No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by Muaddib
And science tells us that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, it retains twice the amoung of heat than CO2, and it exists in larger abundance in the atmosphere than CO2. During warming events water vapor, and natural occuring CO2 levels, alongside other trace gases, increase also. So a good amount of CO2 increase in the past 150 years is natural. Yet Loam, melatonin and the rest of Al Gore/Mann's lackeys continuously dismiss these facts, and they don't blame the "evil water vapor trace gas"...

Show me the science, Maudibb.

Where are your links?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Really?... Could you tell us then why is it that several research work has shown that temperatures were much higher during the Medieval Warming and the Roman Warming events, yet CO2 levels were much lower than today?....

Why do you insist on using that argument. All it does it prove that CO2 isn't the only factor involved in our global climate.

I've read so many of these GW threads and it all comes down to an argument over semantics.

I'm sure there are things we can agree with.
1.) CO2 plays a role in the dynamic system of global climate (how significant this role is depends on the magnitude of the other factors involved)
2.) The earth is currently in a warming trend. Which started before our input of CO2. (As Maudibb has told everyone repeatedly)

SO! Since the earth is and has been on a warming trend, we can agree that all the factors of this dynamic system are in place to cause this warming...obviously. That fact alone makes any reference to past levels of CO2 in relation to global temperatures irrelevant to our current warming trend.
That being said. Insert humans contribution of CO2 along with our contribution of methane from livestock and deforestation to an already warming system and tell me that this will have absolutely no effect on warming... you can't.

Why? Because to admit that is to admit that CO2 and methane plays absolutely no factor at all in global warming.

Its not whether humans are the sole cause of global warming. Its whether or not our activities are tipping the scales resulting in an acceleration of this warming

[edit on 3-4-2007 by xEphon]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Except for the well known fact that CO2 levels have increased for the past 150 years 0.01%.... That's puting together anthropogenic CO2 and naturally released CO2...

Before you stoop to the level of criticising others spelling, you should make sure your own is tip-top and bristol-fashion, otherwise you might look a fool

Melatonin, I really don't know how to put it anymore.. You quote from the Real Climate website, where Mann and associates is one of the directors, the same Mann that tried to bury the fact that there was a Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age events, and at the same time you "try" to dismiss people like Dr. Akasofu who has been the director of the International Arctic Research Center since 1998 until early 2007 when he retired...

They didn't bury anything. In fact, other reconstructions validate Mann's 1998 study, as posted earlier.

The MWP and LIA are an overegged contrarian pudding. But we've been here many times before.

So, Akasofu has joined the legion of retired academics shouting on the sidelines. I hope he enjoys his journey to mediocrity producing half-baked science held up by those who subscribe to mailing lists and lack the ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience.

He'd be best off spending his time writing another book on his area of expertise, the aurora.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by loam

I'm Mann's lackey now?

It seems you have always been

Originally posted by loam

Huh? So you avoid my point and decide to attack my spelling?

unintelligible

:shk:

Didn't like the substance of what I had to say, did you?

No, I actually found it funny that you tried to demoralize me with your petty ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by loam
I'm done answering your UNDOCUMENTED questions. Show me something. Make a point about what you think it might show. I will go from there.

Were you "yawning" once again during all this time I have been giving excerpts and links to research?...

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Who were the scientists that put the two graphs together??? Find me who that was. SPECIFICALLY.

According to Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, who has that same graph in his powerpoint presentation it was done by the Kansas Geological Society.

That didn't answer my question. As I have already shown, your West Virginia fossil guy didn't get the credit right either. If this graph is what you say it is, WHO TAKES CREDIT for this great smoking gun against the prevailing scientific view?

Why the tough time determining its origin?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Without that you have nothing! Other than what some guy in West Virginia decided to post on his website about fossils.

Lol... actually I have posted more research and excerpts to corroborate my statements than you have posted "Yawns"...

"Yawning" is what you are good at loam, do yourself a favor and stick to it....

Another personal attack...because you can do nothing else.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Show me the science... and spare me your political rhetoric and faulty interpretations.

Oh i have, several times, you were too busy sleeping or "yawning" all day long for the past several weeks....

Like I said. You have nothing.

Really?.... Well, several threads of puting information together prove that you are lying...

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...

Ocean heat blamed for the mysterious disappearance of glaciers
By Steve Connor
Published: 16 March 2007

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
......................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
Views ‘out of step’ with others are good for science, academic says

By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.

Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.

“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”

www.reporterherald.com...

RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN INTENSIFIED DURING THE 1990S

A recent study conducted by oceanographers Taro Takahashi and Stewart Sutherland from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) and Richard Feely and Cathy Cosca from the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) indicates the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) measured in surface waters dramatically changed after the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) phase shift in the Pacific Ocean that occurred around 1990.

The atmosphere and the oceans carry on an exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas. This is particularly significant in the equatorial Pacific Ocean because it is one of the most important yet highly variable natural source areas for the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere.

“The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle. “This is on top of the CO2 emission and absorption fluctuations seen between El Niño and La Niña years, which occur on shorter timescales.”

www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov...

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...

A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Nearly 1,700 years ago, devastating tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed villages of the Calusa Indians on the southwest Florida coast, near present-day Fort Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.

Walker's clues to storms, sea-level rise and migration include village remains buried by storm-surge sediment, and other village deposits found at higher elevations than where they should be. In addition, the modest shells and fishbones left behind by the Indians, she said, show ecological correlations between rising sea levels and global warming periods documented in the historical record of ancient Europe.

"As we enter into a modern warming period, which seems to be the case, Florida is likely to experience flooded shorelines and an increase of intense storms," Walker said. "I think that it's not a coincidence that there were major storms recorded at some of the archaeological sites that I study and that those storms happened during the warm Roman Optimum period. I have the storms closely dated to the fourth century AD."

Global warming is not new, said Walker, explaining that a variety of evidence points to a global episode of warming, dubbed the Roman Optimum, which occurred roughly from 200 B.C. and about A.D. 400, and a later episode, the Medieval Optimum, which took place from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200. A cooling episode named the Vandal Minimum occurred roughly between the two warmings.

"By studying many archaeological deposits from many locations, I see a picture showing that sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to these climate fluctuations known from European history," she said.

www.napa.ufl.edu...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really?.... Well, several threads of puting information together prove that you are lying...

Really, Maudibb, point out where I have been lying.


I don't have all night, but I looked at the first two of your links, and here's what I found:

Originally posted by Muaddib

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...

What do you think this says?

Ussler, the author, says this:

Methane is a greenhouse gas that could contribute to global warming, and gas hydrates are found worldwide, not just in the arctic. While release of methane began with the end of the ice age, scientists wonder if current global warming might accelerate the process. That would have the effect of increasing global warming, Ussler said, "a process of positive feedback; it builds on itself and goes faster.

Link.

In other words, he is saying global warming might have accelerated the effect of these deposits thawing-- not that global warming is caused exclusively by them.


Let's look at your next one:

Originally posted by Muaddib

Ocean heat blamed for the mysterious disappearance of glaciers
By Steve Connor
Published: 16 March 2007

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
......................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...

Again, anything taken out of context can be made to look like something else.

And, from the author, Wingham, of this study, he says:

Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap

"A lot of attention and research has focused on this relatively accessible area of the Antarctic Peninsula, but satellites are giving us a picture of the continent as a whole," Wingham told the Register. This broader picture shows evidence of growth and decay from place to place, a picture more in line with natural variations in snowfall and ocean circulation. The Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses. This insulates the continent from warmer events further north and leads one to suppose it is better protected from global warming.

"Taken as a whole, Antarctica is so cold that our present efforts to raise its temperature might be regarded as fairly puny. Change is undoubtedly occurring: in the collapse of the northerly Peninsula ice shelves, and elsewhere in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, where the circumpolar current appears to reached the ice edge and is eating away drastically at the ice shelves. One cannot be certain, because packets of heat in the atmosphere do not come conveniently labelled 'the contribution of anthropogenic warming'.

So he’s not certain. It’s just a guess. He continues:

"But the warming of the Peninsula has been going on for a considerable time, and the pattern of regional change is variable, and neither of these is favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming".

At the US station at the South Pole, temperatures have in fact fallen by a degree since 1957. "The Antarctic Peninsula is exceptional because it juts out so far north," Wingham explained.

The professor continued: "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

"Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate."

So, all he is really saying is that he believes the mechanism in play in the Antartica glaciers is unclear-- not that global warming doesn't exist or that the mechanism in play there is true elsewhere. In fact, he acknowledges the opposite.

Really, Maudibb? And you accuse me of lying??????

