Climategate!
12-03-2009, 04:30 PM
#41
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
+1 to Crichton.
I've long had suspicions that GW was being exaggerated for political ends, but I never imagined it was THIS BOGUS. I thought there was GW, just that most of it wasn't man made. Looks like it's Mann-made all right! It's incredible how those ******* that the rest of the world were depending on, would totally fabricate warming when there wasn't.
Not only does this make me doubt all the alarmists now, but it has shaken my faith in organized science in general. WHO DO WE BELIEVE NOW? Men of science are supposed to hold scientific truth above all else. Now how can we lend credence to ANY groups of scientists? How do we know now that Peak Oil is real? That the proper avenues of nuclear fusion research is being funded? That NASA is spending taxpayer money efficiently? What I see now is that ANY science that is funded with public money is suspect. Being an engineer in the private sector, I think that money spent in private R&D is more efficiently spent in the context of free market competition.
I've long had suspicions that GW was being exaggerated for political ends, but I never imagined it was THIS BOGUS. I thought there was GW, just that most of it wasn't man made. Looks like it's Mann-made all right! It's incredible how those ******* that the rest of the world were depending on, would totally fabricate warming when there wasn't.
Not only does this make me doubt all the alarmists now, but it has shaken my faith in organized science in general. WHO DO WE BELIEVE NOW? Men of science are supposed to hold scientific truth above all else. Now how can we lend credence to ANY groups of scientists? How do we know now that Peak Oil is real? That the proper avenues of nuclear fusion research is being funded? That NASA is spending taxpayer money efficiently? What I see now is that ANY science that is funded with public money is suspect. Being an engineer in the private sector, I think that money spent in private R&D is more efficiently spent in the context of free market competition.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 04:51 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Round Pond, ME
Posts: 1,064
Total Cats: 232
I really hate getting pulled into discussions about this kind of crap, because there's almost always more opinion than reason involved, but...
Here's a little table I pulled off Wikipedia - it may be off in minutiae, but pretty much agrees with everything I've read:
Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2] ppmv: parts per million by volume
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 387 ppmv (0.0387%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9x10−6%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0% to 7x10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2x10−6%)
Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1x10−6%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface
You will notice that CO2, the major culprit in global warming, comprises a whopping .0387 % by volume of the atmosphere.
My undergrad degree was a dual in Biology and Chemistry, and I was forced to learn about CO2 cycles over the eons and ecological effects involving Ice Ages and warm cycles and........it's all WAY tedious to try to recall. I do recall that coring samples from Antarctica demonstrate natural hot and cold cycles in the overall planetary climate predating mammals in general, man in particular. These were all accompanied by atmospheric CO2 increases and decreases, thought to be triggered by changes in the gas's solubility in ocean water due to water temperature changes.
There's a weird self-flagellating portion of my personality that wants to feel guilty because I'm a profligate CO2 producer and by not fixing it I'm helping to consign mankind to the fate of the Pterodactyl. But then I come to my senses.
I've left science way in my past, but CO2 is less than 4 hundredths of 1 percent of the atmosphere NOW, when we're all in deep **** over global warming because of the stuff. Has anybody ever posited what a GOOD proportion of CO2 is?
I feel a sudden need to release a little CO2 - via 22 oz of Newcastle Brown Ale. Thinking about this **** makes me thirsty. And tired.
Here's a little table I pulled off Wikipedia - it may be off in minutiae, but pretty much agrees with everything I've read:
Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2] ppmv: parts per million by volume
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 387 ppmv (0.0387%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9x10−6%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0% to 7x10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2x10−6%)
Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1x10−6%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface
You will notice that CO2, the major culprit in global warming, comprises a whopping .0387 % by volume of the atmosphere.
My undergrad degree was a dual in Biology and Chemistry, and I was forced to learn about CO2 cycles over the eons and ecological effects involving Ice Ages and warm cycles and........it's all WAY tedious to try to recall. I do recall that coring samples from Antarctica demonstrate natural hot and cold cycles in the overall planetary climate predating mammals in general, man in particular. These were all accompanied by atmospheric CO2 increases and decreases, thought to be triggered by changes in the gas's solubility in ocean water due to water temperature changes.
There's a weird self-flagellating portion of my personality that wants to feel guilty because I'm a profligate CO2 producer and by not fixing it I'm helping to consign mankind to the fate of the Pterodactyl. But then I come to my senses.
I've left science way in my past, but CO2 is less than 4 hundredths of 1 percent of the atmosphere NOW, when we're all in deep **** over global warming because of the stuff. Has anybody ever posited what a GOOD proportion of CO2 is?
I feel a sudden need to release a little CO2 - via 22 oz of Newcastle Brown Ale. Thinking about this **** makes me thirsty. And tired.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 05:38 PM
#44
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
Plants consume CO2. They need it to grow. Anybody know what plants do in the presence of increased levels of CO2? They flourish. What happens if CO2 levels diminish even slightly? Plants grow smaller and grow more slowly. If crops yielded just 10% less worldwide millions would starve.
If billions of dollars are duped out of gullible or complicit entities and people to buy vapor credits that were printed in the back room at zero cost to the seller, who wins and loses? General Electric wins because they are doing the printing. The "hate America first" crowd wins because our economy is forced to collapse because we are taxed out of the ability to produce or compete. Likewise the anti-capitalists that masquerade as environmentalists will achieve their socialist oligarchy and their useful idiots, the real "love mother earth" simpletons, will be dropped as soon as they are no longer useful.
