Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

For The Liberator

'' Liberator ''
By Spear of Destiny

i have seen you in your slums , i have known you as a junkie,
and i have seen you as a drunkard , and i heard you cry when you hurted,

now you want reality, and you dont need them to see ,
our lives belong to you and me , not some banker or some other top ranker

i , i liberate , i liberate , i liberate

i have seen you as the oppressed , and i have seen you as the oppressor ,
now youve come of age this century , i know now you want to be free

now you want reality, and you dont need them to see ,
our lives belong to you and me , not some banker or some other top wanker

i , i liberate , i liberate , i liberate

been down , down , down
been angry , angry
been confused , like you....but now i liberate

Originally posted by The_Liberator

There is a term for what you are doing.....it's called projection.

Projection: the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, while at the same time denying that oneself has such feelings, thoughts, or attitudes.

I question your premise that you have done an in debth study of all the facts and arrived at your conclusion from a purely objective standpoint. You resort to sensationalism and claims that can not be substansiated from the facts. Where I am from the media coverage is pretty much one sided. It promotes your view. Despite the fact of this massive propaganda onslaught it is fairly easy for a really inquisitive mind to find out that the science is far from settled. For something to be "scientific" you need a falsifiable hypothesis that you can test with real world measurements. In the few instances that the global warming scare mongers has actually provided such a hypotehsis it has failed miserably. That should have been the end of it, but powerful interests continue to flog the dead horse of anthropogenic global warming/climage change/climate disruption. Mother nature will of cause put the final nail in the coffin. All we have to do is prevent the globalists to put their draconian legislation into effect before it becomes obvioius to everyone that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate.

cool post OP.

This post makes me feel more confident about my retirement...I won't get it !
Let us buy a #load of shelters Fallout-style and store water by the gazillion liters !


seriously it sucks, I was thinking about making my own family

If you want to know the REAL reason we are not using water as our fuel is because the top level of the conspiracy concerns depleating the Earth of its density and decreasing the strength of our atmosphere in order to attempt to create a stronger gravitational pull from earth into the the universe and through the star gates, thus, allowing us to have more contact with superior beings. This is the top level of the conspiracy surrounding destroying our own planet through the use of non renewable materials.

reply to post by mc_squared

You want to keep that pool clean, so it is constantly cycling water by way of a drain (sink) and a pump (source). To keep the overall water level stable, your drain removes water at the same rate that the pump adds it in (equilibrium). So say every hour 1/5th of your pool gets removed (i.e. replaced by new water). This means each water molecule has an average lifetime of 5 hours in the pool, right? But now you decide to see what happens when you add your garden hose to the pool as well. You start pouring more water in, and so your source becomes larger than your sink. What do you think happens next? Your water level goes up. Now - because there is more water, there is also more water pressure - so the sink will actually adjust slightly and drain a little faster. But if it can't adjust fast enough to meet the rate of the new pump/garden hose combo then you still have an overall imbalance, and thus you have accumulation.

I'm assuming the garden hose is meant to represent the human contribution. Your first assumption here is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are too much for natural sinks to cope with creating an "imbalance" and thus causing accumulation. We add around 6GT of CO2 to the atmosphere every year to an atmosphere that contains about 720GT which gets perpetually churned into and out of oceans that contains approximately 37,400GT. How the 6GT of CO2 that humans contribute is too much for the oceans to cope with when they have hundreds of times more CO2 stored in them than our contribution defies common sense. Around ¼ of all atmospheric CO2 (terrestrial, volcanic and oceanic), churn in and out of the atmosphere annually and this should apply to anthropogenic CO2 as well. There is no reason to assume that ¼ of anthropogenic CO2 doesn't turn over each year like all the rest instead of all of it accumulating for centuries. I already showed you a graph from nuclear-bomb C14 testing confirming unequivocally that CO2 hangs around for about 5-10 years and here you are trying to refute it with these oversimplified hermeneutically empty analogies. Here is the graph again (below). After the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty you can see that it takes about 5-10 years for the nuclear C14 to becomes rapidly equalized with the pre-existing non-radioactive background levels of CI4 created by the bombardment of GCRs. Since there is no reason to believe non-radioactive CO2 will behave differently we thus have an atmospheric-lifespan of around 5-10 years.


