Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[palerider]

And now that "the only salient point in this discussion" has been addressed, what do you have to say?

I'm sure it will be wildly entertaining.

The same thing I continue to say. The only one of your studies that actually shows the early data compared to the later data is chen and he bases his conclusions not on the observed data but upon the simulated data. What else needs to be said?

 

[citizenzen]

Interesting, don't you think, that the original measurements are not shown? Simply a graph saying "this" is what happened. Where are the original graphs? Oh, I know, I posted them and oddly enough, they didn't show any decrease in outgoing longwave radiation.

And isn't it amazing that the entire scientific community overlooked this one simple thing? Like I said in my very first post, your Nobel Prize is waiting for you, as is your place in the annals (or in your case, the anals) of great scientists for being the person who proved Global Warming is a hoax.

The boys in the white coats are here to see you PR. They have a nice, comfy, little rubber room, where you can stay safe.

I think I'm done here. But we'll talk again about this I am sure.

Best of luck as you get marginalized further and further into the fringe.

 

[palerider]

And isn't it amazing that the entire scientific community overlooked this one simple thing? Like I said in my very first post, your Nobel Prize is waiting for you, as is your place in the annals (or in your case, the anals) of great scientists for being the person who proved Global Warming is a hoax.

As we have seen the climate pseudoscience community hardly represents the entire scientific community and we have also seen that they readily ignore inconvenient data.

The boys in the white coats are here to see you PR. They have a nice, comfy, little rubber room, where you can stay safe.

More impotent adhominems in lieu of actual argument. I love it.

I think I'm done here. But we'll talk again about this I am sure.

You were done before you got started.

Best of luck as you get marginalized further and further into the fringe.

Funny, since observed data still doesn't support your religion. I suggest that it is you who needs to take a look around. It is climate pseudoscience that is out on the fringe. Simulations will never be a suitable substitute for observed data and you lose on the observed data every time.

 

[orogenicman]

"I know that petroleum has been created in a laboratory under the same conditions and using the same available material in the magma of the earth."

Please provide us with a link to this research, as I would be very interested in it. Why? Because the common belief in the 1800s was that volcanoes were created by bituminous fire deep within the Earth. The only problem is that there is very little organic material in volcanic magma, or the gases associated with oil, natural gas, or coal production. Diamond (dense, crystaline carbon) is formed at the base of the crust, and the matrix rock (kimberlite) associated with it has no volatiles, and no organics. So while you are at it, you can provide us with a magma phase diagram that shows how it is possible for form hydrocarbons in a magma at temperatures ranging from 700 degrees C to 2,000 degrees C.

 

[palerider]

"I know that petroleum has been created in a laboratory under the same conditions and using the same available material in the magma of the earth."

Please provide us with a link to this research, as I would be very interested in it. Why? Because the common belief in the 1800s was that volcanoes were created by bituminous fire deep within the Earth. The only problem is that there is very little organic material in volcanic magma, or the gases associated with oil, natural gas, or coal production. Diamond (dense, crystaline carbon) is formed at the base of the crust, and the matrix rock (kimberlite) associated with it has no volatiles, and no organics. So while you are at it, you can provide us with a magma phase diagram that shows how it is possible for form hydrocarbons in a magma at temperatures ranging from 700 degrees C to 2,000 degrees C.

You claim to be a geologist and are unaware of this? Interesting.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847685/Comparing-RussianUkrainian-Abiotic-Theory-vs-Biotic-06penner

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm

http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2009/09/proof-oil-is-not-dinosaur-soup.html

If you want more, I can provide it if you are unable to find it yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

You claim to be a geologist and are unaware of this? Interesting.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4847685/Comparing-RussianUkrainian-Abiotic-Theory-vs-Biotic-06penner

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm

http://coralvillecourier.typepad.com/community/2009/09/proof-oil-is-not-dinosaur-soup.html

If you want more, I can provide it if you are unable to find it yourself.