The founder of Greenpeace left it in the 1980s citing the fact that the organization had been commandeered by people who weren't there because they loved the earth, but that they hated capitalism and private ownership of production. He said that they became dominated by domestic communist and socialist activists whose primary mission was to destroy the profitability of corporations. How many times do you hear the word profit in the news when it is not in a negative context? It is shameful that profit envy has been successfully propagated in this country. Absolutely shameful.
If billions of dollars are duped out of gullible or complicit entities and people to buy vapor credits that were printed in the back room at zero cost to the seller, who wins and loses? General Electric wins because they are doing the printing. The "hate America first" crowd wins because our economy is forced to collapse because we are taxed out of the ability to produce or compete. Likewise the anti-capitalists that masquerade as environmentalists will achieve their socialist oligarchy and their useful idiots, the real "love mother earth" simpletons, will be dropped as soon as they are no longer useful.
The founder of Greenpeace left it in the 1980s citing the fact that the organization had been commandeered by people who weren't there because they loved the earth, but that they hated capitalism and private ownership of production. He said that they became dominated by domestic communist and socialist activists whose primary mission was to destroy the profitability of corporations. How many times do you hear the word profit in the news when it is not in a negative context? It is shameful that profit envy has been successfully propagated in this country. Absolutely shameful.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 06:43 PM
#45
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
huge deception?
alarmists?
where is the proof that the original raw data was dumped? links?
there is more hysteria over climate change collusion than the mass hysterical cult of christianity.
alarmists?
where is the proof that the original raw data was dumped? links?
there is more hysteria over climate change collusion than the mass hysterical cult of christianity.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 10:20 PM
#48
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
After one of the hottest, driest summers ever, it may snow here in the morning. It does not snow in South Texas very often, and is definitely rare this early in the season. Not sure what that is worth, but there it is.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 10:44 PM
#50
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
"warming" is based on average temperatures over a period of time. and if i recall, texas had some serious heat and droughts earlier this year.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 10:48 PM
#51
How do you know that 20000yrs ago Texas didn't have the same serious heat and droughts?
I think its funny that we are using a few hundred years of actual recorded data, and a few thousand years of "measured" data from ice and ****. How is that nearly enough time to to get an accurate sample of the earth's climate? Hasn't the earth been around for like millions of years?
I think its funny that we are using a few hundred years of actual recorded data, and a few thousand years of "measured" data from ice and ****. How is that nearly enough time to to get an accurate sample of the earth's climate? Hasn't the earth been around for like millions of years?
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 10:53 PM
#53
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
It stopped getting fractions of a degree warmer in 1996. It has been cooling fractions of a degree since. Therefore they had to dump the data in the rising oceans that were swallowing New York City because the sham was up. Global warming became global climate change because global warming wasn't warming and the research funds that were perpetuating this circle jerk would go by-by if nothing happened.
HELP! Need...more...crisis! (gasp) Must...have...crisis...for...huge...research...gra nts! Must...scare...easily...influenced...people...who. ..don't...use...logic! (gasp) Need...useful...idiots! Must...get...research...grants! (gasp)
HELP! Need...more...crisis! (gasp) Must...have...crisis...for...huge...research...gra nts! Must...scare...easily...influenced...people...who. ..don't...use...logic! (gasp) Need...useful...idiots! Must...get...research...grants! (gasp)
Last edited by sixshooter; 12-03-2009 at 11:20 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 11:02 PM
#54
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
When you are ignorant, everything is new to you. It is a syndrome called "Wow this has never happened before just because I haven't seen it." It is a similar human phenomenon to the superstitions that had people making human sacrifices when the sun was being swallowed by the moon during an eclipse. "Yeah, buddy, you made the sun come back. Good for you."
Dude, there was this medieval warm period thing that was followed by this super awesome little ice age thing followed by this current warming thing. No, seriously, dude, look it up.
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Temperature changes on earth frankly have more to do with solar activity than anything happening on this planet short of volcanic ash blocking out the sun. Witness:
There's the little ice age on the left and over there at the end on the right is the falling off occurring after 1996...
Dude, there was this medieval warm period thing that was followed by this super awesome little ice age thing followed by this current warming thing. No, seriously, dude, look it up.
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Temperature changes on earth frankly have more to do with solar activity than anything happening on this planet short of volcanic ash blocking out the sun. Witness:
There's the little ice age on the left and over there at the end on the right is the falling off occurring after 1996...
Last edited by sixshooter; 12-03-2009 at 11:19 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2009, 11:18 PM
#55
Do I see a trend? I look at this and I see a natural warming period occurring at year 0. Maybe I just don't know how to read graphs.
Stole the image from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Stole the image from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Reply
0
0
12-04-2009, 08:43 AM
#58
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,176
Total Cats: 1,680
How do you know that 20000yrs ago Texas didn't have the same serious heat and droughts?
I think its funny that we are using a few hundred years of actual recorded data, and a few thousand years of "measured" data from ice and ****. How is that nearly enough time to to get an accurate sample of the earth's climate? Hasn't the earth been around for like millions of years?
I think its funny that we are using a few hundred years of actual recorded data, and a few thousand years of "measured" data from ice and ****. How is that nearly enough time to to get an accurate sample of the earth's climate? Hasn't the earth been around for like millions of years?
Reply
0
0