Link.

so if you want to understand why going from 3000ppm to 5600 is the same as 300 to 560 then start learning how to think in relatives instead of absolutes.

You don't understand the logarithmic effect. An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is not the same as an increase from 300ppm to 560ppm. Here is a graph (below) using the IPCC's logarithmic computation (over-exaggerated) showing how when CO2 gets past 500ppm it's radiative forcing effect is essentially on a curve asymptotically approaching zero. Because CO2 has a strong logarithmic effect the only way climate models can produce catastrophic warming is through various feedback factors.


Link.

Greetings,
AboveTopSecret has long been the home of many of the greatest scholars and scientists in the world. Problems have been solved, questions and concerns are conclusively answered.

Yet...
Just a few easy to answer, legitimate, on-topic, questions/concerns on Page 19 of this message thread are still not answered. Perhaps I failed to properly articulate the problem.

What about China? Don't they produce more pollutants in 1 day than the US produces in a year or more? What about India's airborne pollution?

Sir, the problem is real or it's going to become real with the destruction of the Amazon Jungle! At least, go to Brazil, or send Al Gore, to enlighten their leadership. Vast amounts of the jungle are systemically destroyed, transformed into farm land, farmed for 1 year, then it becomes arid desert. Then more jungle is destroyed, and the cycle repeats. The jungle cannot be reinstated, once destroyed. The Amazon Jungle is so massive it keeps the air composition in balance. What I'm [unsuccessfully] trying to get across is to go to the problem, not punish those who have already been mitigating air pollution. The problem is in Brazil, China, India and other offending countries like Indonesia.

Again, if I may respectfully and politely ask,

Why don't the scholars, experts, and politicians involved (in the mitigation of man-made global warming) visit and convince the leadership of Brazil, India, China and other offending countries to stop destroying the Amazon rain forrest, to curtail their air pollutant outputs? Why does Al Gore ignore Brazil, while the Amazon Rain Forrest turns into a desert at a high rate of speed?

Why is it that US citizens must bear the blame, given that the US has done more to reduce air pollution than any other country?

Again, at risk of being redundant, why not focus on the worst offenders, Brazil, India, and China?

Originally posted by mc_squared
This is also basically how things like exponential decay and logarithms work - so if you want to understand why going from 3000ppm to 5600 is the same as 300 to 560 then start learning how to think in relatives instead of absolutes...

This is basic unambiguous mathematics - it is something I happen to have a degree in, and I have no interest in hearing your backwards blog science version of it.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
You don't understand the logarithmic effect. An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is not the same as an increase from 300ppm to 560ppm.

lol

Originally posted by mc_squared
People's brains love to take the paths of least resistance so it's not surprising that the denial industry banks on this and uses propaganda like "temperature leads carbon by 800 years - Al Gore liiiiiied!" to get them all on board with their agenda. Nobody wants to listen to the whole story about how CO2 actually functions as both a forcing and a feedback because it sounds like a lot of mental work to them.

So when they have an easy to swallow answer offered up instead - they flock to it like moths to a flame.

So along with the features of confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger previously noted, what you're describing here is the 'cognitive miser'. Although, it's not a favoured general social cognitive perspective currently, it still can be applied under settings were motivation is low. Or perhaps is just a case of being...

Don't know why you bother with Nathan. I haven't put him on ignore yet (like I do to the interminably intellectually dishonest), as he's still a lulz-harvest.

reply to post by The_Liberator


The problem I have with that one paper is that it's a best guesstimate. There is still alot that scientists do not understand.
Scientists are people and can be wrong.
And we've seen in the past that a majority of scientists have claimed there would be a global freeze. Now they are crying global warming.
What's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming doesn't pan out?
do they say oops our bad we were wrong? by the way here's the next boogey man. Global pan-luke-warming?

