EAU Data Suggests Warming Ended In 1997

[Shady]

It's just like how these threads go. Cycles. You see it, I see it.... oh well.

There's not much you can do when somebody's been drinking the kool-aid as significantly as waldo has been for the last several years. As you've stated before, it's turned into a strict orthodox religion. Where you MUST believe ALL of the scripture, or you're a heathen.

You MUST believe that all warming is 100% the cause of man. And you MUST believe that adopting significant economically destructive measures is the ONLY way to combat the problem. No other views will be tolerated! :angry:

[waldo]

You MUST believe that all warming is 100% the cause of man. And you MUST believe that adopting significant economically destructive measures is the ONLY way to combat the problem. No other views will be tolerated! :angry:

typical Shady rhetoric... although the angryMan emoticon was a nice touch!

as has been consistently stated, warming is a composite result of natural and anthropogenic sources... it's only ShadyLudicrousNonsense to suggest any knowledgeable person maintains, as you stated, "all warming is 100% the cause of man". Why make shyte up - you've been around these threads long enough to absolutely know this has never been posited. Significant measures are and will be required to offset the ever increasing rate of CO2 emission buildup... along with adapting to active and ongoing changes. There is no, as you say, "one-way authoritarian" view being projected - you're just making more ShadyShyte up.

[Shady]

as has been consistently stated, warming is a composite result of natural and anthropogenic sources

Really? What's the break down?

Significant measures are and will be required to offset the ever increasing rate of CO2 emission buildup

Yes, we all know the same tired old measures. One's which bring our economy to a grinding halt. Those aren't solutions. Real solutions are advances in technology, through progress and innovation. Not the regression most alarmists seek regarding our standard of living, and economic prowess.

[waldo]

as has been consistently stated, warming is a composite result of natural and anthropogenic sources... it's only ShadyLudicrousNonsense to suggest any knowledgeable person maintains, as you stated, "all warming is 100% the cause of man". Why make shyte up - you've been around these threads long enough to absolutely know this has never been posited.

Really? What's the break down?

well, you're just not paying attention, are you? Radiative forcing has been discussed, at length, many, many times. I've linked to the same IPCC graphic per the following quote stream extract, several times in the past... I chose this particular ditty since you were recently hyping "cycles". What was that I was just saying in the other concurrently running 'fake skeptics' thread... oh ya... your Dunning-Kruger quotient is running particularly high today!:

You're sbsolutely false.

Sun's Activity Cycle Linked to Earth Climate

When the sun's weather is most active, it can impact Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to El Niño and La Niña events, a new study suggests

True believer, you need to allow science a place in your life.

lol, so sad you preach the science but you don't understand it...

current solar activity is low and temps are still going up, no one claimed solar activity isn't linked to our temp which should be obvious to even the scientifically challenged, it's just not linked to this

warming

... the link between solar activity and GW ended in the mid 70's...is it still linked to el nino's and la nina's? ya, look at the graph and you can see where it corresponds to the 98' uber el Nino which is added to the overall warming but is not related to solar activity...

...

There is such a thing as solar radiative forcing, after all - and it's HUGE!

Significant measures are and will be required to offset the ever increasing rate of CO2 emission buildup... along with adapting to active and ongoing changes. There is no, as you say, "one-way authoritarian" view being projected - you're just making more ShadyShyte up.

Yes, we all know the same tired old measures. One's which bring our economy to a grinding halt. Those aren't solutions. Real solutions are advances in technology, through progress and innovation. Not the regression most alarmists seek regarding our standard of living, and economic prowess.

you haven't a clue what you're talking about... you're the king of talking points - one's you can't even comprehend. Perhaps you could offer ShadyEnlightenment and speak to said "tired old measures"... at the same time why not reinforce your pronouncement by speaking to the effects of the technology advances you're hyping - which ones/what effects? While you're doing that run a quick MLW search on 'roadmap'... it might save you further embarrassment.

