Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    It hasn't existed since the end of the 20th century. This is fact...










    and I'm off to bed, cheers.
    "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
    "

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ace View Post
      [IMG...]

      and I'm off to bed, cheers.
      There's no debate about the facts that CO2 has increased since the 1800s or that the average surface temperature continued a general warming trend which began around 1600. Neither of which supports the claim that the rise in CO2 since about 1850 caused or even significantly contributed to a warming trend which began around 1600.



      Nor is the change in sea level over the past 250 years even remotely significant.




      And, despite a contraction of Arctic sea ice since 1980, it's abnormally high relative to the rest of the Holocene (last 10,000 yrs). From 10,000 to 6,000 years ago (Holocene Climatic Optimum), Arctic seas were routinely ice-free during summers.



      The current interglacial stage peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~7900 years ago).

      The period from which we have warmed since 1600 AD is one of the coldest phases of the Holocene...



      It can be demonstrated that the Greenland Sea area was consistent with McKay's observation of the Chukchi Sea. The Arctic was just as warm in the 1930's and Medieval Warm Period as it is today...

      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Fossil plant stomata data conclusively demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely been 300-350 ppmv and occasionally higher throughout the Holocene.
        Proxy data from plant stomata doesn't 'conclusively prove' anything. It is a proxy reconstruction. And even then, current CO2 levels are still higher:



        Besides, why would we resort to using proxy data over historical samples of actual atmosphere trapped in ice cores?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
          Proxy data from plant stomata doesn't 'conclusively prove' anything. It is a proxy reconstruction. And even then, current CO2 levels are still higher:



          Besides, why would we resort to using proxy data over historical samples of actual atmosphere trapped in ice cores?
          The ice cores are not direct measurements of historical atmospheric CO2. The samples from the ice core bubbles are used to reconstruct past CO2 levels. The trapped gasses represent long-term averages of atmospheric CO2.



          Law Dome DE08 Ice Core: Reconstruction of 1969 AD depositional layer. Modified after Fischer, H. A Short Primer on Ice Core Science. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern.


          The highest resolution Antarctic ice core is the DE08 core from Law Dome. The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus assume that it can resolve annual changes in CO2. But it can’t. Each CO2 value represents a roughly 30-yr average and not an annual value.

          If you smooth the Mauna Loa instrumental record (red curve) and plant stomata-derived pre-instrumental CO2 (green curve) with a 30-yr filter, they tie into the Law Dome DE08 ice core (light blue curve) quite nicely…



          The deeper DSS core (dark blue curve)has a much lower temporal resolution due to its much lower accumulation rate and compaction effects. It is totally useless in resolving century scale shifts, much less decadal shifts.

          The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus correctly assume that resolution is dictated by the bubble enclosure period. However, they are incorrect in limiting the bubble enclosure period to the sealing zone. In the case of the core DE08 they assume that they are looking at a signal with a 1 cycle/1 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years. The actual signal has a 1 cycle/30-40 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years.

          30-40 ppmv shifts in CO2 over periods less than ~60 years cannot be accurately resolved in the DE08 core. That’s dictated by basic signal theory.


          The reason to incorporate stomata and ice core data into CO2 chronologies is the fact that the stomata data have higher frequency resolution than the ice core data. Van Hoof et al., 2005 demonstrated that the application of a low pass filter to a stomata chronology yields a strong match to a contemporaneous ice core chronology...




          Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus (2005), 57B, 351–355.



          Fossil plant stomata data conclusively demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 levels have routinely been 300-350 ppmv and occasionally higher throughout the Holocene. I didn't say that they conclusively demonstrate that it was higher than recent instrumental measurements. Although, Quercus, one of the most commonly used leaves, is unresponsive to CO2 levels much above 400 ppmv.
          Last edited by The Doctor; 09 Mar 15, 15:15.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Greenpeace founder skeptical of Man Made Climate change

            This will probably get moved and that is cool with me. I'm too lazy to find the "right" place for it!
            http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...change-skeptic

            Comment


            • Well written article. The guy needs to start looking over his shoulder...

              Comment


              • This is like Peter telling Jesus he's not sure he's the son of God...

                Comment


                • Good stuff! Is this some kind of revelation on his part? Or has he said something like this before?
                  "A foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Ulysses S. Grant

                  Comment


                  • Randall Carlson.
                    "In the absence of orders...find something and kill it!" Lt. General Erwin Rommel, 1942

                    Comment


                    • This pretty much sums it up....

                      From the article:

                      Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

                      Comment


                      • Excellent article. Maybe First Big Mama can read it to BoBo in place of his usual bedtime fairy tale.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Martok View Post
                          Well written article. The guy needs to start looking over his shoulder...
                          For a visit from the IRS or worse!
                          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                          Comment


                          • Holder will blame him for Fast and Furious and Obama will call him a "racist" because he's white. If he's a Christian as well, he's doomed.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • Old News...

                              He's been saying this for years. Back in 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society of London arguing that humans were not causing global warming. This is just sensationalist rehashing of his old argument by an extremely biased (and scientifically illegitimate) website.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                He's been saying this for years. Back in 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society of London arguing that humans were not causing global warming.
                                Since there has been no global warming since at least 2001, he was right in 2006.



                                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                                This is just sensationalist rehashing of his old argument by an extremely biased (and scientifically illegitimate) website.
                                Biased... Yes. Very biased in favor of free market capitalism.

                                How, exactly, is Heartland "scientifically illegitimate"?
                                Last edited by The Doctor; 21 Mar 15, 13:04.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X