:shk:

I hope the rest of your sources show me something worth considering. I'm getting ready for a business trip, so I'll look at them and address them when I can.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Really, Maudibb, point out where I have been lying.

You claimed I have nothing more than that graph to corroborate what I was saying...that is lying since you know very well how much data, research and links i have given in these forums...

Originally posted by loam
I don't have all night, but I looked at the first two of your links, and here's what I found:

Wow, let's see what your intellect has to show us...

Originally posted by loam
What do you think this says?

Ussler, the author, says this:

Methane is a greenhouse gas that could contribute to global warming, and gas hydrates are found worldwide, not just in the arctic. While release of methane began with the end of the ice age, scientists wonder if current global warming might accelerate the process. That would have the effect of increasing global warming, Ussler said, "a process of positive feedback; it builds on itself and goes faster.

Link.

In other words, he is saying global warming might have accelerated the effect of these deposits thawing-- not that global warming is caused exclusively by them.

First of all, the research i gave says "there is currently unprecendeted warming in the Arctic which has been linked to Holocene warming....nothing to do with mankind...

Second of all, the link you gave does not refute the first link at all...

and Third of all Methane levels have been stable for the last 7 years..

Originally posted by loam
Let's look at your next one:

Let's see what more your intellect has to contribute.

Originally posted by loam
Again, anything taken out of context can be made to look like something else.

And, from the author, Wingham, of this study, he says:

And I gave links to Dr. Akasofu who has a Phd in Geophysics and who has been the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska and where they have been studying Climate Change...

Their studies, according to a couple of statements from Dr. Akusafu himself, has shown that the current warming has not been caused by mankind....

Now in retirement, the 76-year-old former director of both UAF’s Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center is digging in on a new idea that runs contrary to popular beliefs—that today’s global warming might be more due to the planet’s natural recovery from its last cold period than from our pumping of greenhouse gases into the air. Akasofu recently gave a talk at the International Arctic Research Center in which he presented evidence for how the world has warmed in a steady fashion from well before the Industrial Revolution to the current day.

“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.

www.gi.alaska.edu...

Originally posted by loam
I hope the rest of your sources show me something worth considering. I'm getting ready for a business trip, so I'll look at them and address them when I can.

and I hope you actually have something concrete to refute what I have shown because so far you ahve proven nothing...

And you are going to a "business trip"?.... i guess you are preparing your bicycle, or are you "evil Capitalist" going to use your car/train or plane to emit more of that "evil CO2"?.....

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam

Really, Maudibb, point out where I have been lying.

You claimed I have nothing more than that graph to corroborate what I was saying...that is lying since you know very well how much data, research and links i have given in these forums...

Now I have to read ALL of your threads and address them?

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, let's see what your intellect has to show us...

Why are you so hostile?

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
What do you think this says?

Ussler, the author, says this:

Methane is a greenhouse gas that could contribute to global warming, and gas hydrates are found worldwide, not just in the arctic. While release of methane began with the end of the ice age, scientists wonder if current global warming might accelerate the process. That would have the effect of increasing global warming, Ussler said, "a process of positive feedback; it builds on itself and goes faster.

Link.

In other words, he is saying global warming might have accelerated the effect of these deposits thawing-- not that global warming is caused exclusively by them.

First of all, the research i gave says "there is currently unprecendeted warming in the Arctic which has been linked to Holocene warming....nothing to do with mankind...

Your link contans no such words: "unprecendeted warming in the Arctic which has been linked to Holocene warming....nothing to do with mankind..."

Originally posted by Muaddib
Second of all, the link you gave does not refute the first link at all...

No, it doesn't. It explains it...in the authors own words.

Originally posted by Muaddib
and Third of all Methane levels have been stable for the last 7 years..

Which then contradicts what the author suggests might be happening...

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Let's look at your next one:

Let's see what more your intellect has to contribute.

More hostility...

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by loam
Again, anything taken out of context can be made to look like something else.

And, from the author, Wingham, of this study, he says:

And I gave links to Dr. Akasofu who has a Phd in Geophysics and who has been the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska and where they have been studying Climate Change...

Wait a minute...

Why not address what Wingham said, since by way of implication you mischaracterized his position.

I'll get to your other links when I can...

Originally posted by Muaddib
And you are going to a "business trip"?.... i guess you are preparing your bicycle, or are you "evil Capitalist" going to use your car/train or plane to emit more of that "evil CO2"?.....