[Shady]

well, you're just not paying attention, are you? Radiative forcing has been discussed, at length, many, many times. I've linked to the same IPCC graphic per the following quote stream extract, several times in the past... I chose this particular ditty since you were recently hyping "cycles". What was that I was just saying in the other concurrently running 'fake skeptics' thread... oh ya... your Dunning-Kruger quotient is running particularly high today!:

you haven't a clue what you're talking about... you're the king of talking points - one's you can't even comprehend. Perhaps you could offer ShadyEnlightenment and speak to said "tired old measures"... at the same time why not reinforce your pronouncement by speaking to the effects of the technology advances you're hyping - which ones/what effects? While you're doing that run a quick MLW search on 'roadmap'... it might save you further embarrassment.

So what's the break down regarding natural vs non-natural causes of warming? That was a great rant though.

[waldo]

So what's the break down regarding natural vs non-natural causes of warming? That was a great rant though.

lower your Dunning-Kruger effect shields... read a bit, have a look at that linked graphic, hey lil' buddy!

[Shady]

lower your Dunning-Kruger effect shields... read a bit, have a look at that linked graphic, hey lil' buddy!

So what percentage of warming is due to natural effects? What would you guess the number is in degrees celsius?

[waldo]

So what percentage of warming is due to natural effects? What would you guess the number is in degrees celsius?

apparently, highlighting the composite makeup and pointing you to a radiative forcing source breakout has emboldened you - go figure! Notwithstanding your failed OP attempt, let's first have you be very clear and very precise.

do you accept warming has occurred... over what period of (relatively recent) time... and by how much has it warmed?

[Shady]

So what percentage of warming is due to natural effects? What would you guess the number is in degrees celsius?

I'll ask again waldo.

[GostHacked]

admittance is always the first step in any recovery program - good luck with your struggle.

There is no struggle.

[waldo]

I'll ask again waldo.

like I said, you haven't even a clue what you're asking let alone that the answer was already provided to you - clearly, you're out of your depth in even the most simple and basic of understandings. Here, read it again... read it closely, take your time... stretch yourself a bit - sure you can. I will also highlight your outright unwillingness now, and ever, to actually state your position. You have such an aversion to actually standing up for yourself and stating your belief... and why? Obviously, because you haven't a clue as to how to support and substantiate your position. The end result is you parroting whatever latest and greatest howler you can find. Answer the bold red-highlighted questions below:

apparently, highlighting the

composite makeup

and pointing you to a radiative forcing source breakout has emboldened you - go figure! Notwithstanding your failed OP attempt, let's first have you be very clear and very precise.

do you accept warming has occurred... over what period of (relatively recent) time... and by how much has it warmed?

since you can't be bothered to actually look at the earlier linked graphic I provided, here it is again. I've also bold highlighted the key word for you from the re-quote, the word you seem to have great difficulty with - COMPOSITE; i.e., a result, a composite result, representing a composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcings... pool them and add them up... what's the result? Can you say warming? Sure you can! Can you recognize the principal positive forcing associated with the composite warming result? Can you say CO2? Sure you can!

now, we can have some real fun here; however, it will actually require you to state things, take positions and support/substantiate your claims. If you believe there are natural forcing influences, natural positive forcing influences (other than the Sun), and you want to make a case for them causing the increased/accelerated warming... please, step up, step out, step beyond - go for it. Sure you can!

[waldo]

There is no struggle.

no - I'm quite sure you struggle with your extreme contradictions every day. For years you've put up this front as "the pollution guy"... the guy so concerned about so-called traditional toxic atmospheric pollution... the understandings of which are tied, quite obviously, to fundamental physical atmospheric science process/methodology. And yet, you deny, you outright deny, the same fundamental physical atmospheric science basis associated with climate science. Can you say GostHacked is confused? Sure you can.

I had hoped it would have been you to come forward and highlight the recent days emission agreement - the nominal monetary (mice nuts) agreement focused on short-lived/retained pollutants like soot, methane and HFCs. What say you GostHacked? Are you perplexed with this initative? Do you feel further contradicted?