Personally I think we should all be focusing on reducing pollution and cleaning up the toxic waste already in the environment. I feel that this would be a better way to go. And would also polarize the public into action.
You can fight waste. It's a tangible enemy. You can film it and photograph it. it's undeniable and would help to combat global warming directly by reducing noxious emissions.

reply to post by melatonin

lol

Laugh all you like my friend. You won't be the first and you surely won't be the last. Not sure why my post deserves a 'lol'. After about 1400ppm the warming effect is so infinitesimal the 2600ppm increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm (even though it's a substantially greater increase) still wouldn't rival the 260ppm increase from 300ppm to 560ppm using the IPCC's logarithmic equation. It all doesn't matter anyway though, since the vast majority of CO2's warming effect (around 85%) comes entirely from the first 20ppm. There's a great peer-reviewed paper by David Archibald depicting this published in Energy and Environment. I would link you to Joanne Nova's blog explaining this in very simple, easy-to-understand terms, but we already know you think she's not the most trustworthy person.

Don't know why you bother with Nathan. I haven't put him on ignore yet (like I do to the interminably intellectually dishonest), as he's still a lulz-harvest.

It's nice to know I'm still worthy of your attention, even if it's just for the occasional lulz.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
You don't understand the logarithmic effect. An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is not the same as an increase from 300ppm to 560ppm. Here is a graph (below) using the IPCC's logarithmic computation (over-exaggerated) showing how when CO2 gets past 500ppm it's radiative forcing effect is essentially on a curve asymptotically approaching zero. Because CO2 has a strong logarithmic effect the only way climate models can produce catastrophic warming is through various feedback factors.

Link.

You really are so bloody clueless I'm honestly embarassed to still be having this conversation with you.

This is going to be my last post - so go find someone else to feed your trolling habits after.

You clearly have no idea what this graph even is. It is a Planck distribution. The numbers on the bottom are wavenumbers, aka frequencies - not CO2 concentrations. They represent the range of frequencies at which CO2 absorbs radiation. There is no "asymptotic curve approaching zero past 500ppm". What this graph simply represents is how radiative forcing is tracked to form the empirical basis for this formula:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3caa050db5cf.png[/atsimg]

See it? Right there IN YOUR OWN LINK - right next TO THE GRAPH YOU JUST POSTED???

Now you have any idea what that "ln" term is? Obviously you don't. LN means natural logarithm. It's a button that comes standard on any scientific calculator.

Now watch:

F = 5.35 x ln(560/300) = 5.35 x ln(1.867)

F = 5.35 x ln(5600/3000) = 5.35 x ln(1.867)

I'm not even going to finish this calculation for you. I'm going to leave it for you to figure out whether those answers are going to turn out the same or not. Obviously this question is beyond your mental capacity, so maybe you should run back to one of your denier blogs and ask them to work it out for you.

I mean this with all sincerity - you really need to look into this Dunning-Kruger thing. It is frightening watching how much you delude and embarrass yourself on a topic you clearly have absolutely no background or understanding in.

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't know why you bother with Nathan. I haven't put him on ignore yet (like I do to the interminably intellectually dishonest), as he's still a lulz-harvest.

I think I've officially gone from finding it amusing to just really really sad unfortunately. But it's like watching the most amazing train wreck in anti-science internet trolling history - I'm horrified but I can't look away.

I'm just gonna shut my eyes now and try and wipe all memory of this last conversation out of my head. I feel like I need a shot of whiskey or something lol.

Originally posted by mc_squared
Now you have any idea what that "ln" term is? Obviously you don't. LN means natural logarithm. It's a button that comes standard on any scientific calculator.

Now watch:

F = 5.35 x ln(560/300) = 5.35 x ln(1.867)

F = 5.35 x ln(5600/3000) = 5.35 x ln(1.867)

I'm not even going to finish this calculation for you.

