No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by forestlady
Avenger, about the links you posted:

One has no author's name mentioned.
Another one has just a name but no credentials, degrees, etc. listed.
Most of these aren't even in scientific journals/publications. And all, save one, are from strong right wing sources.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore you don't even answer questions asking about your degrees. Why is it that you say you're a scientist, also been in the field for a long time, but don't show your credibility?

I'm NOT saying that you are not a scientist, not insisting that you need a Phd, but whatever debate it might be I believe ppl should be frank about their experince & career in that particular field. If you keep avoiding basic questions It's just like digging yourself a grave.

Plus I noticed from the very beginning it is you who is actually turning emotional very rapidly. I believe nobody was really trying to be offensive or the way you say it "disgust" you.



[edit on 9-4-2007 by frenzy_boy]

Originally posted by Springer

THAT is the second most ridiculous cop out I've read this morning MD. That's crap and you know it, your posting historical record is rife with you casually proclaiming that anyone who disagrees with you is "attacking you" yadda yadda yadda.

Well excuse me if I see a moderator claiming that I must have a 5th grade level of understanding as an insult....but yes, it is an attempt at an insult and a personal/ad hominem attack....

Yes, moderators can have an opinion, but it is also true that "opinions" don't make the world go around...and opinions don't have to necessary be true.

Since thelibra didn't provide any evidence to refute what I was saying but instead his first post was to proclaim that I must have a 5th grade level of understanding, it is only apparent it was an attack....whether you want to admit it or not....

Originally posted by Springer
Now because a Moderator, who by the way IS ALLOWED to have an opinion, disagrees with you it's "Mod abuse"

I expect better from you MD.

As i said moderators can have an opinion, but he did not discuss the topic, instead he resorted to attacking me...

Originally posted by Springer
Not only has Thelibra NOT used his mod powers in this thread (which would be against the ethics of this forum's management), he hasn't "attacked you" either, not once.

Directly he didn't use them no, but it is apparent now how that power is being used. He made a direct attack at me and now you are claiming he didn't, and instead what did you do?....

Originally posted by Springer
So GET OFF the wannabe martyr wagon and get back ON the TOPIC please.

Springer...

I am not in any "wannabe martyr wagon"....

And i guess you are going to claim what you just did above is no "personal attack either".....

I also see that neither you nor thelibra have responded with any evidence to discuss the topic at hand...

Actions speak louder than "claims and opinions".....

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Well, I can see this thread progressed quite nicely while I was gone...

Maudibb:

I have a question that I'd like to ask you about the title of this thread...

Is there any room in your view for the notion that you might be wrong?



[edit on 9-4-2007 by loam]

Is there any possibility that the Moon is made out of cheese, or that the Sun is revolving around the Earth instead?....

Anybody can be wrong about anything, and even I can be wrong...

But since when asking this question proves anything?...

My guess is that "grover" asked you to ask me that question... for some reason he believes that asking that question alone can refute anything, and now it seems you also believe the same...

BTW, i am not the original poster of this thread and it wasn't me who gave that title, although I agree with theavenger. There is no conclusive evidence that it is mankind who is causing Climate Change/Global warming and instead the policymakers are dealing in opinions because they have some new idea to implement a global tax.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Is there any possibility that the Moon is made out of cheese, or that the Sun is revolving around the Earth instead?....

No.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anybody can be wrong about anything,

True.

Originally posted by Muaddib
and even I can be wrong...

Quoting it, because it's nice to see you admit that... even though it contradicts much of what you so vehemently claim on this issue in so many places on this board.

I'd also like to point out that given the stakes of this issue, being collectively wrong in this case wouldn’t be inconsequential if it turned out there was something we might have done to mitigate or eliminate the problem.

Originally posted by Muaddib
But since when asking this question proves anything?...

It proves, by your own admission, that you acknowledge you could be wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib
My guess is that "grover" asked you to ask me that question...

But, here, for example, you are "conclusively" wrong.

Originally posted by Muaddib
…for some reason he believes that asking that question alone can refute anything…

I can’t comment on this as I have no clue whether that is what he believes.

Originally posted by Muaddib
…and now it seems you also believe the same...

Wrong again.

