Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

The lack of power plants running producing power from water or nuclear fusion.

What lack? 80% of France's electricity is made at nuclear power plants. Where I live, the vast majority of our power is hydroelectric.

But it wasn't from Global Warming, now was it? Same with the bison.

It was from humans. Do you deny this or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it isn't.

Could you get back to the topic? Actually, I think Dr. Bubbalove gave the conclusion of the thread, so I'm pretty much done here.

You continue to make stuff up, and it is demonstrated by your inability to back any of it up with facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I didn't believe in global warming, you might have a point, but I do believe in global warming, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, which you either fail to read or ignore. This makes me think that, when you read, you gloss over what you disagree with and therefore, your interpretations are incorrect.

You accept that humans are increasing global temperatures?

I believe that the earth warms and cools globally, and I don't think mankind is the primary cause of it.

You just contradicted yourself. When we talk about global warming, we are talking about anthropogenic global warming, and you know it. All you are doing is playing childish words games.

The reason that you don't accept AGW is because you don't want it to be true. You can't bring any facts to the discussion, only denial.

You, on the other hand, disbelieve an event that is chronicled in many cultures, while believing in one which is strictly a matter of opinion-two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

Myths aren't data. Never have been.

 

[RickG]

See? That's how data gets misrepresented. The bolded expresses your agenda. The below, which is directly copied and pasted, does not:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

So the way it reads to me, 32.6% express AGW. 66.4% do not.

No, you are looking at it incorrectly. Recall that I stated that climate science incorporates numerous disciplines within itself. The 66.4 percent of climate science did not address AGW in their research. It addressed aspects of climate, especially paleoclimatology.

Understand that the climate research that addresses AGW is what we are looking at. Of all climate research that addresses AGW 97% + shows the earth to be warming due to increased CO2 and that additional CO2 is shown to be attributed to fossil fuels.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What lack? 80% of France's electricity is made at nuclear power plants. Where I live, the vast majority of our power is hydroelectric.

What % is France of the world? In the US, we haven't had a nuclear plant built in many, many years. And we haven't built a dam in years, either. It's those danged environmentalists who are interfering with the global warming scientists!

It was from humans. Do you deny this or not?

Maybe part of the evolutionary cycle?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You continue to make stuff up, and it is demonstrated by your inability to back any of it up with facts.

Back at you. You have no facts that humanity is the cause of global warming....

 

[Root of Jesse]

You accept that humans are increasing global temperatures?

No more than other species.

You just contradicted yourself. When we talk about global warming, we are talking about anthropogenic global warming, and you know it. All you are doing is playing childish words games.

No, when you talk about global warming, you're talking about something that happens whether we exist or not. When you claim that mankind is the primary cause of global warming, it's a different thing altogether.

The reason that you don't accept AGW is because you don't want it to be true. You can't bring any facts to the discussion, only denial.

If it were true, and I thought we could do something about it, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But don't you see how this works? You can't prove that I wouldn't change my ways if I thought it would help the environment, and you can't prove that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.

Myths aren't data. Never have been.

And many of us believe that mankind causing global warming is a modern myth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, you are looking at it incorrectly. Recall that I stated that climate science incorporates numerous disciplines within itself. The 66.4 percent of climate science did not address AGW in their research. It addressed aspects of climate, especially paleoclimatology.

Understand that the climate research that addresses AGW is what we are looking at. Of all climate research that addresses AGW 97% + shows the earth to be warming due to increased CO2 and that additional CO2 is shown to be attributed to fossil fuels.

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch

 

[RickG]

Back at you. You have no facts that humanity is the cause of global warming....

I'll be quite happy to provide that information.

This is done through the measurement of carbon isotopes; specifically 14C, 13C, & 12C. They all posses the same chemical behavior but have different masses. Of specific significance is the ratio of 13C to 12C. The ratio of those two isotopes is different with respect between natural carbon cycle atmospheric CO2 and that from fossil fuels. As CO2 from fossil fuels is released into the atmosphere the 13C/12C ratio decreases. The ratios of those isotopes are contained in both tree rings, ice cores and direct atmospheric measurements. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the ratio measurements are seen decreasing with respect to the rise of atmospheric CO2, which not only shows correlation, but causation as well. Here's some references to the relevant literature.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

 

[RickG]

