@BrianK

Quote:

Definitional disagreement really. CO2 certainly is used by plants. The question is what impact it is having on a planet. If it's causing the planet to warm and that warming is causings other harm then indirectly CO2 is harmful. Also plants aren't the only life on the planet. 1-2% CO2 in the air and you will start feeling tired. 5% CO2 in the air and you will die. So saying that CO2 is perfectly fine is untrue. It can cause harm and death to living things.

As many pseudo-scientists you believe in the false premise that CO² is the main driver of warm, although CO² was clearly demonstrated lagging behind temperature by 800 years, so CO² cannot cause GW (see first thread for a reminder). In addition, there is no place on Earth with such high percentage of CO², so your comment is entirely irrelevant and denotes an obvious lack of basic facts.

Quote:

(Looking at plants in production in the US) Of course CO2 is contributed in a lifecycle of a nuke plant. Perhaps you should think about how that happens. Sure it's less then other power plants. We have radioactive fuel and waste which must be protected against theft or bombings. We have a high cost of insurance. That and other factors make Nukes the most expensive electricity to produce.

70-80% of our power here comes from nuclear plants, and it is very cheap. Is the USA so bad at nuclear production? Or is this the syndrome I previously described:
Quote:

American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking.(J. Sacherman, 1997)

?

Quote:

Hey and there's abiotic oil why not use the limitless fuel?

Russia practices that already since 50 years based on the modern theory of deep abiotic/abiogenic and renewable petroleum origins. Is this once again the same syndrome? In any case, update your informations.

Quote:

I won't go on I think you get why most of these are wrong. Most environmentalists realize we live in a society that demands power and want to see renewable sources - wind, earth, water, sun - used compared to the more highly polluting types currently in production. The way you've classified environmentalists here is overly simply. You used the fringe environmentalists and classified that is all environmentals. It's not true as you presented it.

How gullible! Environmentalists do not understand that no energy production comes for free and reject the most efficient and less polluting ones because of the dogma of renewable energy (low efficiency, ROI uncertain and very low quantity produced).

Quote:

Last 8+ years in US history shows this exactly wrong here. Instead under the Bush administration we had oil and coal companies writing their own laws and reducing environmental protection statements. 'Clear skies' initiative lets them produce more air pollution. Afterall politicans like monies who has more than the oil industry? This side is caught up in profits at the behest of the planet. If it weren't for environmental activity these companies would do little to nothing to protect the planet. We need both sides.

That private companies corrupt politicians is unfortunate (but a well distributed behavior in the world). That environmentalists corrupt Science for their own profit is even more blameworthy because they not only kill the trust in themselves but use a usually apolitical and beneficial institution for this. Their hate/love use of the Science is so manifest in this respect.
The point of my post was that the environmentalists refuse current energy production methods by lying and using disproved theories and data manipulations to disqualify them, while in the same time globally claiming supporting renewable energy but locally refusing current renewable technologies because of environmental impacts, and then refuse next generation methods because they can not control (yet) the economy.
The environmentalists are just ideologist. Not so strangely, one can almost exclusively find them to proliferate in Western countries, where energy is cheap enough for them to survive, where institutions are financed by other to protect them (from themselves) by social laws, and where the economy is developed enough to for them to have a work.

The rest is irrelevant.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

although CO² was clearly demonstrated lagging behind temperature by 800 years, so CO² cannot cause GW

While there was an 800 lag demonstrated a couple of times this doesn't exclude it's use. Could there not be many reasons a planet warmed? CO2 might be one, gamma ray burst near by, excessive solar flares, change of axis, excessive volcanoes, dust stelling from a large meteor strike letting the sunlight back in, etc. It's wrong to assume the elements of climate change are exactly the same every time. Instead we must show during the changes what the factors were and understand the factors now. Here's an article with thoughts along the same lines.

Quote:

In addition, there is no place on Earth with such high percentage of CO², so your comment is entirely irrelevant and denotes an obvious lack of basic facts

My use of an example of how CO2 can be harmful is based on facts. The logical fallacy here is your use of an unstated premise that I claimed 5% CO2 to exist in our atmosphere. I clearly did not.

The thoughtsthat since CO2 is used by plants it is therefore good for the planet and even more must be better doesn't consider all the factors. If CO2 increases global warming then plants and animals which perfer cold environments are impacted. Warm loving beings are impacted too. Cold temps in Minnesota keep out southern invaders. If we don't enjoy the -35C temps it's more likely those southern pests will migrate here and impact the plants. Even if CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming increased CO2 does contribute to increases acidity in oceans. If the increases in CO2 is too great the in turn increased acidity will kill off some of the diversity of life in the ocean. My example was just one of many showing your thought of CO2 is better for plants therefore more for the planet is better is not true. Amount of CO2 has different impacts on animals on the planet and these limits are not the same as plants.


Quote:

70-80% of our power here comes from nuclear plants, and it is very cheap. Is the USA so bad at nuclear production? Or is this the syndrome I previously described: ..?

This imaginary syndrome is not proven here.

There are quite a few issues surrounding nuke plants. One is coal in the US is cheap and plentiful. Another is the required insurance for nukes is very expensive and no company will buy it so the government must step in. Here in MN a 30 year energy was looked at in our winder part of the state, in the southwest. Coal generated estimated at .07/kwh. Wind engery at .05/kwh and nuclear in the .12-.14/kwh.

In addition Nukes require long term storage and care of spent uranium so it doesn't get abused by terrorists, for example. Today most depleted uranium lives on site. Yucca mountain was going to be a central dispositary and is currently estimated to install and operate $90 Billion Now once built it shouldn't be overly expensive to store waste there but overall this is an exepensive endeavor. This isn't uncommon. Recently in 2004, for another example, the French Court of Accounts calculated back-end liabitlies for EDF, CEA and AREVA nuclear operations at $65Billion Euro. Storage and care is not cheap and has often not been in the costs on an electrical bill. Instead we see governments absorbing them as a whole. In turn they must raise your taxes to pay for this. So what happens is the consumer ends up thinking they are getting a good deal for electricity and doesn't realize the hidden costs they end up bearing through additional taxes.


Quote:

Russia practices that already since 50 years based on the modern theory of deep abiotic/abiogenic and renewable petroleum origins

The vast majority of Russian oil comes for normal depth fossil based oil. They have no 15km deep wells as you claimed. You need to update your 'facts'.


Quote:

Environmentalists do not understand that no energy production comes for free

Certainly there are the fringe environmentalists that believe the answer is to do nothing. However, there are even larger numbers of environmentalists that realize we're not going to degrade our life by having no energy and instead work towards using less polluting and more renewable sources.

@BrianK

Quote:

Could there not be many reasons a planet warmed?