How old are you?

I just looked at your next link:

www.nasa.gov...

If you read the NASA article in it entirety, you realize that nowhere does it mention ANY causation for why 2005 was the hottest year in the last 100.

You quote the very last paragraph, which gives no evidence for the assertion.

Don't you find it odd that climatologist would use the word "pollution" as opposed to "emissions"?

And let's not forget what's been happening over at NASA, shall we?

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

I have a few threads on this site that shows the full extent of the problem...

So forgive me if I take skeptically a single paragraph that makes such an assertion with NO scientific evidence to back it up.

3 for 3...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
I just looked at your next link:

www.nasa.gov...

If you read the NASA article in it entirety, you realize that nowhere does it mention ANY causation for why 2005 was the hottest year in the last 100.You quote the very last paragraph, which gives no evidence for the assertion.

I was giving that excerpt because of the last part which clearly states that most of the warming is occurring in the Arctic... Which shows correlation with the research that states there is "dramatic warming in the Arctic ocean due to Holocene warming"..

That excerpt agrees with the conclusions made in the other links to research i gave which corroborates the fact that the warming in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans have nothing to do with mankind's activities.

Originally posted by loam
Don't you find it odd that climatologist would use the word "pollution" as opposed to "emissions"?

And let's not forget what's been happening over at NASA, shall we?

and let's not forget what is happening to those scientists who don't agree with the claim that mankind has caused Climate Change/Global Warming.... Shall we?....

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

You have people like Dr. Heidi Cullen, who has a B.S. in Engineering and a PhD in hot air, who proclaimed that any meteorologist who doubts that humans are causing Global Warming/Climate Change should be discredited and decertified...

You also have the fact that any scientist who doubts the claim that mankind is causing Climate Change/Global Warming have lost scientific funding and even jobs.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

www.opinionjournal.com...

Originally posted by loam
I have a few threads on this site that shows the full extent of the problem...

So forgive me if I take skeptically a single paragraph that makes such an assertion with NO scientific evidence to back it up.

3 for 3...

No scientific evidence to back it up?.. I gave several other research which corroborates the fact that there is dramatic warming in the Arctic, and evne in the Antarctic, and you claim " there is no scientific evidence to back it up"?....

Skepticism is always a good idea, but having a brick wall for a brain, and claiming "there is no scientific evidence" when you have been proven wrong time and again does not help you a bit...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
and let's not forget what is happening to those scientists who don't agree with the claim that mankind has caused Climate Change/Global Warming.... Shall we?....

No doubt there may be victims on both sides. But the issue was your Nasa article, which states, WITHOUT citing any evidence for such a conclusion:

Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

How'd they get there? In fact, I laugh every time I read that sad sentence. Does it make sense to you????

:shk:

Originally posted by Muaddib
No scientific evidence to back it up?.. I gave several other research which corroborates the fact that there is dramatic warming in the Arctic, and evne in the Antarctic, and you claim " there is no scientific evidence to back it up"?....

What are you talking about? I challenged the above NASA statement.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Skepticism is always a good idea, but having a brick wall for a brain, and claiming "there is no scientific evidence" when you have been proven wrong time and again does not help you a bit...

Again, how old are you?

If you can't discuss this like an adult, how do you expect me to take you seriously?

Originally posted by loam

No doubt there may be victims on both sides. But the issue was your Nasa article, which states, WITHOUT citing any evidence for such a conclusion:

And when has that stopped you from posting links to news websites? At least I posted from NASA.

The northern regions, and more so the Arctic are experiencing more warming than the rest of the world.

The Arctic is warming much more rapidly than previously known, at nearly twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and increasing greenhouse gases from human activities are projected to make it warmer still, according to an unprecedented four-year scientific study of the region conducted by an international team of 300 scientists.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Of course in that site they claim it is because of anthropogenic CO2....but i have already posted several excerpts to research done which proves the warming in the poles is not caused by greenhouse gases...but the warming is happening from below the Ice sheets and that warming has been related to Holocene warming.

Originally posted by loam
What are you talking about? I challenged the above NASA statement.

The NASA article is just telling that most of the warming is happening in the Arctic...and i presented other links to research which corroborates this and further states the warming is due to Holocene sea level rise/warming and not due to anthropogenic gases...

Originally posted by loam
Again, how old are you?

