Global Warming Has Ended

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Maybe you should of read the entire historical progression of research rather than cherry picking an experiment from 1908, and we have learned much since then. Extrapolating a 100 year old limited lab experiment in order to explain the effects on a large and complex system like the climate is also going to be highly inaccurated and flawed.

the concept stays the same, doesn't matter when or where the experiment was done.

So let's jump to 1938:

"This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming. For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming."

More here: www.aip.org...

still, saturation kicks in, which means diminishing returns, which in turn means that the effect (on climate, ocean acidity is another matter entirely) is limited, which is all i wanted to show. runaway warming and mental images of Venus are pure fiction(based on the GHG model alone) of course.

That study "might" point to potentially even greater probems in the future, but CH4 concentration in the atmosphere has stopped rising since the early 90's, while C02 is still rising. So the models aren't way off, and we can check their accuracy by past performance.

no, that's reverse logic. if your model leaves out significant amounts of GHGs yet does not yield lower temps than real world data, then it would produce too high temperatures for accurate amounts of GHGs. nothing changed the day methane emissions by plants were discovered, only in our heads, so we still have exactly the same problems, not more.

btw, if 20% more methane than expected do not matter, what does?

www.geology.smu.edu...
Our research on oxygen and hydrogen isotopes led to the discovery of an Fe(CO3)OH component which seems to be in solid solution in goethite. The amount of Fe(CO3)OH in goethites appears to be a function of the ambient CO2 pressure and temperature at the time of mineral formation. This geochemical parameter is being used to quantitatively investigate some elusive aspects of environments recorded in goethites formed in ancient subaerial weathering systems (e.g., soils). Under the right circumstances, such systems can preserve information on ancient temperature, rainfall and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Research on systems ranging in age from 440 million years to the present suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 16 to 18 times higher at different times in the ancient past than they are today. However, surface temperatures of ancient, low altitude, tropical sites appear to have varied only from about 23 degrees C to 32 degrees C. Interestingly, these temperatures do not seem to covary directly with ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures. In particular an inferred CO2 pressure 16 times higher than modern coincides with continental scale glaciation on Gondwanaland, parts of which were in a near-polar position in the southern hemisphere at that time

sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

either the data is wrong, or the focus on CO2 is. there really is no other way, especially when all that changes is altitude of absoption in a synthetic model, which probably does not even take local variations of water vapor into account.

As for you last link, maybe they should look at how many seasonal cycles these observations cover before claiming it's a trend, and they lack of ground observation data.

one planet, still 7 to go. the thread is primarily for people who don't know it, i admit, the issue is that an inability to explain warming by other factors does not automatically mean it's the greenhouse effect. if there is reasonable doubt (according to the thread's content, there is), you can't just draw conclusions like that. absence of evidence means nothing.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Long Lance]

Oh The Irony

So far we have straw men, misrepresentations of my position, logical fallacies presented as proof, character assassination, scapegoating and the most telling feature of all: the Us/Them Dichotomy (e.g., "You're either with us or against us.").

This is nothing more nor less than a classic exercise in groupthink, and I'm calling it what it is.

Deny it if you want, it's obvious enough to me.

Members like sardion2000 (don't forget to accuse me of being a "shill for Big Oil") are no doubt aware that I have avoided participating in Global Warming discussions for quite a while.

Why? Because when the topic is couched in terms of Believers and Infidels, there's nothing to discuss and the topic becomes "write only" like this one has.

Write-Only Topics

Try as I might to make it clear that I'm agnostic on Global Warming but suspicious of the agendas driving it, I'm still lumped in with the "Infidels" and subjected to post after post ignoring what I'm actually saying, talking past me and doing so in a manner which convinces me I'm wasting my time even trying to explain my position.

My friends, that's just wrong.

Do I agree with Indy that Global Warming has ended? No.

Do I agree that Global Warming has been proven? No.

Will I be convinced by the kind of tactics being used to promote the Global Warming agenda? Never.

Forced Consensus

My argument is for independent thought and skepticism, not to a commitment to either side of this unnecessarily polarized debate.

I think I'm reasonably capable of expressing my opinions cogently, so when they're thrown back at me in such a mangled and distorted fashion, I can be reasonably assured that I'm not the problem.

Nothing has changed since I first wrote this almost two years ago: An Open Message To Global Warming Scare-Mongers From A Skeptic

In fact, it really hasn't changed since the eighties. The Global Warming message remains the same: you're either with us or against us.