U.S. Pushes to Cut Emissions of Some Pollutants That Hasten Climate Change

[cybercoma]

like I said, you haven't even a clue what you're asking let alone that the answer was already provided to you - clearly, you're out of your depth in even the most simple and basic of understandings. Here, read it again... read it closely, take your time... stretch yourself a bit - sure you can. I will also highlight your outright unwillingness now, and ever, to actually state your position. You have such an aversion to actually standing up for yourself and stating your belief... and why? Obviously, because you haven't a clue as to how to support and substantiate your position. The end result is you parroting whatever latest and greatest howler you can find. Answer the bold red-highlighted questions below:

since you can't be bothered to actually look at the earlier linked graphic I provided, here it is again. I've also bold highlighted the key word for you from the re-quote, the word you seem to have great difficulty with - COMPOSITE; i.e., a result, a composite result, representing a composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcings... pool them and add them up... what's the result? Can you say warming? Sure you can! Can you recognize the principal positive forcing associated with the composite warming result? Can you say CO2? Sure you can!

now, we can have some real fun here; however, it will actually require you to state things, take positions and support/substantiate your claims. If you believe there are natural forcing influences, natural positive forcing influences (other than the Sun), and you want to make a case for them causing the increased/accelerated warming... please, step up, step out, step beyond - go for it. Sure you can!

Shady's corner is being horribly irresponsible by not throwing in the towel here. They're going to get their fighter killed.

Edited February 17, 2012 by cybercoma

[dre]

Shady's corner is being horribly irresponsible by not throwing in the towel here. They're going to get their fighter killed.

Its a miracle at this point that their fighter is even standing after taking dozens of flush shots to the face without managing to even land one...

[GostHacked]

no - I'm quite sure you struggle with your extreme contradictions every day. For years you've put up this front as "the pollution guy"... the guy so concerned about so-called traditional toxic atmospheric pollution... the understandings of which are tied, quite obviously, to fundamental physical atmospheric science process/methodology. And yet, you deny, you outright deny, the same fundamental physical atmospheric science basis associated with climate science. Can you say GostHacked is confused? Sure you can.

I had hoped it would have been you to come forward and highlight the recent days emission agreement - the nominal monetary (mice nuts) agreement focused on short-lived/retained pollutants like soot, methane and HFCs. What say you GostHacked? Are you perplexed with this initative? Do you feel further contradicted?

U.S. Pushes to Cut Emissions of Some Pollutants That Hasten Climate Change

I have no problems with reducing toxic polutions. We've been through this conversation before. There is no struggle.

[lukin]

I have no problems with reducing toxic polutions. We've been through this conversation before. There is no struggle.

What is toxic? Vehicle exhaust?

[GostHacked]

What is toxic? Vehicle exhaust?

Carbon MONOXIDE as we know is very bad for the environment and well, it's quite lethal.

Mining smelter plants spew out many heavy metals along with sulphur dioxide.

Nuclear plants spewing out radiation.

Look at how much you toss in the trash on a daily basis without thinking twice of where it ends up.

All these are known to have real effects on the environment. Instead we are focusing on a basic element that is needed to make this planet sustain life.

The reason Waldo is asking this is because I made a post indicating that if we clean up these things we'd probably take care of that issue as well. But it seems like a real dumb point to make from his view. I thought it was pretty logical to me. But it's strange living in a society where 2+2 does in fact equal 5.

In the end cleaning up all these other toxic emissions would help with life on this planet on the whole. Not for just the human race, but for all species on the planet. However that means a very drastic change in how we live and travel. No one wants to give up or change their lifestyles because of modern convenience and how easy life really is these days. But some of these conveninces are simply uneeded, more waste is generated from many of these frivulous conveniences. But as long as you are willing to pay that price (while being in debt probably the whole time).... I need to buy more carbon credits so I can keep breathing.

[waldo]

no - I'm quite sure you struggle with your extreme contradictions every day. For years you've put up this front as "the pollution guy"... the guy so concerned about so-called traditional toxic atmospheric pollution... the understandings of which are tied, quite obviously, to fundamental physical atmospheric science process/methodology. And yet, you deny, you outright deny, the same fundamental physical atmospheric science basis associated with climate science. Can you say GostHacked is confused? Sure you can.