Yes I am aware of this research, PR. The first is a one page discussion that tells me nothing. The second doesn't either, though it did give me a link to the original Swedish research. Reading the abstract, here is what it says:

...the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.

I can almost believe that this is possible. But to go from these four very light, simple compounds to the long chain, highly complex hydrocarbons found in cdrude oil is quite another. Furthermore, the authors freely admit that whether crude oil itself is of abiogenic origin is a rather contentious and open question. Also not that they aren't suggesting that crude oil is abiogenic, but merely suggest that hydrocarbons "heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes". Well, sir, ethane, propane and butane are all threee heavier than methane, but not by much.

And finally, this experiment made an assumption right from the beginning. It assumed that methane was already present at mantle conditions and then looked to see what reactions occur. So his experiment assumes the presence of methane right from the start. The problem is that there is no evidence that magma originating from the mantle contains any volatiles. Most of the volatiles released at the surface during the extrusion of magma at Kiluaua, for instance, is in the form of water vapor, CO2 and SO2, all of which are picked up as the magma is injected into the crust. Furthermore, the experiment doesn't suggest that they are producing hydrocarbons from magma, which was your claim. I asked for a magma phase diagram that shows how it is possible for form hydrocarbons in a magma at temperatures ranging from 700 degrees C to 2,000 degrees C. When I used the word hydrocrabons, I wasn't referring to the production of three simple light weight hydrocarbons from pre-existing CO4. I was referring to the production of crude oil from a magma. Well? Got anything like that?

What is well known and well established is that microorganisms can and do generate heavy, long chain hydrocarbons. What is also well known and understood is that these molecules break down at temperatures over 100 degrees C. Which is one reason why internal cumbustion engines must be cooled below that threshold.

 

[nobull]

"Well, I guess there IS one other possibility - The sun could rise in the North and Set in the South - or vice versa. That would certainly provide us a much different climate - rotation at right angles to orbit. 'Course that's silly, now, isn't it ?"

I guess you haven't heard: some people in this world are quite preoccupied with the precession of the earth's axis of rotation. Psychic Sylvia Brown comes to mind as one such outspoken prophet of gyroscopic doom. Don't know exactly how human beings could be accused of causing this, and I don't think dear ol' Sylvia claims that to be the case, but I'm sure it won't be long before the liberals blame that, too, on a vast right-wing conspiracy.

'Course, like most dark clouds, it has its silver lining: if all the nuttiness in the world can be attributed to repressed tilt guilt, then it might well be the case that liberalism is hitting its zenith - if you'll pardon the pun - and, as we enter the waning gibbous phase of this metaphysical moroseness, there is the glimmer of hope that we won't see such a concentration of epistemological crackpottery for another 26,000 years.

Ah, one can dream....

 

[nobull]

I think the biggest sustainability issue is pollution, in general. People can debate global warming all they want and say the data is inconclusive, but the vast majority of Americans have mercury in their tissue and teflon in their blood, not to mention all kinds of other crap. Most of our lakes and rivers are unfishable.

But, you go back to the Club of Rome studies in the 70's and "The Population Bomb" from the 60's, and all anyone ever wants to do is argue about whether we have the ability to feed everyone, as though that is THE issue. Or how long fossile fuels will last.

Well, the biggest issue, IMO, is pollution. Now, if you want to say that CO2 is pollution, and then put global warming under the pollution category, that's fine. However, the pollution problem is much bigger than global warming alone, so, if global warming should somehow turn out to be a non-issue, that doesn't change anything, IMO. Of all the pollution problems, that is the one where the data is the most inconclusive, and to focus exclusively on it is to distract attention from all the other forms that are very well documented.

doug

 

[orogenicman]

"Well, I guess there IS one other possibility - The sun could rise in the North and Set in the South - or vice versa. That would certainly provide us a much different climate - rotation at right angles to orbit. 'Course that's silly, now, isn't it ?"