1/ It has to be first demonstrated that temperature has been abnormally warmer (against which base line?). As temperature's data are far from being reliable, the real question is "Has the planet really warmed?".
2/ Even if "the planet has a fever", dixit Al Gore (ie data are reliable), some places on Earth have cooled while some other have warmed: there is no global effect.
3/ Even is there is a global effect, CO² can not be a factor as there is no correlation between CO² and temperature measurements during the last 600 millions of years (see image below).
4/ Even if there is a correlation between the CO² and the temperature, a correlation is not a causative effect.
5/ Even if there is a causative effect, many natural (geological, biological, etc) negative feedbacks exist to damper CO² amount in the atmosphere.
6/ Even if CO² continue to rise, past amounts of CO² in atmosphere have been shown to be 10 times that of today while life was flourishing and diverse.

Quote:

CO2 might be one, gamma ray burst near by, excessive solar flares, change of axis, excessive volcanoes, dust stelling from a large meteor strike letting the sunlight back in, etc.

The AGW believers have always claimed that CO² is the main cause of GW. How a smart move to slightly modify the initial claim (as is the "AGW" to "climate change"). What will the AGW believers next smart move to hide their lies?
Note that "excessive volcanoes, [and] dust stelling" have negative forcings and decrease temperature.

Quote:

My use of an example of how CO2 can be harmful is based on facts. The logical fallacy here is your use of an unstated premise that I claimed 5% CO2 to exist in our atmosphere. I clearly did not.

What you clearly did not state is that the %CO² you mention are only reach in laboratory, not in nature. So your examples are irrelevant at best and could be considered as lies by omission at worst.

Quote:

Even if CO2 doesn't contribute to global warming increased CO2 does contribute to increases acidity in oceans.

Again a distortion of reality. pH ranges between 0 and 14 (no unit): 0 to below 7 is defined to be acidic, 7 is neutral and above 7 to 14 is alkaline. Oceans are alkaline (about 8.1-8.2) so cannot be acidic until reaching a value below 7. Given the vast amount of water in oceans and the chemistry of CO²/H²O/calcium acting as a buffer and the log scale nature of pH, oceans will never even reach the neutral (7) pH value. Moreover it was during the Ordovician Era, nearly 500 million years ago (see image below), and when CO² amounts were 10 times that of today, that the major coral groups (coral is built from calcium carbonate that itself comes from CO² and calcium) contributed to the massive reef systems in the tropical regions. So, once again, it is a lie (abuse of language) to scare people to say that "[CO²] increases acidity".

Quote:

The vast majority of Russian oil comes for normal depth fossil based oil. They have no 15km deep wells as you claimed.

A typical distort of what I wrote. I said that Russian are able to drill down to 15km, a deep reached for a record. They usually drill down to 4km in production fields, a deep that is the Western compagnies record.



Distorting facts and realities to scare people will not help the ecology cause in general and the environment in particular.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

1/ It has to be first demonstrated that temperature has been abnormally warmer (against which base line?). As temperature's data are far from being reliable, the real question is "Has the planet really warmed?".

About the last 10,000 years the temp has been fairly stable. It appears that a few degrees on average warmer than now it'll be hotter than 2M years ago.

Quote:

some places on Earth have cooled while some other have warmed: there is no global effect.

Ahh the noted misnomer of 'Global Warming'. More fairly it should be Global Climate change. And yes areas of the globe are predicted to become cooler for a period of time.

Quote:

3-5

My understanding at this time is the type of carbon increasing in the atmosphere is the isotype which is associated with industrial release. This is how it's derived that man is contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quote:

The AGW believers have always claimed that CO² is the main cause of GW. How a smart move to slightly modify the initial claim (as is the "AGW" to "climate change").

I see now why you feel the 'A' in GW is needed. It's because in this way you can mischaracterize your opposition. GW is defined as at least the last 50 years of warming we've seen the leading factor is due to CO2 and the main increaser of CO2 to be man made.

Quote:

So your examples are irrelevant at best and could be considered as lies by omission at worst.

You're taking the example and trying to promote it to the whole of an arguement. The example was clearly illustrative that while plants may thrive in CO2 there are other things which excessive exposure to CO2 is detrimental. No one ever claimed that excessive exposure for humans existed now nor would exist anytime soon.

Quote:

Again a distortion of reality

No simply a failure of you to understand a definition. Acidification is the process of lowering pH. Doesn't matter if the item remains ia base or not. State A of a high pH, adding chemicals resulting in State B in a lower pH is acidification. Acidification moving from a more aklayine state into a more acidic state. 8.2pH is less acidic than an 8.1pH. So yes we saw acidification of this base as it moved into a lower pH state. The pH scale is logrithmic so a move between whole numbers is a factor of 10. Moving from 9 to 8 is 10x more acidic. Moving 9 to 7 is 100x more acidic.

Quote:

Moreover it was during the Ordovician Era, nearly 500 million years ago (see image below), and when CO² amounts were 10 times that of today, that the major coral groups (coral is built from calcium carbonate that itself comes from CO² and calcium) contributed to the massive reef systems in the tropical regions.

Again a fallacy of an unstated claim. No one said all life would end. There are biological limits to factors of pH. Many creatures have tight limits. Certainly you'll try to make this example the whole of the arguement again but I'll do it anyway... Humans are a pH of about 7.4. Moving to a pH of 7.2 causes renal failure and death.

Quote:

I said that Russian are able to drill down to 15km, a deep reached for a record.

I provided you a source that Kola Superdeep Borehole took 19 years to reach 12.3km and is the deepest bore hole known at the time. They had hoped to reach 15km but they stopped 2.7km shy. Research continues in the hole but further boring does not. All we've seen of this from you are unsupported claims. Care to ante up any 3rd party evidence that you're right and a 15km hole exists in Russia?

@BrianK

Quote:

About the last 10,000 years the temp has been fairly stable. It appears that a few degrees on average warmer than now it'll be hotter than 2M years ago.

The past 600 millions years have seen the temperature ranging between 12 and 22°C. That gives a median of 17°C. Grossly defined, current temperatures range from 13°C (rural) to about 14-15°C (urban). So until the temperature reaches 17°C on Earth, I'm not going to be scared by fear-mongers.


Quote:

Ahh the noted misnomer of 'Global Warming'.

Ahh the misnomer of 'Global Warming' forged by Al Gore and J. Hansen to scare people and more easily tax the carbon.

Quote:

More fairly it should be Global Climate change.

More fairly for whom? For the fear-mongers (Al Gore and J. Hansen) who have debunked themselves by switching to the redundant "Climate change" locution or for the people who have been tentatively deceived by the Anthrogenic "Global warming" sca[ ]m/[ ]re (check accordingly)? I'm waiting for an apology in either case:
Quote:

“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained…”

from the vocal alarmist J. Hansen's web page. Somewhat as a confession.