I had hoped it would have been you to come forward and highlight the recent days emission agreement - the nominal monetary (mice nuts) agreement focused on short-lived/retained pollutants like soot, methane and HFCs. What say you GostHacked? Are you perplexed with this initative? Do you feel further contradicted?

U.S. Pushes to Cut Emissions of Some Pollutants That Hasten Climate Change

I have no problems with reducing toxic polutions. We've been through this conversation before. There is no struggle.

in the applicable atmospheric concentrations being discussed, being targeted, neither methane or HFCs are 'toxic'... in this just signed agreement, methane is being targeted, as discussed many times previously, because it's potency is significantly higher than CO2... HFCs are being targeted given their impact on the ozone layers. I suggest if you're going to keep your 'pollution guy mantle', you spend a bit of time regrouping and reassessing your talking points. Equally, if you presume to accept this agreement, the rationale behind this agreement, then you really need to step back and educate yourself on the CO2 warming feedback effects on permafrost methane sources. Oh, wait... that would actually mean you'd need to accept the greenhouse effect and CO2s principal causal link to warming associated with the greenhouse effect. Like I said, such a contradiction you are, hey?

[waldo]

Carbon MONOXIDE as we know is very bad for the environment and well, it's quite lethal. Mining smelter plants spew out many heavy metals along with sulphur dioxide. Nuclear plants spewing out radiation. Look at how much you toss in the trash on a daily basis without thinking twice of where it ends up.

All these are known to have real effects on the environment. Instead we are focusing on a basic element that is needed to make this planet sustain life.

say what? Nuclear plants spewing out radiation??? In any case, I thought you had a bit more acumen not to get caught up in the "CO2 is plant food" meme! Really? Really... is that truly your position on increased/accelerated CO2 emission levels?

The reason Waldo is asking this is because I made a post indicating that if we clean up these things we'd probably take care of that issue as well. But it seems like a real dumb point to make from his view. I thought it was pretty logical to me. But it's strange living in a society where 2+2 does in fact equal 5.

and you've been challenged to speak to the practicality of such nonsense. All you ever came back with is your storied anecdotal references to growing up in Sudbury (or whatever the hell it was)! In any case, yes, most certainly, this is the essence of your contradicting self... you spout off with (legitimate) concerns over toxic pollution, yet you divorce yourself from the fundamental physical atmospheric sciences.

[cybercoma]

Its a miracle at this point that their fighter is even standing after taking dozens of flush shots to the face without managing to even land one...

The kid's got heart.

[GostHacked]

say what? Nuclear plants spewing out radiation???

How long do you have to store the waste in a secure contain facility? You been paying attention to things like Fukushima STILL pumping out lethal radiation after almost a year? Fort Calhoune in Nebraska was under water. Pickering (ontario) loosing radioactive water, same as in a few plants in the USA over the last year. Pay attention. Once you start looking at things OTHER than CO2 as this big boogie man, we can start to address the real problem. Simply stating that CO2 is the culprit without a plan to reduce it, is really retarded. Sure we heard the reports about it, now wtf are you going to do about it? Put up or shut up. Reduce your own CO2 emissions by keeping the computer off for a few hours a day. Or you could simply stop breathing.

In any case, I thought you had a bit more acumen not to get caught up in the "CO2 is plant food" meme! Really? Really... is that truly your position on increased/accelerated CO2 emission levels?

Stop acting like a little spoiled child.

It's an easy and practicle solution that takes little time and effort. Yes CO2 IS plant food. Do you deny the process known as photosythesis as you probably learned in grade school or high school science classes? Plants take in CO2, release O2. It's not my fault you are denying a simple and widley known fact. So these scientists are doing exactly what you are doing.

and you've been challenged to speak to the practicality of such nonsense. All you ever came back with is your storied anecdotal references to growing up in Sudbury (or whatever the hell it was)! In any case, yes, most certainly, this is the essence of your contradicting self... you spout off with (legitimate) concerns over toxic pollution, yet you divorce yourself from the fundamental physical atmospheric sciences.