I do not think the question alone can refute anything.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, i am not the original poster of this thread and it wasn't me who gave that title,

Never said you did.

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is no conclusive evidence that it is mankind who is causing Climate Change/Global warming

And here is the fallacy of your thinking, Maudibb…

No one said anything about conclusive evidence.

As a matter of fact, there is NO conclusive evidence that you will die if you -- Maudibb -- do not eat or drink for a month. Oh, sure, there is conclusive evidence that many others have died where that was the case…but none for you, Maudibb…your specific body. Who knows? You could be different. There is nothing conclusive about it...until you give it a try.

Care to?

Originally posted by Muaddib
…and instead the policymakers are dealing in opinions because they have some new idea to implement a global tax.

…which for you is what the real problem is, isn’t it?

You can’t separate the science of causation from the politics of response. You appear so afraid of the latter, that you’d pollute the honest discussion of the former with half baked refutations that serve no one but your own self interest.

It’s hard to understand how anyone would take your posts seriously where this matter is concerned.

Too bad.

Determining the possible "truth" on causation would lead to a much better discussion on what to do about it.


[edit on 10-4-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Quoting it, because it's nice to see you admit that... even though it contradicts much of what you so vehemently claim on this issue in so many places on this board.

Such a question brings nothing but obfuscation to any debate.

Originally posted by loam
I'd also like to point out that given the stakes of this issue, being collectively wrong in this case wouldn’t be inconsequential if it turned out there was something we might have done to mitigate or eliminate the problem.

But there is no evidence to support that claim.

Originally posted by loam
It proves, by your own admission, that you acknowledge you could be wrong.

What it proves is that you can twist a question, which really has no relevance on the discussion, to use that response to try to claim the evidence presented is wrong"....

If it is wrong then prove it....

Originally posted by loam
Wrong again.

I do not think the question alone can refute anything.

That's not what you are claiming in your other statement....

Let's take a look at what you said again...

It proves, by your own admission, that you acknowledge you could be wrong.

The result of me saying there is no possibility of being wrong would have resulted in you, and some other people claiming, like you always do, "Muaddib thinks he is always right"...

Hence either response ends up with the same assumption on your part....

That sort of question is based on semantics...while at the same time it does not provide any definite proof one way or the other, puts doubts as if the response itself is proof itself that the argument is wrong...

Using that question in any debate only obscures the argument further...if you do have any evidence to refute the arguments given then present that proof, don't make rethorical questions which do not prove one way or another but only obscures the argument...

Originally posted by loam
Never said you did.

You questioned me on the title of the thread, if "I" could be wrong about it....hence the logical conclusion on my part that you believed I wrote that title...

Originally posted by loam
No one said anything about conclusive evidence.

No, you only obscured the debate by asking a rethorical question which really has no relevance on the debate...

Originally posted by loam

…which for you is what the real problem is, isn’t it?

Is it a problem that policymakers are trying to use the anthropogenic Global Warming scaremongering to squeeze money form the public meanwhile people in most of developed nations, and some of the developing nations would suffer the consequences of such actions?.... Yes, it is a problem...

Originally posted by loam
You can’t separate the science of causation from the politics of response. You appear so afraid of the latter, that you’d pollute the honest discussion of the former with half baked refutations that serve no one but your own self interest.

The fact that policymakers are using the anthropogenic Global Warming scaremongering to make money and shift the balance of power does not refute in any way the fact that the scientific evidence points to Climate Change not being caused by anthropogenic GHGs.

Originally posted by loam
It’s hard to understand how anyone would take your posts seriously where this matter is concerned.

Too bad.

It is hard to understand how you are trying to debate a topic you know so little about, as you have proven by your obfuscation of the debate and the little understanding of the science when you asked for evidence on certain statements I made, which anyone with a small amount of scientific understanding would have known were true and wouldn't need to ask for evidence to back those statements...

Originally posted by loam
Determining the possible "truth" on causation would lead to a much better discussion on what to do about it.

First, you are already concluding "there must be something that can be done about it". Second, you are also concluding the evidence given against your argument is wrong without you presenting any evidence to refute such statements and facts....


[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Maudibb

Your post responses remind me of those poorly written AI programs where you ask a question and you get a nonsensical answer.

