LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThat's a good question. Maybe the scientists at RealClimate will be able to answer you.Originally Posted by X-ray
That's a good question. Maybe the scientists at RealClimate will be able to answer you.
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There has been plenty of academic debate about the validity of ice core samples. For example Here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylo...uehle99nat.pdf
Just because mr Jarowoski claims there has been no research does not make it true.
This blog goes into great detail on all the lies and inaccuracies in Jarowski's theory. (which was first espoused in 1992 and only dug up now by the creationistas looking for their bacterial flagellum argument
Some are Boojums Blog Archive The Golden Horseshoe Award: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Akrasia
Before you get your contract for the good life, why is it such a political proposal, and as regards the necessity, capacity payments, thousands of tons of CO2, unemployment, balance of payments ???It is a highly political proposal so there would need to be a great deal of focus on public relations and consultations to gain public support that the idea is both practical and necessary
Regards, Pat Gill
What's bizarre is you move from issue to issue demanding you personally be educated on this topic. Every new issue must be explained to you "or else there is no theory". When that one is explained you move to the next.
No it would be like you showing up at a religious conference saying "Who is this Jesus guy? Where's he mentioned in the bible? Unless you can show where he's mentioned you can't claim he exists!"It like me saying to a catholic priest prove christ died on the cross, either you can prove it or strongly support it or you cant. The evidence is undeniably based on
And then
"Yeah well show me where it says he was crucified, nobody has presented me with any evidence of that!"
At each stage everyone is wondering why the heck you don't just go read the thing yourself and come back when you have something to say.
You're arguing purely from a position of ignorance, that's the weakest possible position.
If you'd done even a bit of googling you would have found this point-by-point rebuttal of Jaworowski's claims written by Hans Oeschger[FONT=Arial]Now maybe this guy is wrong, but saying he is wrong does not make him so. Where is the research showing that gases trapped in ice remain stable for centuries?[/FONT]
This is a complex topic and nobody here is an expert. You have access to exactly the same information as everyone else but as soon as a sceptic claim is made you cling onto it until someone does the work to rebut it, then you ignore it.
Look, the debate is over. AGW is real, even the 'skeptics' believe that the world is warming and people are contributing towards it
Dr Patrick Michaels Cato Events - Global Warming: Some Convenient Facts of the CATO institute agrees that there is warming and the greenhouse effect is real. (He was a keynote speaker at a climate change skeptics conference a few years ago)
"The Climate Coalition" has disbanded (a front group for the oil mining and car industries whose sole purpose was to challenge the science behind global warming)
The debate has now moved on to how fast is it occuring and what the consequences will be, and what action we should take.
It is only crackpot deniers who still challenge the central premise of AGW using exactly the same logic as the creationists (fallacy after fallacy after fallacy)
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
I know about the arguments and I agree, there are a lot of very good reasons to support SoI, but this is Ireland, and it will encounter local objections wherever it tries to establish itself. Especially as it will be based in scenic coastal locations.
Energy policy is by its nature a hugely political issue. I think the arguments are eminently winnable but there would certainly be objections. (if not from the people, from the commercial vested interests)
The biggest challenge would be convincing people that this is a realistic and viable project, The best way to do that is to actually go ahead with the project and show that it works, but if you're planning on raising money from the public, the you're going to need to win the public relations battle and convince people that it's a genuine and realistic proposal.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
I read through the critique of Jarworowski and the links from Sharper.
However, there is no specific Scientific validation of CO2 trapped in ice and what was recorded in the atmosphere at the time.
In the Global Warming debate we are having a lot of mud slinging from all sides. Obviously there is Trillions of $$$$ at stake so i don't expect proponents of Global Warming to go down without a fight.
Ernst Beck's paper, collating all the work done by the pioneers of modern science dating back to 1812 is dismissed without any scientific basis. Just call it inaccurate and bad sampling technique. All 90,000 tests.
It should be noted that Savante Arrhenius paper of 1896 was clearly wrong. He stated that if CO2 doubled in the atmosphere, the planets temp would go up 5 deg C.
By 1905 Arrhenius corrected his work and said it would be 1.5 - 1.6 K
I'm not even saying Arrhenius's work was right but guess what publication HOME - Change.ie Irelands plan of action on climate change quotes from ... you guessed right 1896.
So here we have a researcher from 1896 extolled and the work done in 1939 - 1941 rubbished by the IPCC.
See here:
John Tyndall had identified the natural greenhouse effect, which is vital to life on Earth. Some time later in 1896 Svante Arrhenius from Sweden made the first calculation of what would happen if the atmospheric concentration of one of these greenhouse gases carbon dioxide CO2 was doubled. He calculated that this would cause a global average temperature increase of 5 degrees Celsius. The most recent value for this figure produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 is 3 degrees Celsius. The IPCC calculation is based on our most advanced analysis of the global climate system but the value is remarkably close to the value calculated over 100 years earlier.
These *************************s also tell a lie:
The main Greenhouse gas is Dihydrogen Monoxide. Also knows as water vapour. We give it off in the same molar volumes as CO2 every time we burn something.How does human activity lead to additional greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are emitted by numerous activities – the main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which arises from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. Other GHGs include methane (CH4), from agriculture and waste food and nitrous oxide (N2O), mainly arising from agriculture. Industrial gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) also act as very powerful greenhouse gases but are emitted in much smaller quantities.
Lying bastards Change.ie just tell a lie. CO2 is not the main Greenhouse Gas.
Screw the lot of ye.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK
It's fairly obvious from the context that they mean "the main greenhouse gas emitted by man".
Don't expect them to go down at all until the scientific consensus changes.
What are you so angry about?Lying bastards Change.ie just tell a lie. CO2 is not the main Greenhouse Gas.
Screw the lot of ye.
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Oh Jesus Christ!!! What a display of ignorance.
When you burn ... for example, Methane Gas. You give off CO2 AND Water Vapour.
CH4 + 2(O2) = 2(H2O) + CO2
So you give off 2 molecules of water vapour for 1 molecule of CO2 and water vapour absorbs 3 times more IR energy (greenhouse energy) than CO2. So one could say Water Vapour is 6 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 when you burn methane.
In case you haven't realised, man emits water vapour.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK
Reply With Quote