You and your elitist maths lernin', MC. Didn't you know that Nick Mercator, and his pesky tulip-walking logarithm, are part of the climate science hoax? I heard it on the t'internet.

You don't really understand logarithmic effects do you?

lol

Originally posted by mc_squared
I think I've officially gone from finding it amusing to just really really sad unfortunately. But it's like watching the most amazing train wreck in anti-science internet trolling history - I'm horrified but I can't look away.

I'm just gonna shut my eyes now and try and wipe all memory of this last conversation out of my head. I feel like I need a shot of whiskey or something lol.

And with the bombastic attitude as they express their ignorance, it's the lack of shame that gets me. There's a few deniers here who are worth a bit of time - they often accept their poor reasoning (show glimmers of intellectual honesty). But the more sociopathic aren't worth the effort.

reply to post by mc_squared

You really are so bloody clueless I'm honestly embarrassed to still be having this conversation with you.

This is going to be my last post - so go find someone else to feed your trolling habits after.

You clearly have no idea what this graph even is. It is a Planck distribution. The numbers on the bottom are wavenumbers, aka frequencies - not CO2 concentrations.

Where did I ever say that the numbers at the bottom represented CO2 concentrations? I never did. That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination. I merely said after around 500-600ppm the effect is ever-diminishing which is clearly presented on the graph in blue (top right-hand corner). The IPCC use the following equation (the one that you posted above): RF = 5.35loge(C1/C0) W/m2 where RF stands for 'Radiative Forcing'; C0 is the initial CO2 concentration; C1 is the final CO2 concentration, and W/m2 stands for 'watts per square metre'. At present CO2 is increasing at the rate of about 2 ppm/year or 20 ppm/decade. The IPCC's logarithmic equation quoted above tells us that this would be enough to produce an extra 'Radiative forcing' of about 0.268 W/m2 a decade from now, which would be enough to raise the mean global temperature at the surface by about 0.049C. This increment of 'radiative forcing' and temperature would need to be amplified by positive feedbacks about 3.65 times to produce anywhere near the rate of warming the IPCC has calculated.

Now you have any idea what that "ln" term is? Obviously you don't. LN means natural logarithm. It's a button that comes standard on any scientific calculator.

The natural world has a far more complex story to tell than simply punching numbers into a calculator. Because of the logarithmic nature of the IPCC's equation, regular 20ppm decadal increments of CO2 would produce ever-diminishing increments of 'radiative forcing' which would produce even faster-diminishing temperature-increments at the surface because of the 4th-power relationship between absolute temperature and radiation-intensity.

There is no "asymptotic curve approaching zero

Whatever you say.

Anyhow, that's me done. Good luck fighting the evil CO2 gas.

reply to post by melatonin


I dun got all muh logoo-learnin' from Al Gore - did you hear he's NOT even a scientist?? Outrageous!

edit to add: mel - where's that ignore button?

Its a hoax. Believe what you want but it got it start with `Maurice Strong`. Global warming was his ideal since the 60/70s. I strongly believe as humans we need to recycle all of are trash and get off the fossil fuels but not because of so called `man made global warming. Mars`s polar caps are melting at the same speed as the earths. `Didn't know they had such a carbon problem on mars`. Anyways TPTB `when` they get away with `cap and trade` will have more control than ever.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Where did I ever say that the numbers ar the bottom represented CO2 concentrations? I never did. That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination. I merely said after around 500-600ppm the effect is ever-diminishing which is clearly presented on the graph in blue (top right-hand corner). The IPCC use the following equation (the one that you posted above): RF = 5.35loge(C1/C0) W/m2 where RF stands for 'Radiative Forcing'; C0 is the initial CO2 concentration; C1 is the final CO2 concentration, and W/m2 stands for 'watts per square metre'. At present CO2 is increasing at the rate of about 2 ppm/year or 20 ppm/decade. The IPCC's logarithmic equation quoted above tells us that this would be enough to produce an extra 'Radiative forcing' of about 0.268 W/m2 a decade from now, which would be enough to raise the mean global temperature at the surface by about 0.049C. This increment of 'radiative forcing' and temperature would need to be amplified by positive feedbacks about 3.65 times to produce anywhere near the rate of warming the IPCC has calculated.

