1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    04 Mar '15 11:37
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html#firstCmt

    It's out of the labs and into the real world now for the first time, showing CO2 increasing heat in the atmosphere.
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    04 Mar '15 12:342 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html#firstCmt

    It's out of the labs and into the real world now for the first time, showing CO2 increasing heat in the atmosphere.
    Yet more evidence for the denialists to deny.

    Basic physics and laboratory measurements have long shown that CO2 absorbs some infrared and basic physics tells us it should significantly warm the planet thus it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't!
    Knowing that alone should be enough to convince any rational mind that C02 global warming is pretty much scientific fact.
    But denialists irrationally make out either we 'don't know' CO2 warming or, worse, it is a lie. Now the best direct measurement to date (as far as I am aware ) of CO2 warming in the real world outside the lab has come to light -no doubt, as always, they will just continue to deny.
  3. Aylesbury
    Joined
    08 Nov '14
    Moves
    45951
    04 Mar '15 13:29
    Originally posted by humy
    Yet more evidence for the denialists to deny.

    .....they will just continue to deny.
    Surely, this is more 'evidence' to convince the believers to believe.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    04 Mar '15 13:30
    Originally posted by humy
    Yet more evidence for the denialists to deny.

    Basic physics and laboratory measurements have long shown that CO2 absorbs some infrared and basic physics tells us it should significantly warm the planet thus it would be a huge scientific mystery if it didn't!
    Knowing that alone should be enough to convince any rational mind that C02 global warming is ...[text shortened]... l world outside the lab has come to light -no doubt, as always, they will just continue to deny.
    A lot of them deny because of vested interest in CO2 producing industries. Some deny because of religion. (Mankind too insignificant to ever effect climate)
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    04 Mar '15 17:28
    Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
    Surely, this is more 'evidence' to convince the believers to believe.
    Naturally, however since it is always true of any proposition that new evidence confirms the belief of those who already believe the proposition, I don't think that your point adds anything. A better question is is it convincing to those who are undecided? Unless you can point to some methodological flaw I don't see that you have a real objection.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13457
    04 Mar '15 22:53
    We know CO2 causes warming. We also know that warming causes CO2 to increase. Well...at least those that are not mislead by skeptical science's denial of that fact anyway. Google "Vostok Ice Cores". Here is another Singer quote:

    "They go up and down together.

    Well, you certainly find an association between carbon dioxide changes and temperature changes. Now, scientists have been very careful to just call it an association without identifying which is the cause and which is the effect. Politicians have been less careful. In fact, our Vice President, Al Gore, has a standard presentation where he shows the results of the Antarctic ice core (called the Vostok core), and you see changes in temperature and changes in carbon dioxide. And he points to this and says, "You see? These carbon dioxide changes caused a temperature increase in the past."

    Well, it's not so. In fact, in early 1999, there was a paper in Science in which they have now gotten adequate resolution so they can measure which came first, the temperature change or the carbon dioxide change. And guess what? The temperature change came first, followed by the carbon dioxide change about 600 years later. This means that something changed the temperature, not the carbon dioxide. But then as the climate warmed, more carbon dioxide apparently was released from the ocean into the atmosphere."

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

    This next link claims it was less than 200 years CO2 lag. It is still a lag though.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

    Here is an excerpt from the link above:
    “The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?''

    Don't be a denier like skeptical science. Skeptical Science lies and says there is no CO2 lag at all! Who is the true denier?
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '15 00:106 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    We know CO2 causes warming. We also know that warming causes CO2 to increase. Well...at least those that are not mislead by skeptical science's denial of that fact anyway. Google "Vostok Ice Cores". Here is another Singer quote:

    "They go up and down together.

    Well, you certainly find an association between carbon dioxide changes and temperature cha ...[text shortened]... cal science. Skeptical Science lies and says there is no CO2 lag at all! Who is the true denier?
    Ice core data combined with other data indicates that, while CO2 doesn't usually initialize the start of each of the past short-term warming trends, it amplified each past short-term warming trend after each initialization. The reason for this was because natural warming from other causes in the past initialized each short-term warming trend which then warmed the oceans which made C02 less soluble in the water thus causing some of the C02 to be defused out of the oceans into the atmosphere which then amplified the warming (what is called positive feedback ). Thus CO2 is still correctly said to be shown by the data to be one of the “causes” of global warming that happened in the past even if it generally wasn't what initialized each of those warming trends. Of course, there has been so much man made release of CO2 in the atmosphere that now C02 so greatly amplifies any start of a warming trend to make it inevitable that the warming isn't short-term but a much more long-term warming trend with no end for the foreseeable future all the while we keep increasing atmospheric C02 and with far greater global warming than what occurred in most of those the past short-term warming trends.

    So your point is...? -you haven't got a point. How does any of this change the fact that CO2 can cause significant global warming and enough to kill thousands if not millions of people? -answer, it doesn't.
    You present no argument.

    Science lies and says there is no CO2 lag at all!

    Nope. Nobody claims this here. The vast majority of scientists including climate scientists don't deny the data and you are you are the one lying here by saying they do. Is that the best you can do? just lie? That isn't even an argument. That is just a vein and obviously false assertion.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13457
    05 Mar '15 02:41
    Originally posted by humy
    Ice core data combined with other data indicates that, while CO2 doesn't usually initialize the start of each of the past short-term warming trends, it amplified each past short-term warming trend after each initialization. The reason for this was because natural warming from other causes in the past initialized each short-term warming trend which then warmed t ...[text shortened]... an do? just lie? That isn't even an argument. That is just a vein and obviously false assertion.
    Interesting how you omitted the word "skeptical" in a feeble attempt to mislead others into thinking I was talking about science in general and not the skeptical science website as I clearly did. Skeptical science lies and googlefudge put forth that website and you yourself indicated it as evidence and that is laughable. Singer was telling the truth about the CO2 lag and skeptical science calls the truth a lie, that is their rebuttal to Singer. Lie and hope idiots like you will believe it.

    Here is my point. The earth has been warming before fossil fuel burning was affecting climate. We are probably seeing the lag CO2 increase later than the natural warming that caused it. This makes the amount of CO2 increase caused by man debatable. The CO2 man is increasing does not concern me very much. Given how essential CO2 is to life on earth it is surprising how little of it is in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels is probably doing more good than harm. Global warming will not kill thousands of people and certainly not millions. That assertion is absolutely ridiculous. It is more faith based garbage. Climate models as they are right now cannot be relied on to predict anything. They are so flawed anybody that thinks they are meaningful are just having a leap of faith akin to a religion.

    The news media likes guys like you freaking out over fake issues like this so you ignore your government is killing people in the middle east for control of oil. You ignore imperialism while on this wild goose chase to save the planet from life essential nutrients. Meanwhile the military is burning a lot of fuel to keep those planes bombing men, women and children. That CO2 doesn't matter to you though, does it? As long as they kill people that CO2 is just fine with you, right? You want to save people that have not been born yet, not people living now. They don't matter to you because they are different. They had the nerve to retaliate when the USA and UK started bombing them. When we kill them they want to kill us back. What is wrong with them? Don't they appreciate our bombs being dropped on them? We should bomb them more so they stop hating us, right? It has worked well so far. They are about to love us any day now.
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '15 07:446 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Interesting how you omitted the word "skeptical" in a feeble attempt to mislead others into thinking I was talking about science in general and not the skeptical science website as I clearly did. Skeptical science lies and googlefudge put forth that website and you yourself indicated it as evidence and that is laughable. Singer was telling the truth abou ...[text shortened]... so they stop hating us, right? It has worked well so far. They are about to love us any day now.
    Interesting how you omitted the word "skeptical" in a feeble attempt to mislead others into thinking I was talking about science in general

    Not at all: I expect others to notice that what you call “skeptical science” for whatever moronic reason, most people call real science thus no deception made of what you think.
    The earth has been warming before fossil fuel burning was affecting climate.

    for the current warming period or the past ones?
    Either way: How would that change the fact of man made warming of the current warming?
    We are probably seeing the lag CO2 increase later than the natural warming that caused it.

    again, for the current warming period or the past ones?
    This makes the amount of CO2 increase caused by man debatable.

    Nope, it logically doesn't. Your above conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. HOW does CO2 not initializing a start of a warming mean that it is “ debatable” that CO2 causes warming? Natural causes can initialize the start of a warming period and then CO2 can greatly amplify it.
    Given how essential CO2 is to life on earth it is surprising how little of it is in the atmosphere.

    correct -although that doesn't mean life wouldn't be harmed by too much of it.
    Burning fossil fuels is probably doing more good than harm.

    again, your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise; HOW does CO2 being essential to life mean burning fossil fuels is probably doing more good than harm? That is like saying an fat man eating too many calories is probably doing himself more good than harm because calories are essential to life -same illogic.
    Another example; vitamins are essential to life (at least for most/all vertebrates). Haven't you heard of vitamin poisoning?


    The rest of your post is just false assertions without argument.
    That CO2 doesn't matter to you though, does it? As long as they kill people that CO2 is just fine with you, right?

    What on earth are your talking about? Please don't be obtuse; nobody here thinks/says it is generally OK to kill people either for oil or CO2 and you are being dishonest by pretending we generally would want such killing.
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13457
    05 Mar '15 14:05
    Originally posted by humy
    Interesting how you omitted the word "skeptical" in a feeble attempt to mislead others into thinking I was talking about science in general

    Not at all: I expect others to notice that what you call “skeptical science” for whatever moronic reason, most people call real science thus no deception made of what you think.
    [quote] The earth ha ...[text shortened]... r for oil or CO2 and you are being dishonest by pretending we generally would want such killing.
    "Not at all: I expect others to notice that what you call “skeptical science” for whatever moronic reason, most people call real science thus no deception made of what you think."

    There you go lying again. You know "skeptical science" is a website that I exposed as liars. You are a liar too. You no longer have credibility here.
  11. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '15 14:586 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "Not at all: I expect others to notice that what you call “skeptical science” for whatever moronic reason, most people call real science thus no deception made of what you think."

    There you go lying again. You know "skeptical science" is a website that I exposed as liars. You are a liar too. You no longer have credibility here.
    No I wasn't lying. I was mistaken; I didn't assume you where referring to a web link but rather assume you where calling our science "skeptical science" (for some strange reason unknown to me ). However, the rest of my assertions still stand including stating two trivial observations that your conclusions didn't logically follow from your premises thus proving your 'arguments' wrong.

    my second example of that was:

    "..HOW does CO2 being essential to life mean burning fossil fuels is probably doing more good than harm? That is like saying an fat man eating too many calories is probably doing himself more good than harm because calories are essential to life -same illogic. ..."

    Do you still deny what you said there is illogical? If so, explain...
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    05 Mar '15 15:03
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "Not at all: I expect others to notice that what you call “skeptical science” for whatever moronic reason, most people call real science thus no deception made of what you think."

    There you go lying again. You know "skeptical science" is a website that I exposed as liars. You are a liar too. You no longer have credibility here.
    Humy has far more credibility than you EVER will have. If evidence comes to the fro that CO2 for instance, causes a lowering of Earth's temperature, then Humy will allow that evidence.

    You on the other hand can never change your opinion because you do not believe in any form of evidence that goes against your own bias.

    Since you claim not to be a smoker and not to be Republican I have to conclude you have SOME vested interest in forcing public opinion away from the direction of the obvious, that human activity is what is causing the present heating of the atmosphere.

    You also claim the sun's cycles make it hotter.

    That is in the long run true, but not in the short run.

    A billion years ago there was less output from the sun so it is like Earth is slowly (VERY slowly) shifting it's orbit closer to the sun.

    Both processes increase Earth's temperature but that effect is measured in time frames of millions of years not hundreds.

    I think 1 or 2 billion years ago the energy output of the sun was something like 25% less than today so there is this long term effect but it is a very weak effect in terms of centuries.

    Do you think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Is that where you are coming from?
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    05 Mar '15 15:172 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    . If evidence comes to the fro that CO2 for instance, causes a lowering of Earth's temperature, then Humy will allow that evidence.
    That is correct. And I would like to point out to him that I want there to be such evidence! Why wouldn't I want this? I am not even a climate scientist or anyone that could potentially financially benefits from this such as a solar energy expert etc. so How would it be in my personal interest for there to be significant man made global warming? And I feel guilty for my carbon-footprint! -thus I have a reason to want evidence against such man made warming.
    So it certainly not the case of me believing whatever I want to believe but rather the case of me happening to believe what I do NOT want to believe (because I just cannot get past the evidence no matter how I look at it ).
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13457
    06 Mar '15 01:00
    Originally posted by humy
    No I wasn't lying. I was mistaken; I didn't assume you where referring to a web link but rather assume you where calling our science "skeptical science" (for some strange reason unknown to me ). However, the rest of my assertions still stand including stating two trivial observations that your conclusions didn't logically follow from your premises thus proving ...[text shortened]... ife -same illogic. ..."

    Do you still deny what you said there is illogical? If so, explain...
    Plants grow faster with more CO2 and there is no evidence more CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing. Climate models are unreliable so your assertions of millions of people dying from it is pure bunk.

    Your whole position here is based on theory and not facts. Same with sonhouse. If you had a fact to offer I would be fine with you, but you do not offer any facts, just mere theories of impending doom. You also have no solution to reducing CO2.

    People like you just like scare mongering. You offer no solutions that will work. That is why you are a joke.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13457
    06 Mar '15 01:31
    Originally posted by humy
    That is correct. And I would like to point out to him that I want there to be such evidence! Why wouldn't I want this? I am not even a climate scientist or anyone that could potentially financially benefits from this such as a solar energy expert etc. so How would it be in my personal interest for there to be significant man made global warming? And I fe ...[text shortened]... i]want[/i] to believe (because I just cannot get past the evidence no matter how I look at it ).
    "And I would like to point out to him that I want there to be such evidence! Why wouldn't I want this?"

    Because you have an overwhelming need to be right even when you are wrong. You have rejected every fact that supports no such evidence and you took it a step further and falsely called Singer a liar. You had no reason to do that unless you have extreme bias and that is obvious to everyone following this. You could have chosen to attempt to prove Singer made an inaccurate or untrue statement (and failed) so that you understood the facts better, but you had no interest in seeking the truth. You have your mind made up and you will not let facts get in your way of fooling yourself into believing you are right. You are experiencing "cognitive dissonance". The truth requires you abandon much of what you believed to be true for many years. Most people cannot deal with the truth when it challenges much of what they think they know. It requires rethinking too much false belief and that is far too uncomfortable and even painful. That is why you keep putting faith into climate models even after it is clear they are unreliable. It is like you always fall back to the same default mindset.

    This is how the process repeats every time: I prove climate models don't agree with each other and can't be relied on. You reject that fact as a lie by Singer even though you fail to prove it every single time. Then you embrace the climate models even though you know they don't prove anything. You reject a fact for a lie.

    Conclusion: Your cognitive dissonance will not allow you accept facts that challenge your faulty belief system. This rejection of facts is reinforced by "group think", an unfortunate resort of the hubris. Even very smart people can fall into that trap. Ask Lee Smolin. He wrote about it in his book "The Trouble with Physics". You should too.
Back to Top