CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:48 am
 


[


Last edited by Lemmy on Mon May 01, 2017 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:29 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Well originally the deniers said it wasn't warming up. Then they said it was warming up, but people weren't causing it. Now they are saying, yes, it's warming p and people are contributing, but it won't be catastrophic. At least they are coming along.

I don't know if it will be catastrophic or not, but it is already having significant impacts.

They're right, it won't be catastrophic. Because we're taking steps now so that it won't.


Oh really, great poopah of the Warmist faith. What steps are those? Happy to hear you're having such success with some battle against some catastrophe happening only in your imagination though.

And Zip I've been telling you for at least 9 years what you're claiming about what skeptics believe or have believed is bullshit. The guys I've always read or listened to don't say that. They never have. Some wacky outliers might, but never the general population of AGW skeptics. Shall I get you that old Oregon petition to prove it to you...again.

I do deny the lie of your claim though, so on that you can call me denier.

Another thing we've always denied is the Reverend Al Gore's eschatological preachings of the coming global warming apocalypse. And not even you can deny the truth of that denial.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:12 pm
 


In fact do you remember years and years ago, Zip, I used to direct you to this YouTube video where the guy would show how Negative feedbacks were like a marble in a bowl going round and round, diminishing in speed until the point it is inert, but positive feedbacks are like turning the bowl upside down?

That guy was fairly well known in the skeptic community and his point was "Climate Sensitivity" - which is where that illustration leads - is what the skeptic argument keys on.

Any warming is unlikely to reach the point of catastrophe because it would require positive feedback, and there is no evidence that is going to happen.

I can't find that video, but here's the beginning of the chapter talking about that.

From 2007:

$1:
Climate Sensitivity
and the Role of Positive Feedbacks


As discussed earlier, climate sensitivity generally refers to the expected
reaction of global temperatures to a arbitrary change in atmospheric CO2
concentration. In normal usage, it is usually stated as degrees Celsius
of global warming from a doubling in CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial
levels (approx 280 ppm to 560 ppm). The IPCC and most AGW supporters put
this number at about 3.5 to 4.0 degrees C.

But wait "“ earlier I said the number was probably more like 1.0C, and that
it was a diminishing return. Why the difference? Well, it has to do
with something called feedback effects.


http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2 ... compu.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:20 pm
 


And just in case you don't get what that means, and still think skeptics never understood about the warming here's a bit from the introduction of that paper.

From 2007

$1:
We know the temperature of the Earth has increased over the
last half of the 19th century and most of the 20th
century as the world has exited a particularly cold period called the Little
Ice Age. One of the odd coincidences that colors our judgment about
climate trends is that man began systematically measuring temperatures in the
early to mid-nineteenth century just as the world was beginning to exit what
was perhaps the coldest period of the last millennia. Throughout their
study of climate trends, scientists have to try to parse warming that is a
natural result of exiting this cyclical cold period from warming that is
perhaps due to man's influence.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:31 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
They're right, it won't be catastrophic. Because we're taking steps now so that it won't.


The world's total CO2 emissions are still on the rise because the piddly amount that Canada saves by not burning Canadian coal is completely negated by China's burning Canadian coal. :idea:

Like I've long said: If Canada is serious about stopping carbon emissions then stop exporting coal and oil to everyone else. :idea: :idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:21 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
And Zip I've been telling you for at least 9 years what you're claiming about what skeptics believe or have believed is bullshit. The guys I've always read or listened to don't say that. They never have. Some wacky outliers might, but never the general population of AGW skeptics. Shall I get you that old Oregon petition to prove it to you...again.

I do deny the lie of your claim though, so on that you can call me denier.

Another thing we've always denied is the Reverend Al Gore's eschatological preachings of the coming global warming apocalypse. And not even you can deny the truth of that denial.


Oh it's all revisionism, Fiddle. It's like trying to find the guy that backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq by 2008. It was massively backed in 2003 and by 2008 nobody would admit it. Same with the denier crowd. They got a lot of steam from Climategate and urban heat islands and "no global warming for the last ten years" but then the slow weight of evidence just kind of buried them and they were forced to admit the blindingly obvious. Now they are trying to cover their tracks with milquetoast acknowledgements that they never denied AGW. But you can tell when you read the quotes of the so-called skeptics over the last ten or twenty years; the slow change in the timbre.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:30 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Oh it's all revisionism, Fiddle. It's like trying to find the guy that backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq by 2008. It was massively backed in 2003 and by 2008 nobody would admit it. Same with the denier crowd. They got a lot of steam from Climategate and urban heat islands and "no global warming for the last ten years" but then the slow weight of evidence just kind of buried them and they were forced to admit the blindingly obvious. Now they are trying to cover their tracks with milquetoast acknowledgements that they never denied AGW. But you can tell when you read the quotes of the so-called skeptics over the last ten or twenty years; the slow change in the timbre.


I've consistently said that we're at the end of an ice age and that it should be expected that glaciers would disappear as they have been observed disappearing for years.

The information is right there for the world to see...you just have to acknowledge that you're seeing it.

Image

The glaciers in Glacier Bay have been observed retreating for the past 224 years but for some reason we're supposed to blame carbon for the last 150 years of the retreat even though it wasn't to blame for the first 74 years of observed recession.

That first 74 years of recession must have been cow farts causing it. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:59 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Oh it's all revisionism, Fiddle. It's like trying to find the guy that backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq by 2008. It was massively backed in 2003 and by 2008 nobody would admit it. Same with the denier crowd. They got a lot of steam from Climategate and urban heat islands and "no global warming for the last ten years" but then the slow weight of evidence just kind of buried them and they were forced to admit the blindingly obvious. Now they are trying to cover their tracks with milquetoast acknowledgements that they never denied AGW. But you can tell when you read the quotes of the so-called skeptics over the last ten or twenty years; the slow change in the timbre.


Nonsense. The Chicken little, globull warmists, in their white robes bowing to the fattened Al and lamenting the coming End Days of melting polar bears and flooded cities where nobody will remember snow are becoming a joke. Few even care anymore. Al's new movie will flop.

And the skeptic's message will remain as it's always been. Warmageddon is not coming.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:41 pm
 


'


Last edited by Lemmy on Mon May 01, 2017 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:46 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I've consistently said that we're at the end of an ice age and that it should be expected that glaciers would disappear as they have been observed disappearing for years.

Yeah, but you have no expertise to make that claim. It's speculation. It's a perfectly logical theory which makes it easy for you to reconcile in your head. But it's still incorrect.


Then prove me wrong.

This is easily done by demonstrating to me that glaciers around the world only started retreating with the start of the Industrial Age. This would be circa 1850.

:idea:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:59 pm
 


l:


Last edited by Lemmy on Mon May 01, 2017 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 473
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:57 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Then prove me wrong.

This is easily done by demonstrating to me that glaciers around the world only started retreating with the start of the Industrial Age. This would be circa 1850.

:idea:


I can't disprove you because I'm not an expert.


Yet you're "expert" enough to label all who don't buy into your UN sponsored models as "deniers". Did you know these models exclude the strength of the sun and water vapour (a much larger green house gas than CO2) from their calculations. Myself I'm much more worried about the sun going into a dormant cycle.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:27 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
.And the Industrial Age started a little earlier...1820 is my date. On that I am an expert. :lol:


Really? Well, I imagine such an expert as yourself would realize if you're talking about industry in relation to greenhouse gas emissions for that period you're talking about coal use.

Can you search around in the papers under your Nobel prizes and tell us what your info is for that?

Because I seem to remember hearing stuff like how around 1830 Britain was only outputting the amount of coal annually they'd output for just 5 weeks in the 20th century. Or something like that.

And isn't it true that it wasn't until the 1880s that coal was first used to generate electricity for homes and factories?

So isn't Bart's estimate of around 1850 when the emissions of the industrial age began to have an effect being kind of generous?

And I'm not sure what you two are arguing about concerning glaciers. I thought Bart's actual point was he'd always recognized warming. He just considered it more a case of natural causes and used his glacier hypothesis as an example. Wouldn't Bart be the expert on what he believed "Professor," or are you prepared to produce some sort of superior scholarship on the subject?

Best guess is the debate has been diverted into something about whether or not glacial melt in this inter-glacial period is somehow special though. The "Professor" seems to want to see some science. Here ya go. Here's a guy who collected some links to scientific papers on the subject.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query 'current interglacial any different'

This one from the same guy is interesting too:

New paper finds glaciers have been melting naturally at the same rate since 1850, no acceleration predicted


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:35 pm
 


The more interesting thing about the date 1850 is it's the one generally offered for an estimate of the end of the little ice age.

So if the argument is industrial emissions versus natural trends that's the juncture that's generally offered.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:12 am
 


The issue isn't the change in glaciers in the rate of change. All this CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye, on a geological timescale.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 156 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 11  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.