Keep up the good work.

Your responses do much for your credibility on this subject.

Loam,

Do you have anything to refute any of the data and evidence provided? or like always are you going to bore us away with your "yawning"?

Originally posted by Muaddib
Loam,

Do you have anything to refute any of the data and evidence provided?

I've done that many places in this thread...

Like here.

And what I got from you is more of your nonsensical responses...

I don't think loam needs to refute some of the 'science' you have presented.

Earlier you posted this:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is a graph which puts in perspective the CO2 contributed by mankind.

Here we see water vapour having a 95% proportion of the greenhouse effect, with everything else taking up the 5% remaining, human-sourced CO2 just seems, oh so insignificant. TheAvenger took this as being a legit view of the situation (although we know mucho disinformation contained within this graph, especially the note).

Later on we have this:

Originally posted by Muaddib

Source: V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley, Jr., “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,” Review of Geophysics & Space Physics 16 (1978):465.

Here water vapour takes 36% of the GE, and CO2 12%. This is much more reliable, actually a peer-reviewed article.

You may well have actually refuted yourself. Interesting...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by melatonin]

Source: TCSdaily

I'm not claiming this proves a whole lot, i'd like to hear a CO2 based explanation, though.

[edit on 10.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think loam needs to refute some of the 'science' you have presented.

Earlier you posted this:

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is a graph which puts in perspective the CO2 contributed by mankind.

Here we see water vapour having a 95% proportion of the greenhouse effect, with everything else taking up the 5% remaining, human-sourced CO2 just seems, oh so insignificant. TheAvenger took this as being a legit view of the situation (although we know mucho disinformation contained within this graph, especially the note).

You have got to be kidding....

That graph shows the amount of anthropogenic CO2 relative to the amount of other trace gases, greenhouse gases.... Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas at 95%, while CO2 is about 4.72%, and out of that anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%...

Originally posted by melatonin
Later on we have this:

Originally posted by Muaddib

Source: V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley, Jr., “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,” Review of Geophysics & Space Physics 16 (1978):465.

Here water vapour takes 36% of the GE, and CO2 12%. This is much more reliable, actually a peer-reviewed article.

You may well have actually refuted yourself. Interesting...

That second graph shows the heat trapping efficiency of some of the trace gases, at the same levels, it does not show the total amount of heat each trace gases/greenhouse gases traps in the atmosphere.

melatonin...you really did a diservice to yourself and your argument showing you don't even understand the difference between those two graphs...

One graph shows the total amount of greenhouse gases that exist in the atmosphere, while the other shows the heat trapping efficiency of water vapor, CO2, clouds, which absorb a bit more of heat than CO2 and not only cause cooling, and also shows the heat trapping efficiency of ozone.....

Amazing.....

BTW, the first graph is one of the graphs compiled by the Kansas Geological Society....

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam


I've done that many places in this thread...

Like here.

And what I got from you is more of your nonsensical responses...

Actually you haven't...the only thing you did in that response is provide a link to a wikipedia article without making any comments about it.

The fact is that the "Hockey Stick Graph controversy" can be twisted around all you want but the fact is that Mann and colleages tried to erase the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age so they could claim the 20th century warming is unusual and have an almost perfect "Hockey Stick Graph"...

The second graph, which is now the one being shown by the "it's all mankind crowd" still has at least two of Mann's graphs, and when you actually go through the process of separating those graphs you see a different conclusion to what is being claimed...


This is what Briffa's 1998 graph shows by itself..



This is what Esper's graph shows by itself.



When the graphs are viewed one by one you see a different conclusion to what is claimed altely by extrapolating 10 different graphs, 2-3 of which are Mann's, there are some versions of that graph which use three graphs of Mann.

BTW, if you think it is warm now, just wait for the present solar cycle to be at it's max, which is supposed to be up to 50% stronger than any of the past solar cycles we have seen. I am sure some will try to find a way to blame mankind for that too...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Anyways, the following graph shows the trasmission characteristics of atmospheric gases.



High trasnmission means low absorption. If you look at CO2 and H2Ov (water vapor) you can see that water vapor absorbs more visible, infrared and UV radiation than CO2.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Could you please explain what you mean by "important"? Important in what ways? Thank you.