PLEASE don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying people who believe in Global Warming are right or wrong. I'm not saying people who don't believe in Global Warming are right or wrong.

I'm saying the way the discussion surrounding Global Warming is being conducted is wrong because it precludes rational dialog, and that's a big red flashing warning sign to me.

That's my point.

Ignore it, dismiss it with hand-waving or misrepresent it if you want, that doesn't prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Majic
I'm saying the way the discussion surrounding Global Warming is being conducted is wrong because it precludes rational dialog, and that's a big red flashing warning sign to me.

Walk the talk!

What's wrong is you have been throwing around wild hyperboles, insults, and being obstinate instead. You have yet to demonstrate any sort of rational scientific based dailogue, meet me halfway, or introduce any data in regards to this topic. Instead you chose to mock, scoff and roll eyes, and even now you are attempting to caste off those misdeeds by blaming others.

You want a rational debate then introduce the evidence!

The Case For Rational Debate

Originally posted by Regenmacher
You want a rational debate then introduce the evidence!

No problem! There's ample evidence to support my position.

Start with this thread. Read through it carefully from start to finish, while taking careful note of what I said in my previous post.

If that doesn't make my case, then read through the posts on Global Warming in this forum, again while taking careful note of what I said in my previous post.

If after doing all that you still don't see the evidence supporting the point I'm making, please let me know.

Originally posted by Long Lance
the concept stays the same, doesn't matter when or where the experiment was done.

But the experiment is inadequate and too simplistic since it failed to introduce other variables that effect the outcome. I don't buy into the Venusian cookoff kookiness either and neither does the WMO, NOAA, NWS or NASA.

Originally posted by Long Lance
btw, if 20% more methane than expected do not matter, what does?

I looked into it more and the Max Planck Institute wrote up a clarification. It's seems they have been misrepresented:

Global warming - the blame is not with the plants Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

Originally posted by Long Lance
sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

Not really, since there's a mutitude of factors that can influence regional temperatures besides greenhouse gases.

As for CO2 being the wicked witch of the West, we are stuck with her until we develop a better theory.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

I find it curious that within this thread, and in others, there are no specific refutations of the data and conclusions found within the IPCC’s most recent report.

Here it is again.

Not a single one.

Trust me, I’d like to see specific and credible assertions that something is wrong with the IPCC’s report. Show me.

Address its contents directly. DEBUNK IT! Please.

...

*crickets*

ice slowly disapearing, animal migrations taking place, climate changes...

hmmm.... no offence but yea its hotter than usual...

less rain... in someareas.... deserts expanding in australia and china... others... very few others, forest expanding...

to me earth is like a human... it will adjust to its circumstances... earth is a living creature...

im no tree hugger... so im not the environmentalist type... but to deny the weather change that has taken place for the last 100 years seems almost as if your a lobiest for the tabacco corporation...

but hey... what the hell

So after a few minutes of googling, you guys are suddenly experts on climate change. Who do you think you are?

Originally posted by Majic
If after doing all that you still don't see the evidence supporting the point I'm making, please let me know.

Again you make a mockery

Maybe your agnostic point would get across better, if you actually led by example. All I see is an unresolved ego and anger issue that you have been trying to rationalize by dehumanizing and blaming others. It is you that wants to keep taking the topic into a strange psychological schism and sully rational debate.

I have been emphasizing to debate the data.
I have introduced data throughout the thread.
I have asked to be met half way and show me specific evidence to the contrary.

You continue to mock and belittle me. You evade the discusssing the specifics and data. You label participants as evil doers and proclaim to wash your hands of it.

So why are you really here? Bang the hornets nest, stir up trouble and piss people off for kicks and grins?














[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

"You Mock Me"

Originally posted by Regenmacher
You continue to mock and belittle me. You evade the discusssing the specifics and data. You label participants as evil doers and proclaim to wash your hands of it.

So why are you really here? Bang the hornets nest, stir up trouble and piss people off for kicks and grins?

I'm certainly not trying to mock or belittle you. :shk:

However, in this climate (if you'll pardon the pun), it's far too easy to get signals crossed, and in my opinion, that's a major part of the problem.

Maybe it would help if we tried a different approach. I think you're missing my point, so let's compare notes.

Please tell me:

1. What you think my position on Global Warming is.

2. What you think my opinion of the debate surrounding Global Warming is.

Simple questions, simple answers, and they can be found easily enough right here in this thread.

Can we start with this?

Originally posted by loam
Trust me, I’d like to see specific and credible assertions that something is wrong with the IPCC’s report. Show me.

There sure is something seriously flawed with the report, but it's not what IS in there, it's what ISNT in there.

There is NO mention whatsoever of oceanic volcanism, black smokers, event plumes, magmatic budgets (as they relate to undersea volcanism) the unbelieveable amount of CO2, Hydrogen Sulfide, Nitrogen ...with an emphasis on CO2 that is spewed from them, how they heat the oceans, how that heated water creates a highler level of evaporation creating yet MORE GHG's. They could possibly account in models for UNCHANGED volcanism which we all know is unpredictable...there isnt even a HINT of mention as to the affects of INCREASED volcanism under our waters...

They DO site 125,000 years ago when the polar regions were warmer than they are now... a HUGE red flag in my book...why WERE those regions warmer then with a GREATER amount of melting and sea level rise...and in THAT without the human influence...yet the earth survived....


that is only ONE earth system that isnt accounted for in this alleged "all inclusive" policy maker summary report...with something as rudimentary as that excluded, what else could possibly be missing? What else could be missing that we dont even have knowledge of?


AB1

Originally posted by Majic
As theMaybe it would help if we tried a different approach. I think you're missing my point, so let's compare notes.

Can we start with this?

Those questions I consider more belittling mockery, because it implies I can't read or remember.

We already went through your skeptic's analogy. I noted that I don't see a reason to doubt climate change in light of the evidence and all the recent ecological destruction, so it's empty headed reasoning to me. You can stay agnostic all you want and not deal with the system...I don't have that luxury.

To know better is to base opinions on a foundation of years of meteorological observations, measurements, science and math. That means it's not about subjectivism, biases or bigotry in that I will disregard data cause it suits my fancy or cherry pick data to fit a hypothesis built on parti pris and prejudices.

So enough with mind games for ego points. You know better!


[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Mind Games

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Maybe you can afford to sit idle to climate change, but I can't. I also choose empower others with knowledge, so they are less apt to become another statistic. Some folks have been severely effected by climate change and I don't see this as Tom Foolery hour.

Enough with mind games for ego points. You know better!

You accuse me of playing "mind games for ego points" yet you refuse to even so much as acknowledge my position on the issue, and choose instead to repeatedly misrepresent it and my motives.

Whether you realize it or not, you're doing a marvelous job of proving my point.

Why must all discussion of this topic be according to your terms?

Why are differing points of view so intolerable to you?

Originally posted by Majic
Whether you realize it or not, you're doing a marvelous job of proving my

You're doing a marvelous job at yet even more mockery and trying to be intimidating.

My terms are for myself and I still think your line of reasoning is invalid, unrealistic and lacks proof. You can fence sit all you want, and it won't change much of anything in regards to how I see it. Don't expect anything from me until you validate your reasoning with credible scientific data.

If someone proclaims they don't agree or disagree there is a moon, that doesn't make others intolerable when they say that person is bizarre or lacks sense.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Proving The Unprovable

Originally posted by Regenmacher
My terms are for only myself and I still think your line of reasoning is invalid, unrealistic and lacks proof.

Again, we come back to just what my position is. You say it lacks proof, and I say it abounds.

You won't even acknowledge what my position is, so how can you be so sure you know what it is?

I promise: if you take the time to read what I'm actually saying, you'll see why you're wrong to characterize my position the way you have.

Or you can continue to be wrong about it. Your choice.

Why not try to at least acknowledge my position instead of repeatedly misrepresenting it?

What harm is there in that?

Originally posted by Majic
What harm is there in that?

You should of thought about that before you started in with the mockery and belittling. You have lost my respect and now you must deal with the consequences of those actions, not me.

So are you going to acknowledge my position on Global Warming or not?

Originally posted by Majic
So are you going to acknowledge my position on Global Warming or not?

Here's what I call the mirror of your logic:
I will acknowledge it and I will not acknowledge it.

Imprecision of the Phrase “Global Warming”

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Wow. So how can we discuss anything if you refuse to even accept my right to an opinion on the issue?

Originally posted by Majic
Wow. So how can we discuss anything if you refuse to even accept my right to an opinion on the issue?

Wowing at your own mirror.

There is no one side in: " I will acknowledge it and I will not acknowledge it".

Meanwhile, you could clarify what the term global warming actually means to see if there's a mutual consensus.


[edit on 3-2-2007 by Regenmacher]