Live in a city or town with heavy industrial pollution and you might start to understand what I am getting at. Again, Sudbury has a specific claim that insurance companies offer to people living in and around the Sudbury area. It's called a fallout claim. Your car can get repainted on the insurance company's dime because of the sulphur dioxide that is spewed out of the Superstack at the INCO facility in Sudbury. If you understand what it does to paint, wtf do you think that does to soft tissues like flora and fauna. Everything you put into the air , eventually comes back down. When it's in the environment it gets in everything, your food, your water, your air.

The reason the Superstack was created was to send the emissions higher into the air for better dispersion. The dying vegitation in and around the sudbury area prompted INCO to do something about it. INCO has reduced their emissions by using some technology to scrub the sulphur dioxide and other toxic chemicals into the air. They also implement a shut down period twice a year to reduce emissions. Don't take it from me, go look it up yourself.

http://www.greatersudbury.ca/cms/index.cfm?app=div_earthcare〈=en&currID=6855

The Projects

In recent decades there have been huge advances in environmental protection, landscape revitalization and air quality in the Greater Sudbury area. In many ways, Vale Inco has been at the forefront of these changes. Today, the company continues to be a community leader in reducing the energy consumption of its own operations and in supporting initiatives to improve environmental sustainability in the Sudbury area. At Vale Inco, the idea is pervasive that legacy issues must be addressed, even though today's environmental impact is minimal in comparison.

...

Since sulphur dioxide (SO2) is one of the most harmful by-products of smelting nickel ore, SO2 is one of Vale Inco's biggest targets for emission reductions. Since the Ontario government introduced the Countdown Acid Rain Program in 1986, the company has spent close to $1 billion to reduce SO2 emissions at its Sudbury operations. The company's current goal is to lower SO2 emissions to 66 kilotonnes by 2015.

A new state-of-the-art $115 million facility, that began operating at the Vale Inco smelter late in 2006, has already put a sizable dent in the kilotonnes of SO2 that the company emits. From a previous 265 kilotonnes, Vale Inco's annual SO2 emissions in Sudbury are down to 175 kilotonnes. The facility uses unique fluid bed roaster (FBR) off-gas scrubbing technology to capture SO2 from the smelter and convert it into sulphuric acid and liquid sulphur dioxide, which are both saleable products. The new fluid bed roaster facility also has the potential to decrease total metal emissions of nickel, copper, arsenic and lead by 80 to 100 tonnes per year.

Reducing SO2 is good, right? Reducing lead is good, right? Reducing arsnic is good, right?

I've seen it all first hand, and it's all documented, and not anectodal in any sense. It's real data you are choosing to ignore. Much like the rest of the fools who are buying into this.

But in the end, INCO has reduced their CO2 emissions, by cutting toxic emissions and holding a shut down period twice a year. If you want to deny that, then you are going to be your own worst nightmare.

[waldo]

say what? Nuclear plants spewing out radiation???

great - you acknowledge your concern over, "nuclear plant radiation spewing", simply reflects upon non-regular operational accidents/problems.

Once you start looking at things OTHER than CO2 as this big boogie man, we can start to address the real problem. Simply stating that CO2 is the culprit without a plan to reduce it, is really retarded. Sure we heard the reports about it, now wtf are you going to do about it?

examples of CO2 emission reduction plans have been discussed, at length, in various MLW threads. You speak of 'real problems'; yes, one of those key real problems is the fake skeptic position you personally hold, multiplied many times over and politicized to no end - see fake skeptic campaign attempting to offset real agreements for real deployment of those real plans to reduce real CO2 emissions.

It's an easy and practicle solution that takes little time and effort.

is this you... again... touting the "just plant trees" meme? That dog don't hunt - and you've been shown why. And yet you persist in the face of the countering scientific information/data and practicalities.

Yes CO2 IS plant food. Do you deny the process known as photosythesis as you probably learned in grade school or high school science classes? Plants take in CO2, release O2. It's not my fault you are denying a simple and widley known fact. So these scientists are doing exactly what you are doing.

yawn! Again, the problem is you/others touting the CO2 is simply plant food meme as an attempt to downplay/offset/negate the actual negative impacts of rising/accelerated CO2 atmospheric levels.

Live in a city or town with heavy industrial pollution and you might start to understand what I am getting at.

so what? Your anecdotal nickel smelting plant reference has been acknowledged in the past - you have received positive comment on your expressed legitimate concerns for traditional 'toxic" atmospheric emissions. Which has no relevant relationship to the overwhelming world-wide impact of fossil-fuel burning sources on atmospheric CO2 levels. Somehow, you naively and myopically propose that simply reducing toxic emissions would miraculously reduce CO2 emissions. Wow!

of course what you continue to avoid is you commenting on your contradiction - the one I keep highlighting. The one that has you accepting atmospheric based physical science/studies/regulation/etc., on one hand, on one level... and that has you selectively rejecting an atmospheric physical science basis in your self-serving fake skeptic denial that CO2 emissions are a problem. Just a phenomenal contradiction.

[Shady]

like I said, you haven't even a clue what you're asking let alone that the answer was already provided to you - clearly, you're out of your depth in even the most simple and basic of understandings.

No, it's not in the answer you provided. I'll ask again. What specific temperature increase is man-made? You don't have to link to a graph. Just type the answer.

Also, could you answer a previous question I asked several months ago? What were the causes of the medieval warming period? And of those causes, which are occuring today, and which aren't, and why?

Thanks.

[waldo]

like I said, you haven't even a clue what you're asking let alone that the answer was already provided to you - clearly, you're out of your depth in even the most simple and basic of understandings. Here, read it again... read it closely, take your time... stretch yourself a bit - sure you can. I will also highlight your outright unwillingness now, and ever, to actually state your position. You have such an aversion to actually standing up for yourself and stating your belief... and why? Obviously, because you haven't a clue as to how to support and substantiate your position. The end result is you parroting whatever latest and greatest howler you can find. Answer the bold red-highlighted questions below:

apparently, highlighting the composite makeup and pointing you to a radiative forcing source breakout has emboldened you - go figure! Notwithstanding your failed OP attempt, let's first have you be very clear and very precise.

do you accept warming has occurred... over what period of (relatively recent) time... and by how much has it warmed?

since you can't be bothered to actually look at the earlier linked graphic I provided, here it is again. I've also bold highlighted the key word for you from the re-quote, the word you seem to have great difficulty with - COMPOSITE; i.e., a result, a composite result, representing a composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcings... pool them and add them up... what's the result? Can you say warming? Sure you can! Can you recognize the principal positive forcing associated with the composite warming result? Can you say CO2? Sure you can!

now, we can have some real fun here; however, it will actually require you to state things, take positions and support/substantiate your claims. If you believe there are natural forcing influences, natural positive forcing influences (other than the Sun), and you want to make a case for them causing the increased/accelerated warming... please, step up, step out, step beyond - go for it. Sure you can!

No, it's not in the answer you provided. I'll ask again. What specific temperature increase is man-made? You don't have to link to a graph. Just type the answer.

another Shady own goal! And another easy cut/paste. Think Shady... think, dagnabit! Composite result... pooled positive and negative forcings, a resultant forcing effect of the positive and negative forcings; i.e., a net total forcing resultant, an anthropogenic sourced net total forcing resultant - a warming resultant... and an associated attribution; i.e., anthropogenic.

[waldo]

Also, could you answer a previous question I asked several months ago? What were the causes of the medieval warming period? And of those causes, which are occuring today, and which aren't, and why?

yet another Shady own goal! In any case, asked and answered many times over... and only answered again given the easy cut/paste. Now, you have several questions you keep avoiding - is there a problem?

huh? What's that Shady?

Your MWP obsession has been answered many times over... are ya deef man? Most recently:

Even if you could show the MWP was more than a regional phenomenon (which you can't), even if you could show the MWP temperatures were warmer than global temperature today (which you can't)...

there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas

. Obviously MWP warming can't be attributed to man. Alternatively, no natural variations can account for the warming... the accelerated warming... of the relatively recent post 1850 period. Current warming can only be accounted for when CO2 radiative forcing is factored - current increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are most definitely, most absolutely, attributed to mankind's burning of fossil-fuels.