So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[Sceadwian]

Thunderchild, I'm kind of in your camp, pretty much everyone agrees universally that some kind of action is necesary, the action being taken however won't get the desired goals accomplished. I can't really see that taxing coal/oil is unfair though, as even if it's not the end of the world evil it still is a pollution source, why shouldn't the money come from there, as long as it actually went into someting beneficial not just more pork barrel spending. There is almost zero accountability in government spending, and even less checks and ballances to determin cost/benefit ratios for big ticket spending.

 

[kchriste]

kchriste, we do know the general global climate in the past before mans influence changed dramatically, which means we KNOW it can be changing now without any influence from man.

Oh so the science IS in then.
Can you post a link to credible scientific data, that you also trust, which shows the relation of global CO2, temperature, etc over time?

We do however know that at best we are an influence not the cause.

Do you have the scientific data to back this up? I'd like to see it.

 

[kchriste]

Personally, I think the Sun, in its self, has a lot more to do with our climate changes, than the greenhouse gasses.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar output since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last 32 years, where the temperature has been rising the fastest, the sun's output has not changed.

 

[killivolt]

I'm not sure if their talking about warming or the wobble effect the sun has on the earths rotation. I seen somewhere happen's about every 20.000 yrs or so I don't know when the next one is.

Causes climactic changes in the Sahara. Can either turn it into a Giant Lake or Dry it up in less than 100 yrs.

Edit: Don't know if this is it or not.

From Sea To Shining Sea: The Best Global Warming Discussion Ever

 

[Sceadwian]

kchriste, the raw data doesn't back anyone's view up concretely, so the onus isn't on me to prove anything as the only assertion I'm making is that we currently don't know what's going on because the environmental nuts can't provide scientifically correlatable data that specifically points to any of the broad conclusions that have been made by such nuts, they're just opinions. Ohh look at the graph it goes up! I must mean I'm right! It's 100% psychology, there is no science going on. Data is not science. It's the process of starting with a theory, collecting data, deriving statistically founded facts from said data and determining the next course of action. In the case of environmental science the jury is still out, we need a LOT more data from a LOT of different sources and more importantly from different an unaffiliated groups or we're never gonna learn anything.

The earth is not some little glass bowl we can study, it's the ENTIRE planet.

 

[Sceadwian]

kchriste, overall output of the sun isn't what effects the earth the most, it's solar flares which bend blow and mutilate the earths magnetic field and interact with the earths atmosphere so heavily it can cause the noble gasses in the upper atmosphere to fluoresce! We are currently in a VERY low period of sun flare cycles and we're still not sure how they overall effect the earths climate. Again it's just more data to collect and attempt to understand.

 

[kchriste]

From Sea To Shining Sea: The Best Global Warming Discussion Ever

LOL! Do you know what, "Vi er all Dansk nu." means? It means, "We are all Danish now." They have universal health care there you know. A very socialistic country by North American standards.
Quite a wacko right wing blog you found there!
BTW, Mason Wilson is retired engineer, not a climatologist. Being an expert in thermodynamics, maybe he helped perfect the steam engine?
The host of the blog is a computer specialist. Also a rabid right winger too.

 

[kchriste]

We are currently in a VERY low period of sun flare cycles and we're still not sure how they overall effect the earths climate. Again it's just more data to collect and attempt to understand.

Umm. Solar flares typically happen in a 11 year cycle. There has been plenty of study done on this and nothing to prove that they raise global temperatures. Probably because the solar flares are of such relatively short duration. They basically knock out the ionosphere which pisses off the hams using HF, wreak havoc with power grids, and make beautiful northern lights in Canada and Russia, etc.

 

[kchriste]

kchriste, the raw data doesn't back anyone's view up concretely, so the onus isn't on me to prove anything as the only assertion I'm making is that we currently don't know what's going on because the environmental nuts can't provide scientifically correlatable data that specifically points to any of the broad conclusions that have been made by such nuts, they're just opinions.

The onus IS on you when you make statements like this which are highlighted in bold for clarity:

kchriste, we do know the general global climate in the past before mans influence changed dramatically, which means we KNOW it can be changing now without any influence from man. Determing what our influences actually is in incredibly complex because all we know are the generalities not the specifics. We can't remove ourselves from the data anymore so there is no longer a control for scientific measurement of the difference of our influence to the same conditions without our influence. We do however know that at best we are an influence not the cause. There is far far too many/much natural C02 to blame it all on mans CO2 contribution. Even then that's only one tiny portion of the dynamics involved in our global climate and ecology.

It is especially important since you require that the "other side" backup their statements with scientifically provable facts. Again, I have highlighted your points in bold.:

kchriste, the point is the majority of the so called scientific community actually have NOTHING to do with science.. You can claim whatever you want, till it's proved on paper with pure data and no opinion you're preaching to the choir so to speak. No one cares what the vocal minority are saying.

Science stands on the numbers purely, correlations are REQUIRED, and opinion means nothing.