Quote:

I see now why you feel the 'A' in GW is needed. It's because in this way you can mischaracterize your opposition. GW is defined as at least the last 50 years of warming we've seen the leading factor is due to CO2 and the main increaser of CO2 to be man made.

So the [A]GW is ill-defined because the base-line for the supposed warming is defined from the presuppositional hypothesis that "CO² released by man is the main cause of the claimed warm" is true. A clear attempt at circular logic by misinterpreting a correlation (build upon unreliable temperature data with falsified methodologies) with a causative effect (which then does not exists).

Quote:

No simply a failure of you to understand a definition. Acidification is the process of lowering pH. Doesn't matter if the item remains ia base or not. State A of a high pH, adding chemicals resulting in State B in a lower pH is acidification. Acidification moving from a more aklayine state into a more acidic state. 8.2pH is less acidic than an 8.1pH. So yes we saw acidification of this base as it moved into a lower pH state.

Once again a clear attempt to mislead and scare. Given that the oceans' pH is about 8.2 (alkaline), the right, non-misleading, non-language-abused and scientifically most correct way to represent a decrease of pH in the alkaline range is to say "less alkaline" until the pH reaches the neutral value of 7. Any other way to express that is a way intended to make people think that a very slight decrease (and not yet measured) of pH in the oceans is a potential big threat (using the negative connotation of the 'acid', 'acidity', and 'acidification' words). This misleading is therefore done to intentionally confuse (see below).

Quote:

. No one said all life would end.

Yes, no one said that. I wrote the opposite. So why wrote it? To confuse and deceive?

Quote:

There are biological limits to factors of pH. Many creatures have tight limits. Certainly you'll try to make this example the whole of the arguement again but I'll do it anyway... Humans are a pH of about 7.4. Moving to a pH of 7.2 causes renal failure and death.

You are entirely right, but you forgot some important facts. Most creatures have many different biological mechanisms to adapt themselves to changing conditions (be it pH, salinity, temperature, concentration of this or that, etc). Mechanistically, life depends upon actively keeping a gradient of many atoms (active transport of H+, Ca²+, Na+, etc) through a membrane. Biologically speaking, the number of the molecular supports for this transport are very few given the huge number of species (past and present). That means that very few mechanisms were sufficient in the past and are now sufficient to permit adaptation to the ever changing conditions of the environment. [Off topic: even more, the different proteins supporting and controlling these mechanisms are neighbour and come probably from a ancient unique ancestor]. So, these creatures adapt to the ad infinitum changing environment to live (actively keeping the gradients). And this is where your example does not fit: we are dealing with adaptation of simple creatures (simple membrane) to external conditions (water), not of regulation of internal condition (pH) in complex creature living in air (multiple barriers) (even if the same molecular mechanism (active transport to keep a gradient) is involved).
Note that alkalinity of ocean is not directly related to CO² (chemistry), but by the balance between eutrophization (pH up, H+ uptake) and decomposition (pH down, H+ release) of plankton (biochemistry). The most important limiting factor in aquatic ecosystem is the dearth of hydrogen ions (H+ uptake by phytotrophic plants): so the lesser the pH (or the more the concentration in H+) in the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and the denser the amount of life you get. In other word, less alkaline oceans is a good thing, biologically wise. Given that the decomposition is never complete and is slow, the concentration of H+ tends to decrease (pH is more alkaline), which limits eutrophization and, generally, life development (negative feedback).
Finally, you cannot realistically experiment in situ changing conditions, meaning works have to be done in laboratory where experimental conditions will obviously never met the native conditions (so caution in interpretation).

Quote:

I provided you a source that Kola Superdeep Borehole took 19 years to reach 12.3km

Ok I go for 12.3 instead of 15km [As this is far off topic, I'm not masochism enough to really dig deeper information, so to speak, for a few km]. Nevertheless, what I wrote:Quote:

Russia practices that already since 50 years based on the modern theory of deep abiotic/abiogenic and renewable petroleum origins

still stand correctly.
As you said, they choose the less deeper fields (0 to 4km): thanks for pointing out that Russian are not so stupid and have some notion of capitalist economy.

Edit: typos.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Feb-2009 at 11:02 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Feb-2009 at 10:59 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Feb-2009 at 10:57 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

So until the temperature reaches 17°C on Earth, I'm not going to be scared by fear-mongers.

Ah so when GW happens even though this is higher than the averages in the last 2Million years you don't believe anything will change?

Quote:

Ahh the misnomer of 'Global Warming' forged by Al Gore and J. Hansen to scare people and more easily tax the carbon

Don't know who first coined this term. It's GW term is 'accurate' as a far as the effects around the globe will be occuring from the increase in worldwide temperature. It's inaccurate to believe that everywhere will be hotter. Global Climate Change is a more fair wording.

Quote:

So the [A]GW is ill-defined because the base-line for the supposed warming is defined from the presuppositional hypothesis that "CO² released by man is the main cause of the claimed warm" is true

Yup. Here's the deal the GW crowd define our present (last 50 years) and predicted state (in the next couple hundred) to be occuring with CO2 as the main driving factor. Now they might be wrong as you want to indicate. However using AGW is ill-defined because it allows the anti-gw crowd redefine the arguement. We've seen it here in your arguements already. Just because there are a couple of data points in the past where CO2 appeared to not be involved with a warming period for a short time doesn't exclude that it is likely the most important factor in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Quote:

scientifically most correct way to represent a decrease of pH in the alkaline range is to say "less alkaline" until the pH reaches the neutral value of 7

Not true. A mixture does not have to be an acid to begin with to talk about acidification. Acidification is a lowering change of pH value. One could use the term less alkaline too. Doesn't really matter, IMO. The effects are the same of the mixture.


Quote:

Most creatures have many different biological mechanisms to adapt themselves to changing conditions (be it pH, salinity, temperature, concentration of this or that, etc).

To a point. It's not like you can throw a person in a pH solution of 9.5 and leave them there expecting to find them alive next year.

Quote:

That means that very few mechanisms were sufficient in the past and are now sufficient to permit adaptation to the ever changing conditions of the environment

I disagree. There are cases where the environment is changing faster than mechanisms within a creature allow. For example, some birds have migatory patterns. This allows them to live in temperatures that are not extremely hot or extremely cold. If you stick a swallow in -30C here in MN it dies of exposure it doesn't have the internal mechanism to adapt.

Quote:

So, these creatures adapt to the ad infinitum changing environment to live (actively keeping the gradients).

I disagree. DNA can lose and gain information. One example is Drosophila where the DNA is very compact and the current model of how and why is that it has lost DNA information over time. So no creatures do not keep all gradients in their system. Another example whales. Their early ancestors came out of the sea, walked on land, and went back to the sea. Yet, if we take a whale out of the ocean and drop it on land in the Alps it's not going to spend the next 6 months traversing black diamonds. It will die. Clearly they have lost some gradients from earlier species which lead up to whales.