Look, Nathan, you really do not have a clue. Earlier you said:

Here is a graph (below) using the IPCC's logarithmic computation (over-exaggerated) showing how when CO2 gets past 500ppm it's radiative forcing effect is essentially on a curve asymptotically approaching zero.

Firstly, as an aside, it isn't even the IPCC's calculation. Modtran is one radiative transfer code, developed by Spectral Sciences and the USAF, and nothing to do with the IPCC. Indeed, Modtran has just about been around longer than the IPCC.

MC picked out that you must be using the planck curve incorrectly - as the only curve which appears to be reducing to a minima is the feckin' planck plot. If that's not the point, why post the plot? It doesn't show what you want it to.

In response, you come back with this:

That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination. I merely said after around 500-600ppm the effect is ever-diminishing which is clearly presented on the graph in blue (top right-hand corner).

Now I would assume here that you mean the "600ppm CO2 F^ = 256.72Wm-2" (the only part in blue in the RH corner), which you infer shows an ever-diminishing radiative effect of CO2. And, by jove, it's lower than for the 300ppm measure using the modtran radiative transfer code (260.12wm-2)

Do you actually even have a clue what that means? Because it doesn't say what you think it does. The clue as to what it does mean is in the title of the plot. It does show a diminishing of something, not radiative forcing.

Lets try this another way - well, edumacation is enhanced by various examples which support the same pedagogical point.

1. Delta F = 5.35 x ln(560/300*) = 3.34 Wm-2

2. Delta F = 5.35 x ln(5600/3000) = 3.34Wm-2

3. Delta F = 5.35 x ln(600/300) = 3.71 Wm-2

4. Delta F from Modtran calculation for 300 to 600 doubling = 3.39 Wm-2

Climate sensitivity = delta T = lamda (0.8) x delta F

1 & 2. Delta T = .8 x 3.34 = 2.67K

3. Delta T = .8 x 3.71 = 2.96K

4. Delta T = .8 x 3.39 = 2.71K

IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity = 2-4.5'C, with a best estimate forcing of 3.7Wm-2 and warming of 3K.

Now go and do some lernin' of what 'upward irradiance at 20km' might be telling you.

Once upon a time, a confused child found hisself at 20km above the earth in the stratosphere looking down at the surface, he happened to have a spectrophotometer and measured the irradiance leaving the earth. One year he measured it at 300ppm, and then later at 600ppm...

And I'm not interested in any obfuscatory response you might make.

Originally posted by mc_squared
edit to add: mel - where's that ignore button?

edit on 4-11-2010 by mc_squared because: no seriously!

It looks like it has gone since the redesign. Luckily I got a few of the most dishonest deniers sorted well before them. I'll just have to force myself to laugh at Nathan now and again. Ignorance is no great crime - but wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is one of the few things I do find somewhat offensive.

Scientific fact shouldn't matter one stinking bit when deciding to care for the planet. How would you like to live on a big smelly pile of #? I mean seriously, whether or not we are creating the crisis is a moot point. We should be good stewards of the environment either way. But FAITH has a major role to play in this. Like I already said; the Earth is physically dead, it's totally incapable of sustaining human life right now... the ETs basically have it on artificial life support while the green movement begins to put everything back together. You may not believe this, but it's true. We don't technically need their help, however, because there are so many faithful people on this world.