If you can't discuss this like an adult, how do you expect me to take you seriously?

I am old enough, if you resort to ridiculing and ad hominem attacks I do the same... tit for tat...

I have tried to discuss this in a civil manner with you and some other members and all you can understand is when people respond to you with ad hominem attacks because that is all people like yourself can understand...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Climate Change is happening, as it has been happening for 4.2 to 4.5 billion years on Earth, but mankind has nothing to do with Climate Change/Global Warming.

Your opinion is duly noted, however, uneducated it may be.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Kind of funy that anyone just drops in into the debate makes a wild remark and thinks that's the proof that mankind is the cause for Climate Change/Global Warming....

Almost as funny as the fact that anyone can just ignorantly call facts "wild remarks".

from CNN
The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

from The Boston Globe
The biggest factor is the Feb. 2 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC -- a review of scientific literature by hundreds of scientists who determined that it is more than 90 percent certain humans contribute to global warming.

That seemingly irrefutable conclusion helped shift the position of ExxonMobil, which had taken the strongest stance among oil companies against global warming policy.

Last week, Rex W. Tillerson , ExxonMobil's chief executive, acknowledged that greenhouse gases from car and industrial exhausts are factors in global warming, a stark reversal in the company's long-held position. For years, ExxonMobil has funded several Washington think tanks that have questioned the science -- and whether national policies would be effective.

from Health and Energy
Science magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth's temperature is rising due to human activity.

Now I would like to know where you get off talking to me in such a condescending tone, Muadib. But even more, I would like to know how you can possibly support this statement:

Originally posted by Muaddib
There are thousands of scientists that disagree with the claim that mankind is at fault for Climate Change/Global Warming, and at no time has the "scientific concensus", which nowadays is nothing more than agreeing with the policymakers, shown to be true just because the "policymakers" agree with it...

Where are these thousands of scientists? Where are these peer reviewed papers? How recent is their work? And most importantly, whom do they work for?

Originally posted by Muaddib
We have been discussing this topic in several threads now and provided tons of information from research which shows the current warming is a continuation of the warming the Earth has been experiencing on the overall since the last Ice Age, during the time period known as the Holocene.

Congratulations. You've managed to fall for the same outdated and misinformed tripe that is repeated by the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly. I even fell for it myself at one point in time when I was debating this two years ago, and managed to convince myself that Global Warming was just a natural cycle in orbital variance. Indeed, the Earth does undergo natural cycles of warming and cooling. No one has ever argued that point.

Unfortunately, the misinformed, like yourself, seem to think that it can be left at that, and then have the bloody GALL to go around disinforming the rest of the world into inaction, and insulting and denouncing anyone who dares to point out a very obvious and proven truth. I'm quite familiar with your argument, Muadib, I just happen to strongly disagree with it. In the last two years, the more I've learned about Global Climate Change, and our part in it, the more irrefutable the evidence is that we humans have played a major role.

The only way I can see how people would think otherwise is to either be parrotting what others have said, or to read just enough to reach a decision and then stop researching altogether.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If you want to discuss the topic, then keep yourself updated into what has been discussed and the evidence that has been presented instead of just dropping in and making wild claims out of nowhere...

You are no scholar, Muadib, you barely qualify as a debator.

First off, I'll damn well drop into any thread I please, and especially threads in which I have had an active interest and have been researching for years now.

Secondly, before you go dismissing other people's remarks as "wild claims", I seriously suggest you pause to consider not only whom you're speaking to, but whether or not they might have ample reason to make such claims, such as peer reviewed scientific papers.

Third, I happen to have not been as involved in the other threads on Global Warming at the moment because I've been fighting a very intense battle against TXU in Texas over Rick Perry's fast-tracked attempt to add 18 Coal Burning Power Plants, with significant success, and using my time outside of work to actually start making a difference in the world around me, rather than insulting other people from an ignorant precipice.

So, Muadib, you can take your holier than thou attitude, and kindly stick it in someone else's face.



[edit on 4/4/2007 by thelibra]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by forestlady

OK, then how's this: Water vapor condenses into clouds, which have a COOLING effect. So how in the world could it be contributing to global warming more than CO2??

Water vapor is the most important and most abundant "greenhouse gase, also known as trace gas, it retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does.

March 15, 2004 - (date of web publication)

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's another point: You said earlier I believe that deforestation and the oceans are more important than worrying about global warming.
I don't understand where you're coming from. Everything I've read link deforestation and troubled oceans to global warming as causes for GW.
Can you explain that please?

Although trees are important, the oceans are one of the major factors which contribute to Climate Change.

As i have posted from other articles, it has been found that the oceans are warming due to Holocene sea level rise, or the warming the Earth has been experiencing since we came out of the last Ice Age for 11,500 years. Nothing to do with mankind.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Muaddib]

....and then the water vapor eventually becomes clouds, which have a cooling effect, not warming. You have taken a quote from NASA out of context, which tells me that you're not ras interested in the facts as you are in trying to bolster your opinion.
And I beg to differ with you about the problems with oceans not being manmade. How is it that very suddenly the ocean has become much more acid, enormous glaciers are melting rapidly: the last 11,500 years the ocean has been growing corals, the fish were alive and healthy and now suddenly, within my lifetime, now the oceans are dying.
And these problems are most certainly manmade. Have you not read about the scraping of the occean's floor that goes on? Fishing boats throw out their nets and drag them along the ocean floor, hoping to catch mkore fish that way. But it destroys all of the flora growing on the floor and also strips away the top layer of the ocean's floor. This is very, very bad for all life in the ocean, ocean floor scraping completely disrupts all life in the oceans, including the increased (and greatly accelerated) warming and higher levels of acidity.
Here's an article from CNN:

"(ENN) -- An extremely common industrial fishing method, known as bottom trawling, has the same devastating impact on the ocean bottom as clearcutting forests has on the Earth's surface, according to a series of reports published in the December issue of The Journal from the Society for Conservation Biology.

Trawling vessels drag huge nets for thousands of miles along estuaries, bays and the continental shelves, pulling tons of marine creatures, rocks and mud. Les Watling of the University of Maine in Walpole and Elliott Norse of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond, Wash., estimate that trawlers scrape nearly 6 million square miles a year, the equivalent of half the world's continental shelves. This is twice the area of the lower 48 United States and about 150 times larger than the area of forests clearcut each year.

The damage left behind by trawling is immense. Many of us retain in our mind's eye the storybook picture we had as kids of the bottom of the ocean as one vast wet sandy desert. The truth is that the bottom of the ocean is a complex series of ecosystems, made up mud, seagrass beds, coral reefs, rocky reefs and cobbles. Each sea bed type supports a different community of sea life, and provides protection from predators, food and a safe place to raise young.

Bottom trawling rips all that up."

Or you can go to dogpile.com and enter "occean clearcutting", you'll get lots of information on that.

Muaddib:
"and Third of all Methane levels have been stable for the last 7 years.."


This is patently not true. Fishermen have been reporting extreme and sudden increases in the amount of methane being released on the ocean's floor. There are many more ocean vents on the ocean's floor releasing methane. Hmm, gee wonder what caused that to happen, wouldn't have anything to do with dragging the ocean's floor would it?

[edit on 4/4/07 by forestlady]

[edit on 4/4/07 by forestlady]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Muaddib
And science tells us that water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, it retains twice the amoung of heat than CO2, and it exists in larger abundance in the atmosphere than CO2.

Show me the science, Maudibb.

Where are your links?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.nasa.gov...

does NASA count as a source?

Originally posted by forestlady
Muaddib:
"and Third of all Methane levels have been stable for the last 7 years.."


This is patently not true. Fishermen have been reporting extreme and sudden increases in the amount of methane being released on the ocean's floor. There are many more ocean vents on the ocean's floor releasing methane. Hmm, gee wonder what caused that to happen, wouldn't have anything to do with dragging the ocean's floor would it?

emissions mean nothing because methane will form water and CO2 with atmospheric oxygen after a while, so it's not surprising if it's levelling out, is it? by the same token, CO2 will be processed more efficiently by plantlife and absorbed by water (causing acidity, which is most likely a negative side effect), so even carbon dioxide would level out at some time, provided we leave nature alone whenever we reasonably can.

that's why i believe that GHG considerations should take a backseat as long as we have other, much more pressing issues competing for attention and money. blind focus on CO2 will result in loss of fertile land, both irrigated and pristine, to industrially produced biofuels and convey a false sense of environmental responsibility, when in fact, there cannot be a fair comparison as long as energy used in fertilizer isn't taxed the same way fuel is.

see p1 of this thread


old thread on bottom trawling, because you mentioned it

[edit on 4.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Some may be aware of my opinion that the man-made GW debate is politically driven, for political reasons.
Here's a couple of links

www.open2.net...

greenspin.blogspot.com...

plus something else I mentioned before - the control factor - we've seen it before, we're seeing it now, and we'll see it again in that most persuasive of forums - the modern media. Why do we belive that if it's on the news, it must be true?

www.thegreatdebate.org.uk...

type the culture of fear into google and read the results - some may find them surprising...

