Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by PhiloNysh, Oct 5, 2003.


If global warming an environmental concern?

  1. Yes -humans caused it

    38 vote(s)
  2. No- it is a natural cause

    26 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    17 vote(s)
  1. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    Collectively YES, individually the are of no revelance....when you can understand this important and necessary distinction, then I consider you as a credible critic/commentator.

    It's now apparent that you've decided to LIE in support of your opinion....I've already explained that Mann used multiple proxies and more than 4 tree ring sources.


    Climate Change Beyond Doubt: Karl, Trenberth Say
    No Doubts Global Warming Is Real, U.S. Experts Say
    Reuters News Service, Dec. 5, 2003

    WASHINGTON - There can be no doubt that global warming is real and is being caused by people, two top U.S. government climate experts said. Industrial emissions are a leading cause, they say - contradicting critics, already in the minority, who argue that climate change could be caused by mostly natural forces.

    "There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate," wrote Thomas Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    "The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise," they added in a commentary to be published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

    WHAT ABOUT the United States National Academy of Sciences assertion in 2000 that "Global warming was a scientific principle no longer needing debate but action to mitigate".

    What about Barney Foran, CSIRO's lead eco-scientist?

    I think someone is talking shit

    And as I've previously told you, there's a difference between disputation by crank/s* and disputation via the accepted scientific method of advancement, whereby a superior competing theory is offered which either explains and or predicts better than the existing theory....what is the NAME OF YOUR SUPERIOR THEORY?.....I hope it's not called OPINION.

    *those who offer opinions on GW without being informed on the issue are cranks, they may not be bad people, but they certainly should be ignored as GW is about science, not personal feelings of whether it was hotter 10 yrs ago.

    Disputation by cranks doesn't count as science...LOL.

    Oh bullshit, everyone knows and accepts that the sun drives the climate system.

    You once again distort the known facts and try and hoodwink us with appeals to the past climates.

    As I've already "tried" to explain, ANY altering of the internal or external climate mechanisms will alter the global energy balance, as we have evidence that co2 ppmv have increased via approx 30% since indust rev, and that we have confirmation of a fossil fuel presence in the atmosphere via isotopic signature, WE KNOW that the internal climate mechanism of "atmospheric composition" has changed, we have empirical evidence which matches UNDISPUTED theory.

    No-one is dismissing the role of the sun{what can be considered natural variation}...but the sun is a external climate you choose to use it's influence as a mechanism, but won't use the atmospheric compositions influence....why?, because you aren't properly informed on the basics.

    NO YOU DON'T....I keep telling you what the basics are and you avoid them like the plague.

    Individual weather events are NOT evidence of GW,.... a pattern of them leading to the statistical acknowledgement of a variety of extremes is the begining of a climate shift.

    So the chief scientists of the IPCC, and by extension WMO, NAS and CSIRO are all dope addicts who presumaby play Xbox all day.....LOL, you're a little beauty.

    Give up,... your endless irrelevent charts, self-aggrandizing, ignorance of the basics and delightful character assasinations are NOT science.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    <b>What a shoddy argument!</b> You insist in my lack of understanding of climate science, when it is you that is dismissing <b>factual evidence</b> by sending strawman and “ad hominem” attacks. Then take the <b>collectively grouped MSU satellite records</b>, giving a global view of temperatures, and we see there have been a cooling in recent years. Don’t insist on being an asshole!
    You are hallucinating, a common characteristic in IPPC followers. It is not <b>the use of proxies</b> by Mann et al. what has been shown faulty, but their <b><font color=red>flawed statistical analysis and their wrong methodology.</font></b> So, I am not the liar – it seems <b>you just don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about!</b>
    <b>NAS: <i>"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."</i></b>

    Thus begins the summary of the June 2001 <b>National Academy of Sciences report "Climate Change Science,"</b> which made headlines across the world for (supposedly) providing additional <b>"proof"</b> that mankind is causing global warming. <b>But the headline writers <font color=red>(and David Mayes)</font> didn't read the fine print.</b>

    This often quoted, categorical statement <b>is not supported by the rest of the NAS report</b> - or the scientific report of <b>Working Group I of the IPCC</b>, frequently cited as a key authority on global warming.

    Two sentences later in the NAS summary, readers are told that <b>"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we <font color=red>cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability.</b></font>"

    <b>"Likely mostly due to human activities"? "Some significant part"?</b> Given these qualifications, and the <b>very large uncertainties in the science</b>, how could the National Research Council (NRC) - the research arm of the NAS - approve such a categorical opening sentence?

    The NAS report <b>is a summary rather than a critical review of the IPCC reports.</b> It was prepared and approved in less than a month after the White House submitted its formal request. NRC reports, to quote Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, <b>"always speak with one voice. Such reports... can produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who mutinies is put off at the first port of call."</b>

    In other words, there is a forced consensus, one that tends to provide an oversimplified picture of the state of scientific research and of the uncertainties.

    One must dig carefully through the report to discover that <b>water vapor and cloud droplets are in fact the dominant cause of greenhouse warming.</b> We are not told, however, what fraction of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds. (see note further down) Nor are we told <b>that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas</b> - one that accounts for <b>less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect</b> - whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

    <b>Note:</b> Notice that the IPCC estimate for cloud formation of 60-70% is for a clear sky, thereby neglecting the contribution from water vapor in clouds. The clear sky greenhouse effect, measured in watts per square meter is 146 w/m2; clouds contribute an additional 33 w/m2 to the clear-sky value, an increase of 23% over the IPCC estimate. See also M. Z. Jacobson, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.

    Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere only increases greenhouse warming very slowly. Similarly, decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreases greenhouse warming very slowly.

    The NAS study also notes that <b>increased radiation from the sun</b> could be responsible for a significant part of climate change during part of the industrial era. But the study does not tell us <b><font color=red>that the warming due to the increase in solar output is comparable to that alleged to be a consequence of the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the end of the 18th century.</font></b>