Quote:

so the lesser the pH (or the more the concentration in H+) in the water, the higher biological productivity becomes

Wow anyone that's owned a fish tank are probably doubled over laughing at this statement. Easy way to disprove yourself. Get some sea water creatures and recreate the pH 8 environment in which they live. After a few months, make sure your environment is well established, change the pH to 3. We will see how well biologically productive your fish become.

Quote:

Ok I go for 12.3 instead of 15km

Thanks for learning. Someday you'll figure out most of Russian oil is fossil derived too. Definitely looking at economic activities they seem support the limited oil of non-abiotic theory.

@BrianK

Quote:

Ah so when GW happens even though this is higher than the averages in the last 2Million years you don't believe anything will change?

This is the usual trap. The trend or mean in temperature is modified depending on the start and the end of the range. This is why I prefer a median over long period: the value does not depend on the start or end (chosen by the scientist), but only the warmest and coldest values (not dependent of the scientist). You can't be fooled with a median.
I do not believe in anything, rather I am convinced by facts based on reproducible data using sound methodologies.

Quote:

It's inaccurate to believe that everywhere will be hotter. Global Climate Change is a more fair wording.

The 2 sentences are opposite. The redundant "Climate change" locution cannot be "Global" since "It's inaccurate to believe that everywhere will be hotter". Anyway, it seems though that the marketing mantra has changed from "Global Warming" to the current Climate Change and soon followed by "Global Climate Disruption". Everyone wants a part of the cake.

Quote:

To a point. It's not like you can throw a person in a pH solution of 9.5 and leave them there expecting to find them alive next year.

That is sure: humans do not live in saline water continuously as oceans are not their native environment. And a pH of 9.5 is not realistic either for oceans.

Quote:

I disagree. There are cases where the environment is changing faster than mechanisms within a creature allow. For example, some birds have migatory patterns. This allows them to live in temperatures that are not extremely hot or extremely cold.

Of course. When I plunge my living and squarely cut potato in boiling oil, it obviously has no time to adapt before becoming a French fries: it is not its environment and the condition is changing too fast. School learns it is called adaptation: if the creature cannot adapt, it disappears (eat in my case).

Quote:

If you stick a swallow in -30C here in MN it dies of exposure it doesn't have the internal mechanism to adapt.

That is probably why one cannot found a swallow in winter.

Quote:

I disagree. DNA can lose and gain information. One example is Drosophila where the DNA is very compact and the current model of how and why is that it has lost DNA information over time. So no creatures do not keep all gradients in their system. Another example whales. Their early ancestors came out of the sea, walked on land, and went back to the sea. Yet, if we take a whale out of the ocean and drop it on land in the Alps it's not going to spend the next 6 months traversing black diamonds. It will die. Clearly they have lost some gradients from earlier species which lead up to whales.

Obviously, if you put yourself completely in water, you will die after some time because it is not your native environment. But you can increase/decrease the temperature or whatever environmental variable you want and still live comfortably in the atmosphere. The point being that adaptive mechanisms are flexible enough for creature to live in the changing environment. As these environmental conditions have changed quite drastically but slowly over the past and there is still live in all the biosphere, I don't see a problem here: we are not living in a museum.

Quote:

Wow anyone that's owned a fish tank are probably doubled over laughing at this statement. Easy way to disprove yourself. Get some sea water creatures and recreate the pH 8 environment in which they live. After a few months, make sure your environment is well established, change the pH to 3. We will see how well biologically productive your fish become.

Nice try, but once again your example is flawed. What you are dealing with, is a closed environment: because oceans is so vast, you can not realistically change its pH from 8 down to 3 in a few second: that is a 10000 fold increase in concentration of H+ you will never reach due to the buffer nature of the carbonate chemistry in oceans.
In the real world, the coastal seas or estuaries have the lower pH due to high levels of decomposing bacteria (water is permanently in an eutrophied state). There can be as much as 1 to 2 unit of pH difference between the coastal water and the open sea. In open ocean, you never have 2 unit of difference at the same place.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Internationally distributed US newspaper reports of climate since 1895 with some interesting patterns:
see here (large width picture).

To illustrate:


Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 02-Feb-2009 at 09:16 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

This is the usual trap. The trend or mean in temperature is modified depending on the start and the end of the range

600 Million is clearly too long. First, the range is what 30x longer than man has ever existed? Second our planet has changed during that time and for various reasons. Of course no one argued that the planet has not changed over time. What they have argued is the main item for change in climate in the 20th century is man's release of CO2.

So there's the question what other factors increased or decreased temp for the planet? Are they occuring today? If not what are our factors today.

Quote:

Everyone wants a part of the cake.

I fully agree Global Warming is a misnomer from the anti-gw perspective who expects every thermometer around the world to go up. Though I'd argue that dude is simplistic.

Quote:

That is sure: humans do not live in saline water continuously as oceans are not their native environment

Wait didn't you say that creatures have 'That means that very few mechanisms were sufficient in the past and are now sufficient to permit adaptation to the ever changing conditions of the environment'. Yet we changed the environment for a human and now you claim he doesn't have the mechanisms to adapt? Really which is it. Of course dinosaurs adapted well didn't they?

Quote:

When I plunge my living and squarely cut potato in boiling oil, it obviously has no time to adapt before becoming a French fries: it is not its environment and the condition is changing too fast

You might finally be getting it. Okay so how fast is the environment changing and how do we prove which beings can adapt within that amount of time? CO2 in the oceans are predicted to increase the acidity rate, or decrease the alkalinity same thing, by 5 fold in the next 100 years. Prediction is our present oceans will decrease from 8.2-8.1 by a ph of .5. So what experiments can we do now to check on the ability of creatures to survive this change or is it too rapid. We have the GW crowd documenting changes to creatures now such as thin and weakened shells of mollusks. Certainly an attribute that will allow other creatures to break the shell and eat them easier. Yet we have claims that all the animals will survive these changes and your proof is? The thing we do know is if we don't pump out the CO2 than animals that exist now won't have to change to a changing environment and/or the rate of change will be even slower. If your arguement is a slow rate of change is more adaptable by animals then clearly not pumping out the CO2 which in turn decreases alkalinity of oceans is even better as we won't see the 5 fold increase in the next 100 years.

Quote:

But you can increase/decrease the temperature or whatever environmental variable you want and still live comfortably in the atmosphere.

Again to a point and depends on rate. A frog for example is much more sensitive to temperature changes than a human.

Quote:

There can be as much as 1 to 2 unit of pH difference between the coastal water and the open sea. In open ocean, you never have 2 unit of difference at the same place

Though interesting many creatures in the coastal water haven't been able to use their mechanisms of adjustment to move into the open sea.

