BUZZ ALDRIN REJECTS GLOBAL WARMING FEARS

[GreyICE]

Feel like a big man now? I'm not interested in discussing this, it has nothing to do with breadth of material.. did I present any material? I think I just questioned some assertions, and rightly so. So what the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, I get it. Making yourself feel big. Fuck off then.

My 8" causes me to feel big. Your ignorance just makes me laugh at you.

[mistermack]

Greyice, firstly I think you've confirmed my comments. Your attitude to this subject is similar to a religious conviction. Otherwise, why do you get so het up and personal about a question of science?
Secondly, a few satellites doesn't constitute measuring heat flow.
The Earth is rather big. They take measurements, and model the heat flow.
Are these models accurate? It doesn't seem so, because if you google "missing heat" you'll find that half the heat they modelled, using your heat in/heat out equation, is missing. It's not there. Nobody knows where it is. It's gone. It did a runner.
Or perhaps there are too many unknowns.
But is it surprising? Can a few satellites working in an alien environment, with no reliable method of calibration, tell you exactly how much heat the entire Earth radiates, and where and when?
It seems not.

You say that I focus on radiation like there are not other factors. There are no other factors. If you feel otherwise, feel free to demonstrate some.

I said no such thing. If you don't understand the actual words I'm writing, then you're pretty much wasting my time. Bye.

[mistermack]

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question!

???? I thought I made it perfectly clear. Are you just after a yes or no? You asked "Do you actually think that the rise in CO2 levels is just coincidental to the rise in global temperatures?"
I think we don't know, nothing's proved either way. That's my answer. If I answered yes or no, I would be guessing. I don't think yes, and I don't think no. I think both answers are possible.
I hope it's clear now.

If you wanted a guess, I even provided one.

So if you want to know what my best guess is, it's that CO2 has a fairly small effect. Too small to show up in the ice cores. The rest of the variation is caused by other factors. Some known, some unknown.

So how you can say I didn't answer escapes me.

About the ice cores. Here's a test.
Draw your own graph of CO2 levels. Make it as spikey or boring as you like. Then draw a line of temperature, where it follows the variations in CO2 up and down, with a 20 or 30 year lag, whatever you are claiming. It will look nothing like the ice core graphs.

[Beelzebub]

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question!

???? I thought I made it perfectly clear. Are you just after a yes or no? You asked "Do you actually think that the rise in CO2 levels is just coincidental to the rise in global temperatures?"
I think we don't know, nothing's proved either way. That's my answer. If I answered yes or no, I would be guessing. I don't think yes, and I don't think no. I think both answers are possible.
I hope it's clear now.

If you wanted a guess, I even provided one.

So if you want to know what my best guess is, it's that CO2 has a fairly small effect. Too small to show up in the ice cores. The rest of the variation is caused by other factors. Some known, some unknown.

So how you can say I didn't answer escapes me.

About the ice cores. Here's a test.
Draw your own graph of CO2 levels. Make it as spikey or boring as you like. Then draw a line of temperature, where it follows the variations in CO2 up and down, with a 20 or 30 year lag, whatever you are claiming. It will look nothing like the ice core graphs.

There is no problem with saying that you are still looking at the emerging evidence, that you are yet to be convinced. However, you seem to go further than this...

"And what I object to is being regarded as some kind of heretic for not believing it"

So is your position actually one of disbelief, rather than that of a provisional suspension of verdict?


Indeed, you seem to go further...

"Well actually, the facts are with me. I say it's not proved."

So, you say "it's not proved" - surely you know that nothing in Science is ever "proved" - proof is for mathematical logic, not Science. One of your apparent disproofs of AGW is that the IPCC refuses to give you a 100% guarantee that the current warming is due to human activities. You will never get that, and I suspect you know that.

Perhaps more disturbing, is your insistance in ignoring the current situation, and continuing with your 'obsession' with the Vostok ice-cores. This, after I showed you that the current warming is nothing like that in the 100,000 year cycles recorded in the ice record. This alone should give pause for thought.

However, at one point you did come very close to realising the disparity between today and the past...

"if the models were correct, the ice cores would show temperatures following the variation in CO2 with a lag of less than thirty years. They show no such thing."

Horray!! This is exactly what I was trying to get across..

"The changes you keep on about, take thousands of years to rise and fall. The CO2 levels lag temperature (As you would expect) by centuries.
Now, look at the current warming rate - an order of magnitude faster, and with a corresponding rise in CO2 levels. The two scenarios are clearly different!"

