Durban Climate Change Conference 2011

[Tonington]

Not anymore. It's been officially sidelined. Global Warming wasn't provable but Climate Change is.

Global warming is provable...where do you come up with this nonsense? Estimate trend and see if your confidence interval includes zero. If not, then you have Global warming. Climate change means more variables.

And as far as sidelined? More Petros brand bull $hit. Here's some recent published research articles with global warming in the title:
Soil temperature response to 21st century global warming: the role of and some implications for peat carbon in thawing permafrost soils in North America

In this one they even frame it so folks like you should be able to understand, investigating the climate change from resulting global warming:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/25/2011/esd-2-25-2011.pdf

And do you know who suggested changing the messaging from global warming to climate change? It was Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, and now Fox News commentator/analyst.

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#cite_note-Meltdown-6​

 

[mentalfloss]

I disagree as do many experts.

It's assinine!

You disagree with this?

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[49] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[50][51][52][53] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[54] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[55]

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tonington]

I'm shaking my head here. Honestly, why did you get the special blue font?

The site admin team recognized that I contribute a lot to this topic specifically, and asked me to somewhat moderate the climate change sub-forum.

Do movements, or groups have conferences?

Of course they can, but you're conflating many things, and changing the words to fit your, well whatever it is that you are. Not a movement, some folks who wish to stick their head in the sand.

 

[EagleSmack]

The site admin team recognized that I contribute a lot to this topic specifically, and asked me to somewhat moderate the climate change sub-forum.

And to insult people who disagree? To act immature because people aren't being good little Climateers? Was that part of the plan? Was that what the site admin team had in mind?

Perhaps professionalism and controlling of your emotions should factor into you being a quasi-mod.

Of course they can, but you're conflating many things, and changing the words to fit your, well whatever it is that you are. Not a movement, some folks who wish to stick their head in the sand.

Oh please. You got tooled and now you're saying I'm changing words to fit. You were foolish to even bring that part into the thread in an effort to "catch" me.

 

[mentalfloss]

and to insult people who disagree? To act immature because people aren't being good little climateers? Was that part of the plan? Was that what the site admin team had in mind?

Perhaps professionalism and controlling of your emotions should factor into you being a quasi-mod.

7.5/10

Your first pity post was much better.

Are you going to answer my question on the science?


Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[49] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[50][51][52][53] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[54] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[55]

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tonington]

You got tooled and now you're saying I'm changing words to fit.

Tooled? Whatever. No, I quoted where you changed the wording yourself. Unlike you, I don't actually care to be seen as winning anything. Heck, I even agreed in some respects that your "side" is wnning, though based on getting money from you I wouldn't agree. You are payign more for things right now because of the increased awareness of human influences on our climate.

Now go to your tribe and pat yourselves on your backs for the good job you're all doing. :roll:

 

[petros]

You disagree with this?
These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.

I disagree and so do the Vostock cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg

 

[mentalfloss]

I disagree and so do the Vostock cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Care to explain how?

 

[petros]

Do you see the zero on the left? That is today. The peaks to the right are higher than today. How the **** did that happen?

 

[mentalfloss]

Do you see ther zero on the left? That is today. The peaks to the right are higher than today. How the **** did that happen?

Are you sure that zero on the left is today?

 

[petros]

100% sure.

 

[Tonington]

I disagree and so do the Vostock cores.

The Vostok ice cores don't disagree with MF, as usual you have failed to notice some key points. What's the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in the Vostok ice core time series? Almost 300 ppm about 330,000 years ago. Last month the concentration was 390.2 ppm.

Vostok does not disagree with what MF posted. You should notice where the green curve ends...it's not on the Y-axis, which means the Vostok ice core does not cover the time up to present.

 

[petros]

They neanderthals must have paid a tax to fix everything for us then we blew it? Do you see the cyclical nature of it all?

You pillow biters are ****ing hilarious.

 

[mentalfloss]

The Vostok ice cores don't disagree with MF, as usual you have failed to notice some key points. What's the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in the Vostok ice core time series? Almost 300 ppm about 330,000 years ago. Last month the concentration was 390.2 ppm.

Vostok does not disagree with what MF posted. You should notice where the green curve ends...it's not on the Y-axis, which means the Vostok ice core does not cover the time up to present.

Correct.

Here are the links for the vostok period and today's CO2 levels:

During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999).

As of November 2011, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 390 ppm by volume.[3]


And here's a study which shows that we may have the highest levels in the last 15 million years.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

They neanderthals must have paid a tax to fix everything for us then we blew it? Do you see the cyclical nature of it all?

I noticed that you took the first piece of evidence to support your theory instead of doing what a true skeptic would do and substantiate your claim.

This is what separates the skeptics from the deniers.

 

[Tonington]

Correct.

And now he wants people to notice the cyclical nature. Temperature leads carbon dioxide in the Vostok record ( so the famous denier canard went, trying to disprove a link between temperature and carbon dioxide), and now we have carbon dioxide at 390 ppm, well above the highs in the Vostok core, and no temperature spike before this spike in carbon dioxide. I wonder what crazy question he'll come up with next? Dust? Aliens? Anything but the plainly obvious....

What a maroon!

 

[petros]

It's not cyclical. **** no.

And now he wants people to notice the cyclical nature. Temperature leads carbon dioxide in the Vostok record, and now we have carbon dioxide at 390 ppm, well above the highs in the Vostok core, and no temperature spike before this spike in carbon dioxide. I wonder what crazy question he'll come up with next? Dust? Aliens? Anything but the plainly obvious....

What a maroon!

Why does temp lead CO2? You claim it's the other way around. What an ultra maroon.

 

[EagleSmack]

Tooled? Whatever. No, I quoted where you changed the wording yourself.

"Oh is a movement the same thing as a conference now?" <--- That was foolish and yes...tooled.

Sorry you can't comprehend the two sentences of mine that you quoted.

Unlike you, I don't actually care to be seen as winning anything. Heck, I even agreed in some respects that your "side" is wnning, though based on getting money from you I wouldn't agree. You are payign more for things right now because of the increased awareness of human influences on our climate.

Oh really? We are paying more solely because of man made climate change theory. Were you born last decade?

Solar power, wind and hydro power have been around long before the Global Warming crowd got going. Punishing big businesses and fining them for polluting is not a result of the GW Movement either.

Don't even try to give credit to the GW crowd for ecological awareness. It's been around for quite some time.

On second thought... perhaps we are paying more to placate that movement...

And yes, the US Govt. is investing in alternative energy. Look at Solyndra... $660 Million GONE. Gone!

My State of Massachusetts investing in Evergreen Solar... $600 Thousand GONE. Gone!

Does the Climate Movement have any other bright ideas that they'd like to force on us?

Now go to your tribe and pat yourselves on your backs for the good job you're all doing. :roll:

Good grief.

 

[mentalfloss]

Lay off the Alex Jones.

Read this instead:

 

[petros]

Ohhhh ice records where temp leads CO2 are false and it's not cyclical? It's man. Even caveman from
325,000 years ago.

 

[darkbeaver]

Durban is very good smoke.