Another point is that in our ever more secular society, where god (whichever is yours) becomes less important to the populace, there seems to be a very human need to believe in something, anything, and if god can no longer fulfill this role, it is a natural human reaction to find something that can.

As far as the science of man-made GW goes, we are starting to see more and more scientists come forward arguing against the theory (and it is a theory, not a fact), as they did against that most despicable of scientific theories "eugenics", which had a massive following of scientists, academics, politicians etc and lasted for more than 60 years as the prevailing theory on how to "save" the human race.
Now I'm not really comparing the science of the two theories, merely pointing out how popular theory should not be misconstrued as fact.

In the middle ages, "heretics" were burnt, as were "witches" - but the prevailing theory at the time accepted this.

We used to believe the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around earth.

We used to believe there were gods living at the top of mount olympus

I predict that in a few years, we will see the end of this silliness and our attempts (through our own arrogance) to control the uncontrollable

Originally posted by budski
As far as the science of man-made GW goes, we are starting to see more and more scientists come forward arguing against the theory (and it is a theory, not a fact), as they did against that most despicable of scientific theories "eugenics", which had a massive following of scientists, academics, politicians etc and lasted for more than 60 years as the prevailing theory on how to "save" the human race.

I agree that there are scientists who are comming foward to be skeptical of the degree of human involvement to warming, however, that is not the same as saying that scientist are comming forward being skeptical of Global Warming in general, since that in itself is a fact...not a theory.

Just remember that the debate runs the full spectrum. We have people claiming that humans have no influence --- to people claiming we have --- full influence. It is normally between those two camps where you find the GW debate highly politicized and heated. Each pointing to the other as being too extremist.

Like most things, when the hardcore debate subsides, i'm sure we'll find that the truth to be somewhere in the middle.





[edit on 4-4-2007 by xEphon]

When people start making parallels between current scientific theories and eugenics, then we know people are getting desperate.

Like with eugenics, flat-earthers, biblical creationism etc, the only thing that will show these ideas to be wrong is scientific evidence.

So, what scientists who doubt the current theory need to do, is find the evidence to show this theory to wrong. This is what happened in all the other cases. Seems these scientists are too busy producing rhetoric and misinformation to bother though...

Originally posted by melatonin
When people start making parallels between current scientific theories and eugenics, then we know people are getting desperate.

Like with eugenics, flat-earthers, biblical creationism etc, the only thing that will show these ideas to be wrong is scientific evidence.

So, what scientists who doubt the current theory need to do, is find the evidence to show this theory to wrong. This is what happened in all the other cases. Seems these scientists are too busy producing rhetoric and misinformation to bother though...

did I not say I wasn't making a comparison in the science if them?
I was highlighting the comparison between the belief systems of the two, and how they are proved wrong over time, as I believe man made GW will be.
It also seems to me that there is an awfull lot of rhetoric and disinformation from the "true believers".

Originally posted by budski
did I not say I wasn't making a comparison in the science if them?
I was highlighting the comparison between the belief systems of the two, and how they are proved wrong over time, as I believe man made GW will be.
It also seems to me that there is an awfull lot of rhetoric and disinformation from the "true believers".

But you are, even though you try to divorce yourself from it.

What you believe doesn't really matter. What would happen, if your faith-based position is correct, is that scientific evidence will start to gather that provides an alternate explanation.

Only science will provide the evidence to refute AGW, and the problem is that we just don't seem to be finding it at the moment. This requires hard graft from people with the skills to do so, not newspaper articles and public lectures.

The approach you are using is the same as a YEC or IDer, and this is further justified by the 'increasing numbers of scientists' blah. The debate is in the scientific literature, not websites or blogs, newpapers or documentaries, petitions or forums.

As mentioned above by another, the only real discussion is about how much of an effect our activity is having on the climate system. It could be small, it could be large. But the fact that we are having some effect is not really under debate in any way in circles in which these things matter.