    In 1976, when the earth had been cooling for some three decades, <b>"mainstream scientists"</b> believed that we were sliding into a new ice age. There has been significant improvement in modeling the ocean and atmosphere since then, but the predictions of these models <b>still do not form a sound basis</b> for public policy decisions. As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the <i>Space Research Organization Netherlands</i>, <b>"Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the best reaction to global warming is for everybody to just keep their cool."</b>
    My theory name is: <b>Physics applied to Climatology</b>. And IPCC's theory is just an <b>OPINION</b>, unproved assumptions contradicted by <b>all factual evidence available.</b>
    LOL! Until now, you have been cranking full speed here. Your use of strawman arguments and circular logic is pathetic.
    Now it is you who’s <b>lying!</b> Or haven't you heard the news. The IPCC has clearly stated that the sun’s activity has <b>a minor and irrelevant effect on climate change</b>, and has somehow miraculously disappeared in the last decades. When I read the claim, I had to look out the window to check if the Sun was still there!
    You got me here. According to you, the mention of factual data on past climate - CO2 levels and temperatures in the Cretaceous period - is distorting the known facts (Uh?) Those concentrations and temperatures are accepted and undisputed facts in paleoclimatology! Please elaborate on that. Or we’ll have to think that you lost your bearing in this discussion.
    CO2 increased by 30%. So what? It has been <b>demonstrated and not disputed</b>, that temp increase comes first and CO2 comes after.
    The atmospheric composition is a minor factor when compared with the sun activity. If the Sun stopped shining tomorrow, not even Venus CO2 concentrations would prevent Earth from becoming a solid chunk of ice.
    You have told me <b>nothing about basic physics or climatology</b>. All you have supplied are OPINIONS by the IPCC unproved hypothesis and press releases about it. If that are your basics of science...
    However, the recent heat wave was widely exploited by the IPCC followers and the media as a <b>“final proof”</b> of Global Warming. The COP-9 was close. and it was a great opportunity to send up hot air ballons!
    The smoking pot part was related to many university students, not merely to IPCC's scientists (haven't they smoked pot in their youth?) – but smoking pot is not the issue here. As usual, you lost the important part. <b>A PH.D is no guarantee of honesty or competence.</b>
    Why should give up something I have already won? Your insistence on denying factual scientific evidence and resorting to strawman attacks, show you have run out of solid arguments to contradict the increasing scientific evidence that shows GW is a hoax.

    You know? I am enjoying this. And I am not through with you – yet.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    Edufer, Sciforums no1 contender for crank 2004

    Read this crank

    Time to get up to date EDUFER.

    LOL, so you don't have an alternate theory that is superior to GHG theory{obvioulsy as GHG is UNDISPUTED}, and instead you rely on numerous errors and out of date data/info, such as the MSU,... which I've graciously updated for you.
    Btw, the IPCC have given the world it's assesment based on the best science at our disposal....despite your numerous claims, YOU haven't refuted anything of any significance that would cause an informed person to change their mind.

    Nutjob, climates of the past where influenced by any number of the internal climate mechanisms altering in conjunction with natural altering of input from the sun....BUT TODAY, we have GHG theory and the details of climatology which alert us to the existence of these internal climate mechanisms, such as the "atmospheric composition" which has been which of the other internal climate mechanisms have changed to such a degree that they could account for observed warming...?

    Again, which of the other internal climate mechanisms have changed to such a degree that they could account for observed warming?

    So what to doesn't matter which comes first as it's UNDISPUTED that an altering of the internal climate mechanism of atmopsheric composition will effect the global energy balance.

    SO...we can only go on the evidence, and where is the evidence that the sun is the overwhelming factor, not major factor, as in 51%, but overwhelming factor...WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

    If there is no evidence that it's the suns output, then we rightly can rely on the UNDISPUTED GHG theory, which tells us that higher water vapour and co2 levels will delay the release of radiation into space, this additional radiation increases the global energy balance and will express itself as heat and possibly "extremes of weather".

    I have a tremendous interest in the Philosophy of Science{among other subjects}, and YOU are failing to use science properly....although a lot of that is due to you being out of date.
    I have repeatedly explained basic climatology to you, challenged you to present a superior theory to rival GHG theory and generally made a mockery of your posts.

    The IPCC is science, and GHG is UNDISPUTED.
    The IPCC is also backed by WMO, NAS+ other Nat Academies of science.

    Please don't introduce the ignorant assumptions made by others.
    I don't claim that any "single" weather event is caused by GW.

    Nor is asserting that of any value, the only thing of value are the basic facts explained and placed in proper context.

    LOL, you've WON my vote as No1 sciforums crank of the year.

    Aren't you getting embarrassed?

    I'll need you to face the facts and come to terms with how science works...I'm not going to correct you endlessly only to have you eternally return with more distortions and ancient info.

    Btw, I may read some of your previous posts to determine your capacity for critical thinking, if this thread is anything to go by, I'm in for an afternoon of first rate entertainment.


    This thread updated with the scientific evidence for GW

    Satelite data shows a rapidly warming Artic, New Scientsit

    Satelite evidence of GHG's effecting climate
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Listen, sonny, you are a different kind of Little Chicken that we haven dealing with. You're the stubborn kind, that insist on same reasoning time after time, without giving any solid scientific argument. Your position up to now has been that of:

    <b>Invincible Ignorante
    Description:</b> The argument defends a position by simply refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments used against it. In effect, the argument says, <b><font color=#800000>"If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound."</font></b> This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended.
    You insist on two main subjects: The <b>UNDISPUTED</b> GHG Theory, and the scientific credibility, seriousness and honesty of the IPCC and other institutions.

    You <b><font color=#ff0000>have NOT</font></b> explained to me anything about climatology that <b><font color=#804040>I had not learned 30 before you</font></b> – if you ever learned something. And mockery is <b><font color=#804040>your style of refuting evidence</font></b>. It does not work, at least on people with knowledge above the common level, as most people in this board have shown to have. I don't know how people bother going down to your level for answering you -- and you have been quite harshly greeted on other forums, as I have noticed. It is clear they don-t like you. This thread is no exception.

    You <b><font color=#ff0000>have not provided the slightest proof</font></b> for your claims. On the contrary, the UNDISPUTED GHG theory of yours, is just that, a <b>THEORY</b> that requires lots of evidence for a general acceptance. As the Laws of Physics conflicts seriously with your GHG theory, and an simple analysis of the theory proves it is erroneous, then we will stick to the Good Ole' physics, until some new evidence makes us change our opinion.

    I have already demolished your awe for the <b><font color=#804040>unbelievably distorted NAS report</font></b> on “discernible human influence”, along with IPCC's Report, so I wonder why you keep insisting on your stubborn attitude of repeating: <b><font color=#804040>“Undisputed, undisputed, … sob, sob “</font></b>. Nobody believes you. You must provide something else besides biased press releases and links to politically opinionated websites.

    BTW, your <b><font color=#804040>“updating”</font></b> me on the Satellite reading flaws “discovered” recently, I must tell you this issue has been covered in extenso in our website, <b><font color=#804040>quite a long time ago.</font></b> So much for your updating.

