waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Show me something that takes the actual temp. of the Earth into account! Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth - you're welcome now, since you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever, given your expressed "research", please provide scientifically accepted substantiation to your, apparent claim, that the relatively recent (accelerated) rise in global temperature is attributed to, as you state, "the earth's inner molten core". Make sure to provide a direct correlation - thanks in advance. Oh, wait... you don't accept it's warming! What's this? what's this? Why, that's me responding to your, "show me" request and laughing at your denier "expertise"! yes, who would expect you to actually recognize the very point you’re, without providing any support/substantiation, beaking off about… you know, natural warming attributed to the Earth’s outer core. how is it your “expertise”, coupled with all the self-proclaimed research you’ve done, doesn’t allow you to recognize a study speaking of, amongst other things, the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day… you know, those changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core? It is quite baffling that your “expertise” doesn’t recognize the study providing you a comparative review between the 3 referenced variables and their associated data sets; i.e., Earth’s outer core movements, Earth's rotation, and global surface air temperature. It is mind boggling that your “expertise” doesn’t understand the studies stated correlation findings… that until ~1930, the 3 respective datasets correlated very strongly; that after ~1930 they began to significantly diverge. That is to say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. as I said, you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever. You're nothing but a poser wrapped in denier bluster, failing to back-up anything you're stating/claiming, while at the same time challenging others to refute your unsubstantiated "opinion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Really? CO2 in our atmosphere can be increasing by two basic methods. The first is that more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. And the second is that CO2 is not being scrubbed(dissolved into water) or used up by life forms that consume it. When the automatic conclusion is CO2 is increasing because of human activity,then I have a problem with the individuals making this claim! There are many variables that have influence that are not discussed. WWWTT anthropogenic CO2 can be measured it isnt the same as natural CO2...because you didnt know it doesnt mean no one else does... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 When the automatic conclusion is CO2 is increasing because of human activity,then I have a problem with the individuals making this claim!anthropogenic CO2 can be measured it isnt the same as natural CO2...because you didnt know it doesnt mean no one else does... but, but... wyly! Didn't you read... he says he, "has a problem with individuals making a claim that CO2 is increasing because of human activity". He has a problem, wyly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 it was you that questioned CO2 was a GHG...now you want distance yourself from that and pretend you understand more complex questions?... Actually I thought that it was I that doubted that climate change was being caused by anthropogenic CO2. If you want to continue debating where I stood on this topic(if CO2 is actually a GHG) to deny that a closer source of energy to the planet is Earth itself reflects on your debating skills! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 When hundreds of thousands of people who died from earthquakes around the world recently (since 2004), was this caused by global warming?Or was it caused by movements within the inner core of our planet? citation request: who/what organization attributed recent earthquakes to global warming? **** bump **** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 what's this? Why, that's me responding to your, "show me" request and laughing at your denier "expertise"! yes, who would expect you to actually recognize the very point you’re, without providing any support/substantiation, beaking off about… you know, natural warming attributed to the Earth’s outer core. how is it your “expertise”, coupled with all the self-proclaimed research you’ve done, doesn’t allow you to recognize a study speaking of, amongst other things, the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day… you know, those changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core? It is quite baffling that your “expertise” doesn’t recognize the study providing you a comparative review between the 3 referenced variables and their associated data sets; i.e., Earth’s outer core movements, Earth's rotation, and global surface air temperature. It is mind boggling that your “expertise” doesn’t understand the studies stated correlation findings… that until ~1930, the 3 respective datasets correlated very strongly; that after ~1930 they began to significantly diverge. That is to say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. as I said, you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever. You're nothing but a poser wrapped in denier bluster, failing to back-up anything you're stating/claiming, while at the same time challenging others to refute your unsubstantiated "opinion". Man that's a long winded swing at freekin nothing! You feel better now buddy? Did you have a cigarette after writing this comment? I guess when you got your head so far down stuck in the freekin sand there's no turning back. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 **** bump **** ???? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 what's this? Why, that's me responding to your, "show me" request and laughing at your denier "expertise"!yes, who would expect you to actually recognize the very point you’re, without providing any support/substantiation, beaking off about… you know, natural warming attributed to the Earth’s outer core. how is it your “expertise”, coupled with all the self-proclaimed research you’ve done, doesn’t allow you to recognize a study speaking of, amongst other things, the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day… you know, those changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core? It is quite baffling that your “expertise” doesn’t recognize the study providing you a comparative review between the 3 referenced variables and their associated data sets; i.e., Earth’s outer core movements, Earth's rotation, and global surface air temperature. It is mind boggling that your “expertise” doesn’t understand the studies stated correlation findings… that until ~1930, the 3 respective datasets correlated very strongly; that after ~1930 they began to significantly diverge. That is to say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. as I said, you've offered nothing to substantiate anything... anything... you've stated... ever. You're nothing but a poser wrapped in denier bluster, failing to back-up anything you're stating/claiming, while at the same time challenging others to refute your unsubstantiated "opinion". Man that's a long winded swing at freekin nothing!You feel better now buddy? Did you have a cigarette after writing this comment? I guess when you got your head so far down stuck in the freekin sand there's no turning back. standard poser response! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 When hundreds of thousands of people who died from earthquakes around the world recently (since 2004), was this caused by global warming?Or was it caused by movements within the inner core of our planet? citation request: who/what organization attributed recent earthquakes to global warming? **** bump **** ???? whaaa! So, uhhh... does that mean you're the only one making the claim/implication that earthquakes are caused by global warming? No problemo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 but, but... wyly! Didn't you read... he says he, "has a problem with individuals making a claim that CO2 is increasing because of human activity". He has a problem, wyly! And what if CO2 was increasing because life forms that consume CO2 are dying off? Oh ya right,that does not fit into your agenda. So what you're saying is that you are not really concerned with the status of life overall on the planet Earth. You are only concerned with anthropogenic CO2 causing the Earths ATMOSPHERE to warm,in turn will cause catastrophe. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 whaaa! So, uhhh... does that mean you're the only one making the claim/implication that earthquakes are caused by global warming? No problemo! Man that's freekin way out there! I have never made any such claim. What I did say was that earthquakes are a greater problem than this alleged global warming being caused by humans driving a car issue! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 standard poser response! I guess you got nothing left? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 And what if CO2 was increasing because life forms that consume CO2 are dying off?Oh ya right,that does not fit into your agenda. So what you're saying is that you are not really concerned with the status of life overall on the planet Earth. You are only concerned with anthropogenic CO2 causing the Earths ATMOSPHERE to warm,in turn will cause catastrophe. standard denier idiocy/tactic! Offer up an imagined what-if alternate and then proceed to assign the/an outcome of that imagined what-if alternate to someone/others who don't subscribe to your alternate imagination! Top it off with a liberal sprinkling of alarmism by stoking up the outcome to include, "the status of life" - overall!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 A climate change denier in the NDP? Inconceivable. inconceivable? You would think so! He must be a Harper Conservative infiltrator - a PMO plant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 standard denier idiocy/tactic! Offer up an imagined what-if alternate and then proceed to assign the/an outcome of that imagined what-if alternate to someone/others who don't subscribe to your alternate imagination! Top it off with a liberal sprinkling of alarmism by stoking up the outcome to include, "the status of life" - overall!!! Is there any end to your denial??? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 inconceivable? You would think so! He must be a Harper Conservative infiltrator - a PMO plant! Man that's freekin funny! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 whaaa! So, uhhh... does that mean you're the only one making the claim/implication that earthquakes are caused by global warming? No problemo! Man that's freekin way out there!I have never made any such claim. What I did say was that earthquakes are a greater problem than this alleged global warming being caused by humans driving a car issue! I see... so you offer up 2 causal tie choices to earthquakes and one of those causal ties aligns with your touted `Earth's inner core movements", while the other causal tie associates to global warming. When you're challenged to substantiate your second choice, a global warming causal tie to earthquakes... challenging you to cite, "who/what organization attributed recent earthquakes to global warming", suddenly, amazingly, you backpedal with a, "I have never made any such claim". Wow! You`re on roll! When hundreds of thousands of people who died from earthquakes around the world recently (since 2004), was this caused by global warming? Or was it caused by movements within the inner core of our planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 And what if CO2 was increasing because life forms that consume CO2 are dying off?Oh ya right,that does not fit into your agenda. So what you're saying is that you are not really concerned with the status of life overall on the planet Earth. You are only concerned with anthropogenic CO2 causing the Earths ATMOSPHERE to warm,in turn will cause catastrophe. standard denier idiocy/tactic! Offer up an imagined what-if alternate and then proceed to assign the/an outcome of that imagined what-if alternate to someone/others who don't subscribe to your alternate imagination! Top it off with a liberal sprinkling of alarmism by stoking up the outcome to include, "the status of life" - overall!!! Is there any end to your denial??? I most certainly am not denying that you are a denier of AGW/ACC... do you have something else you'd like to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I see... so you offer up 2 causal tie choices to earthquakes and one of those causal ties aligns with your touted `Earth's inner core movements", while the other causal tie associates to global warming. When you're challenged to substantiate your second choice, a global warming causal tie to earthquakes... challenging you to cite, "who/what organization attributed recent earthquakes to global warming", suddenly, amazingly, you backpedal with a, "I have never made any such claim". Wow! You`re on roll! It is you that is making the claim that humans are in greater threat of global warming as opposed to earthquakes! It is you that is making the claim that I am trying to tie earthquakes with global warming! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I most certainly am not denying that you are a denier of AGW/ACC... do you have something else you'd like to say? You are denying a great number of influences because it does not fit your agenda of putting the blame on humans! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 (edited) Verify? Seems to me you could do a search for sources on both sides of the argument. It's "pick your expert" time with that game! I understand that this has already been asked and ignored, but I would sure like to know what experts deny the CO2 is a GHG? Even Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer concede that point. So does Roy Spencer, John Christy, Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark, Anthony Watts and Robert Carter. I am not sure who I missed, but I can't think of any scientist who denies that CO2 is a GHG. I mean how could they? Edited September 27, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 I know there have been plenty of studies regarding the supposed economic costs of GW, but I'm wondering if there have been any studies considering the economic benefits? For example the opening of the artic passage, greater exploration opportunities in the far north, longer resource extraction seasons, more arable land, lower road maintenance costs, less heating, less snow removal, lower incidence of traffic accidents, faster delivery, more opportunity to use alternative transportation (eg. Bicycles) all year round, etc. anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) I understand that this has already been asked and ignored, but I would sure like to know what experts deny the CO2 is a GHG? Even Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer concede that point. So does Roy Spencer, John Christy, Patrick Michaels, Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark, Anthony Watts and Robert Carter. I am not sure who I missed, but I can't think of any scientist who denies that CO2 is a GHG. I mean how could they? you won't get an answer, I'm finding when you reduce the issue to simplest questions they refuse to, or don't know the answer, deflect around the question, answer with "oh ya, you prove it is", "that's just your opinion", "you're a socialist", ... Edited September 28, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 Is there any end to your denial???I most certainly am not denying that you are a denier of AGW/ACC... do you have something else you'd like to say? You are denying a great number of influences because it does not fit your agenda of putting the blame on humans! no - in any related discussion throughout these many assorted MLW threads, I have spoken of the composite nature of warming; i.e., that it reflects upon the composite makeup of natural and anthropogenic positive and negative forcing... natural and anthropogenic forcings. You keep beaking off with your unsubstantiated opinion... when I punted your "Earth's inner core" alternate emphasis with the following post, your juvenile reply speaks volumes on how misinformed and ignorant you truly are. Like I said, you're so far out there on the fringe, of the fringe denial, you don't even know how far out you are: Show me something that takes the actual temp. of the Earth into account! Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth - you're welcome What's this? yes, who would expect you to actually recognize the very point you’re, without providing any support/substantiation, beaking off about… you know, natural warming attributed to the Earth’s outer core. how is it your “expertise”, coupled with all the self-proclaimed research you’ve done, doesn’t allow you to recognize a study speaking of, amongst other things, the natural global warming attributed to longer decadal changes in the length of the Earth’s day… you know, those changes that correspond to liquid iron movements within the Earth’s outer core? It is quite baffling that your “expertise” doesn’t recognize the study providing you a comparative review between the 3 referenced variables and their associated data sets; i.e., Earth’s outer core movements, Earth's rotation, and global surface air temperature. It is mind boggling that your “expertise” doesn’t understand the studies stated correlation findings… that until ~1930, the 3 respective datasets correlated very strongly; that after ~1930 they began to significantly diverge. That is to say, after ~1930, there are no corresponding changes in the Earth’s core movement or length of day to coincide with an observed continuing increase in global surface air temperatures; an increase attributed to anthropogenic sourced GHGs. Man that's a long winded swing at freekin nothing! You feel better now buddy? Did you have a cigarette after writing this comment? I guess when you got your head so far down stuck in the freekin sand there's no turning back. do you care to step beyond your continued unsubstantiated opinion? Care to step-up and offer your alternate to the principal causal link for today's relatively recent warming? Your alternate principal causal link; one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 associated with fossil-fuel burning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) perhaps you should read the exchange you're objecting to again; clearly, your comprehension difficulty is even more acute than usual. Apparently you don't recognize a distinction between emission reduction targets/approaches versus 'polluter pay' transfer payments to address adaptation/mitigation requirements for developing countries, right? You do realize, for instance, that Africa contributes but 4% to the total yearly growth in global emissions... yet Africa is the continent most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change. So, ya... polluter pays in terms of monetary transfer payments into the 'climate change fund(s)' to help assist developing countries. The same way there are