Forum Index » Chaff » The Carbon Flame War

Display Avatars Sort By:
David Olsen

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Wet weather kills pine beetles on 07/31/2013 09:08:38 MDT Print View

Wet weather, wet enough the trees can force the insects out with heavy sap flows, really kills off the beetles. The temperatures needed to kill pine beetles are about -40. Not common.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: The Carbon Flame War on 08/01/2013 03:03:10 MDT Print View

Jerry says:
you're just choosing factors that are non CO2 related.

Even the IPCC special report on extreme weather (SREX) admits there is no plausible linkage between co2 levels and extreme weather events (which have always been with us).

David: Good point, but be careful what you wish for. Big rain is on its way to those areas as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation continues to slide into its 30 year negative phase. 'Global warming' happened to coincide with its positive phase. Fancy that.

Harald Hope

Locale: East Bay
rog will be the last one.... on 08/03/2013 12:19:19 MDT Print View

Op-Ed Contributors
A Republican Case for Climate Action
Published: August 1, 2013

EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

And then we have Rog, pursuing his ridiculous attempt to deny reality. Is it an obsession, some type of psychosis, a profound desire for reality to remain as he dreams it is? Who can say, but we can most certainly say that the time for such nonsensical faith based belief systems when it comes to our ecosystem is growing so short that even republicans are starting to register that you cannot perpetually cater to fossil fuel interests and others, related, at some point we have to have somewhere to live with that money in the end.

However, it's nice to see an organized attempt by big name republicans to crack the idiocy. Rog, you can keep going on your lonely crusade, or you can silently close up shop and stop embarrassing yourself like this, it's your call, obviously as long as people keep this thread alive, you keep getting embarrassed, in general I don't post in it and certainly don't read your fantasy based nonsense, but I do find this thread an embarrassment in a forum like this to be honest. It's time you do too.

Edited by hhope on 08/03/2013 12:20:15 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: rog will be the last one.... on 08/04/2013 22:15:20 MDT Print View

Rog probably gets paid by the people that are making profit and don't want anything like awareness of global warming to get in the way

Sort of like how the tobacco companies fought the science that showed tobacco is dangerous

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: rog will be the last one.... on 08/05/2013 16:45:03 MDT Print View

"Rog, you can keep going on your lonely crusade, or you can silently close up shop and stop embarrassing yourself like this, it's your call, obviously as long as people keep this thread alive, you keep getting embarrassed, in general I don't post in it and certainly don't read your fantasy based nonsense, but I do find this thread an embarrassment in a forum like this to be honest. It's time you do too."

I'm not here to defend Rog's point of view, indeed I disagree with it. However, there are reasons why this thread is by far the longest running thread in BPL history: It has generated an enormous amount of highly educational commentary, not to mention often being quite entertaining in the bargain. The discourse between Tallbloke and Acrosome, beginning on page one, is particularly exemplary in this regard. It would have been well for you to at least give their exchanges a cursory reading before mounting your trusty, oft ridden high horse to criticize your intellectual betters.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: rog will be the last one.... on 08/05/2013 17:08:24 MDT Print View

What Tom said.

David Olsen

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Climate change map on 08/06/2013 08:21:59 MDT Print View

I like this thread.

Climate change has happened in the past, It appears to me to be happening at a rapid rate today.

So prevention or mitigation needs to happen.

For planning purposes here is map of the world with places effected shown.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Climate change - quiet Sun starts to take effect on 10/31/2013 07:35:32 MDT Print View

This thread isn't so busy these days, but I thought I'd drop by again to mention a couple of things.

1) The UK is something of a bell-weather for northern hemisphere climate change, situated as it is on the east of the Atlantic ocean, caressed by the oceanic Gulf Stream, and subject to the north-south meanderings of the atmospheric jet stream. The January temperature in central UK has fallen 2.5C in the last decade.