I respect Al Gore A LOT. He's trying to fix a problem which will not go away. We will indeed get to the center of this and heal the world, however. The world is in an artificial stasis mode right now when really we shouldn't even be here right now. But then again, all you people whom want to eradicate the environment for any material gains are going straight to HELL anyways. I can't remember which circle right now, but what do I know? I'm just the resident exorcist. Also known as 'thought form sanitation expert'...

reply to post by Adonsa


Not my place, but the answer as to why the real poluters, who refuse to even participate in cleaning the environment as we have and are doing can not be discussed, is it's not Politically Correct.

Political Correctness has had a couple of new additions. You may never point out or acknowledge that countries like China and India are the real environmental threats and that the US has done a wonderful job of improving our condition while thier filth continues to fill the sky's.

The second of course and off topic (sorry) is related to calling a Terrorist a Terrorist.

Of course any thinking person can see right through this insanity, but then how many thinking people are there really? It's far more important to be rabidly Partisan or Ideological than it is to be honest. It's now PC to lie if it furthers an agenda or enriches the right people, with the right people being roughly the same people connected to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, Al Gore and many surrounding the Obama Administration. If your not willing to lie for these self-proclaimed Messianic super-stars, you ain't nothin! Your a Racist and it's UnAmerican to tell the truth.

Let us not forget to remind people to make sure they face 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC when praying, at least for the next two years. It's also incumbent upon a truly PC Personage to not ask God to bless America, but please make sure you ask God to damn America.

....and no, I have not yet had my morning coffee.

reply to post by Mysterium918


Al Gore? You mean the man who is trying to make billions of dollars by driving the cost of energy and all goods up by huge amounts, causing people to go without heat in the winter and increasing the cost of food for the poor by spreading a lie? That Al Gore? The Al Gore who hops around the world in private jets and lives in a home that uses as much electricity as dozens of ordinary homes? That Al Gore?

I thought Hero's were the first to make a sacrifice as an example to their followers? Guess not?

Look, he has already earned over 100 million dollars by being your Hero. Where do the rest of us sign up for the job? I'll even live in a energy efficient home and fly Coach setting a real example if you will shower me with money like that. I won't be a phony like Gore who demands one thing from everyone else and considers himself to be above it all. He is Royalty you know. I mean how many people can leave the White House as VP with only a half million in wealth and only a few years later be worth over 100 million on a Professors Salary? It ain't easy to do that. You gotta do a lotta lying and cheating to do that. You gotta take advantage of lots of people. Is that why you respect him so much? Must be? He has not done anything else.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Political Correctness has had a couple of new additions. You may never point out or acknowledge that countries like China and India are the real environmental threats and that the US has done a wonderful job of improving our condition while thier filth continues to fill the sky's.

Of course, the thinking person would also know that while China is now the overall highest source of carbon emissions, it is closely followed by the USA. While in third, India emits not far off only a quarter of the amount emitted by the USA and China.

Of course, the thinking person looks beyond the raw emission data and sees that, per capita, the USA (and most western industrial nations) far outdo both China and India. Indeed, each american citizen (18.9 metric tonnes) can account for the emissions of three Chinese (4.9 metric tonnes) and three Indian (1.4 metric tonnes) citizens (2007 data). The thinking man will realise that such a situation is pretty obscene when one tries to frame China and India as the 'real' environmental threat. Moreover, anyone in the US (and elsewhere) who thinks that their own emissions are justifiable, part of their entitlement as a human, and not really of great significance, would have an intellectual issue reasoning to the Chinese & Indian l'homme moyen that they shouldn't both increase their emissions three-fold. And, of course, one can easily visualise a future where developing countries decide that the cheap and easy path to industrialisation, already walked by others, is a case of the goodness of goose and gander.

And that is why the thinking person would realise that we are probably buggered due to the inability of many nations to see much beyond their own national interests. Indeed, it's also potentially why some thinking people have decided to go the denialist path of sticking pencils up their nose, underpants on head, and repeatedly saying 'wibble'.



Of course, the thinking person would realise that most western nations have decades head-start on china, and have learned some of the environmental pitfalls of industrialisation, and that outside the carbon emissions realm China and India have a fair way to go and there are few heroes in this domain.