negotiations involved to address per country emission reduction target levels, there are negotiations involved to address per country monetary transfer payments to assist developing countries with adaptation/mitigation needs - and a part of those negotiations requires a historical perspective on just how contributing respective developed countries have been to the overall historical cumulative emission total. The latter seems to be where your confusion/comprehension difficulty stems.The historical cumulative emissions approach is where this whole thing falls apart though. It's not hard to understand why people think this is a good idea, but it's similarily easy to see why it's not going to be accepted at anything but a token level. This is what's going to completely derail any realistic emissions reduction negotiations. Emissions reduction is the overall goal right? does it help your failed comprehension to isolate parts of my quote, while ignoring the pertinent statements? Or is it just your mechanism to try to hide that failed comprehension? I've quoted my entire post to showcase your purposeful self-serving quote extract. Look... I even bold-highlighted the distinction you keep failing on. One side of that distinction, and related negotiations concerning transfer payments, reflects directly upon historical cumulative emissions I isolate parts of your response because you write poorly, you over-quote and you try and win your arguments through long-winded brute force and exhaustive nattering rather than making clear points. The distinction you're making between emissions reduction targets and transfer payments for mitigation/adaptation is noted. It simply has no bearing on my argument. ya ya, that's right... the bold-highlighted, explicitly stated distinction sailed right over your comprehension prowess! You claim the distinction, 'has no bearing on my argument'. Clearly you would say as much; particularly given the distinction blows your, uhhh... "argument" up... big time. One side of that distinction, and related negotiations concerning transfer payments, reflects directly upon historical cumulative emissions - you know, those I highlighted previously - again, this graphic. Now, as for negotiations toward per country, emission reduction targets, given that 'historical cumulative' emissions are the sum total of all countries contributing emissions and that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, some of today's current warming reflects upon those historical emissions. - another stat: between 1900-to-2008, China emitted ~ 117 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere..... and in that same period, the United States emitted ~ 337 Gt. Do you see any disparity here, Moonbox?... notwithstanding, again, the actual outsourcing of emissions from developed countries to developing countries. The disparity is obvious but the emissions were simply a bi-product of being wealthy and industrialized. The attitude seems to be that the USA nefariously churned out pollution and in became wealthy by polluting, as if this in itself is a profitable business. The developing world didn't pollute because they were under-developed and poorly governed, not because of any strong moral stance. When claiming that long-industrialized countries should 'pay' for their past emissions, we're complicating a debate which for all intents and purposes has only one goal: reducing current and future emissions. nice rationalization there, Moonbox! We're wealthy, you're poor... we could pollute, you couldn't! Regardless of your deemed "complicating the debate", as I stated, the $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund is a UNFCC legal based reality agreed to by world nations; it does exist as a mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. do you have any silver bullet negotiating solution to deal with the historical emissions aspect when getting countries... all countries... to agree to per country emission reference levels and emission reduction target levels that reflect upon those reference levels? There is kinda one out there, been floating around the last couple of COP meetings... kind of dovetails with the breakout distinction on transfer payments that I keep highlighting for you - the distinction you keep failing on. Hasn't your expertise on climate change meetings/agreements allowed you to realize this latest silver bullet attempt?Reference levels and overall reduction targets are going to be ham-fisted and fairly arbitrary. No agreement will be reached if it's based on the instistence that old polluters pay meaningfully for past pollution. This is not a statement on the fairness of the situation, but merely a practical assessment of human selfishness, particularly on a macro/geo-political level. If climate change is such a big concern, an agreement should be reachable based on emission reduction alone. The only way we're going to reduce emissions is to tax emissions themselves to the point where industry/consumers start to alter their behaviour. This, however, has to be universal or it's going to be pointless. The revenues from this can be pooled centrally and re-distributed to clean energy research and, if necessary, mitigation for countries coping with climate change, but moreso the first as far as I'm concerned, as it leads us towards an actual solution rather than damage control. no - again, the distinction keeps alluding eluding you. A part of the complete negotiations is/will be, a dove-tailed approach that works both parts of the distinction, playing one off the other. The so-called "global budget approach" that sets a calculated level of global CO2 that may be omitted between now and 2050, versus the additional financial compensation from polluting developed countries to developing countries tied to a historical accounting of per-capita emissions (i.e., the Green Climate Fund). Going forward, most likely, the final agreed to distribution assignment of the, 'between now and 2050 global CO2 budget', will be made on an equitable, per country/per-capita, emissions allocation basis... effectively, each country will have it's own designated atmosphere of emissions to manage, applying climate protection strategies as it sees fit in order to meet required legally binding emission reduction targets. on edit: to appease the anally retentive, 'alluding' changed to 'eluding' Edited September 28, 2012 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.