@BrianK

Quote:

What they have argued is the main item for change in climate in the 20th century is man's release of CO2.

That the 600 millions years plot clearly demonstrate is wrong: CO² variation does not correlate with temperature variation.

Quote:

So there's the question what other factors increased or decreased temp for the planet? Are they occuring today? If not what are our factors today.

These valuable questions are completely ignored by IPCC and its marketing department (Gore and Hansen).

Quote:

I fully agree Global Warming is a misnomer from the anti-gw perspective who expects every thermometer around the world to go up. Though I'd argue that dude is simplistic.

At best.

Quote:

Wait didn't you say that creatures have 'That means that very few mechanisms were sufficient in the past and are now sufficient to permit adaptation to the ever changing conditions of the environment'. Yet we changed the environment for a human and now you claim he doesn't have the mechanisms to adapt? Really which is it. Of course dinosaurs adapted well didn't they?

The important word you miss is "native": saline water with a pH of 8.2 is not the human native environment: no surprise that human cannot adapt. Of course you can always find some counter example (birth at first).

Quote:

CO2 in the oceans are predicted to increase the acidity rate, or decrease the alkalinity same thing, by 5 fold in the next 100 years. Prediction is our present oceans will decrease from 8.2-8.1 by a ph of .5.

A couple of fact:
1/ the pH affair ("acidification of ocean" as they say it) comes from a result of two NOAA voyages in the Pacific. From these two voyages (one experiment) it is claimed that the average alkalinity of the ocean decreased (1984-2004) by just 0.025 pH. It is not possible to give this value a scientific meaning because measuring an absolute difference of 0.1 in pH borders on the margins of the possible accuracy, let alone in the 0.01 range. Moreover, you cannot scientifically conclude anything from 1 experiment.
2/ the IPCC predictions of -0.5 are, once again, based on computer simulation from:
a/ Caldeira & Wickett (2003) who claimed that the oceans have already decreased by 0.1 but without any real world measurements, so is BS (bad science),
b/ Jacobson (2005) who claims a pH of 8.24691 in 1751. At that time pH measure was only possible by chemical titration, a method not more accurate than 0.2 pH unit (regardless of the amount of sampling and averaging). How is it possible to get a so precise pH at that time? Even today an accuracy of 0.1 unit of pH is what you can determine at best. Based on a 8.13647 value in 2000, Jacobson extrapolates a 7.87615 value in 2100. Once again, how is it possible to have such accuracy?
Moreover pH changes night to day, from day to day and winter to summer and from place to place and depends on biological activities (eutrophization/decomposition ratio). If you want to have an accurate pH you have to kill all life in the sample, which is never done.
An illustration of the alkalinity variations over time and places:

Finally, one have to take these predictions with great suspicion because methodologies are flawed/subject to great caution.

Quote:

So what experiments can we do now to check on the ability of creatures to survive this change or is it too rapid.

Before doing experiments, I would go to define clear, standard and well recognized methodologies. Without proven methodologies, you cannot do good science.

Quote:

We have the GW crowd documenting changes to creatures now such as thin and weakened shells of mollusks.

This (James C. Orr, 2005) work is based on flawed experimental lab research done with HCl (hydrochloric acid) to lower the pH:
1/ HCl is used because salt water has a lot of chloride ions already. But HCl, by lowering the pH (blue line shifts left to green line in the plot below) also lowers the amount of the carbonate CO3²- ion (green arrow), thus producing more CO² (red arrow) in an acidic solution (Bjerrum, 1914):

instead of increasing CO3²- like what appends in the real oceans. Langdon 2002, Schneider & Erez 2006 and Kleypas et al 2006 demonstrate that "calcification is mainly dependent on the [carbonate CO3²- ion concentration]".
2/ CO² bubbling is also used in lab., and while this is more real world-based experiments, the water is never given the time to reach the equilibrium (which can takes some time, as this is not pure water), that is to say the right side of the equation :
CO² + H²O H²CO3 H+ + HCO3- H+ + H+ + CO3²-
is never allowed to be completed.
Finally, Le Chatelier's Principle states that adding CO² to a CO²/carbonate equilibrium (including carbonate rock) drives the reaction towards the formation of MORE carbonates (CO3²-), not less.
As the sea water is saturated in calcium (Ca²+), one has the last equation:
Ca²+ + CO3²- => CaCO3 (calcium carbonate = coral).
Note that the above equation is one way, and given CO3²- is 100 time lower than Ca²+ in oceans, CO3²- is the limiting factor to coral formation.
From the previous post, we have seen that a decrease of pH stimulates phytoplankton that then helps to decreases H+ concentration and dampens pH.
Finally, the following picture shows that despite large variations in CO² amount in the past, the pH was fairly stable, ranging from 8 to 8.3 over time (plot based on proxy reconstructions from IPCC):


Now, you have to have your own opinion.

Quote:

Again to a point and depends on rate. A frog for example is much more sensitive to temperature changes than a human.

Naturally. The problem is that we don't currently know most of the 'range of live' of most of the creatures with the most interesting variables.

Quote:

Though interesting many creatures in the coastal water haven't been able to use their mechanisms of adjustment to move into the open sea.

If you can move, it is easier to adapt. In addition coastal seas are not representative of the whole oceans (receive sediments from rivers, pollution, etc).

Edit: typos and made some sentence more clear.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-Feb-2009 at 06:08 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-Feb-2009 at 05:46 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You mean a global compulsory sterilization program? Many 'modern' countries developed such eugenic programs before the WWII including USA, Canada, Japan, etc.

don't dismiss my warning!

IMHO if people are reduced to a cost or carbon price, whatever, we all are in trouble. It won't be long before some GW nutcase makes the case for removal. We saw what this kind of thinking did in WWII !

The PopulationBum
Climate Change: A member of Britain's government says couples should be limited to two children to save the Earth from global warming. It's discouraging that such muddle-headed people are in positions of power.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree

Quote:

That the 600 millions years plot clearly demonstrate is wrong: CO² variation does not correlate with temperature variation.

Again the arguement here is does CO2 correlate with temperature always or infrequently. The answer is it does and fairly frequently but not always. CBC recently had a broadcast on the Climate Wars. The explaination for worrying about the 2C above average in the last 2Million years was due to the permafrost. Depending which models a 1-4C degree increase will begin to melt the permafrost. The permafrost contains as much CO2 as our atmosphere does along with methane which is an even more reactive greenhouse gas.

Quote:

These valuable questions are completely ignored by IPCC and its marketing department (Gore and Hansen).

I think this harkens to why the IPCC model is not only wrong but many scientists see that it under predicts the effects. One of the examples they gave was an ice free arctic summer was predicted for 2017 and we saw the effect now.