As you yourself pointed out. Todays REAL warming, concommitant with the REAL rising CO2 levels dot NOT match the ice-core records - for precicly the reasons you allude to - the historic patterns of climate change were due to non-human effects (As I have repeatedly noted, these were due to long-term orbital changes). If today's situation was indeed a part of this natural variability, we should expect warming to take place over thousands of years - not a dozen or so decades, and we should expect CO2 levels to be unchanged (We would have to wait centuries before they started to rise). As this is most definitely NOT what we are seeing, the conclusion that this warming is UN-natural (human induced), is pretty compelling.

[GreyICE]

Greyice, firstly I think you've confirmed my comments. Your attitude to this subject is similar to a religious conviction. Otherwise, why do you get so het up and personal about a question of science?
Secondly, a few satellites doesn't constitute measuring heat flow.
The Earth is rather big. They take measurements, and model the heat flow.
Are these models accurate? It doesn't seem so, because if you google "missing heat" you'll find that half the heat they modelled, using your heat in/heat out equation, is missing. It's not there. Nobody knows where it is. It's gone. It did a runner.
Or perhaps there are too many unknowns.
But is it surprising? Can a few satellites working in an alien environment, with no reliable method of calibration, tell you exactly how much heat the entire Earth radiates, and where and when?
It seems not.

You say that I focus on radiation like there are not other factors. There are no other factors. If you feel otherwise, feel free to demonstrate some.

I said no such thing. If you don't understand the actual words I'm writing, then you're pretty much wasting my time. Bye.

As I guessed.

Insults, whining, and wandering off in an offended huff.

Answering questions, responding to facts, and actual dialogue? Not in the picture.

Well, go back to whatever dittohead forum spawned you if you can't answer simple questions about science.

P.S. Ein = Eout + Estored. This is still true, and you still can't disprove the first law of thermodynamics by insulting me, acting offended, and yelling "I'm taking my toys and going home!"

[mistermack]

Beelzebub, this is getting reduced to semantics now, I'm a bit tired of it, so I'm leaving it here. If I say I don't believe something, it doesn't mean I believe the opposite. I would have thought I'd made that crystal clear now.
My point about the ice cores is that we are being asked to accept that temps follow CO2 levels. I've also pointed out long periods when they didn't. The evidence from the ice cores and also recent history.
You keep pointing to the recent warming period where CO2 and temps rose together, and ignore the times when they didn't.
So enjoy it. See what you want to see, and ignore what you don't.
Bye.

[GreyICE]

You keep pointing to the recent warming period where CO2 and temps rose together, and ignore the times when they didn't.

It really does remind me of Phillip Morris. "Look, here's people who got lung cancer who never smoked a day in their life!"
"Cool. So, lung cancer is like 12 times more likely in smokers because...?"
"He got cancer, he never smoked! This guy lived until 95, he smoked every day of his life. These 12 people have been smoking for 40 years, they have no problems! You're not being objective about this!"

And, the saga continues.

[redunderthebed]

On the other side of the coin, Schmidt (the Apollo 17 guy) is also correct in saying this: "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." He's right about that. Fear is being used to push political and economic agendas unrelated to the "truth" or the reality of the impact of human activity.

I disagree you guys actually can play a huge role is reversing climate however.....

We are a country with by world standards a small population compared to our land mass and yet we are told by politicians that we have to pay tax on carbon BULLSHIT geezus our last PM was a cunt but he was right in saying that until we have a consensus between the major polluters to clean up their act that any attempts to curb climate change will be fucking pointless and a money grab by the state.

As my grandfather said if we reduce our carbon it will be gazumped by china india and USA within hours.

I don't deny the science i despise the fact that a serious issue is being used by slimeball pollies to get money off people.

[Beelzebub]

Beelzebub, this is getting reduced to semantics now, I'm a bit tired of it, so I'm leaving it here. If I say I don't believe something, it doesn't mean I believe the opposite. I would have thought I'd made that crystal clear now.
My point about the ice cores is that we are being asked to accept that temps follow CO2 levels. I've also pointed out long periods when they didn't. The evidence from the ice cores and also recent history.
You keep pointing to the recent warming period where CO2 and temps rose together, and ignore the times when they didn't.
So enjoy it. See what you want to see, and ignore what you don't.
Bye.

Sigh..... Morton's Demon anyone?
mistermack's Demon continually rejects anything that might imply that todays warming and CO2 levels have nothing whatsoever to do with the Natural Variability recorded in the ice-core measurements.

Global Warming Is Happening....
CO2 Levels Are Rising...
Human Output Of CO2 Is Rising...

Conclusion? Oh, silly me, of course it's all just natural variability!

[GreyICE]

And, silence. I guess we're done throwing out all of the "oh no, we don't know something, therefore we don't know ANYTHING!" fallacious objections that one human can possibly muster.