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” | Climate Change Dispatch

The source makes the same erroneous claim that I described in my previous post discussing it. The 66% is not used because it does not address AGW at all, thus they neither agree or disagree. Please understand the context of the 97% consensus. "Of those papers that address AGW, 97% agree that the current warming trend from the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to fossil fuels". The reason those papers are even mentioned is because they are part of the group sourced to include as much published climate research as possible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The source makes the same erroneous claim that I described in my previous post discussing it. The 66% is not used because it does not address AGW at all, thus they neither agree or disagree. Please understand the context of the 97% consensus. "Of those papers that address AGW, 97% agree that the current warming trend from the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to fossil fuels". The reason those papers are even mentioned is because they are part of the group sourced to include as much published climate research as possible.

Did you read any of them?

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

 

[Loudmouth]

What % is France of the world?

If nuclear power can supply electricity for 80% of France, it can supply the same percentage to any country.

In the US, we haven't had a nuclear plant built in many, many years. And we haven't built a dam in years, either. It's those danged environmentalists who are interfering with the global warming scientists!

Maybe part of the evolutionary cycle?

That screeching sound you hear is you moving the goal posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you read any of them?

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

A direct poll of 1800 climate scientists shows that 90% of those scientists with 10 or more publications agree that humans are the prime cause of recent global warming:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e

 

[Root of Jesse]

If nuclear power can supply electricity for 80% of France, it can supply the same percentage to any country.

It requires building the plants and delivery systems. But what makes you think you're not just selling the problem down the road? We don't know how to get rid of nuclear waste.

That screeching sound you hear is you moving the goal posts.

But not global warming. Killing a limited population of an animal on an island is a lot different.

 

[Loudmouth]

It requires building the plants and delivery systems. But what makes you think you're not just selling the problem down the road? We don't know how to get rid of nuclear waste.

Coal plants don't require buildings or delivery systems?

On top of that, the newest nuclear power tech produces 1/10th the waste of older reactors. It isn't that hard to get rid of the waste.

But not global warming. Killing a limited population of an animal on an island is a lot different.

You claimed that nuclear and hydroelectric could not produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels. That is plainly false.

 

[RickG]

Did you read any of them?

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

The source you provided is an AGW skeptic opinion. The fact is my source (Cook, 2013) plus the others I included in a previous post are all peer reviewed papers published in mainstream science journals, showing that of the published peered review research that addresses AGW agrees with is 97% plus.

Where are the published peer reviewed papers that disagree with the 97% consensus studies?

Where are the published peer reviewed papers showing that the research showing AGW is wrong?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Coal plants don't require buildings or delivery systems?

The difference is that they're already there, for the most part. It takes a very long time to get a nuclear power plant built.

On top of that, the newest nuclear power tech produces 1/10th the waste of older reactors. It isn't that hard to get rid of the waste.

Not that hard, very scientific answer....what about gasoline powered cars that produce near zero emissions? If the technology is there for autos, it's there for power plants, too...

You claimed that nuclear and hydroelectric could not produce enough energy to replace fossil fuels. That is plainly false.

No, that's not what I was saying. I said they cannot. Quite different.

 

[Loudmouth]

The difference is that they're already there, for the most part.

I'm pretty sure we are still capable of building new plants.

what about gasoline powered cars that produce near zero emissions?

What about them? How is the CO2 sequestered? Why not use a system that doesn't produce CO2 to begin with?

No, that's not what I was saying. I said they cannot. Quite different.

Tomato, tomahto. Nuclear and hydroelectric could replace every single coal and gas power plant across the world right now.

 

[Aldebaran]

What about them? How is the CO2 sequestered? Why not use a system that doesn't produce CO2 to begin with?

Who cares? All we have to do is spray aluminum particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back out into space (and then we get to inhale the particles of aluminum into our bodies), and all will be well! Nanosized aluminum being sprayed in the atmosphere, causing degenerative disease, says neurosurgeon

 

[Loudmouth]

Who cares? All we have to do is spray aluminum particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back out into space (and then we get to inhale the particles of aluminum into our bodies), and all will be well! Nanosized aluminum being sprayed in the atmosphere, causing degenerative disease, says neurosurgeon

Hold on. I thought you said that any fluctuation in temperature is natural, and can never be the result of anything humans do.