Originally posted by melatonin

Source: of Geophysics & Space Physics 16 (1978):465.
V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley, Jr., “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,” Review
Here water vapour takes 36% of the GE, and CO2 12%. This is much more reliable, actually a peer-reviewed article.

You may well have actually refuted yourself. Interesting...

Umm... what exactly are clouds made of? Just curious. Do all 4 GH sources you listed generate the same amount of temp trapping?

Ramanathan seems to say the the type and location (altitude) of the clouds greatly impact their GW effeciency. Most Clouds seem to have a net cooling effect on the planet. They raise GH temps but radiate away even more Solar energy than they trap.

Originally posted by Muaddib
You have got to be kidding....

That graph shows the amount of anthropogenic CO2 relative to the amount of other trace gases, greenhouse gases.... Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas at 95%, while CO2 is about 4.72%, and out of that anthropogenic CO2 is 0.28%...

Why does the chart say "contributions to greenhouse effect as % of total"? And why are these figures consistently spread as showing human contributions to GE?

That second graph shows the heat trapping efficiency of some of the trace gases, at the same levels, it does not show the total amount of heat each trace gases/greenhouse gases traps in the atmosphere.

Which is the contribution to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is based on trapping heat, these are estimates of GE radiative forcing.

Do you know how Ramanathan & Coakley actually produced these figures? The key will be understanding the meaning of the title of the paper 'CLIMATE MODELING THROUGH RADIATIVE-CONVECTIVE MODELS"

Like Gavin Schmidt did with the NASA-GISS, they removed each constituent from a simple climate model (compared to NASA GISS), producing the figures you are using. It is the estimated fraction of longwave radiation absorbed by each component. Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) did the same with their model and produced similar figures to NASA GISS, and R & C (1978) for cloudy skies.

www.atmo.arizona.edu...

Page 6-7 will be the place to be. Note they talk about contribution of individual absorber to sky radiative forcing (this is a fancy word for the greenhouse effect).

One graph shows the total amount of greenhouse gases that exist in the atmosphere, while the other shows the heat trapping efficiency of water vapor, CO2, clouds, which absorb a bit more of heat than CO2 and not only cause cooling, and also shows the heat trapping efficiency of ozone

So why does the KGS chart say "contributions to greenhouse effect as % of total". I can see they play games in the note, I said that - pure obfuscation of the fact this figure is BS. So, I guess I should ask you how they calculated these figures? I doubt you could tell me, so we can see them here:

mysite.verizon.net...

This is just total disinformation, readily spread by numerous people like yourself.

If we take Ramanathan & Coakley's figures, 12% of the GE effect remains when CO2 is removed. Just for CO2, the human contribution to the current GE is well over 0.28%. The current rise in CO2 is predominately anthropogenic, making it about 26% of current CO2 forcing.

0.26 x 12 = 3.12%

Although, this is too simplistic a calculation for the real-world, it is closer to reality than 0.28%. Therefore, the data you presented from R&C refuted your earlier 'data' which purported to show human contribution to GE.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by pavil
Umm... what exactly are clouds made of? Just curious. Do all 4 GH sources you listed generate the same amount of temp trapping?

Ramanathan seems to say the the type and location (altitude) of the clouds greatly impact their GW effeciency. Most Clouds seem to have a net cooling effect on the planet. They raise GH temps but radiate away even more Solar energy than they trap.

But they are assessed differently. They have differing radiative effects. Clouds can be net absorbing or reflecting depending where in the atmosphere they lie. Most of the incoming radiation is shortwave, clouds are effective in this respect, but also effective at absorption of longwave radiation lower in the atmosphere.

These figures just assess the longwave radiation absorbed (GE effect). Rather than shortwave effects for incoming radiation.

Originally posted by Long Lance
I'm not claiming this proves a whole lot, i'd like to hear a CO2 based explanation, though.

The figure is wrong. I posted a reliable view of solar variations and temperatures earlier (the Solanki & Krivova article).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ABE: I'll get to Muaddib's Briffa and Esper data now:

This is from Briffa & Osborn (2002):



I'm sure Briffa can present his own data correctly.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by melatonin]