Let the numbers and correlations speak for themselves, you can't just keep stacking preposition ontop of preoposition and have the science be valid. It's a house of cards. Hard science is 'hard' for a reason it's not easy, and for something as complicated as our global envioronment it's not even possible within the human lifetime, to say anything else is ignorance of the science that is actually occuring, which at this stage of the game is nothing more than gathering of data.

 

[killivolt]

Umm. Solar flares typically happen in a 11 year cycle. There has been plenty of study done on this and nothing to prove that they raise global temperatures. Probably because the solar flares are of such relatively short duration. They basically knock out the ionosphere which pisses off the hams using HF, wreak havoc with power grids, and make beautiful northern lights in Canada and Russia,

Always wondered about stuff like that :? With a decrease in Ozone what effects if any are there on the earth? Core temp increase any or just influence atmosphere only.

 

[tcmtech]

Yesterday while I was in town I had the chance to talk a bit with an old associate I bumped into who knows nature better than most of us will ever know electronics and I got some of his opinions and understandings for what he had gathered from what he does and from the people in the know he works with (the ones who dont get paid to "find specific things".) and what they seem to think.
I figured he would beat me down for my stand on this subject but he rather surprised me with what he said.

Global climate change is bad unless you live in a place that is unaffected or improves from it.
CO2 is bad unless your a plant or use use plants in one or more levels of your food supply chain or live on this planet then it is absolutely essential in one way or another.
CO2 levels are rising everywhere that sensors calibrated to find rising CO2 levels have been placed. Everywhere else we just dont know and there is a lot of everywhere else. There are many things that will benefit from it, people may just not be one of them.
People are bad for the environment unless they are not doing something bad or are doing positive things that are beneficial to the environment.
Temperatures are rising everywhere that has not stayed the same or has cooled down.
Glaciers are melting everywhere that they are not staying the same or growing.
Those who scream the loudest about having proof usually have the least proof of all.
The people who want the most change usually want others to do the most work and sacrificing for it.
People that say they dont know probably have far more information and reasons to be unsure than the person who thinks they know. Well informed people usually have more questions than answers.
Anyone who has to take the environment out of the equation to make their environmental equation work or thinks that all things in nature can or must be classified as only good or bad is no scientist or honest and true naturalist. They probably have bad motives or are at least dangerously stupid.

He sees that most people are doing things within their personal capacity to try and make things better. But unfortunately many are in situations where they have no choice but to live the way they do. He feels that we do need to change our ways far more and become much more educated as to what our actions do affect but it will take time.

The climate changes for what ever reasons it needs to and most people will learn and adjust to it, some will gain and some wont. Its how life works.

Some day I may have to track him down and take him to dinner and pick his mind about what all he knows about this stuff as seen from a true environmentalist/conservationist/nature person.
As an old battle scarred hippie who has lived a life time of working first hand with the environment I take his wisdom and words far more seriously than anyone else's on these subjects. So far he didn't seem to be too overly worried. Its just more government politics and games as far as he is concerned. (Unless he is just getting soft in his old age.)

 

[killivolt]

Ok, I'll try again.

Climate Controls | Southwest Climate Change Network

 

[Sceadwian]

There has been plenty of study done on this and nothing to prove that they raise global temperatures.

Much like study of C02 levels in the atmosphere.

Probably because the solar flares are of such relatively short duration.

And what about their power? The sun is 92 million miles away, and a modest solar flare is able to nock out entire power grids.


kcrhiste, you posted random location based C02 concentration data as if it meant something. I have posted no data as I have nothing to prove except that no one else has posted ANY data that can be correlated to global climate change over a substantial period of time that is verifiable from ANY other independent source. I am not arguing for science based on the fact that I have supporting data. I am arguing for science based on the fact that the main opinion of environmentalists the world over is not in fact based on published correlative scientific data but on agenda which have NOTHING to do with science.

 

[BrownOut]

kchristy: Thanks for your excellent research and postings. Between all of the sites measuring CO2 concentrations and the satellite data and correlate, as well as the temperature rise which also correlates, the picture is clear; man made CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and temps are rising faster than any other time as a result. There are those who will never accept the published, correlated data, peer reviews, agreement between climate scientists, physicists, chemists, paleontologists and all the other dedicated scientists, who use all of man's accumulated scientific knowledge, instruments, methods, analysis and review to build our knowledge of climate and the effects of CO2 on global temperatures. That is, until we are all living in a barren Antarctica trying to eat the last few ice cubes, and then they will still try to deny it LOL! AS for me, I have looked at the evidence with an open mind, and have concluded that of all the ideas presented which might account for the rise in global temperatures, none correlate as well an man made CO2, and no other can be explained in terms of what we know about irradiance and thermo dynamics. The science is sound, well researched, well compiled and well correlated. Thanks for your dedication to science and your efforts to educate others, even those who refuse your attempts.

As far as some non-discript person who supposedly knows more about nature then we do about electronics, that’s probably not very likely. Some of us know a lot about electronics and nature.

 

[kchriste]

And what about their power? The sun is 92 million miles away, and a modest solar flare is able to nock out entire power grids.