This is a big drop compared to worldwide temperatures, which have fallen only fractionally over the same period. However, it's worth thinking about the reasons why. Basically, now that the Sun is putting less energy into the system than it was, the oceanic circulation has slowed down a little. That gives the surface waters of the Gulf Stream more time to cool as they cross the northern Atlantic. The jet stream has moved equatorwards, and become more meridional. This introduces blocking highs over Greenland, which tend to cause 'loopiness' in the jetstream. That brings cold Arctic air down over the UK in winter.

2) I've had two papers accepted by the journal 'Pattern Recognition in Physics'. They'll be appearing in a special issue which looks at the links between the Sun's changing activity levels and Earth's responses to them, and the interesting correlations we've found between the motion of the planets and those changes in solar activity.

We've been able to create a simple model of that, and because the motion of the planets is completely predictable, it offers a method of predicting future solar activity levels too. We checked it by running our model backwards into the past. We found that it matches the record of sunspot numbers back to 1600 very well. It also matches records of changes in the amount of the Carbon 14 isotope found in trees going back over 1000 years.

The prediction we get when we run the model forwards shows that solar activity is going to remain low in the coming decades. Last two times the Sun went into a sulk like this, in the 1600's and the start of the 1800's, we held ice fairs on the River Thames in London, complete with elephants and bonfires.

Don't sell your coat.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Re: Re: rog will be the last one.... on 10/31/2013 07:53:22 MDT Print View

Jerry says:
"Rog probably gets paid by the people that are making profit and don't want anything like awareness of global warming to get in the way"

You've made this unfounded accusation several times before. It says more about you than it does about me. By the way, have you checked the size of Greenpeace's and the WWF's income? They certainly make a nice profit from perpetuating the scare over carbon dioxide making the Earth hotter. Greenpeace's hooligans locked up in Murmansk seem to spend a lot of time whining about the cold though.

Speaking of awareness of global warming, lets take a look at how the bet between Acrosome and me is going. He bet me $1000 that the average temperature from 2005-2020 would go up, and I said it would go down we agreed to use the 'Wood for Trees index, which averages the 2 surface and 2 satellite temperature metrics:

wft 2013 10

More than halfway there now Dean. ;-)

Sean Staplin
(mtnrat) - MLife

Locale: Southern Cdn Rockies
Re bet on 11/03/2013 01:02:37 MDT Print View

The way thing are looking, I think Roger has the advantage and is serving for match point.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: rog will be the last one.... on 11/05/2013 16:37:05 MST Print View

"Jerry says:
"Rog probably gets paid by the people that are making profit and don't want anything like awareness of global warming to get in the way"

You've made this unfounded accusation several times before..."

If you've read "Merchants of Doubt", they talk about deniers of nicotine, pesticide, and other cases where deniers delayed fixing a major problem. Many of those deniers were paid, although it's a lot more complicated than that. Most deniers are probably motivated by right wing political ideology, like anti-communism. They feel doing anything about a crisis will damage the economy and our way of life.

If you started 2008 on your plot, you'de have an upward trend. You need to look at the data from maybe 1950 to 2050 or 2100 to see the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Jerry and the carbon crisis on 11/12/2013 01:05:17 MST Print View

Hi Jerry,

What crisis?

There has been no statistically significant increase in near surface air temperature for 17 years. Co2 has risen another 10% meanwhile.

When will you start to think for youself instead of paying attention to propagandists who follow the Saul Allinsky method of smearing the opposition instead of answering their arguments?

Oh, wait a minute.... That's you isn't it?

My plot starts from when the bet between Dean and me starts. If you want to use a plot with a different start date for you own didactic purposes, feel free to post one.

" You need to look at the data from maybe 1950 to 2050 or 2100 "

I'd love to look at the data to 2100, where will I find it? That'll settle my bet with Dean early. ;-)

This is where you go wrong you see. You think the outputs of the climate models gives you data. They don't. They don't make predictions either. According to the climate scientists, they give 'projections'. That's sort of along the lines of:

"Assuming we got our parameters right, and set the initial conditions right and assuming we didn't miss anything important when we set up the model, we think it may go like this..."

