dr. Spencer you seem to make snearing use of assertions of friendship. But in this case you understate my attitude while no doubt overstating Gores. Al Gore is one of my heroes. As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Taks, I don't remember Al Gore making any attacks on Republicans in his slide show. What are you talking about? Have you actually seen the slide show yourself? As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Here's another reference and interview: Dr. Hurrell is co-author of the paper, "Decadal atmosphere-ocean variations in the Pacific," (Climate Dynamics 9 [6]: 303-19, March 1994). This paper has over 365 citations in ISI Essential Science Indicators Web product. Dr. Hurrell As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 This certainly seems to be an argument that since scientists have been wrong in the past we cannot "trust" (Dr. Spencer's word) them in the present. uh, he quite clearly said "doom and gloom" or weren't you paying attention? doom and gloom is the "alarmism" i was speaking of. he said don't trust such alarmists. rant in other words, you don't have any real additions to this thread other than nit-picking at wordplay. if you think you have some scientific basis for "consensus" and/or maybe "it's settled", please post, otherwise... please get off your high horse and leave the rest of us interested in discussing science alone. for someone that used to be a "principal scientist/physicist" you seem awful willing to just accept what the media claims. in my world, a scientists ears perk up the minute someone says "it's settled" or there's a "consensus." that's how science works. nearly 100 years on and we're still testing the heck out of relativity. science is, by definition, in a perpetual state of "unsettled." taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Relax and listen to this: http://www.cartoonbank.com/newyorker/slide...0913algore.html As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Scientists do believe in challenging and testing ideas. But they also believe in understanding and building on the ideas of others. You have to be willing to learn from old work and appreciate it in order to do new work. The way in which most folks approach Einstein's theories certainly gives a good example. Challenging old work also involves dealing in specifics. Dr. Spenser and your reference to unspecified gloom and doom predictions of scientists is empty politics. It cannot be challenged on any other grounds than politics because it contains no specifics, no citations, no names, no dates - only Al Gore, who is not a scientist and doesn't claim to be one - although as an amateur he does it better than some who claim to be professional. I gave you highly cited references. Don't you want to discuss those? As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colrom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I read the article by McIntyre and McKitrick criticizing the methods of Principal Component Analysis used by Mann et al. Here is the response by Mann Bradley and Hughes which actually touches on some of the issues regarding the scientific method which we are discussing here. The literature references are imbedded in the response so I am not giving them separately here. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann...aperProblem.pdf As dark is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good. If you would destroy evil, do good. Evil cannot be perfected. Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Illuminator Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) I don't believe even that ozone layer shall remin same after 20 years.shall get beigger and beigger that ppl shall start to wear special clothes to be protected by sun or shall need to build filterer vaults over cities(teh rich capitalist countries r able to do it as poor ones shall start to live in caves all day) to be protected from sun.however if patrol companies stop to threaten teh genious science men w death, than harmless sun dependent, alcohol dependent or even water depended trucks may be built and we can feel safer wo a threat of a serious skin cancer.oh those brutal capitalists not only making life harder not only for us, but also for themselves and their children Edited June 6, 2006 by Onur The Courageous The Illuminator Democracy starts with allowing different political opinions to express themselves. Fascism starts with killling all, who has different political opinions than yours. It's a pity for earth as it is full of fascists claiming to be democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 While I decided to ignore this thread for the most part, I just had to come back in to see what "he" had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 which "he" are you referring to? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Illuminator Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 which "he" are you referring to? taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> again a way above off-topic post having absolutly 'no' relation w 'this' subject. i think some ppl here dont know even teh definition of a troll as they 'always' consider a person as a troll every time he has 'different' or 'opposite' opinions w them.im curious about when this person shall be declared as satan or something who 'does not even uses nasty words' the ppl claiming him to be troll 'always' uses. pure prejudgement and fascism can be only definition for these ppl's ideology as they even 'cant stand' different opinions. im curious what would they say if that 'way above' civil satan they claim to be a troll was to call someone a 'horsef The Illuminator Democracy starts with allowing different political opinions to express themselves. Fascism starts with killling all, who has different political opinions than yours. It's a pity for earth as it is full of fascists claiming to be democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Have you even read the rest of the thread? Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaave Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I love this guy. Just because you're a bit thinner than your even fatter mum it doesn't mean you're in excellent physical shape, if you could fit through the door and view the normal people you'd notice that cheeseburger boy. Squid suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 ??? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Not you Darth Taks. Also, I'd wager that he didn't read the rest of the thread. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts