JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
First of all I dont think you can be an honest critic of anything if youve sided one way or another, then, if you have, youre truly shorting yourself available information, which either makes you work harder to find corraboration of this new info, if it pertains to your beliefs, or, you work harder to find exactly how this pertains to your beliefs, both ways.
If youve simply fallen into 1 of the 2 beliefs, and dont challenge it, to me, it has to be pure fact, and those gray areas, require the scepticism even so. But youre still open to new infos. Its how we grow and learn, and I find it the wisest form of learning, regardless of what others say or think, and knowing and prscticing this POV from the beginning saves alot of this misunderstanding.
Just as you find Al Gore sceptical with his knowledge of GW, I too find alot of scientists with sceptical conclusions, such as I pointed out. Theres more info on his early claims, verifying what he actually means and has said, and he basically thru Gore under the bus.
So, Im sceptical of both now, and have pointed out previously the losseness of interpretations thruout alot of findings here, and the flip flop activity, where the exact opposite has been claimed previously, and I find no hard facts either way.
Someone so rogue as Al Gore gives me very little confidence in GW, and theres many that adhere to it that I also find on the wrong side of the fence. Similar to the UN putting certain countries on the security council, it discounts their authority, much like the Nobel Peace Prize commitee, who chose Gore.
To me, all these people have run in the same circles for awile now, and are embraced by hollywood, the media etc, and misrepresent the majority, and sometimes common sense as well.
If other , say the gentlemen from MIT came aboard, to me, itd have more impact, and hopefully those gentlemen have open minds as well.
As for the sea ice, he makes 2 claims, i1 is possible, the other, no.
If currents of water reach the edge of the sea ice, and theyre overall warmer from whatever source/reason, itll have direct effects on the edges of the sea ice, which would be fine, but he goes on here, and talks about his imaging processes which are supposedly much superior than the EU's, or the UK in particular. He claims the ice is thinning, but heres the problem, you dont have a current of such sorts with 2 differing temps running under ice, its impossible.
Its like hitting a wall. If hurricanes in our atnosphere didnt have the feeding of warmed surface temp water to pass over, to maintain or pick up strength, they die out, same also for currents under ice, and since there isnt any feeders to be had, the wall would become thincker, having cooled the incoming warmer waters, thus deadening the currents flow. Thats where his agressive numbers fail, and to me, he shouldnt be a voice, mucj like Al Gore, Nobel, hollywood et al.
Using your own words, you said sea ice reductions werent as bad, or so great the last 2 years, whereas its actually grown, so again, this is exactly to my point.
Using worse case, ignoring other things, and we are supposed to go all in?
Let me ask this, since I dont seem to have the right link, anytime during the 70s thru 2007 has the sea ice grown? And, if so, how is that used in the GW projections? Or are they at all?
To say now, that those longer ranged forecasts included this, and is why itll take longer, what if it keeps happening? Theres no reason for it to, at all, if we take into consideration what GW is saying, certainly not 2 years in a row, and certainly not 3 or more, and if their calculations are based with the absence of growth, or limited, 2 years running seems to go outside the data points, and keep in mind, Im giving you 2007, and will ask for just 2 years here.
How can CO2 allow for this? Is it because we really dont know, or have near the grasp required to make facts yet? And then to even have gray areas as well?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
Notice the word balance here? In that way is the same as Im using it.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."