But the averaged model output is diverging quite rapidly from reality.


Edited by tallbloke on 11/12/2013 08:32:32 MST.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Jerry and the carbon crisis on 11/12/2013 09:04:09 MST Print View

There's the law that says he who first brings up Hitler in an argument loses it.

Well, I have another law, he who brings up Saul Alinsky first loses the argument : )

What I read says that it's going to take 100 or 1000 years for the effects of the increased CO2 level to be felt.

The changes from CO2 are very small compared to all the other effects so it's going to take a long time for the temperature increase to accumulate. For example, it takes 1000 years for all the water in the ocean to cycle one time. The water currently welling up is cold from 1000 years ago. 1000 years from now it's going to get warmer with the water from today welling up.

Arguing about whether or not any changes we've seen are due to increased CO2 is just internet trolling (including me)

It's kind of hard to motivate people to change based on some problem 100 or 1000 years in the future, so some scientists are over enthusiastically stating their case.

So, if someone isn't paying you to be a global warming denier, how do you make your living?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Jerry and the carbon crisis on 11/12/2013 09:46:21 MST Print View

Here's the problem - from


"Upgoing thermal radiation" shows the spectrum of amount of heat radiated at different wavelengths, mostly between about 4 and 30 microns.

"Water Vapor" shows that water vapor absorbs only the upper end of that range,

"Carbon Dioxide" shows that carbon dioxide absorbs in the range of about 13 to 18 microns. Water vapor doesn't absorb very much at 13 but gradually absorbs more up to 18.

So, carbon dioxide fills up the gap a little of where water vapor absorbs heat. Carbon dioxide will absorb a little of that heat being transmitted to space.

It's a small effect, so it will take a long time to see just what the result will be. I would like to be alive 1000 years from now to see what that effect is.

Harald Hope

Locale: East Bay
lots of it on 11/12/2013 12:08:53 MST Print View

I have great respect for my intellectual betters, they do good work, like this: What ocean heating reveals about global warming. If you read that 5 page article, and follow the various referenced links, you can skip probably the last 2 or 3 years of this thread, and have a better understanding in the process. In the area of climate heating/change, you can, as always, find our betters in this area at That's a good place to keep up on the recent data, and also to see the latest denialist stuff debunked, with science and research, of which there is so much now that it is no longer possible to actually pretend that this thread's purpose has any. Spend your time reading the real data, it's interesting, and the research out there is excellent, every year more understanding is achieved, and it's present in basically all published work, something you'd never really suspect reading this thread, but that's why I don't spend time reading it, I'm interested in reality and the work off my betters in this field, not the endless waste of bytes and server capacity fake stuff like this spreads across the web.

I believe the recent pacific typhoon was the strongest ever recorded, not positive. Sandy was also impressive. While this thread drags on and on, in the real world, people are waking up and starting to take action.

It's easy to understand the motivations to try to ignore reality, cherry pick data, ignore all the actual research going on, they can be because ones career depends on not seeing the facts, it can be simple fear of fundamental change, it can be stupidity, it can be lots of things. And there is certainly a lot of debate ongoing, most of it revolving around the questions of how much heating, how bad the damage will be, how quickly, what happens when tipping points are crossed, etc. Since fixing it involves fundamental changes in our way of life, it's also very easy to understand why people want to pretend that some debate exists where none actually does, that's a standard technique now, create false poles then expect and demand that they be treated as part of the actual ongoing argument, tiresome for those of us actually trained in critical thinking, but there you have it, it's how humans are, nothing we say here will change that.

Probably better to stick to discussion the merits of 0.52 cuben over 0.74 I think, or fuel consumption of stoves, does Sil mist or is it just condensation being knocked loose by wind/rain?

Since there is now in the real world in the real actual scientific community essentially complete agreement on what is going on, the only debate being severity, speed, etc, there is no point in engaging people in 'debate' when there is no debate. It's a slow process gathering data, but not when your only agenda is to cherry pick and selectively quote, then it's easy, since no actual science is occurring, just some odd psychological event. I suggest going back to the days when the universe revolved around the earth, and watch how that change in thinking took place, it wasn't overnight, and I'm sure there were hundreds of rog types putting out learned tomes explaining how copernicus and galileo were wrong and the churches teachings were the truth. But that's how it goes. Used to be backpackers were sort of the most likely to care about the earth and so on, times change I guess.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: lots of it on 11/12/2013 12:34:35 MST Print View

"there is no point in engaging people in 'debate' when there is no debate."

Then why do you?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: lots of it on 11/12/2013 13:33:00 MST Print View

Maybe we could argue about whether packs should have pockets?

The reason to deny that CO2 is affecting the climate, is that all these people are making huge profits off coal, oil, ...

When we transition to other energy sources, the coal and oil companies will mostly fade away - go bankrupt or get much smaller. It's difficult for a company to change from, for example, oil to solar panels.

If they can delay the transition, they will make huge amounts of profit during that delay period.

Another factor is the deniers - the people actually speaking up - are fearful of change. Like they'll talk about communists trying to ruin the country. If we stop using coal and oil, we'll have to drive horse carriages and the economy will be ruined. But, you people, don't worry, we can do a transition, it won't be the end of the world.

At least that's what they said about similar transitions in "Merchants of Doubt".

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: lots of it on 11/12/2013 14:43:30 MST Print View

I admit that I haven't a clue about wether the planet is warming up or not. I have read here and there, but a lot of it would require for me to actually do a lot of studying.
I am all for alternative sources of energy, that is for sure.
What I am not all about is silencing one voice , and one that seems to be doing a lot of work and as far as I can tell, is not employed by those that you are mentioning Jerry.

Don't you think that more observation and study cannot do your position any harm? If I felt so confident about an idea I espouse, I would not feel threatened or so bothered by someone methodically researching the subject. So what if they are trying to disprove what you believe?

Fear of change is happening on both sides here and the abuse that Roger has undergone here does not seem warranted to me.
More research? Sure, why not? If he was getting paid by big oil, and tweaking the numbers than he might deserve these kinds of attacks. Attacking is actually a sign of fear......
Let him do his work and bring it forth and look at it's value. I cannot do that because it's beyond my current knowledge.

Shutting the door on a subject, as if we now have all we need to know...that seems contrary to real progress.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: lots of it on 11/12/2013 14:46:41 MST Print View

A big +1 Kat.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: lots of it on 11/12/2013 15:14:32 MST Print View

I'm not really into personal attacks on Roger. I suppose maybe accusing him of being paid to do it is sort of personal though. I don't mind people doing research on climate and what the effect of CO2 is. Actually, some of his technical stuff is interesting - Milankovitch Cycles and so forth.

But, look at the history of Tobacco. For many years they denied that it caused cancer and is addictive, even though they knew it was. This allowed them to make more money for many years which resulted in a bunch of people getting cancer and dieing an unpleasant death.

The same thing is happening with CO2. The more we delay action the worse the result will be. We should at least be doing the easy things.

Like increasing efficiency of cars and houses and ...

More windmills, and figure out how to work around the fact that the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Do a lot of research and small commercialization projects to see what works and what doesn't.

We've done some, but we should just to step it up a little.

I've been looking at LED lightbulbs in stores. The Chinese totally took over the CFL market. The U.S. government should be encouraging U.S. companies to make LED bulbs. We could take back that market after the CFL fiasco. But no, the Chinese government has encouraged Chinese companies which are creating the LED market instead.

Or solar panels - there are some U.S. companies making these, but Chinese are dumping them onto the market depressing prices driving out U.S. companies. Classic Carnegie/Rockefeller/Wallmart tactic to take over the market.