Their peak power is very high , but their average is very low due to their very short duration. They do heat the upper atmosphere due to the high levels of X-rays and UV.

I am not arguing for science based on the fact that I have supporting data. I am arguing for science based on the fact that the main opinion of environmentalists the world over is not in fact based on published correlative scientific data but on agenda which have NOTHING to do with science.

You almost lost me here. Punctuation would have helped.
The same could be said for the skeptics who state that man made global warming is not real. Or that burning billions of barrels of oil a year has no effect on the planet and that we should just continue with "business as usual".

kchristy: Thanks for your excellent research and postings.

No problem. Hopefully, we have given others something to think about and ponder.

 

[tcmtech]

Well since Brownout and kchriste apparently have how the whole world works figured out now I think we all would like to here both persons scientific solutions to how we solve this problem and what exactly both are doing in their lives to counter this effect and how they fully contribute to the reduction efforts themselves!

Lead by example guys! Show us your real life efforts and convince us that your doing everything possible to make sure your carbon foot print is negative and that your helping clean up others messes as well!

What are you and your immediate family members driving?
What are you heating/cooling your homes with?
What are you getting your electricity from and how much do you use?
What are you eating and how do you get it?
How are you making sure all the non natural CO2 you do produce is fully locked away?
What local and community efforts are you undertaking to educate and inform your local populations with?
What are your overall cost outlays for all above efforts related to what you have done?

We will need exact numbers and creditable references as to how you got those numbers plus the realistic margins of error since you expected us to provide them for our arguments. Since your references for your side of the debate had no margin of error we expect that you use nothing less than that as your baseline tolerances.
However I think I can speak for the skeptics side and say we will even be a bit generous and give you a solid +- 10% margin of error to work with on all of your data as well being you dont have the exact scientific equipment test to the highest levels of precision and accuracy.

You have talked the talk now convince us your walking the walk so we can see how its really done by the true experts who know more about nature than most of us know about electronics!
We will be watching and checking those numbers very closely and all discrepancies will need to be accounted for as well!

 

[Sceadwian]

The also massivly distort/blow the earth magnetic field which dratsically effects the overall incoming cosmic and solar radiation, again nothing concrete to say there, but more data we have no idea what it's significance is.

Man could not have possible MADE global warming We could INFLUENCED it. I've said on multiple occasions that not only are we aware of what were doing but active non governmental action is constantly being taken by industry to lower energy usage because it's simply put better for buisness. If you look at the bulk majority of all eco friendly industrial companies they're coming to / came to terms with being what is largely considered 'good' for the environment is also good for buisness, because they've run the numbers, it's win win for them even if the eco nuts are wrong just from looking at the gain available from using less energy. That drive far more change in global industry does than the so called science of global warming.

 

[BrownOut]

Since your references for your side of the debate had no margin of error we expect that you use nothing less than that as your baseline tolerances.

When did we say there was no error? I shows some of the specs of the instruments being used, and show there was a +/- 1ppm in the measurement, which last time I took a math class, was not equal to zero! I think we've shown the errors are not too large to be not useful, as others have changed. But neither kchristy nor I ever made any statement as you're claiming. Once again, you're simply not being honest. Sorry, your propensity to be untruthful has not earned you the right to demand to know what I do. Next time you ask for an honest accounting, try to be honest yourself.

And BTW, I don't give a crap about what you think you need. If you want something from me, you will ask, politely.

 

[kchriste]

Lead by example guys! Show us your real life efforts and convince us that your doing everything possible to make sure your carbon foot print is negative and that your helping clean up others messes as well!

I'll answer some of those for you:

What are you and your immediate family members driving?
We have one 200x Honda Civic which mostly sits in the driveway because I walk to work and my wife is retired. I also have a truck and camper. I put apx 3600 miles on it a year. Definitely a luxury and not eco friendly. But you see, I'm not denying that it isn't.

What are you heating/cooling your homes with?
Mine is heated with natural gas. I have a programmable thermostat which lowers the temp by 10deg at night. No cooling required.

What are you getting your electricity from and how much do you use?
Socialist Hydro power which is pretty cheap, renewable, and clean:
"residential customers will pay 5.91 cents per kWh for the first 1,350 kWh they use over a two-month billing period. Above that amount, customers will pay 8.27 cents per kWh for the balance of the electricity used during the billing period."
We use less than $100 in a two month period. It varies by season though.

What are you eating and how do you get it?
Food. Store.

How are you making sure all the non natural CO2 you do produce is fully locked away?
I hold in my farts. I let them out when I visit the USA. I call it "cap and trade".

What local and community efforts are you undertaking to educate and inform your local populations with?
I'm still working on you guys!

What are your overall cost outlays for all above efforts related to what you have done?
Less than I earn as the only bread winner in the household. Debt is for losers!

And here is the major one:
I don't have any kids and I'm not planning on having any either.

 

[kchriste]

Ok, I'll try again.
Climate Controls | Southwest Climate Change Network

While it is true that irregularites in Earth's orbit has affected the climate, that was on a very long time scale of 100,000 to 400,000 years. The change we are seeing in the last 200 years is too quick for that.