Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The earth has gone through many warming cycles without mans existence to blame it on. To attribute any climate change to mans influence is above sciences ability to understand a very complex system.
That of course does not stop the worlds elite from attempting to use any excuse to monopolize the building blocks of enterprise.
This is still a logical fallacy. The fact that warming can happen without human intervention doesn't disprove AGW, any more than people sometimes dying of natural causes is a murder defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Never met a liberal that didn't like taxes.
Companies that have taxes foisted on them pass the cost to the consumer so the middle class that Dems hate take the biggest hit.........................again.
Never met a conservative who could think about an issue for more than twelve seconds. Use the carbon taxes to fund a tax refund, then it's tax-neutral.
"Another interesting fact shown in Figure 3 (the graph you linked to) is that temperature variations in Antarctica are in phase with solar radiation changes in the high northern latitudes. Solar radiation changes in the high southern latitudes near Antarctica are actually out-of-phase with temperature changes, such that the coldest period during the most recent ice age occurred at about the time the region was experiencing a peak in local sunshine. This means that the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere has an important influence on climate worldwide."
The Dome Fuji ice core only represents what was happening in Antarctica, not the northern hemisphere or globally. So by choosing to show only an unexplained graph to support your opinion, aren't you intentionally cherry-picking to misrepresent the "government's own data" and what the evidence actually shows?
So what was happening in the northern hemisphere and what was happening globally?
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.
Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.
Use the carbon taxes to fund a tax refund, then it's tax-neutral.
Who get's the refund? The Chinese or the Indians?
Quote:
China is expected to add the equivalent of a new 500-megawatt coal-fired electric plant every 10 days for the next decade, according to projections by the United States government.
The minister, Prakash Javadekar, said in an interview that his government’s first priority was to alleviate poverty and improve the nation’s economy, which he said would necessarily involve an increase in emissions through new coal-powered electricity and transportation. He placed responsibility for what scientists call a coming climate crisis on the United States, the world’s largest historic greenhouse gas polluter, and dismissed the idea that India would make cuts to carbon emissions.
Artificially making fossil fuel energy more expense to promote the use of alternative energy will fail. No one is buying that B.S.
Either way,our energy appetite is immense. Putting 1000 nuclear power plants online by 2020 (which would dwarf any so-called benefit of a carbon tax) will barely make a dent in the "projected" warming by 2100.
In fact, it's just the opposite. Warming temperatures result in an increase in CO2, but increasing CO2 does not cause warming temperatures.
Eichler et al. (2009) used the ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 759years. They found strong correlation between the reconstructed temperature and solar activity, suggesting the solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time (AD1250–AD 1850). They identified a 10–30 year lag between the solar forcing and the temperature response, and also obtained that the reconstructed temperature was not significantly correlated with the green house gas CO2.
Uh-oh....the house of cards that propaganda built is starting to collapse.
Uh-oh. Seems you have misrepresented that paper too. So if you have to lie, cherry-pick, and misrepresent science to support your opinions, what does that say about your opinions?
"In a recent study we reconstructed the temperature history for the last 750 years in the continental Siberian Altai using ice core δ18O measurements. The Altai region is of particular interest, since it is within a highly continental area, revealing a stronger warming than other regions in the world during the last 50 years. We obtained solar activity changes as a main driver of temperature variations in the pre-industrial period 1250-1850, whereas the strong temperature increase in the last 150 years was related to the increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide."
ROMM: Am I correct that your study was NOT saying human-caused emissions were NOT the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century?
EICHLER: Yes, this is correct. We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.
Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to not understand that Dome Concordia --- drilled in the 1970s -- was the only data set available to the IPCC and the world for some time.
See?
You just stepped on it, again.
Apparently it's you who keeps 'stepping on it'.
It's not usually called "Dome Concordia", it's Dome C (from Dome Charlie) which began drilling in the 70's.
Concordia is the name of the new station which is located at Dome C and was opened in 2005.
The IPCC wasn't formed until 1988. There certainly were other data sets available to the IPCC in the late 80's other than from Dome C.
Try reading a history of the research behind climate science on the American Institute of Physics website by Professor Spencer Weart - it might help cure the overweeningly arrogant and smug ignorance you continue to display. But probably not.
Again, the IPCC does the exact same thing. There are numerous studies that use Antarctic ice cores, and not Greenland, just as there are studies that use Greenland ice cores, and not Antarctica.
The IPCC brings together all the data from all the studies. You cherry pick one, misrepresent it, and ignore the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Suppressed Evidence Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.
See?
You have to lie.
Like when you throw up a graph from Dome Fuji, don't include a link to the explanation of the graph, and fail to use the information from other studies like:
Those who mislead, are people like you. Why don't you tell us what temperature range is 15 microns infrared?
Unbiasedly.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Connecting the correct dots....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Got physics?....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Mircea
Your question doesn't actually make a lot of sense but you keep asking it, so clearly you think you have some kind of "Gotcha!" point to make.
How about you tell us your 'expert' answer and explanation and provide links to your sources?
Or.... you could try reading this explanation for lay people like you and I- (by physicist Professor Spencer Weart) before you make yourself look foolish:
Is that your best response to a comprehensive post?
One more proof that when liberals cant argue on merit they start calling names.
If you want to know it's done, study they arguments between mircea an ciest.
Not that you will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
