No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Perhaps some here will enjoy this link. Unfortunately, others perhaps will find no science here.



Global Warming In A Climate Of Ignorance

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

You're doing that thing where you post links and don't explain again.

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. 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?

Loam, you really have to be desperate to have made that comment about that post of mine...

If you are going to tell us that you don't know whether or not what I said is true without looking at "some website", then you shouldn't be debating this topic at all....



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

And if you don't know that during warming events the natural levels of trace gases/greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, CO2, Methane and other gases, increases....well, then more shame on you, because that's another fact you should know if you want to debate this topic and claim you know what you are talking about.

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...

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Johnmike:

It's merely for reading enjoyment. I have no point to make with this link. Sorry.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by Johnmike
Avenger, out of curiosity, what degrees do you hold?

I apologize if you've answered this in one of the links you posted, but they're all links, and not explanations, so it's easy to do this.

First off, what about the so-called hockey stick graph? (I'll link examples from Wikipedia)
en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
en.wikipedia.org...:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

I think Muaddib has answered the hockey stick model question very well. Bottom line is it was a much celebrated and applauded model developed by Mann. It won the praises of the A.G.W. crowd because it seemed to prove their claim ....until it was found to have major holes in it's data. In my opinion, it's practically useless.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, interesting way with words. I guess occassional unclear language is not only my failing.

I am not here to teach you or anyone else the meaning of words, but we have been disputing, or aguing the topic of Global warming.. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, then pick up a dictionary.

Originally posted by melatonin

No, Mann's data did have a few minor issues, but it has been broadly supported by both NAS and NRC reviews; and subsequent data is, again, broadly consistent with MBH98.

Akasofu discredited himself by his words in Durkin's documentary.

Akasofu did not discredit himself in the least, he has far more knowledge and understanding of the Climate than you and your friend Mann.

The people that keep trying to defend Mann are the ones who keep discrediting themselves.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam

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

You haven't even been able to refute even one of them...

What makes you think you can "address them all"?...

Originally posted by loam
Why are you so hostile?

Because I always respond with more sarcasm than the idiots who think they can demorilize me and refute any facts by making ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by loam
What do you think this says?

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.

You should learn how to read...

This is what that link you gave says in the beginning... Let's see if you can understand what this means....

Anomalies caused by ancient event
By KEVIN HOWE
Herald Staff Writer
Global warming is nothing new.

It ended the last great ice age 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, and the effects of that warming are still being felt today, according to ocean geologists with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

www.montereyherald.com...

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

It does not say unprecedented, but it does say "dramatic thermal changes due to Holocene sea level rise", which means dramatic temperature increase due to the Holocene warming. The Holocene is the time that the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age, and this has nothing to do with "mankind activities"....

Originally posted by loam
Which then contradicts what the author suggests might be happening...

You really have to be a fool to believe that... Methane is a reactive gas. It's lifetime is abut a decade or a bit more. Scientists don't understand why methane levels have become stable, they should be rising.

The fact is that during warming events, trace gases, better known as greenhouse gases, increase naturally. So "anthropogenic CO2" is not the only source of the increase in CO2 for the lst 150 years. Nature has been adding CO2, as well as water vapor and other trace gases to the atmosphere too.

Originally posted by loam

More hostility...

You started it...if you don't like it, then you will learn for next time not to do it...

Originally posted by loam

Wait a minute...

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

I gave links to what he said.... so no "mischaracterization was done on my part"....

Originally posted by loam
How old are you?

You obviously don't understand sarcasm...

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by melatonin

1. When Roble & Dickenson (1989) made a prediction from AGW theory that the middle atmosphere would cool, was this a scientific prediction?

No.

Why?

This was a prediction based on the effect of human activity on the atmosphere, using the basic physico-chemical properties of atmospheric constituents, it made a clear prediction that has been found to be correct.

This is what science is made of, Hypothesis and theory - testable, falsifiable predictions. We could well have found these areas to not be cooling. But they are. This is a verified prediction of AGW theory, and is therefore evidence that you claim does not exist.

I posted ELEVEN links. If you find no science in them, then you may not belong in this discussion.

As a scientist you would know that links to opinion are not really what science is made of. You said you would present scientific articles, but was wary of our ability to understand such complicated matters, yet we do have one for close analysis. So, I am focusing on that.

What did you find compelling about it? You must have at least read the thing, no?

I'm sure you can explain it at a level I could understand.

I previously mentioned that I do not agree with the mechanism offered in their paper and even they caution that it may be a flawed theory. That is my OPINION. This claim is pure Gristmill/Real Climate regurgitation. I did see one of the genius writers at a believer G.W. response site say that CO2 makes up 3.3% of the air, which is 100X higher than reality. How can you trust writers who are off by two orders of magnitude? Not very convincing to me. I suggest finding a better source of anti-global warming skeptic propaganda.

Whose paper? I have two sources for the fact CO2 has a greater effect on the longwave absorption than you have suggested. One is completely unrelated to realclimate, and was published years before even the internet.

As for your opinion, doesn't count for much, just another contrarian opinion, if you and the rest would actually do some real science, we might get somewhere.

I thought I had made it clear last night that I am not interested in taking your quiz or quizzes. (your #1) Any real questions I will try to answer and give my opinion. Your loaded questions are not welcome. This thread is about a lecture conducted by Dr. Art Robinson that I posted. If you don't wish tp comment on my original posting, then please, by all means, go start your own thread.

My questions are about science, they are real questions. You have made claims I would like to test the robustness of.

This thread is labelled 'no evidence global warming is man-made', I am trying to present you evidence. I am also challenging claims you have made, and the science you have presented.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
A tax isn't, changing our behaviour could have some effect.

As homo economicus, affecting our financial state can readily change behaviour. If these behaviours are related to those that the evidence suggests are contributing to current climate change, then a carbon tax is obviously one way to have an indirect effect on climate.

I respectfully disagree. Confiscatory and punitive taxes on gasoline have not helped to reduce its usage, it's consumption increases every year.

It doesn't work on a commodity that is at least fractionally discretionary...how will it work on non-discretionary energy consumption such as heating and lighting your home? I agree some people will be incented to erect solar panels, wind turbines, geo-thermal systems, etc. but the energy they do not use will still be used by someone else...there will be no net savings..It's the nature of the beast.


Other examples of a punitive tax failure:
Taxes on cigarettes (which in some states amount to 70% of the total cost, have not reduced their consumption either.

It's been shown again and again, build a new car that gets twice the mileage efficiency as the old one and the car will be driven twice as far or twice as often.


The only workable, readily available answers, if you believe human use of carbon based fuels is the problem, is many, many fewer people, or large scale use of nuclear energy. Other exotic energy alternatives are hundreds of years away.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I respectfully disagree. Confiscatory and punitive taxes on gasoline have not helped to reduce its usage, it's consumption increases every year.

Other examples of a punitive tax failure:
Taxes on cigarettes (which in some states amount to 70% of the total cost, have not reduced their consumption either.

I actually agree, it works for some and not others. I think the duty on tobacco has helped some give up, but not more determined people....like myself, heh.

I really just posted the theoretical point of view. In theory, homo economicus will change behaviour in a rational way to changes in economics.

But real-world behaviour is a tad different.

The only workable, readily available answers, if you believe human use of carbon based fuels is the problem, is many, many fewer people, or large scale use of nuclear energy. Other exotic energy alternatives are hundreds of years away.

Again, I do agree. Attempting to alter individual behaviour by taxes will have some effect, likely pretty minor on the scales we need to be working at.

Like the CFC issue, we need industry to take a leading role. Things like incandescent light bulbs are no longer needed, other wasteful items are readily replaced.

And, again, I agree with nuclear power. It can act as stop-gap until we have even better forms of energy. I know many really don't agree with such an approach, but I think the current issue is important enough for this.

Originally posted by melatonin

Why?

This was a prediction based on the effect of human activity on the atmosphere, using the basic physico-chemical properties of atmospheric constituents, it made a clear prediction that has been found to be correct.

This is what science is made of, Hypothesis and theory - testable, falsifiable predictions. We could well have found these areas to not be cooling. But they are. This is a verified prediction of AGW theory, and is therefore evidence that you claim does not exist.

You disagree with the basic "physico-chemical properties" and the basic thermodynamics when you claim an increase amount of charged particles entering the atmosphere only cause cooling and don't release any energy in the form of heat...

You disagree with anything the "policymakers" tell you to disagree with and when it suits you....

Originally posted by melatonin

As a scientist you would know that links to opinion are not really what science is made of.

and the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming is not "just an opinion/claim"?.... Yes it is....

Originally posted by melatonin
Whose paper? I have two sources for the fact CO2 has a greater effect on the longwave absorption than you have suggested. One is completely unrelated to realclimate, and was published years before even the internet

And I also have sources which state water vapor retains more heat than CO2, some of the sources are also older than the internet.....

Originally posted by melatonin
As for your opinion, doesn't count for much, just another contrarian opinion, if you and the rest would actually do some real science, we might get somewhere.

Your claims and opinions don't count, actually they count for less since you continuously try to defend Mann and try to dismiss the statements from a PhD in Geophysics who has more credence than you, Mann and colleages put together....

Originally posted by melatonin
My questions are about science, they are real questions. You have made claims I would like to test the robustness of.

This thread is labelled 'no evidence global warming is man-made', I am trying to present you evidence. I am also challenging claims you have made, and the science you have presented.

How is it that you put it?.... You, melatonin, wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.....

I've heard enough from you Muaddib, all the chaff gets tedious after a while.

You can bring your stuff into the other thread. I'd like to discuss this with another scientist, I'm sure he's quite capable of answering for himself.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin



As for your opinion, doesn't count for much, just another contrarian opinion, if you and the rest would actually do some real science, we might get somewhere.

My questions are about science, they are real questions. You have made claims I would like to test the robustness of.

This thread is labelled 'no evidence global warming is man-made', I am trying to present you evidence. I am also challenging claims you have made, and the science you have presented.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Perhaps these papers will enlighten you.

Some papers linked here are from academic lectures, and are just as valid as any journal publication in my opinion. Most if not all of these scientists have numerous peer reviewed publications covering a variety of subjects in their fields of expertise.

Note: I have contacted Dr. Beck for a full version of his paper. I have also contacted Mr. Courtney regarding his paper which I believe has now been published.




Gerhard

Jack Barrett

Courtney

Beck


Khilyuk and Chilingar







[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by melatonin
I've heard enough from you Muaddib, all the chaff gets tedious after a while.

You can bring your stuff into the other thread. I'd like to discuss this with another scientist, I'm sure he's quite capable of answering for himself.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

I guess you're only allowed to agree with him. I'd better watch out, he might get the Gestapo on me.

I try to edit my previous post to correct a link it it won't allow it. Strange.

Update: I had to log out then back in to edit my previous post.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Johnmike, I don't know. He must have encountered a problem that environmental activist blog Gristmill's anti-A.G.W. skeptic playbook couldn't resolve. My Ph.D in chemistry certainly must make me a poor source of A.G.W. informational reality, in that my opinion on climate change was meaningless to this gent.

A.T.S. is unique in that you never know who you're talking to. They can be anything from a bright 14 year old schoolchild to a world class scientist.



[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Yes I agree, you should just read and take all the posts for what they are. In some Instances, I rather talk to a bus driver on a particular topic than a scientist. As long as the person I choose can offer better conversation on the subject.

I strongly believe weather is directed and manipulated. It's not tough to do. Cloud seeding is a basic form of it. It's done all the time. HAARP in Alaska does some pretty mean things to our Ionlosphere. It can do -ean things to tectonic plates as well. Crop circles are a form of Microwave Tattooing. Radiation is concentrated down to a needle point on a valley of corn to create marvelous designs with divine proportion sketches that can only be created on a computer.kImpossible to even stencil on by hand, nevermind on vegetation.

One who is skeptical about this should think twice. Hurricane world records and Tsunamis hitting the same spots annually are suspicously apparent.
Evidence can come from billions of missing BEE colonies recently. This will effect the planet in HUGE ways. Bigger than you think.

Check out this website below on the greatest scientist who ever lived. No one fascinates me more.



















www.freedomdomain.com...

[edit on 4/6/2007 by StreetCorner Philosopher]