Quote:

1/ the pH affair comes from a result of two NOAA voyages in the Pacific.

pH of ocean surface has thousands if not millions of measures and at various places, New Zealand, Hawaii, Washington state, and the North Atlantic are some examples. Heren addition NOAA has deployed buoyed sensors that take continual readings. Here is just one set showing your 'ONLY TWO' claim is false.

"The study was done around Takoosh Island off the coast of Washington state and represents the first detailed dataset on variations of coastal pH at a temperate latitude, where the world’s most productive fisheries are found [Times of India]. The researchers took over 24,000 measurements of ocean pH over an 8-year period. During that time, the pH of the seawater was predicted to decrease by only 0.015 points. Instead, the data showed that seawater pH dropped by 0.36 to about 8.1"

Quote:

Even today an accuracy of 0.1 unit of pH is what you can determine at best

PHS-3B Accuracy is .02+/-1 digit. And another HI 98128 has an error of +/- 0.05pH. So twice as accurate as you claim.

Quote:

IPCC predictions of -0.5 are, once again, based on computer simulation from

Again IPCC predicts a range not a single measure. This is due to having different models based on different factors of change. The pH measured above actually appears to be slightly higher than the IPCC predicted model. This appears to happen repeatedly. I know you like the 'IPCC computers are wrong' mantra unfortunately the news is more frequently worse than the IPCC models.

Quote:

If you want to have an accurate pH you have to kill all life in the sample, which is never done

You need an education in statistical sampling methods.

Quote:

The problem is that we don't currently know most of the 'range of live' of most of the creatures with the most interesting variables.

I agree we don't. Yet you somehow argue all creatures will be fine? Weren't you the one who earlier argued if we don't know we should act conservatively? Guess you threw that concept out the window?

Quote:

If you can move, it is easier to adapt.

I don't know about that. 'Adapting' may not be adapting for animals that can move. It may be moving to a different area. This is migration not adaptation.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Feb-2009 at 01:34 AM.

I don't know anything about Global Warming apart from it's a myth, however I still have 30,000 orthodox candles I need to get rid of.

_________________
[quote]Amiga were also offered Amithlon before anyone else. I was the first to run it. It ROCKED HARD. I begged them to use it, we had a WINNER and could sell a bajillion of them. We owned all the rights to it! But sadly, Bill and Fleecy didn't want peopl

@Interesting

I reassure you, he is not alone:

David Graber, a research biologist with the National park Service:
Quote:

“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.” “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals:
Quote:

“Mankind is a cancer; we are the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species, Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

David Foreman former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society:
Quote:

"The optimum number [of human] is zero.

How can you trust an ideology that uses Science to achieve such goal?

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Feb-2009 at 03:02 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Feb-2009 at 12:38 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Again the arguement here is does CO2 correlate with temperature always or infrequently. The answer is it does and fairly frequently but not always.

Even if in some restricted time scales CO² appears to somehow correlate to temperature, this correlation is just that, a correlation. What people usually do not understand is that there is no causative effect between 2 correlated variables until you prove it in an incontestable manner with incontestable methodologies. Climate science is far from the 2. That means until someone proves that CO² has a real causative effect on temperature, one can just say it is a coincidence.

Quote:

The explaination for worrying about the 2C above average in the last 2Million years was due to the permafrost. Depending which models a 1-4C degree increase will begin to melt the permafrost. The permafrost contains as much CO2 as our atmosphere does along with methane which is an even more reactive greenhouse gas.

It is clear that, in the past, temperature has increased and decreased, sometime quickly (10 years); however, how is this related to man?
There existed many natural (astro-, geo-, bio-, etc)cycles to cause these temperature variations. Is this a reasonable assertion to say that theses natural cycles have disappeared because man releases CO² in the atmosphere? The response is obviously no. Is this a reasonable assertion to say that theses natural cycles have been perturbed because man releases CO² in the atmosphere? The most honest response is perhaps. But we currently don't know which cycle(s), if any, and if any, to which extend.
We know that past conditions on Earth have evolved by themselves, sometimes slowly, sometimes faster, and sometimes drastically but within certain ranges. What does that means? That means that there existed/exists positive feedback processes (PFP) to permit environmental conditions to change at a certain time, while it existed/exists also at the same time negative feedback processes to bound these PFP and dampen conditions. All of this is possible because most of the water on Earth is a liquid at the usual temperature (and therefore it exists a gradient of temperature between tropics and poles).

So, in my view, it is premature to point finger when you don't have enough informations to point it.

Quote:

I think this harkens to why the IPCC model is not only wrong

Given the chaotic nature of the physic behind the climate and therefore its intrinsically non-predicative behavior, I can only agree with this part of the sentence.

Quote:

but many scientists see that it under predicts the effects. One of the examples they gave was an ice free arctic summer was predicted for 2017 and we saw the effect now.

Strange. There are also many scientists that think models are inappropriate. There are also many scientists that think models will never predict anything (useless). There are also many scientists that think climate science has switch from the scientific theory-observation paradigm to the non scientific model-observation paradigm. There are also many scientists that think science in climate science is a joke. There are also many scientists that think AGW is a fraud, a myth, bad science, etc. You know, the "Science is settled", "The debate is over", etc.

Quote:

One of the examples they gave was an ice free arctic summer was predicted for 2017 and we saw the effect now.

They also said for Artic ice in summer 2008:
“I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility,” said Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado in the US.
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time (in history),” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News.
We know what happened.

Quote:

pH of ocean surface has thousands if not millions of measures and at various places, New Zealand, Hawaii, Washington state, and the North Atlantic are some examples. Heren addition NOAA has deployed buoyed sensors that take continual readings. Here is just one set showing your 'ONLY TWO' claim is false.

Reread what I wrote. I said:Quote:

the pH affair comes from a result of two NOAA voyages in the Pacific.

The picture I embed certainly shows that pH is measured world wide now.

Quote:

"The study was done around Takoosh Island off the coast of Washington state and represents the first detailed dataset on variations of coastal pH at a temperate latitude, where the world’s most productive fisheries are found [Times of India]. The researchers took over 24,000 measurements of ocean pH over an 8-year period. During that time, the pH of the seawater was predicted to decrease by only 0.015 points. Instead, the data showed that seawater pH dropped by 0.36 to about 8.1"

No reference of the scientific paper? A couple of problem: the study is around the coast (coast's waters do not represent oceans, see previous post), probable data contamination by the (evolution of the) fisheries in the water. Prediction with which model by who? Where are the data of the biological markers?

Quote:

PHS-3B Accuracy is .02+/-1 digit. And another HI 98128 has an error of +/- 0.05pH.

Progress is good. How do you then explain the 4 digits claimed by the study either in 1751, in 2000 or in 2100?

Quote:

Again IPCC predicts a range not a single measure. This is due to having different models based on different factors of change.

Sure. With so many predictions, they can't be always wrong. Even Hansen is not stupid enough to give just one prediction.
Myself I go for just 1 prediction: my internal model predicts that the 2009 summer will be mostly sunny with mildly temperature.

Quote:

The pH measured above actually appears to be slightly higher than the IPCC predicted model. This appears to happen repeatedly. I know you like the 'IPCC computers are wrong' mantra unfortunately the news is more frequently worse than the IPCC models.

You mean like you usual credo that the IPCC models are too conservative?

Quote:

Quote: If you want to have an accurate pH you have to kill all life in the sample, which is never done You need an education in statistical sampling methods.

You need some basic education on biological processes. What do you not understand in the methodology?

Quote:

I agree we don't. Yet you somehow argue all creatures will be fine? Weren't you the one who earlier argued if we don't know we should act conservatively?

God no, I'm not an environmentalist! I don't build a decision if I have not all the information to make a good one. Mankind has not evolved by respecting the precautionary principle.

Quote:

I don't know about that. 'Adapting' may not be adapting for animals that can move. It may be moving to a different area. This is migration not adaptation.

Are you suggesting that migration cannot be considered as a process of adaptation? You definitively need some basic knowledge in biology.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What people usually do not understand is that there is no causative effect between 2 correlated variables until you prove it in an incontestable manner with incontestable methodologies

First off let's assume there's a causative effect. Then that effects exists whether or not it has been proven. Afterall, the correlation betwen things being wet occured before Hydrogen and Oxygen were ever proven. Second. It appears that you are looking for something science does not do. Provide undeniable proof. This is something for mathematics. Science never changes a Theory into a fact.

Quote:

It is clear that, in the past, temperature has increased and decreased, sometime quickly (10 years); however, how is this related to man?

You still seem to not understand this. GW scientists say in the last 50 years the majority of the warming effects are due to CO2 released by man. GW do not say that every effect ever was due to CO2 and never said that every effect ever was due to man. Instead the scientists are working to understand the variables in the system and the one we can control and appears to have an impact is CO2.


Quote:

So, in my view, it is premature to point finger when you don't have enough informations to point it.

Let's take your approach from a slightly different starting block. If you are right and we clearly don't understand CO2's impact then until we "prove it in an incontestable manner with incontestable methodologies" that CO2 has no impact then we should logically stop releasing it.


Quote:

There are also many scientists that think AGW is a fraud, a myth, bad science, etc.

My counter arguement is you are looking for something that rarely happens. 100% scientific agreement. The consensus is that in the last 50 years the warming pattern has to mostly do with CO2. This is not 100%.

Some examples to highlight my point: The scientific consensus is plate tectonics is at work in our planet. There are scientists who disagree and say it's paleomagentism. The scientific consensus is evolution has and is occuring. There are scientists who disagree (Spencer) and claim the hand of God. The scientific consensus is that Realitivity is right. There are scienists (some on arXiv you quoted this source here ) that claim to have fixed Gallileo's problems and Relativity is not needed. The scientific consesus is in Germ Theory that makes us sick. There are scientists that claims germs do not actively make us ill.

This shows us what really? It shows us some scientists disagree and on most everything. Science reaches consensus of understanding and continually reevaluates itself based upon new evidence.

Quote:

The picture I embed certainly shows that pH is measured world wide now.

Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding.

Quote:

Progress is good. How do you then explain the 4 digits claimed by the study either in 1751, in 2000 or in 2100?

I have illustrated that you have incorrectly discarded an experiment for not fully understanding the factors at play. Your claimed accuracy was a wrong assumption. What it does spell out is perhaps the better play is reading and understanding the science not throwing things out for some s.illy w.ild a.xx g.uess. (Sorry I spelled that out I didn't know if you knew what a swag was.)

Quote:

Are you suggesting that migration cannot be considered as a process of adaptation?

I see 'adaptation' as items like fur to beat the cold. I'll give you one could argue that a migration is a behaviorial adaption so should be included too. However, I doubt this changes the questions any. The question is does the rate of change of the environment outstrip the ability for the plant or animal to adapt. We know for fact that 40' long snakes and T-Rex no longer exist. We know for a fact the reason they no longer exist is their adaptions were slower than the rate of environmental change. And afterall clearly many scientists think Xenu blew us out of a volcano so we can't make a decision until we can build a time machine and check all dates and time ever so this is incontestable.

@BrianK

Quote:

First off let's assume there's a causative effect.

There is none. No need to speculate further.

Quote:

GW scientists say in the last 50 years the majority of the warming effects are due to CO2 released by man.

The hypothesis is that CO² greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere. The core effect of greenhouse, the CO² fingerprint as defined by GW scientists themselves, is that temperature has to rise in the troposphere (about 10km above ours heads) in response to an increase in GHG (CO², etc). What scientists have observed? CO² amount has rose linearly since decades and decades of satellite data and radiosondes data show no such troposphere warming (no hotspot). Alarmists have then objected that radiosondes data might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Still hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
So CO² cannot be the cause of the very slight temperature rise.

Quote:

Let's take your approach from a slightly different starting block. If you are right and we clearly don't understand CO2's impact then until we "prove it in an incontestable manner with incontestable methodologies" that CO2 has no impact then we should logically stop releasing it.

Simplistic logic, perhaps. There is no greenhouse fingerprint, as demonstrate atmospheric observations (together with other calculations and physical evidences). It is understandable that the next move of alarmists is to shamelessly evade the trouble and give us the doomiest&gloomiest predictions they can think of (no more Greenland ice in 2008, 100 meters sea level rise, dramatic ocean acidification, etc) in order to follow their political agenda. Will the next prediction be "because of generalized ice melting and high localized sea level increase, modification of the planetary gravitational field will induced an orbital inclination change of Earth and an orbital disturbance finally leading to a solar system escapement"?

Quote:

My counter arguement is you are looking for something that rarely happens. 100% scientific agreement. The consensus is that in the last 50 years the warming pattern has to mostly do with CO2. This is not 100%. Some examples to highlight my point: The scientific consensus is plate tectonics is at work in our planet. There are scientists who disagree and say it's paleomagentism. The scientific consensus is evolution has and is occuring. There are scientists who disagree (Spencer) and claim the hand of God. The scientific consensus is that Realitivity is right. There are scienists (some on arXiv you quoted this source here ) that claim to have fixed Gallileo's problems and Relativity is not needed. The scientific consesus is in Germ Theory that makes us sick. There are scientists that claims germs do not actively make us ill. This shows us what really? It shows us some scientists disagree and on most everything. Science reaches consensus of understanding and continually reevaluates itself based upon new evidence.

You just show yourself that there is no consensus in Science. That logically makes sense because that is the epistemological foundation of Science.

Quote:

I have illustrated that you have incorrectly discarded an experiment for not fully understanding the factors at play. Your claimed accuracy was a wrong assumption. What it does spell out is perhaps the better play is reading and understanding the science not throwing things out for some s.illy w.ild a.xx g.uess. (Sorry I spelled that out I didn't know if you knew what a swag was.)

What you have illustrated is that 4 digits pH measurements cannot be achieved with current methodologies, a fortiori with a XVIII century one (not to speak of model predication), so 4 digits pH numbers are suspect (at best). What you have illustrated is your absence of understanding on how you decipher results against methodologies. More precisely, what you have illustrated is your clear lack of work surface lab research, calibrating a pH meter against standards, determining its real resolution/precision and real accuracy in different solutions and conditions (muhaha to those of the manual), tracking its short and long term drift to get its repeatability (and then correcting for it). With such "I found it on the manual/Internet/whatever so it must be true" line of thinking, what you illustrate is your rejection of the valuable paradigm of observation-based science: it is obviously easier to play with numbers on computer (models).

Quote:

I'll give you one could argue that a migration is a behaviorial adaption so should be included too.

I'm glad you agree.

Quote:

The question is does the rate of change of the environment outstrip the ability for the plant or animal to adapt.

Thanks for paraphrasing me.

Quote:

We know for fact that 40' long snakes and T-Rex no longer exist. We know for a fact the reason they no longer exist is their adaptions were slower than the rate of environmental change.

So they died. So yes, conditions appears to sometime change rapidly. So yes, adapt or die. What is the problem? Is this shocking the romantic side of you? How is this (can be) related to CO²? Where are the definitive proofs that CO² has any effect? Or do you imply, that because of à-la-Nostradamus predictions of certain politically interested persons, man should go "back to the trees/caves"? What is the real motive of environmentalists?

Quote:

And afterall clearly many scientists think Xenu blew us out of a volcano so we can't make a decision until we can build a time machine and check all dates and time ever so this is incontestable.

You are circular reasoning here. The time machine exists: it is called a proxy. What (methodologically well defined) proxies have shown?
1/ there is no correlation between CO² and temperature variations on large time scale.
2/ on certain time scale, CO² is correlated to temperature, but as the CO² increase lagged behind temperature rise, CO² cannot be the cause of the temperature increase.
3/ on short term time scale, the hypothetical signature of the CO² greenhouse effect is not observable.

Now that observations show that there is no CO² greenhouse signature and proxies show that CO² is not correlated to/the cause of temperature rise, as Lord Keynes famously said,Quote:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

So CO² cannot be the cause of the very slight temperature rise.

Let's go back to the other factors you talked about as causes. What are their state? Solar minimum happening now yet temperature might be a minimum for the decade but clearly warmer than other periods of solar activity. Okay so this offsetting effect is from? Of course we'd have to look at other factors as well and do these same comparisons.

Quote:

There is no greenhouse fingerprint, as demonstrate atmospheric observations

Of course other scientists show differently. Well and physics shows the opposite.

Quote:

What you have illustrated is that 4 digits pH measurements cannot be achieved with current methodologies

Sorry you are clearly misunderstanding the nature of disproof. I demonstrated your .1 pH claim was wrong. We've yet to prove or disprove 4 digit how accurate pH can be. If we want to look at my 2 meters in respect to the experiment we say -- IF they used one of these 2 meters THEN 4 digit pH readings are inaccurate to the point the last 2 digits can be discarded. Quote:

4 digits pH numbers are suspect (at best).

I'd agree that any results of a scientific experiment are suspect. The job is to understand their methodology, equipment, and result and audit to ensure how accurate or not they could truly be.

Quote:

So yes, adapt or die. What is the problem?

I see the problem is actually caring about others.

Quote:

1/ there is no correlation between CO² and temperature variations on large time scale.

A effect of statistics. The larger the average set the more blurring and omissions we see of details.

Quote:

on certain time scale, CO² is correlated to temperature, but as the CO² increase lagged behind temperature rise, CO² cannot be the cause of the temperature increase.

To provide a more correct statement here you need to add '...during this particular warming event'.

Quote:

the hypothetical signature of the CO² greenhouse effect is not observable

The scientific consensus disagree with you.

@BrianK

Quote:

Let's go back to the other factors you talked about as causes.

Fine that you do not refute and agree the absence of the CO² fingerprint revealed by the observations. Or is it a strategy to evade the problem?

Quote:

What are their state? Solar minimum happening now yet temperature might be a minimum for the decade but clearly warmer than other periods of solar activity. Okay so this offsetting effect is from? Of course we'd have to look at other factors as well and do these same comparisons.

You do not think that I will do all the work for you, do you?

Quote:

Of course other scientists show differently. Well and physics shows the opposite.

What physics? Thermodynamical calculations and spectrophysical analysis (laws of physic) corroborate observations. That some GW scientists refuses the evidence of the observations together with the laws of physic only demonstrates that the climate science is intellectually corrupted.

Quote:

Sorry you are clearly misunderstanding the nature of disproof. I demonstrated your .1 pH claim was wrong.

Are you so able to prove that the real world accuracy of the pH meter(s) used in the studies, given the methodologies used, or the ones you link to, given the same methodologies, are better that 0.1 unit? Feel free to report your result.

Quote:

The job is to understand their methodology, equipment, and result and audit to ensure how accurate or not they could truly be.

My point, thanks for repeating.

Quote:

I see the problem is actually caring about others.

I touch a sensible point here it seems. So perhaps you will understand that I care of others by a different way of you, that is to say by the mean of describing the fallacious and pseudo-scientific speech of a part of a system which perpetrate its ideological agenda hidden behind the cause of ecology.
Think for yourself 1 minute: what if predictions will not occur? What if you discover that you have been lied? What if you realize that you have been knowingly lied? I guess your disillusion will be at least equally great that the hope you put in believing those who have lied to you in the name of Science and for their own interest. So yes I care.

Quote:

A effect of statistics. The larger the average set the more blurring and omissions we see of details.

Completely irrelevant. Thus, you agree with no argument.

Quote:

To provide a more correct statement here you need to add '...during this particular warming event'.

Great, you also agree my statement is correct.

Quote:

The scientific consensus disagree with you.

A live case example of cognitive dissonance at work, thanks. As, for you, there is a consensus in this matter, just point me to publicly accessible independent observational studies that show a rise of tropospheric temperature in response of CO² increase (the CO² fingerprint as predicted by IPCC). And please real papers from real scientists, not buffoons like those of realclimate blog.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Feb-2009 at 04:44 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Hmm, some interesting "facts", Arctic Sea Ice grows this year, "colder weather" to blame.

Two articles i stumbled upon:

Number 1
and
Number 2.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!