I realise you WANT to debate greenhouse gasses - but no one else is. We're simply telling you that growers DO NOT add CO2 to their greenhouses in order to raise the temperature. They do it because plants like it.
No. Growers add CO2 since it seems most plants evolved during a time where the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was much higher (geological research says it's been 10 times higher than today) and thus the plants can use that extra CO2 to grow faster/better/larger.
You should believe him because you can verify his work. It's open and explained. That is in contrast to the GISS modifications done by Hansen, closed (method as well as source).
The refutation does not have to be "peer reviewed" (do you even understand what that is?) - the source of the data explained what had changed and that immideately falsifies the conslusions drawn in the report.
The data sets used are publically available and no, there are no other.
I get the feeling you're not interested in what's actually true.
Most of the posts aren't written by the blog owner. All the data is well sourced (and comes from NOAA, NASA etc) - I'm a bit worried for you and your ability to click on links:)
Did you follow the third link with regards to peer review?
Why do you believe that question to be relevant? Will our existence suddenly make oceans acidic if there's supposed to be a cause-and-effect based on CO2-levels?
Being Swedish I have no idea why you brought up "right wing", but then again no one outside the US seem to understand why americans bring up left/right in every debate you ever partake in.
Don't be discouraged by the articles being on a blog, everything is well sourced if you for weird reasons don't believe their graphs from the raw data.
With regards to peer review, I think you'll like this article:
(There are updates to these theories if you follow the sourced links)
AGW is based on a hypothesis. Models have been built on that same hypothesis. All predictions based on those same models have failed. If the models are closely coupled to the hypothesis, proper use of the scientific method forces us to discard the hypothesis and formulate one that has a better fit to observed data.
The reason that's not currently being made is purely political.
Ocean acidification, for one example, is a huge problem also related to co2 emissions
You mean, besides it really not happening, really not being a problem and really having nothing at all to do with things being "acid"?
We've had an order of magnitude higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere in Earth's history*. The oceans weren't acidic then, corals prospered and the earth didn't burn.
Lots of content providers are members. I assure you the the party members (third biggest party in Sweden, registered) are quite knowledgeable in the subject.
It's becoming harder and harder for the ones controlling our simulation to keep up the impression of a live dynamic world. Having to stay one step ahead of our scientific progress in the simulated world, having to explain phenomena that were once thought out of our grasp yet documented (distant galaxies with the same rotation speed regardless of the distance from the core) and now needing explanations.
We're close to seeing the illusion fail. I wonder if that makes the experiment invalid and if they'll just pull the plug?
Yes, it's true. All modern nuclear fissions devices basically can use the old "waste" as fuel, leave no long-lasting highly radioactive waste (which is an oxymoron in itself btw) and are so safe it's impossible (even if you go the Chernobyl way of really trying) to make them suffer a melt down.
Everyone knows this except for the greenies. They just cover their ears and keep on screaming.
I recommend "Consciousness : An Introduction" - Susan Blackmore. You might have a hypothesis on how we can "find" consciousness, but you're acting as if it works as you describe and I see no actual science behind your viewpoint.
But, please continue:) I'm not saying you _have_ to be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I realise you WANT to debate greenhouse gasses - but no one else is. We're simply telling you that growers DO NOT add CO2 to their greenhouses in order to raise the temperature. They do it because plants like it.
No, he said that due to various reasons most scientists aren't able to use the scientific method in their day to day work.
I'm sorry, but you have not sourced your statement at all. You claim that growers add CO2 to greenhourses in order to raise the temperature.
They do not. They add CO2 since it makes the plants grow better.
Growers also pump carbon dioxide into greenhouses to warm them
No, they don't. Why do you insist on posting fantasies? Greenhouses become hot since they're closed environments trapping sunlight.
No. Growers add CO2 since it seems most plants evolved during a time where the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was much higher (geological research says it's been 10 times higher than today) and thus the plants can use that extra CO2 to grow faster/better/larger.
http://www.indoor-gardening-guide.com/articles/plant-care/Introduction-to-Carbon-Dioxide-Co2.html
No.
The question is, why do you believe it - and why do you get all worked up over the issue?
The correlation between solar and temp is way way way higher than CO2 and temp.
:)
You should believe him because you can verify his work. It's open and explained. That is in contrast to the GISS modifications done by Hansen, closed (method as well as source).
The refutation does not have to be "peer reviewed" (do you even understand what that is?) - the source of the data explained what had changed and that immideately falsifies the conslusions drawn in the report.
The data sets used are publically available and no, there are no other.
I get the feeling you're not interested in what's actually true.
Most of the posts aren't written by the blog owner. All the data is well sourced (and comes from NOAA, NASA etc) - I'm a bit worried for you and your ability to click on links :)
Did you follow the third link with regards to peer review?
Why do you believe that question to be relevant? Will our existence suddenly make oceans acidic if there's supposed to be a cause-and-effect based on CO2-levels?
Being Swedish I have no idea why you brought up "right wing", but then again no one outside the US seem to understand why americans bring up left/right in every debate you ever partake in.
In any case;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%E2%80%9Ccorrections%E2%80%9D/
Don't be discouraged by the articles being on a blog, everything is well sourced if you for weird reasons don't believe their graphs from the raw data.
With regards to peer review, I think you'll like this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/18/note-to-ncdc-climate-report-authors-try-using-the-telephone-next-time/
Feel free to read up on the well known workings around James Hansen and GISS anytime. Knowledge doesn't hurt.
show me a correlation between solar activity and temperature that's stronger than the correlation between CO2 and temperature
Ok:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
(There are updates to these theories if you follow the sourced links)
AGW is based on a hypothesis. Models have been built on that same hypothesis. All predictions based on those same models have failed. If the models are closely coupled to the hypothesis, proper use of the scientific method forces us to discard the hypothesis and formulate one that has a better fit to observed data.
The reason that's not currently being made is purely political.
Ocean acidification, for one example, is a huge problem also related to co2 emissions
You mean, besides it really not happening, really not being a problem and really having nothing at all to do with things being "acid"?
We've had an order of magnitude higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere in Earth's history*. The oceans weren't acidic then, corals prospered and the earth didn't burn.
*) Paper here, see fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
Hansen's closed-source closed-algorithm modifications of UHI-affected temperature readings have absolutely nothing to do with "the truth".
If anything I wrote above was news to you, feel free to use google.
The truth looks more like this (using data we can almost believe in):
http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/12-years-of-no-warming-part-2-update-on-uah-may-2009/
Oh humans would, like other animals, plants and coral reefs did, "survive" 4000 ppm CO2 just fine. You've got 800 ppm easily indoors in a normal environment: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/office_building-immeubles_bureaux/co2-eng.php
My point was that the earth survived it as well. No positive feedback loops spiralling out of control.
Global Warming isn't, and hasn't, killed any coral reefs.
Polar bears are increasing in numbers, and have been since several decades.
There's been no increase in extreme weather whatsoever.
The question you should ask yourself is why you believe differently. Who fooled you, and why?
(My statements above are easily sourceable through common search engines)
All that carbon that we are currently putting back into the atmosphere and oceans? It's never been in the atmosphere and oceans all at once.
We're currently close to 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We've been at 4000. That's an order of magniture - yet the world didn't burn.
Peer reviewed paper, you want fig 8: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
Lots of content providers are members. I assure you the the party members (third biggest party in Sweden, registered) are quite knowledgeable in the subject.
I know I am.
It's becoming harder and harder for the ones controlling our simulation to keep up the impression of a live dynamic world. Having to stay one step ahead of our scientific progress in the simulated world, having to explain phenomena that were once thought out of our grasp yet documented (distant galaxies with the same rotation speed regardless of the distance from the core) and now needing explanations.
We're close to seeing the illusion fail. I wonder if that makes the experiment invalid and if they'll just pull the plug?
[yeah, totally insane, but what if?]
Yes, it's true. All modern nuclear fissions devices basically can use the old "waste" as fuel, leave no long-lasting highly radioactive waste (which is an oxymoron in itself btw) and are so safe it's impossible (even if you go the Chernobyl way of really trying) to make them suffer a melt down.
Everyone knows this except for the greenies. They just cover their ears and keep on screaming.
Oh, links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
I think we'll have to go with a more modern meaning - since you could otherwise still be just a zombie ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
I recommend "Consciousness : An Introduction" - Susan Blackmore. You might have a hypothesis on how we can "find" consciousness, but you're acting as if it works as you describe and I see no actual science behind your viewpoint.
But, please continue :) I'm not saying you _have_ to be wrong.
As you correctly pointed out, it's not provable and I won't take the word of a zombie for it ;)
Are you conscious?
Can you prove it?
[hint: no]
I meant here that the "self interest" of the spirit is independent of the "self interest" of the body
Sure - it's about the genes & memes. There's absolutely no "spirit" involved anywhere though.