I guess you haven't heard: some people in this world are quite preoccupied with the precession of the earth's axis of rotation. Psychic Sylvia Brown comes to mind as one such outspoken prophet of gyroscopic doom. Don't know exactly how human beings could be accused of causing this, and I don't think dear ol' Sylvia claims that to be the case, but I'm sure it won't be long before the liberals blame that, too, on a vast right-wing conspiracy.

'Course, like most dark clouds, it has its silver lining: if all the nuttiness in the world can be attributed to repressed tilt guilt, then it might well be the case that liberalism is hitting its zenith - if you'll pardon the pun - and, as we enter the waning gibbous phase of this metaphysical moroseness, there is the glimmer of hope that we won't see such a concentration of epistemological crackpottery for another 26,000 years.

Ah, one can dream....

What, exactly, was the purpose of this post? If the purpose was to ridicule someone, it hardly reached it's mark since you haven't said to whom it was intended, and in any case, I saw nothing it it that remotely resembled truth.

 

[orogenicman]

I think the biggest sustainability issue is pollution, in general. People can debate global warming all they want and say the data is inconclusive, but the vast majority of Americans have mercury in their tissue and teflon in their blood, not to mention all kinds of other crap. Most of our lakes and rivers are unfishable.

But, you go back to the Club of Rome studies in the 70's and "The Population Bomb" from the 60's, and all anyone ever wants to do is argue about whether we have the ability to feed everyone, as though that is THE issue. Or how long fossile fuels will last.

Well, the biggest issue, IMO, is pollution. Now, if you want to say that CO2 is pollution, and then put global warming under the pollution category, that's fine. However, the pollution problem is much bigger than global warming alone, so, if global warming should somehow turn out to be a non-issue, that doesn't change anything, IMO. Of all the pollution problems, that is the one where the data is the most inconclusive, and to focus exclusively on it is to distract attention from all the other forms that are very well documented.

doug

Frankly, you cannot separate the two. The pollution is generated from many of the same processes that also generate CO2. The problem is that we've been addressing much of the pollution (while discovering that other chemicals and particulates are also bad for us) for decades while not addressing CO2 emissions AT ALL. Address the pollution. I'm all for that and have been all along. But address carbon emissions as well.

 

[Kwasar]

Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

A case could be made that incandescent light bulbs are indeed more enjoyable than fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?

It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?

Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia who explains that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream media. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic because people would be afraid of the uncontrollable forces of nature:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”



Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” at the bottom of this post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”


Last but not least here is a quotation from an article by the author Amitakh Stanford, you won’t hear this logical perspective in the mainstream media clearly presented like that:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar8.html
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”

 

[orogenicman]

Re: Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

A case could be made that incandescent light bulbs are indeed more enjoyable than fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?

It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?

Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia who explains that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream media. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic because people would be afraid of the uncontrollable forces of nature:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”



Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” at the bottom of this post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”


Last but not least here is a quotation from an article by the author Amitakh Stanford, you won’t hear this logical perspective in the mainstream media clearly presented like that:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar8.html
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”

Huh? There is not one geologic event going on within the Earth today that is causing lakes, streams, rivers, and the oceans the world over to warm. Not a single one. If that were the case, every geologist on the planet (including yours truly) would be in a panic. The geothermal gradient is the same today as it was yesterday? That's not to say that at specific locations, such as around active volcanoes that this is not occurring. Also, the idea that the sun is causing both Mars and the Earth to heat up has long been discredited, and NASA has released more than one report in the past several years refuting the notion that and increase in solar output is causing the warming, because, in fact, for the past few years, solar activity has been lower than normal. The ice caps aren't melting because of geothermal activity. In fact, the crust beneath the north pole is beneath thousands of feet of freezing water, and the crust beneath the ice cap has the slowest spreading center on the planet. And although Antarctica does have at least one notable active volcanic region, it only influences local ice formation. Antarctica iteslf is seismically the quietest continent on the planet.