    It all began in one of those IPCC meetings, when one official commented: <b><font color=#804040>“We must do something about those satellites”</font></b>. The IPCC was worried because “those satellites” were giving away data showing the warming <b><font color=#804040>was not happening as predicted by models.</font></b> The IPCC could not shut down the NOAA's and NASA's satellite program, so they had to do something <b><font color=#804040>– and quick!
    They did it. They commissioned their task force to find something to discredit satellite readings and return to ground station based readings – a not very clever trick. All serious scientists were able to see <b><font color=#804040>the political move.</font></b> But these presumed flaws and “correction” to satellite readings, presumably caused by a decay in their orbits, has become a <b><font color=#804040>double edged sword</font></b>, as the reading errors <b><font color=#ff0000>are multiplied tenfold when applied to SEA LEVEL readings.</font></b>

    But no, the IPCC said, temperature readings are affected, but sea level readings are not. So here we go again, on an endless discussion going nowhere. <b><font color=#804040>“I am right, you're wrong” </font></b>– the same kind we are seeing here conducted by David.

    In a previous post you said:
    You can LOL as loud as you want, but your organizations, institutions and scientists <b><font color=#804040>are as biased as the ones I present. </font></b>It is a valid way of presenting any case on any court, but you answer consists on <b><font color=#804040>strawman comments</font></b> instead of <b><font color=#804040>sound scientific arguments.</font></b> We've seen only your reliance on IPCC, NAS and naturally biased organization. They are biased towards their case, of course, so there is no reason why the other side shouldn't be biased towards theirs. Fair game.

    So here is a "biased" opinion, for other people in the forum to read, and evaluate.

    <b><font color=#ff0000>Is Science Behind the Times?
    </font></b>by Patrick J. Michaels

    Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of <a href="">The Satanic Gases</a>.

    Everyone who reads <b><i>Science</i></b> -- the journal of the lobbying organization the <b>American Association for the Advancement of Science</b> (AAAS) -- knows that it only accepts one side of the global warming story in its "Compass" and "Perspectives" sections, and in its more opinionated, mainline articles. Anyone <b>who writes otherwise</b> for those sections <b>gets a quick rejection.</b> That's understandable because global warming is scheduled to pay U.S. scientists about $4.2 billion next year, and the AAAS is just doing its job keeping the customers happy.

    But sometimes they go a little overboard in their one-sided zeal, particularly when they schedule so-called bombshell articles to coincide with the periodic meetings of the signatories to the <b>United Nations' Climate Change</b> treaty, discussing implementation of the (dead?) Kyoto Protocol. The most recent case of this funeral dance just ended in Milan, Italy.

    For Milan, <i>Science</i> published, and then heavily publicized, an article by federal climatologists <b>Tom Karl and Kevin Trenberth</b>, entitled <b>"Modern Global Climate Change."</b> This reveals that <i>Science</i>, in its plumping for Kyoto, is now publishing material <b>that is decades behind the global warming power curve</b>.

    <b>Karl and Trenberth</b> repeat the usual United Nations saw that there's <b>"a 90% probability interval for warming from...1.7° to 4.9°C in the next century."</b> In fact, the 21st century warming rate <b>is now well-known</b> to be confined to a much lower and smaller range, <b><font color=red>about 0.75 +/- 0.25°C per 50 years</font></b>, and may be lower than that.

    You can't even generate a constant rate of global warming <b>unless carbon dioxide goes up exponentially</b>. That is basic, undisputed science, David. In other words, a constant increase in carbon dioxide must lead to a damped (slowing) response in warming. <b>This has been known since 1872.</b>

    Karl and Trenberth give the impression that <b>this exponential increase is happening. <font color=red>It's not.</font></b> But, they write: <i>"Recent greenhouse gas emission trends in the United States are upward, as are global emission trends, with increases between 0.5 and 1% per year over the past few decades."</i>

    The problem here is one of <b>purposeful imprecision</b>, as in <b>"past few decades."</b> In reality, data from the <i>Energy Information Administration</i> show that there was some substantially exponential growth in emissions, but <b>since 1980 it's been much closer to a simple linear change.</b> Twenty-four years of recent linearity comprises "a few decades," doesn't it?

    This change in emissions is reflected in changes in the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide, <b>which stabilized nearly 30 years ago.</b> That's right. While all scientists have <b>glibly assumed an exponential increase</b> in atmospheric carbon dioxide, that stopped, in the statistical sense, three decades ago. <b>But an exponential increase is required to generate a constant rate of warming.</b>

    People who assumed increases in per capita carbon dioxide <b>were wrong 25 years ago and they are wrong now.</b> But this is precisely what is input into <b>every general circulation climate model</b>, and these models <b><font color=red>serve as the basis for Karl and Trenberth's projections for warming.</font></b> They've been run with the wrong data for a quarter century!

    If you put in the right data, <b>warming drops dramatically</b>, to about <b><font color=red>1.6°C in the next 100 years</font></b>. A while back, in a statement he would probably like to have back, <b>Robert Watson</b>, then head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, <b>allowed that such a small warming might actually be beneficial.</b>

    How on earth did <i>Science</i> become so derriere in the face of so much reality? Perhaps that's what happens when <b>one's political goals</b> get in the way of one's science.

    <hr color=red width=60% size=2>

    Of course, David will say Patrick Michaels drinks oil for breakfast, as the strawman technique is his only valid argument.
  8. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    A Discernible Human influence...

    <B><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4>A Discernible Human Influence</FONT></B>

    <FONT face=verdana size=2>In a major paper published in the British science journal <I>"<A href="">Nature</A>"</I> (Vol.382, 4 July 1996, p.39-46) the top players in the Greenhouse Industry <FONT color=#800000><I>(Benjamin Santer of the IPCC, Tom Wigley of NCAR, Philip Jones of CRU, John Mitchell of the U.K. Hadley Centre, A. Oort and R. Stouffer of GFDL among others)</font> </I>all lent their names to a paper titled <b>"A Search For Human Influences On The Thermal Structure Of The Atmosphere"</b>. This paper was trumpeted by the Greenhouse Industry as the final `proof' that Greenhouse was already here, proved not just by models, but also by actual observed data.&nbsp; And it was little surprise that the `observed data' agreed with the models.

    They claim to have found the imprint of human influence in observations of upper troposphere temperatures as recorded by sonde balloons, matched these observations with what their model would predict under similar conditions and found the very match they were `searching' for.

    This result then inspired the much quoted claim that there was "<FONT color=#800000>... <I><b>a discernible human influence on global climate</b></I>"</font>, a remark made in the notorious Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, a remark added later to the report after the meeting of drafting scientists in Madrid (See <A href="">IPCC Controversy </A><FONT color=#000000>and </FONT><A href="">What Chapter 8 <U>Really</U> Said</A>).

    Here's how they found their <b><font color=#804040>"discernible human influence ..."</font></b>
    The observed radio sonde record chosen by Santer <I>et al</I> for comparison with the models:

    <IMG height=220 src="" width=536>

    <B><FONT face=Arial color=#ff0000 size=5>But this is what the whole record looks like:</FONT></B>

    <IMG height=222 src="" width=537>

    <B><FONT face=Arial color=#000000>It's the same data source, except the lower graph shows <font color=#ff0000>the full time period available.</font></FONT></B>

    Santer et al choose the dates in the upper graph as a basis on which to compare observed conditions against those that the models would predict. Since the models predict upper troposphere warming under enhanced Greenhouse conditions, it was necessary to show that observed data agreed with the models, thus validating those models and proving that the Greenhouse human fingerprint was already evident.

    When the full available time period of radio sonde data is shown (<I>Nature, vol.384, 12 Dec 96, p522</I>) we see that the warming indicated in Santer's version is <FONT size=+1><font color=#ff0000>just a product of the dates chosen</font></FONT>. The full time period shows little change at all to the data over a longer 38-year time period extending both before Santer <I>et al</I>'s start year, and extending after their end year.

    <b>And which version should we trust?</b> The simple rule in all cases like this is:

    <b><font color=#ff0000>The longer the time span of a data series, the more reliable is the underlying trend</font></b>

    It was 5 months before <b><i>'Nature'</i></b> published two rebuttals from other climate scientists, exposing the faulty science employed by Santer et al. (<I>Vol.384, 12 Dec 1996</I>). The first was from <FONT size=+1>Prof Patrick Michaels</FONT> (the one who drinks oil in his breakfast) and <FONT size=+1>Dr Paul Knappenberger</FONT>, both of the University of Virginia, who said in part:

    <B><FONT color=#800000>"When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. </B></font>(1st graph)<B><FONT color=#800000> in the context of the longer period available from ref.5 </FONT></B>(2nd graph)<B><FONT color=#800000>, we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-60ºS. 850-300 hPa), the increase is largely <font color=#ff0000>an artefact of the time period chosen"</font></FONT></B>

    The second rebuttal was from a German scientist, <b>Gerd R. Weber</b>, who drew attention to the fact that even the period of warming chosen by Santer et al could itself be explained thus:

    <B><FONT color=#800000>"Regarding the role of natural factors, the early years of the period 1963-87 were substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling (and stratospheric warming) following the eruption of Mount Agung, whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events, which have led to some tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, particularly in the southern subtropics of the lower latitudes. Therefore the general tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trend between 1963 and 1987 has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least partially be explained by them."</font></B>

    In other words, even the warm trend selected out by Santer <I>et al</I> was itself largely explainable by known natural events and not induced through any man-made cause.

    So, did Santer <I>et al &nbsp;</I>really discover a "<FONT color=#800000><b>discernible human influence on global climate</b></FONT>" ? &nbsp;Hardly. The obvious intent inherent in the paper's title, mounting external pressures for <b><font color=#804040>some unambiguous sign of human climatic impact</font></b>, and the choice of a time period which just happened to show a warming phase in an otherwise neutral longer-term record, indicates only that there is today "<FONT color=#ff0000><b>a discernible human influence on global climate change science</b></FONT>".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    HUH?...I explained the basics of GHG, the basics of climatology and HOW SCIENCE, as a process works...YOU misunderstood or ignored all of it.

    You claim MSU measure cooling, I show you peer-reviewed work from 6-7yrs ago that contradict your view and you blather on with some other BS.

    What other conspiracy theories do you support, and and can we call into question all of science or just the weather disciplines?

    Your quackery doesn't amount to either serious rebuke of GHG nor does it amount to a superior alternate theory, IOW, you have NOTHING but the spiel of a crank.
    And GHG theory is both uncontroversial and UNDISPUTED*
    *don't forget, I'm refering to scientific disputation, not disputation based on ignorance.

    CRANK, your fucking website is not apart of the scientific peer-review process, got that crank....but submissions to NATURE are apart of the peer-review process, and that's what I gave you, peer-reviewed papers that contradict your absurd and baseless claims.

    Your views do not accord with reality, the reality of a warming world globally averaged.
    You have very little understanding of the basics of GHG theory and climatology and this frees you to make absurd conspiracy style accusations which I've corrected repeatedly.

    You're a one man egotrip, a self-aggrandizer, and science slayer....LOL, all in the comfort of your own mind, delightful for you!!

    Now I'm not going to post anymore sizable responses to you on this issue as you're a waste of my if you're going to say anything, make it short and try adding truth-based content for a change.
    I hope you're still enjoying our exchanges and hope you're not through with me yet...LOL-X 200
  10. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    Ohh dear Eddy, your dream lover of scientific truth is on the payroll

    The PR Plot to Overheat the Earth
    by Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton

    The world's scientists are nearly unanimous that the world's climate is suffering damage from burning oil, coal and gasoline. This sentiment is echoed by the US National Academy of Sciences as well as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - a working group of 2,500 climate experts sponsored by the United Nations.

    In 1995, the IPCC bluntly warned that Earth has entered a period of climatic instability likely to cause "widespread economic, social and environmental dislocation over the next century." To avert a catastrophe, IPCC called for policy measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 20 percent below 1990 levels.
    Such changes, of course, would seriously alter the lucrative status quo enjoyed by industry, including fuel companies, automobile makers and other large-scale polluters.

    Pouring ICE on the Debate

    In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations front called the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and PR blitz to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

    ICE was run by Bracy Williams & Co., a Washington-based PR firm. Using opinion polling, Bracy Williams identified "older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers" and "younger, lower-income women" as "good targets for radio advertisements" that would "directly attack the proponents of global warming."

    To boost its credibility, ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel that featured Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia. Michaels has been the leading scientific naysayer on global warming.

    -- Adapted from a special edition of PR Watch [Center for Media & Democracy, 3318 Gregory St., Madison, WI 53711, (608) 233-3346, fax: -2236,].
    Sheldon Rampton is the associate editor of PR Watch and co-author of Mad Cow USA: Could the Nightmare Happen Here? Bob Burton is an investigative reporter based in Australia.

    Your HERO Pat Michaels is a FOSSIL FOOL
  11. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    I don’t need computerized models to make predictions. Can I claim the status of a Nostradamus kind of predictor? I told you David was coming with the OIL ties of Prof. Patrick Michaels. He is so predictable – as solar cycles. Prof. Michaels is not my heroe. He is just one of thousands of serious and respected scientists that have been showing how wrong and flawed the IPCC`s catastrophic global warming scenario is.

    One noteworthy thing is that Dave got furious. Holy Maccaroni! Nice words you’ve learnt, Dave. Did you hear your mommy saying them?

    Now let’s return to the more serious subject of warming and/or cooling.
    You have not. The “basis” of GHG theory you have provided is just the repeated claim: <b>“UNDISPUTED”, “a good theory” </b>, and a reference to how this theory is linked to <b>“global energy budget” </b>, and other extremely vague things. Nothing technical, no numbers, no figures, many links to organizations, as biased as the ones I mention – but you dismiss them and praise yours. This is, of course, no proof of any kind of evidence. So what I understand for GHG theory, will be given in my next post, so as not make this post too long.
    I have provided the answer for the MSU critics (and the same press release you provided, said it was <b>controversial</b> – which it is) that the same error applies to sea level rise, so they are now calling down the kite. So much for your proof of how wrong are satellite measurements are, especially when they are <b>VALIDATED</b> by <b>radiosonde balloon</b> measurements. And <b>both validated measurement systems <b>CONTRADICT</b> the surface temperature system.</b>
    I don’t support any conspiracy theory. There is no need to be a <b>“global conspiracy”</b> here. Simple geopolitics pushed by Malthusian organizations (Club of Rome, WWF, EDF, NRDC, Sierra Club, UCS, Friends of the Earth, Worldwatch Institute, and thousand more), that receive support from hundred of private foundations (in the billion of dollars figure, annually). For most is simply an opportunity to climb faster the fame and fortune ladder. For fewer people, well in the backstage, is the way to consolidate the ground of the established corporate system. So there is no surprise to find the <b>Pew Center of Climatic Change</b> being founded by <b><font color=red>Sun Oil Co.</font></b>, and previously by <b><font color=red>ENRON</font></b>.

    And the link David gave us said somewhere. <font color=blue>“…the American Petroleum Institute paid Burson-Marsteller $1.8 million for a successful computer-driven "grassroots" letter and phone-in campaign to stop a proposed tax on fossil fuels. The <b>Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund</b> can't spend that much on all their climate campaigns combined “</font>. The link was to <b>Earth Island Organization</b>, a think tank in the green movement. For these organizations, $1.8 million is merely “small change for their champagne and oysters reunions”. Back in the 90s, Greenpeace alone, spent $5 million in buying representatives to the International Whaling Commission (from big “whaling countries” as Santa Lucia, Grenada, Antigua, and Panama) to get their “majority” for voting their ban on whaling.

    According to William Dodds, director in Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co., in San Francisco, Greenpeace collected $64 million in 1990 alone, from their "donations" campaigns. The organization was collecting, back in 1990, $1 million a day from its mailing campaigns. <b>Nature Conservancy"</b> earned during the early part of the 90s more than $250 million every year. So they want us to believe that all those <b>"charitable"</b> organizations cannot spend a meager $1,8 million dollars for their warming campaigns? Each one of them spends that amount in consulting and commissions to their advertising agencies <b>every year!</b>

    The question here is that these organizations <b>use billions of dollars to promote their agendas.</b> But they protest scandalized when the other side makes the same thing. <b><font color=red>Hypocrisy is the name of the game.</font></b>

    But you read my posts according to your demonstrated strong tunnel vision.
    See what I mean? You insist with your <b><font color=red>UNDISPUTED</font></b> argument (sob, sob) and now you add a very scientific argument: <b>“uncontroversial”</b>. Now please provide us with the mathematical function by which we could plot the <b>“uncontroversial”</b> and <b>UNDISPUTED</b> hard scientific data in the general circulation models and GHG physic theory.
    You are absolutely right! If I have not forgotten my English, and my English dictionaries are not wrong, <b>“apart”</b> means <b>“not connected”, “distant”, “separately”</b>. So your statements, when properly understood under the rules of English grammar and synthax, means <b>“Your web site is connected with the scientific peer-review process”</b>, and NATURE is <b>not connected with the peer-review process</b>, something I fully agree.
    is this more scientific evidence? Opinions, opinions…
    Well, you really posted quite a sizeable response to my last post, contradicting yourself once more. You should try to reach an agreement with all your strange personalities, within your evident schizophrenia.
    Oh. Yes, I do, I do! I am enjoying this interchange. I don’t know if you are, after seeing all the deprecating terms you use when referring to me. My honest opinion: You are being childish, behave childishly and your arguments are childish. Don’t worry, childishness is a disease that gets cured with time.
  12. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    I consider you a crank who denies the voluminous evidence at our disposal.
    You label enviro movements as corrupt and scientfic institutions as effectively political bodies.

    I advocate a capped co2 ecologically sustainable society, we can use the existing successful models of The Natural Step Program, as used and championed by Ray Anderson of Interface Carpets.
    Interface didn't go broke or shed staff, they reduced emissions, saved money and increased employment.

    I support the phasing in of this capped economy in accord with the precautionary principle and the latest scientific research.
    Eco-sustainable societies wil be developed by economists, ecologists, climatologists and other related scientific disciplines and will be held accountable to the objective tool known as the eco-footprint.
  13. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    <b><font color=#ff0000 size=4>The GHG Theory</font></b>

    The currently accepted Myth states:
    <font color=#0080ff>"Many chemical compounds found in the Earth's atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight, which is radiated in the visible and ultraviolet spectra, to enter the atmosphere unimpeded. When it strikes the Earth's surface, some of the sunlight is reflected as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases tend to absorb this infrared radiation as it is reflected back towards space, trapping the heat in the atmosphere."</font>
    What about incoming infrared radiation? And what about the atmosphere trapping the heat? The myth persists. Let us Alistair B. Fraser, professor of Physics, explain the matter to us. I would appreciate any correction to this explanation, David, and I know this is very simplified explanation for those who have not a grip on the science, so you will surely find something to teach Prof. Fraser. Let's read what he says:

    <hr color=red width=80% size=2>

    <dir>There is a greenhouse effect, but, if there were not, we would all be dead! The greenhouse effect is the name applied to the process which causes the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would have been in the absence of an atmosphere. (Unfortunately, the name, greenhouse effect is a misnomer --- more on that later.)”

    Global warming is the name given to an expected increase in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, whereby the surface of the Earth will almost inevitably become hotter than it is now. The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it receives energy from two sources: <b><font color=#ff0000>the Sun and the atmosphere.</font></b>

    The atmosphere emits radiation for the same reason the Sun does: <b><font color=#800000>each has a finite temperature.</font></b> So, just as one would be warmer by sitting beside two fireplaces than one would have been if one fireplace were extinguished, so, one is warmer by receiving radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere than one would be if there were no atmosphere.

    Curiously, the surface of the Earth receives <b><font color=#800000>nearly twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the Sun.</font></b> Even though the Sun is much hotter, it does not cover nearly as much of the sky as does the atmosphere. A great deal of radiation coming from the direction of the Sun does not add up to as much energy as does the smaller portion of radiation emitted by each portion of the atmosphere but now coming from the whole sky. (It would take about 90,000 Suns to paper over the whole sky).

    So, it isn't even as if our atmosphere had only a minor influence on the surface temperature; it has a profound one. In the absence of an atmosphere the Earth would average about 30 Celsius degrees (about 50 Fahrenheit degrees) lower than it does at present. Life (as we now know it) could not exist.

    <b>Let's examine some of the nonsense frequently offered in the name of science.</b>

    <b>1. Is the greenhouse effect a good thing? </b>

    Well, yes, if you appreciate living.

    <b>2. Does the atmosphere (or any greenhouse gas) act a blanket?</b>

    At best, the reference to a blanket is a bad metaphor. Blankets act primarily to suppress convection; the atmosphere acts to enable convection. To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don't know how either one of them operates.

    <b>3. Does the atmosphere trap radiation?</b>

    No, the atmosphere absorbs radiation emitted by the Earth. But, upon being absorbed, the radiation has ceased to exist by having been transformed into the kinetic and potential energy of the molecules. <b>The atmosphere cannot be said to have succeeded in trapping something that has ceased to exist.</b>

    <b>4. Does the atmosphere reradiate? </b>

    One often hears the claim that the atmosphere absorbs radiation emitted by the Earth (correct) and then reradiates it back to Earth (false). The atmosphere radiates because it has a finite temperature, not because it received radiation. When the atmosphere emits radiation, <b><font color=#ff0000>it is not the same radiation</font></b> (which ceased to exist upon being absorbed) as it received. The radiation absorbed and that emitted do not even have the same spectrum and certainly are not made up of the same photons. <b><font color=#ff0000>The term reradiate is a nonsense term which should never be used to explain anything.</font></b>

    Sometimes diagrams are drawn which show the radiation from the Earth's surface rising into the sky and being reflected off of the atmosphere (or clouds, or greenhouse gasses). This too is nonsense. The radiation was not reflected, it was absorbed and different radiation was subsequently emitted.

    <b>5. Does the atmosphere trap heat (in producing the greenhouse effect)?</b>

    Alas no. As rapidly as the atmosphere absorbs energy it loses it. Nothing is trapped. If energy were being trapped, i.e. retained, then <b><font color=#ff0000>the temperature would of necessity be steadily rising.</font></b> Rather, on average, the temperature is constant and the energy courses through the system without being trapped within it.

    <b>6. Does the atmosphere behave like a greenhouse?</b>

    The name, <b><font color=#804040>greenhouse effect is unfortunate,</font></b> for a <b><font color=#ff0000>real greenhouse does not behave as the atmosphere does.</font></b> The primary mechanism keeping the air warm in a real greenhouse is <b><font color=#ff0000>the suppression of convection</font></b> (the exchange of air between the inside and outside). Thus, a real greenhouse does act like a blanket to prevent bubbles of warm air from being carried away from the surface. As we have seen, this is not how the atmosphere keeps the Earth's surface warm. Indeed, <b><font color=#ff0000>the atmosphere facilitates rather than suppresses convection.</font></b>

    One sometimes hears the comparison between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere (not in real greenhouses) and the interior of a parked car which has been left in the summer Sun with its windows rolled up. This comparison is as phony as is the comparison to real greenhouses. Again, keeping the windows closed merely suppresses convection.

    Whether the topic is a real greenhouse or a car, one still hears the old saw that each stays warm because visible radiation (light) can pass through the windows, <b><font color=#ff0000>and infrared radiation cannot.</font></b> Actually, it has been known for the better part of a century that this has very little bearing on the issue.</dir>

    <hr color=red size=2 width=80%>

    With no CO2, the world would be inhabitable for living matters, of course. But not because the influence CO2 has on atmospheric temperatures. Along with oxygen and nitrogen, <b><font color=#804040>CO2 is not a “pollutant”</font></b>, as implied by the proponents of “catastropohic warming”, but it is one of the fundamental pillars sustaining life. Photosynthesis is dependent on CO2, and the rest you can imagine.

    The GHG theory by the IPCC and followers state:

    <b>GAS Pre-1750 concentration of CO2 = 280 PPM
    Current Tropospheric Concentration = 372.37 PPM
    Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter
    Dr. Sherwood Idso, then in the Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Az., published in 1980 a short aper in <b><i>Science</i></b> (properly reviewed, David boy - as for 1980s standards of peer-review, then more reliable) where he suggested all climate models were doing the same mistake when predicting a 2º C increase in future temperatures <b><font color=#804040>for a doubling in CO2 concentrations.</font></b> He said the predictions <b><font color=#ff0000>were 10 times higher</font></b> than what they would really be.

    According to Idso, the doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause <b><font color=#ff0000>an increase of not more than 0.2ºC.</font></b> Idso made the presentation of his thesis in a meeting at the <i>Scripps Institution of Oceanography</i>, in 1981, presenting the papers <b><font color=#804040>peer-reviewed by Science magazine.</font></b> Instead of <b><font color=#ff0000>modeling</font></b> the atmosphere, he investigated the way in which temperature varies over the Earth's surface, <b><font color=#ff0000>in the real world</font></b>, when atmospheric conditions vary and, from those real world observations, he calculated a “<b><font color=#ff0000>response function</font></b>” (or "forcing") that will tell us how temperature will respond to the CO2 greenhouse effect.

    Through measurements covering 50 years, Idso discovered that an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, enough to increase to water vapor pressure from 4 to 20 hectopascal, corresponds to an atmospheric surface temperature increase of 11.4º C at dawn. This great increase in minimum temperature in the daily cycle, shows in a noteworthy manner <b><font color=#ff0000>the protective effect of water vapor.</font></b> From conjunct studies on dust and monsoons, Idso calculated that for every extra watt of radiant energy passing through a layer of air close to the surface, an area of one square meter, air surface temperature responds with <b><font color=#ff0000>an increase of 0.196º C.</font></b> This is the <b>“forcing function”</b> or <b>“radiative forcing”</b>.

    He compared this value <b>with 105 observation stations along the US</b> and compared the seasonal fluctuations. He found that inland places showed the same “forcing function” of 0.19º C w/m2, <b><font color=#ff0000>but for seaside regions, the response function was reduced to half.</font></b> Assuming this represents the maximum possible response from the oceans, and considering oceans cover 70% of our planet, Idso estimated that the mean global “forcing response” <b><font color=#ff0000>cannot be higher than 0.113º C w/m2.</font></b>

    What is the relation this has to the greenhouse effect? It is easy to calculate the increase in radiant energy in the surface that would be produced if the amount of CO2 went from 300 ppm to 600 ppm. So, 2,28 w/m2 by the forcing function 0.112 equates to <b><font color=#ff0000>an increase of global mean temperature of 0.25ºC.</font></b>

    Similar results were obtained by <b>Reginald Newll</b> (MIT) and <b>Thomas Dopplick</b> (USAF Scott Base). However, <b>Stepehen Schenider, Will Kellog and V. Ramanathan</b> (National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Co.) disagreed, arguing Idso <b>had not taken into account the feedback effect of increased water evaporation</b>, that would increase the greenhouse effect. It was a simple argument <b>that showed little research and a haste to dismiss the work of real world, on the spot measurements</b>, that could prove how faulty were the toy models other scientists were playing with.

    So Idso demonstrated that for an air temperature of 15º C, the increase on water vapor pressure caused by a 0.25º C increase in temperature, <b><font color=#ff0000>is exactly 0.2 hectopascal.</font></b> This, in turn, produces an additional greenhouse effect <b><font color=#ff0000>of only 0.01º C in global temperatures.</font></b> We have reached very fast to the point where feedback effects are each times smaller, and even taking into account such extra feedback effect, the figure is <b><font color=#ff0000>still below 0.3º C</font></b>, for a <b>doubling of CO2 concentrations.</b>

    Idso mentions something worse for climate modelers: According to studies made by <b>Manabe and Wetherald</b>, in 1967, a world without atmosphere (and no greenhouse effect) would have a global mean temperature of -23º C. But later studies that everybody now accepts (consensus here) say that the <b>right figure is -19º C.</b> As present mean temperature is 15º C, we can conclude that Earth's “greenhouse effect” is equivalent to 34º C. This includes all feedback processes we can imagine.

    The responsible for this is the partial absorption of energy radiating back from Earth to the atmosphere. <b>The total flux of this radiant energy is 348 w/m2</b>. Thus, the appropriate “response function” along <b><font color=#ff0000>geological time scales is 0.1º C w/m2.</font></b> This is obtained by simply dividing those 34º C of greenhouse effect by the measured energy flux.

    Again, the value is close to those found in local studies. And the last argument Sherwood Idso presented, is quite simple: he has studied what's called <b><font color=#ff0000>“emissivity”</font></b> of the atmosphere, that is, a measure of how close its properties <b>as absorber and emitter of energy</b> are to the most effective radiator known (at least in our imaginations): the <b><font color=#ff0000>black body</font></b>.

    We know that a black body is an abstraction, but some celestial bodies, as the Sun, act as black bodies in many ways. A perfect black body absorbs all energy received, and regarding the energy emitted by the Earth's surface, its atmosphere has <b><font color=#ff0000>about 90% of the capacity of a black body</font></b> when it comes to the energy absorbed. In any case, Earth's atmosphere could never be as effective as a black body, and acting now with 90% of the black body in the infrared spectrum, has produced a greenhouse effect of about 35º C.

    <b><i><font color=#804040>"The remaining 10%,"</font></i></b> says Idso, <b><font color=#804040>"cannot produce another 10% in greenhouse effect, that is, not more than a final increase of global temperature of 3.5º C</font> <font color=#ff0000>–if Earth became a perfect black body</font></b>.

    According to John Gribbin, one proponent of the global warming theory, when reviewing Sherwood Idso's theory, said. <b>“Geological evidences support Idso's arguments. For millions of years, and probably for a much longer time, Earth has never had a mean global temperature 2º C above the present ones, <font color=#ff0000>even CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations have been vastly superior</font>, and varied considerably.”</b>

    Gribbins is right there. CO2 concentrations during the Cretaceous <b>were between <font color=#804040>2600 and 6000 ppm, more than 20 times higher than now</font> – <font color=#ff0000>and global mean temperature was merely 1.5 – 2.0º C higher than now. </font></b>

    So, <b><font color=#804040>“Increased Radiative Forcing = 1.46 W/sq. meter”</font></b> claimed by IPCC's friends should read : <b><font color=#ff0000>0.113º C w/m2</font></b>.

    David: Is my explanation framed within scientific standards, or is just CRANKING?

    Now <b>Nostradamus</b> makes another prophecy: David will post a press release and links showing Dr. Sherwood Idso and collaborators are paid by the OIL lobbies, so their scientific work, the physics they used, Science's peer-review, and Myself are wrong - deadly wrong.

    The Invincible Ignorant fallacy said it clearly: <b><font color=#ff0000>"If your arguments are sound, then my position is false. But my position isn't false, so your arguments can't be sound." - "I you are funded by EXXON, then you are a liar, but if I am funded by ENRON, then I am not"</font></b>
  14. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    I deny that what “you greens” have is evidence at all. At most is “doctored data”, has it was repeatedly proven. Hard facts are evidence, but hard facts are not disputed by anyone. On the other hand, <b>“circumstantial”</b> evidence must be proved and will remain questionable and under suspicion until there is no more discussion and disagreement. But this will not be achieved by saying <b>“you are crank, we know all is needed to know.”</b> Consensus is a two way lane, not a dead end alley.

    <b>The words of Club of Rome.</b> Malthus reborn. Your views are politically driven, not scientifically motivated. <b>”Ecologically sustainable society”, “precautionary principle”</b>, and other terminology has <b>nothing to do with science</b>. They are related to politics. But you greens have mixed politics with science and the result of this <b>is corrupted science.</b> Politics corrupts anything it touches.

    Instead of <b>“sustainable development”</b> – philosophically it is an incongruence – I promote <b>“<font color=red>SUSTAINED</font> development”</b>. If it were not <b>sustained</b>, then it is not “development”. It is <b>“underdevelopment”</b> (as in most third world countries), or <b>“involuting</b> development”, as the in rest of third world countries. But politics makes me sick. I rather talk science (aren’t we in a sciences forum?).

    Speaking of facts. Would you like to see some temperature charts (200+ years long) showing little warming, no warming trend, or cooling trends? They were plotted in our National University of Córdoba using records of many different stations from all over the world, from Amundsen base in Antarctica, to Hungary, Alaska, the Pampas, Siberia, the USA, Canada, Africa, Europe, Australia, etc.

    Or this information is not convenient for a Kyoto Creedence Muddywaters Revival?
  15. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    Edufers madness continues.

    I agree it's a bad metaphor, it's goal is to convey the general idea of what's happening.
    What actually happens is that radiation is emitted by the earth and it's exit is delayed because of the atmosphere, and this relative amount of radiation forms the global energy balance and contributes to weather.

    No climatologist or informed individual believes in the blanket metaphor.

    So ZERO points.

    So, the atmosphere will still expel radiation, who gives a shit if by strict definition it's not the exact radiation that went in.

    Ok, but so what?

    All climatologists and informed individuals know this.

    That's because the science is telling us it's time to act...continuing to debate the settled science is superfluous.