Where Im coming from
Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
Very contradictory
The beauty of balance
"Abstract. The presence of phytoplankton in the
ocean modies the penetration of light and impacts the
physical properties of the upper water column. We quantify
these impacts and the feedbacks on phytoplankton
biomass for the global ocean using an Ocean General
Circulation Model coupled to a state-of-the-art ocean
biogeochemistry model. The presence of phytoplankton
amplies the seasonal cycle of temperature, mixed layer
depth and ice cover by roughly 10%. At mid and high latitudes,
surface temperature warms by 0.1 to 1.5 C and
sub-surface temperature cools by 0.1 to 0.5 C in spring
and summer; in autumn and winter, surface and subsurface
waters are mixed and surface temperature cools
by 0.1 to 0.3 C. In the tropical oceans, the presence of
phytoplankton indirectly cools the ocean surface by ca 0.3
C due to the intensication of the upwelling. The mixed
layer straties by 4 to 30 m everywhere except at high
latitudes. At high latitudes, the sea-ice cover is reduced
by up to 6 % in summer and increased by 2 % in winter,
leading to further feedbacks on vertical mixing and heat
uxes. The physical changes drive a positive feedback
with phytoplankton biomass, which increases by 4-12 %
and further amplies the initial physical perturbations,
in particular at high latitudes."
http://luv.dkrz.de/publications_2003/pub_47_104.pdf
As I mentioned earlier, when a body of water turns over, the temps do as well, and a mixing occurs. Below the thrmocline, the oxygen is somewhat depleted, and theres a layer of cooling, as phyto plankton amongst warn water fishes cant exist in this element because of the low oxygen levels.
Now, whats interesting here, and what Id hinted at earlier with the clouds, even tho they act like a greenhouse below, they do the opposite above out to space, making things colder.
So too we find that Phyto Plankton does the same. As it absorbs the suns rays, heat the surface waters, it blooms, and prevents sunlight from reaching deeper in the sea, thus making it colder, same with the northern seas, except we have a turn over , and the melted ice lowers the surface temps, which sink, thus lowering the lower depths in temps, a natural turnover as well, with the increase of Phyto Plankton creating a thermal barrier for the heat , keeping it at the surface, and again, blooming Phyto Plankton acting as an insulator, and the deeper waters cool even more.
In fall, the natural turnover happens, as the surface waters become colder than the deeper water abd sinks, and is why the temps in the summer and spring, the deeper water is actually getting colder, as its reached its mean temps over winter.
Now, so far, it would seem to me, as Im barely eduacated in these matters, they havnt either included this natural model, have severely underestimated it, or have agressively over ridden it, and is why I chose this example for my scepticism
If youve simply fallen into 1 of the 2 beliefs, and dont challenge it, to me, it has to be pure fact, and those gray areas, require the scepticism even so. But youre still open to new infos. Its how we grow and learn, and I find it the wisest form of learning, regardless of what others say or think, and knowing and prscticing this POV from the beginning saves alot of this misunderstanding.
Just as you find Al Gore sceptical with his knowledge of GW, I too find alot of scientists with sceptical conclusions, such as I pointed out. Theres more info on his early claims, verifying what he actually means and has said, and he basically thru Gore under the bus.
So, Im sceptical of both now, and have pointed out previously the losseness of interpretations thruout alot of findings here, and the flip flop activity, where the exact opposite has been claimed previously, and I find no hard facts either way.
Someone so rogue as Al Gore gives me very little confidence in GW, and theres many that adhere to it that I also find on the wrong side of the fence. Similar to the UN putting certain countries on the security council, it discounts their authority, much like the Nobel Peace Prize commitee, who chose Gore.
To me, all these people have run in the same circles for awile now, and are embraced by hollywood, the media etc, and misrepresent the majority, and sometimes common sense as well.
If other , say the gentlemen from MIT came aboard, to me, itd have more impact, and hopefully those gentlemen have open minds as well.
As for the sea ice, he makes 2 claims, i1 is possible, the other, no.
If currents of water reach the edge of the sea ice, and theyre overall warmer from whatever source/reason, itll have direct effects on the edges of the sea ice, which would be fine, but he goes on here, and talks about his imaging processes which are supposedly much superior than the EU's, or the UK in particular. He claims the ice is thinning, but heres the problem, you dont have a current of such sorts with 2 differing temps running under ice, its impossible.
Its like hitting a wall. If hurricanes in our atnosphere didnt have the feeding of warmed surface temp water to pass over, to maintain or pick up strength, they die out, same also for currents under ice, and since there isnt any feeders to be had, the wall would become thincker, having cooled the incoming warmer waters, thus deadening the currents flow. Thats where his agressive numbers fail, and to me, he shouldnt be a voice, mucj like Al Gore, Nobel, hollywood et al.
Using your own words, you said sea ice reductions werent as bad, or so great the last 2 years, whereas its actually grown, so again, this is exactly to my point.
Using worse case, ignoring other things, and we are supposed to go all in?
Let me ask this, since I dont seem to have the right link, anytime during the 70s thru 2007 has the sea ice grown? And, if so, how is that used in the GW projections? Or are they at all?
To say now, that those longer ranged forecasts included this, and is why itll take longer, what if it keeps happening? Theres no reason for it to, at all, if we take into consideration what GW is saying, certainly not 2 years in a row, and certainly not 3 or more, and if their calculations are based with the absence of growth, or limited, 2 years running seems to go outside the data points, and keep in mind, Im giving you 2007, and will ask for just 2 years here.
How can CO2 allow for this? Is it because we really dont know, or have near the grasp required to make facts yet? And then to even have gray areas as well?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
Notice the word balance here? In that way is the same as Im using it.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."
Where Im coming from
Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
Very contradictory
The beauty of balance
"Abstract. The presence of phytoplankton in the
ocean modies the penetration of light and impacts the
physical properties of the upper water column. We quantify
these impacts and the feedbacks on phytoplankton
biomass for the global ocean using an Ocean General
Circulation Model coupled to a state-of-the-art ocean
biogeochemistry model. The presence of phytoplankton
amplies the seasonal cycle of temperature, mixed layer
depth and ice cover by roughly 10%. At mid and high latitudes,
surface temperature warms by 0.1 to 1.5 C and
sub-surface temperature cools by 0.1 to 0.5 C in spring
and summer; in autumn and winter, surface and subsurface
waters are mixed and surface temperature cools
by 0.1 to 0.3 C. In the tropical oceans, the presence of
phytoplankton indirectly cools the ocean surface by ca 0.3
C due to the intensication of the upwelling. The mixed
layer straties by 4 to 30 m everywhere except at high
latitudes. At high latitudes, the sea-ice cover is reduced
by up to 6 % in summer and increased by 2 % in winter,
leading to further feedbacks on vertical mixing and heat
uxes. The physical changes drive a positive feedback
with phytoplankton biomass, which increases by 4-12 %
and further amplies the initial physical perturbations,
in particular at high latitudes."
http://luv.dkrz.de/publications_2003/pub_47_104.pdf
As I mentioned earlier, when a body of water turns over, the temps do as well, and a mixing occurs. Below the thrmocline, the oxygen is somewhat depleted, and theres a layer of cooling, as phyto plankton amongst warn water fishes cant exist in this element because of the low oxygen levels.
Now, whats interesting here, and what Id hinted at earlier with the clouds, even tho they act like a greenhouse below, they do the opposite above out to space, making things colder.
So too we find that Phyto Plankton does the same. As it absorbs the suns rays, heat the surface waters, it blooms, and prevents sunlight from reaching deeper in the sea, thus making it colder, same with the northern seas, except we have a turn over , and the melted ice lowers the surface temps, which sink, thus lowering the lower depths in temps, a natural turnover as well, with the increase of Phyto Plankton creating a thermal barrier for the heat , keeping it at the surface, and again, blooming Phyto Plankton acting as an insulator, and the deeper waters cool even more.
In fall, the natural turnover happens, as the surface waters become colder than the deeper water abd sinks, and is why the temps in the summer and spring, the deeper water is actually getting colder, as its reached its mean temps over winter.
Now, so far, it would seem to me, as Im barely eduacated in these matters, they havnt either included this natural model, have severely underestimated it, or have agressively over ridden it, and is why I chose this example for my scepticism
- Do you even read people's posts? Do you have any critical thought process in your brain, if you do? No? That's because your an idiot. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram