Site Meter

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Back at ya, Jack (today's letter)

Jack Murrell wishes that I’d stayed at school long enough to learn that plants need Co2. I was there for enough time to know that plants need water, but that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Plants drowned by torrential rains and floods don’t “grow twice as well”, as Jack claims plants drenched in Co2 will. Mr Murrell needs only to look at the disaster that America is experiencing right now, where it’s vital corn crops have been ruined by the worst drought in living memory, drought resulting from climate change, brought about by the extra Co2 we have pumped into the atmosphere. This extra Co2 hasn’t helped those corn crops at all, it has destroyed them and those American corn farmers won’t thank those who continue to call for more mining of fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas, that inevitably get burned and converted to the Co2 that’s creating havoc with the world’s weather. Ask the Russian wheat farmers who suffered massive crop failures last year, or the farmers all across the Indian continent who are seeing this year’s crops wiped out because of what greenhouse gases have done to the climate. Now we have the advance guard of the gas industry visiting Southland with their slick stories of great wealth, not mentioning at all the fact that their methane gas will, like coal and oil, be burned and turned to Co2, adding to the world’s climate problem. Perhaps we should make them explain their plans to the American, Indian and Russian farmers first. And to Jack.

Robert Guyton
RIVERTON

32 comments:

BS buster said...

tut tut robert , your telling porkies again

robertguyton said...

Challenge me with something substantial and interesting, BS, something you've thought of yourself, something interesting that we can debate. Rants don't count, nor do slights.
Bring it on.

BS buster said...

yes robert.. do try to contain your propensity for personal slights and rants , when your on the back foot ! ill concentrate on the facts as has been my practice through this debate, You have already been presented with " substantial" data that refutes the myth of anthropogenic global warming
the droughts in the last 100 years in the continental united states are considered mild when compared to those " mega droughts" that occured and lasted decades in the same area in the last 1000 years,
Droughts in the continental united states are not new {herweijer]
these droughts were associated with the medievil warm period and as with all droughts in the states are closely linked to la nina , or the pacific oscillation.
obviously industrial co2 was not a factor during these times because this predates the industrial revolution
man contributes less than 4% of all atmospheric co2 liberated annually.
. the natural variation of co2 to atmosphere in the northern hemisphere is about 20% as it responds to the warmer spring summer growing period ,,
this is a short term example of co2 as it responds to temperature and increASED biological activity,
this co2 response to temperature has been known for a very long time and demonstrated through proxy data back through geological time ,, in short co2 concentration does not drive temperature , it follows it
let me restate the known fact that the pacific oscillation and ocean temperature has a huge effect on any landmass that neighbors the pacific ocean ,
the pertinent question we need to be asking here is what are the factors that effect the temperature of the oceans ?.. a clue ... it is not co2

robertguyton said...

yes robert.. do try to contain your propensity for personal slights and rants , when your on the back foot ! ill concentrate on the facts as has been my practice through this debate,

You have concentrated on facts, BS? Then what is your opening sentence all about? Not the facts of the AGW debate. You have to walk the talk when debating with me!

You have already been presented with " substantial" data that refutes the myth of anthropogenic global warming
the droughts in the last 100 years in the continental united states are considered mild when compared to those " mega droughts" that occured and lasted decades in the same area in the last 1000 years,
your facts are fascinating to you, I've no doubt, but I can read, collect and regurgitate an equal number that refute yours, which seems a waste of time for both of us. Rather than re-running your well-worn fact sheets, why not try to take a fresh angle on the debate, something you've observed yourself, something you've not expounded before? It'd do us both good.
Droughts in the continental united states are not new {herweijer]
these droughts were associated with the medievil warm period and as with all droughts in the states are closely linked to la nina , or the pacific oscillation.
obviously industrial co2 was not a factor during these times because this predates the industrial revolution
man contributes less than 4% of all atmospheric co2 liberated annually.
. the natural variation of co2 to atmosphere in the northern hemisphere is about 20% as it responds to the warmer spring summer growing period ,,
this is a short term example of co2 as it responds to temperature and increASED biological activity,
this co2 response to temperature has been known for a very long time and demonstrated through proxy data back through geological time ,, in short co2 concentration does not drive temperature , it follows it
let me restate the known fact that the pacific oscillation and ocean temperature has a huge effect on any landmass that neighbors the pacific ocean ,
the pertinent question we need to be asking here is what are the factors that effect the temperature of the oceans ?.. a clue ... it is not co2

Meh. Not very substantive or interesting really, BS. I thinbk you're just regurgitating and it doesn't read convincingly. Perhaps I'm not the right target for your proselytizing.I'm looking to join a debate that has immediacy and creativity, maybe some fun thrown in and a sense of excitement as well. The 'denier' argument just sounds like Scientology to me. :-)

robertguyton said...

I have a suggestion, BS! Why don't you copy/paste my letter to Jack, then 'fisk' it by inserting your 'corrections' after each of the porkies you claim I am telling. That'd interest me and prove that you have some substance to you and that you are not just spouting from your denier bible :-)
Go on, do it. I know you can.

BS buster said...

I am disappointed robert ,
you consistently come up with no facts in rebuttal ,
but your prepared to mislead all in sundry through the newspaper as you attack Mr Murrell, and it appears you have no factual basis to your opinion



robertguyton said...

BS Buster. I've made it pretty clear that I'm not tempted to try to rebut your passages of 'coolist rant' (just teasing, be cool), but would happily engage with you while you back up your claim that I am 'telling porkies'. It's a serious enough claim you've made, that I am lying in a letter to the editor, one that is read by many members of the public and I'd like you to stand by your statement. Are you afraid you'll be found to be wrong in your attack on my character? Come on, man up.

Armchair Critic said...

c'mon BSb, I don't want a clue, I want the answer. Don't be coy. You said that temperature drives CO2 levels, and that's an interesting idea. So tell me, as concisely as you can, what is it that is driving the temperature of the oceans?

BS buster said...

you are stating in a definite manner that man made co2 is causing droughts in the continental united states ,
you have been given examples through this forum that co2 does not cause climate change . and that ipcc models are flawed.
in mid july i gave you several names of scientists at doctorate level to support that argument ,
i think when you have facts and you become selective by omission is a little bit .................????? put what ever label you think best describes your letter

BS buster said...

armchair,,
it looks like earth orbital path round the sun which varies in distance [melanivich. Russian ] and solar output has a greater influence on temperature than has been included in ipcc models , from memory sunspot activity and resultant influence on solar radiation influence the creation of cloud cover .[ dalton and maunder minimum]
there for solar output has more influence on water vapour which accounts for 95% of greenhouse gas and effect rather than co2 influence on water vapour.
because the ocean is greater by area than the land its influence and response will be greater.
not sure what causes the regular pacific oscillation , but it is , a powerful influence on weather and has been happening for 1000s years

Armchair Critic said...

Not bad, BSb, but it fails the Occam's Razor test.
However, if you want to run with that - what actions, if any, should be taken to address the rising sea temperatures and CO2 levels?

robertguyton said...

BS buster said..."tut tut robert, your telling porkies again"

you are stating in a definite manner that man made co2 is causing droughts in the continental united states

I am offering my view, BS. The letters column is called "Your view".
In my view, man made Co2 is highly likely to be responsible for the droughts in the US. That's not "telling porkies", BS. That's not lying.
,
you have been given examples through this forum that co2 does not cause climate change . and that ipcc models are flawed.
in mid july i gave you several names of scientists at doctorate level to support that argument ,
i think when you have facts and you become selective by omission
You are not seriously suggesting that I adopt every one of your so-called facts without applying my own thinking to them, are you, BS? How grandiose! I've not 'ommitted' them, BS, I've rejected or ignored them, much as you have done to my opinions on the matter.Rejecting is lying??
is a little bit .................????? put what ever label you think best describes your letter.
Well, no, BS. I'm not labeling my letter, you are. You've claimed I was "telling porkies", lying. You've not shown in your response how your claim is true. Like to try again, perhaps with another example?

BS buster said...

armchair . im not sure there is much that mankind can do about co2. because we only contribute about 4% of the total,
and there is growing opinion that what we are seeing is natural variation of climate and has occurred before .
its very likely we have misinterpreted what we are looking at because we are comming out of a glacial phase and as such in an interglacial warming period ,,,
apparently earths temperature is 80% glacial and 20% interglacial and this is directly the result of these milankovich cycles ,, if i read it correctly there are shorter cycles with in these which are the result the gravitational influence of other planets in the solar system modifying our orbit around the sun as well as our own eliptical solar orbit ,
what is occams razor test ?

BS buster . said...

no robert , it is you who are suggesting by your letter that everyone adopt your view ,
i disagree but i have given you reasons why i disagree , im sorry ,, but youll have to learn to get over it

robertguyton said...

Okay, I'm over it.
Fast learner, eh!

BS buster said...

ahem. ive been looking at" peak oil"?

Armchair Critic said...

You've said it's not about CO2, because increasing CO2 is a symptom of temperature rise, not vice versa. So we don't need to discuss CO2.
You have accepted that temperatures are rising, and have assigned the cause to something that we humans can not change. Unless you are suggesting we collectively shrug our shoulders (because no one is to blame, therefore business as usual), some form of response is needed. What should that response be?

robertguyton said...

Have you seen the price of fuel lately, BS?
Soo high, but barely a mention in the news.
Odd.

BS buster said...

i accept we have been warming ..
im convinced from what ive researched that it is nothing new and within historical shift
we have presently stopped warming since 2000 and probably cooling and may well continue to do so for about 30 40 years as predicted by a dr easterwood a paliogeologist and expert on the pacific oscillation. back in 2000 when warming hysteria was at it peak
i not convinced that a warmer earth with more co2 is all bad .

BS buster said...

i know its cripplingly high,,, i feel sorry for the family with young kids and one wage ..
the cost of fuel gets added to everything

robertguyton said...

"probably"?
"may well"?

This hasn't the ring of Science about it at all.

Armchair Critic said...

While it might lack the ring of science, that doesn't explain what it is. It might be lies, or damned lies, but my interpretation is that its a very simple form of statistics.

BS buster said...

i agree... it is indeed simple .
the earth has been much warmer than it is today without the influence of mankind.
the only thing new is mans misinterpretation of a naturally occurring cycle as demonstrated by the repeated inaccuracy of ipcc predictive climate models [easterbrook and kovanen2000 fig.40.]

the thing that concerns me is the huge amount of financial resource being diverted to this self perpetuating political/pseudoscience feeding frenzy,
Not to mention the pigs in troughs back slapping money go round as politicians clamber on the band wagon to secure their place in history.
this is a classic emperors new clothes fairy tale

robertguyton said...

At risk of getting caught in the crossfire...if I could comment here:
Firstly, this is rubbish, BS Buster:

Not to mention the pigs in troughs back slapping money go round as politicians clamber on the band wagon to secure their place in history.
this is a classic emperors new clothes fairy tale.
I suggest you leave that entirely un-scientific, emotive, politically loaded tosh out of this argument, til we've established the rights of the core issue - the validity of the climate change camp's claims.Secondly:
i agree... it is indeed simple .
the earth has been much warmer than it is today without the influence of mankind.
This might well be true, BS, but means nothing significant in terms of this argument. It certainly doesn't mean that the warming we have been experiencing is the result of natural events only, if that's what you are implying.If you are going to argue against AGM, how about you restrict your claims to relevant and factual ones, rather than spraying all sorts of half-baked tosh around?
the only thing new is mans misinterpretation...
Nonsense again. Thee are plenty of new aspects, the massive growh i human population being one, the huge increase in the release of fossil fuels from their beds, for another. your glib claim is nonsense!... of a naturally occurring cycle as demonstrated by the repeated inaccuracy of ipcc predictive climate models [easterbrook and kovanen2000 fig.40.]
You've not made a good effort here, BS. Tune it up! I'm not sure I want to be part of a feeble discussion.

BS buster said...

once again robert you refuse to read the scientific data provided and revert to personal attack as a smoke screen because you cannot provide any fact to support your stance.
so here it is again
easterbrook and kovanen 2000 fig 40
just let me know when you want another encyclopedic scientific paper explaining why man man global warming is a myth

BS buster said...

i should add , that when i refer to political" bandwagons' here ,, i am meaning on the international stage.

BS buster said...

easterbrook dr j
" evidence of cause of global warming and cooling"
fig 40 Easterbrook and Konanen

Sally said...

My readings of RG is that he is an apocaholic

Sally said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Some insightful interpretations there Sally. And nice to see your balance here BS buster. I for one appreciate your well considered debate. I suggest you ignore attempts to belittle your views. It seems a common blogger tactic to divert attention away from the debate.

Sally said...

What? A debate? You must be joking!

There is no debate with so many climate scientists producing the results their political paymasters want, rather than seeking the truth.

robertguyton said...

Climate scientists are in the pay of politicians?

Sally, holding conspiracy theories doesn't encourage people to put much store in your opinions. Just saying.