    You're distorting my words, but no problem, it's your speciality.
    Don't forget to look up Ray Anderson and Interface.

    No, as the IPCC{real science} have already given me the facts, plus our interest is whether we're affecting climate, and I believe we are based on the undisputed science.

    F Kyoto...GW is one aspect of our devastation of the biosphere...we need to revise our methods and values to reflect scientic reality, not the creation of a confidence trickster.

    Btw, this debate is over....I keep correcting you, relying on established and undisputed science and you keep producing junk science and junk science advocates.

    The IPCC is science and is backed by the prestigious NAS....nuff said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    The debate is over because you chickened out. It had to come, more sooner than later. You have run out of arguments and real evidences. Your facts and evidences are confined to your <b><font color=800000>“Invincible Ignorant” fallacy</font></b>. You will never dream of acknowledging that <b><font color=red>you have been fed the wrong information</font></b> and you swallowed it gullibly, uncritically.

    Your faith in IPCC, Club of Rome, Worldwatch, Greenpeace, and other <b><font color=red>Apostles and prophets of Gaia is totally religious.</font></b> Science and religion don't mix well. When a scientist links both things to prove a point, he usually makes a mistake. Remember Einstein saying <b><font color=#800000>“God does not play dice with the Universe.”</font></b> when referring to the laws governing the Universe? Perhaps we'll never know for sure, but the chaos theory seems to support the idea that God plays with dices.

    The science you deal with, and the evidence for supporting it, can be summarized by your statement: <b>“The IPCC is science and is backed by the prestigious NAS....nuff said”</b> Then you have not corrected me on anything, as you pathetic attempt of correcting a physicist explanation intended for common people, not climatologists. The explanation was not intended for you, but for other people on this board – <font color=#800000><b>but you bit the hook</b></font>. It is clear you cannot resist your compulsive need to refute anyone that does not share your distorted view of reality.

    But <b>you won't away so easily</b>. You have not provided any comment or rebuttal to what <b>Sherwood Idso</b> said, and <b>Dr. John Gribbin comment on Idso's work</b>. I will remind it to you again:

    Is this just CRANKING?

    <b><font color=#ff0000>Settled science</font></b> is not what have been discussing here. We have been discussing <b><font color=#ff0000>“unproven and controversial evidence and theories”</font></b>, that you believe you have demonstrated by means of the <b>Invincible Ignorant Fallacy</b>.

    When I offered you some hard facts (temperature charts from surface stations -- not satellites, you replied:
    What <b>YOU</b> believe may well not be what <b><font color=#ff0000>REALLY IS</font></b>. Real science and you are as far apart as anything can be. So, here are some temperature records plotted and their respective trends. Take it or leave it. It's not intended for you, but for other people in this board that would be surprised to find the warming is not <b>as big as the IPCC claims</b>, and there <b><font color=#ff0000>actually is some cooling</font></b>. Lots of it, showing how <b><font color=#804040>flawed and useless are climate models.</font></b>

    This is the first series that we have produced at <font color=gold><b>Córdoba University</b></font>, selected from different parts of the world. Wait for the continuing saga of stations records that refutes IPCC's (and yours) catastrophic global warming views.

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    Of course, we all know Antarctica has been cooling since 1979, so this was unfair from my part. But, was not that IPCC's models <b><font color=red size=4>predicted bigger warming in the Poles?</font></b>

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    Santa Rosa de Toay, 600 km south of my hometown, Córdoba. BTW, Córdoba has cooled a lot in the recent years, so I guess we might be for a surprise.
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2004
  17. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    More stations showing almost no warming in a century, or slight cooling.

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    Valentia, facing the Gulf Stream, shows a 0.2º C warming trend (<b><font color=#ff0000>since 1854! = 200 years</font></b>, so the trend is barely 0,1º C in a century. <b><font color=#800000>Quite catastrophic</font></b>, don't you think so?

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    Horta, a weather station in the Azores, right in the middle of the Atlantic.
  18. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Last pair of stations showing different locations in the world. Next series of stations will be ready soon. Stay tuned.

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    Newkirk, Oklahoma, a rural station in open country. Cooling, again.

    <center><img src="" width=600></center>

    More cooling yet. This record from Adelaide, Australia, is from an <b>urban station</b>, that has not been corrected for the “urban heat island effect". Had we corrected it, the trend would show <b><font color=#aa0000>more cooling – at least 2º C less!</font></b>

    Next stations will be from Hungary, Alaska, Russia, the USA, and Africa.

    If you are so kind as to send me the data for any of <b><font color=#aa0000>your selected weather stations</font></b>, we'll plot the data and post the graphs here. Of course, we'll have to compensate the data for the heat island effect. So, try to choose urban stations that need no corrections.

    Or, better still, why don't <b><font color=#aa0000>you make your own charts</font></b>, and post some of your stations? It would be a piece of cake for you.
  19. kmguru Staff Member

    Hi Edufer

    Good stuff. Surprise you are still hanging in here among all the nutcases. Our fancy sciforums just got better. Keep up the good work.
  20. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Hi, kmguru. Good to hear from you again. Perhaps Andre might join the skeptics.

    I have moved to our house in the country, got a radio connection to the web (wide band, 24 hours a day) so I can roam again in the world of forums.

    A toast for Kyoto's funeral.
  21. Hastein Welcome To Kampuchea Registered Senior Member

    Perhaps there are more pressing matters, such as the fact that humans have only been civilized for a couple thousand years, yet have occupied 5% of its surface and drained more resources than any other time in history in just the past 100 years.
  22. David Mayes Registered Senior Member


    I keep telling you that regional variations are irrelevant to the big picture, GW is about the globally averaged temps, and there is an upward Global trend.
    Idso and co are fossil fools from memory, I don't care to go looking to confirm that as you've already relied on Pat Michaels, who I identified as a fossil fool.

    So why are you posting irrelevent charts and graphs?
    When will you learn the difference between regional and global?"
    Why should anyone listen to someone who relies on exposed fossil fools?
    What other conspiracy theories do you support?
  23. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    I remember you saying that Global averages are taken summing up regional and then averaging the averages, or something like that. The difference between regional and global is quite obvious, as even you can see it.

    But as the Earth is composed of regions, each one with its own temperature, then adding enough regions will give us the global temperatures. But regions are not small, and may comprise big continental areas.

    And if many (or most) the records from those regions that make the global average, show there is no warming (as predicted by your IPCC) or even cooling, (something not predicted by GHG models), and all this is supported by NOAA's satellite readings, then GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS just goes out the window into the trash.

    The charts showed you that there are regional coolings big enough to consider the GHG, the warming theory and the models they are based on - as a piece of garbage.

Share This Page