No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

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

Naa, your "chaff" is much worse than anything I have said.

It is obvious you are jealous of scientists like Dr. Akasofu because one of your idols' data has been shown to be rigged/flawed.

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

I'll continue to discuss whenever and wherever i please to discuss this or any other topics...

Originally posted by Johnmike

I guess you're only allowed to agree with him.

I'd better watch out, he might get the Gestapo on me.

You can think whatever you like, but these forums are for the discussion of these topics based on science.

If you want to discuss anything said in this forums and you have any good infromation to refute anyting that has been said then go ahead and present such evidence...

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher

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.

Some governments might be able to affect the weather in some ways, but noone can control it.

Climate Change is not "part of some evil plan by governments to destroy the world", it is just a natural cycle.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
HAARP in Alaska does some pretty mean things to our Ionlosphere.

Perhaps, but there is not enough energy anywhere in this world to continuously alter the Climate and have the effects we are seeing.

You have no idea what amount of energy would be needed to be able to control the weather in the manner that you are suggesting.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
It can do -ean things to tectonic plates as well.

If we can't even sustain energy levels to be able to control or mitigate the climate, there is less of a chance that anyone can obtain enough energy to "do anything to tectonic plates."

These are merely rumors, nothing more.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
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.

That's your opinion, but you should know that radiation in the form of microwave would cook the crops before "any designs can be created".

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
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.

During Climate Changes such weather events happen. They have happened for over 4.2 to 4.5 billion years and will continue to happen well after mankind is gone from this planet.

NikolaTesla was a genious, but what he discovered and was able to do has been overexagerated by rumors going around the internet.

There is nothing abnormal about the current Climate Changes the Earth is going through, and the thing is that there are also Climate Changes happening throughout the solar system and not only Earth, so HAARP has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by Muaddib

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

Naa, your "chaff" is much worse than anything I have said.

It is obvious you are jealous of scientists like Dr. Akasofu because one of your idols' data has been shown to be rigged/flawed.

Cool. But you couldn't even make an effort to answer my questions to Avenger, it's just the same chaff over and over.

And this post is, again, the same stuff. I answered your continuous Mann obsesssion earlier, even if MBH98 never existed, the same conclusions could be drawn.

Didn't tesla have a weather machine?

Doesn't the current administration for usa like to prey on christian apocalyptic fears?

I mean, (quotes) it's the end of times (end quotes) folks.

It'll be a sad day when the majority of the planet has LA smog smeared accross the sky.

Oil companies are like those doctors from the '50's who used to smoke in the hospital while giving you a diagnosis for your pain. cmon!

It's pointless, Melatonin. I've read just about every page in this thread, and pretty much every post of Muadib's reads the same. For some reason, he's fixated on Mann, can't seem to answer legitimate science with real science, and has little, if any, understanding of what actually entails global climate change. All he can do is repeat the same lame "Mann is your idol" tripe over and over.

Sometimes you just have to accept that there's just some people you can't have reasonable debate with, and all I have to say is thank god he doesn't make policy. Those of us who are able to read at higher than a 5th grade level are with you 100%, Melatonin.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
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.

Maybe we are now getting somewhere, I think....again, I'll focus on the peer-reviewed articles.

In the Barrett (2005) article, from table 2., we have these figures for 287ppm CO2:

contributions of GHGs to the GE.

Water vapour 78.5% (66-85)
CO2 19.6% (9-26)
CH4 1.4%
N20 0.6

Quite comparable to the NASA GISS figures in brackets (at the high-end actually). And still much higher than you suggested. Of course, at 380ppm the CO2 figure will be a tad higher. He also concludes that CO2 provides about 7-8'C of the 'global warming', I assume he means the total warming compared to no GE effect.

But, you are still presenting no indication of your thoughts on the stuff you are linking to. So, I don't know whether you are presenting the Barratt article to agree with me or not.

You've also done the same for the khilyuk & Challinger article. So I'll ask again, what do you find compelling about this article?

Do you think this statement is worth the cyber paper it is written on?

The latter number indicates that the total anthropogenic CO2 emission in the twentieth century is about one order of magnitude higher than that in nineteenth century. Adding these two numbers together, the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission throughout the human history is estimated at about 2.81×1011 metric tons of carbon. Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003×1018 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate.

Do you think comparing the amount of CO2 produced over the last hundred years to that produced during the whole of geological time, and then concluding that, therefore, the effect on climate will be negligible, is a sufficient and adequate way to assess this issue?

ABE:

Also, why do they present some quite questionable data from the Marshall Institute for the solar-climate connection that apparently shows a correlation between solar cycles and climate? They could easily have used the numerous peer-reviewed scientific sources for such information.

For example, Sami Solanki has numerous articles on solar variations an climate. From the Solanki & Krivova (2002) study, we have this data...


www.mps.mpg.de...

Seems the correlation breaks down. A much nicer figure here...

Fig. 5. Total solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature vs. time for irradiance reconstructions with an increase in the 11-year averaged irradiance between 1700 and 1980 of 4 Wm-2. The blue curves prior to 1985 represent irradiance reconstructions (solid curve: cycle-length based, dashed: cycle-amplitude based). From 1985 onwards they represent total irradiance measurements. The red curves represent global (solid) and northern hemisphere (dashed) temperatures. All curves have been smoothed by an 11-year running mean. After the epoch marked by the vertical dotted line the averaging period has been successively reduced.

But this seems the norm for this article, many obscure russian journals, oil-related sources, and questionable website references. I'd be disappointed if a first year undergrad did this, when there is sufficent data from reputable sources.

ABE2:

We can also ask why they use the very questionable climate reconstruction from Gerhard (2004), a AAPG article (nice to see he simplified it for us, heh). When we have numerous proxy reconstructions in peer-reviewed scientific journals that show nothing like that reconstruction.



[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by thelibra
It's pointless, Melatonin. I've read just about every page in this thread, and pretty much every post of Muadib's reads the same. For some reason, he's fixated on Mann, can't seem to answer legitimate science with real science, and has little, if any, understanding of what actually entails global climate change. All he can do is repeat the same lame "Mann is your idol" tripe over and over.

Sometimes you just have to accept that there's just some people you can't have reasonable debate with, and all I have to say is thank god he doesn't make policy. Those of us who are able to read at higher than a 5th grade level are with you 100%, Melatonin.

Thelibra, Wow, that was a really thoughtful, reasoned, and totally useless post. How is it, as a moderator, you are allowed to violate the ATS terms and conditions regarding personal attacks with your indirect insults about reading level?

Muadib is one of the very few posters who actually cites scientific data and uses it to defend his position. I could easily name a dozen members with different views who do nothing more than post stories of GW cataclysim and lament and wring their hands and chastise those of us who demand real proof of thier claims, not annecdotal coincidences, or totally unsubstatiated connections between human GHG emisions suffering polar bears.

Those of us who believe in GOOD science, and reject dissinformation, distraction, and personal attacks are with you 100% Muadib.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
How is it, as a moderator, you are allowed to violate the ATS terms and conditions regarding personal attacks with your indirect insults about reading level?

The complaint button is readily available if you feel the need to fill one out, however I did not violate any terms, and Moderators are still entitled to opinions, especially when it comes to combatting ignorance.

Having read Muadib's posts in this thread, I stand by my words. Whereas Melatonin repeatedly cites scientific data, over and over, analyzes it, and tries to speak like a rational person, the only statement I see Muadib making, post, after post, after post, is to put down Mann, put down Melatonin, or to say that Mann is Melatonin's idol. If you need proof of this, just start reading this thread over again from the point that Melatonin joins.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Muadib is one of the very few posters who actually cites scientific data and uses it to defend his position.

Hardly. What I've seen him do is fixate on one thing and repeatedly attack Melatonin for it. When Muadib is asked to present scientific data, he posts either outdated information, misleading information, ingores the request, or goes right back into personal ad hominem attacks. And that demonstrates a 5th Grader capacity for debate.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Those of us who believe in GOOD science, and reject dissinformation, distraction, and personal attacks are with you 100% Muadib.

Then I pity you for your choice of spokesperson, because he has demonstrated neither good science, nor has he done anything I can see other than disinformation, distraction, and personal attacks.

My message did, by the way, serve a purpose. It was to encourage educated people like Melatonin to remain on ATS despite people like Muadib, and as a warning for anyone trying to take Muadib's arguments seriously. And I do not apologize for that.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by thelibra]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by TheAvenger
First of all, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and holding it, creating a "greenhouse effect" instead of letting it escape into space. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming.

You do know that when all water is removed from climate models that 34% of the longwave radiation is still absorbed?

This means that even though water vapor constitutes 95% of all greenhouses gases, its radiative forcing effect on the system is only 66%. That's a very large fraction to be dismissed out of hand don't you think?

It tells me if there were no water vapor in the atmosphere we would all freeze very quickly.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
This means that even though water vapor constitutes 95% of all greenhouses gases, its radiative forcing effect on the system is only 66%. That's a very large fraction to be dismissed out of hand don't you think?

It tells me if there were no water vapor in the atmosphere we would all freeze very quickly.

I don't doubt that water vapour is a very important constituent of the greenhouse effect. The problem is that we have little control over it, it has a short residence time, and is a feedback.

Whereas, CO2 is something we can change (and have), has a long residence time, and is a forcing.

And I didn't dismiss the effect of WV, it was rather a case of others trying to dismiss the importance of CO2 to the GE, suggesting it is negligible, when it is clearly not.

Think about it. taking water vapour as the most abundant (variable concentration, around 1-4%), it has an effect of around 66-85% (this includes clouds though). CO2 is at 0.03% of the atmosphere (at least 30 times less abundant), and has an effect of 9-26%.

I think CO2 is pretty important.

Originally posted by melatoninI don't doubt that water vapour is a very important constituent of the greenhouse effect. The problem is that we have little control over it, it has a short residence time, and is a feedback.

The fact that water vapor has a short residence time and is a contributor to a feedback cycle (it's not just a feedback by the way) in no way diminishes it's effect as a radiative forcing component. It's residence time is completely inconsequential since it has always been contunuously replenished independent of human activity.

And I didn't dismiss the effect of WV, it was rather a case of others trying to dismiss the importance of CO2 to the GE, suggesting it is negligible, when it is clearly not.

I appreciate your position but cannot agree that human added CO2's role in GW has been proven to be anything more that a negligable contributor.

Think about it. taking water vapour as the most abundant (variable concentration, around 1-4%), it has an effect of around 66-85% (this includes clouds though). CO2 is at 0.03% of the atmosphere (at least 30 times less abundant), and has an effect of 9-26%.

I think CO2 is pretty important.

This is an excellent example of the state of the science we're depending discussing. Assigning RF contribution ratios of 66% water and 26% CO2 should lend to giving CO2 appreciable attention, however 86% water and 9% CO2 gives concerns about human added CO2 much less wieght. Especially when one considers the small fraction of CO2 currently present, that can be attributed to human activity.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The fact that water vapor has a short residence time and is a contributor to a feedback cycle (it's not just a feedback by the way) in no way diminishes it's effect as a radiative forcing component. It's residence time is completely inconsequential since it has always been contunuously replenished independent of human activity.

But I didn't diminish it's importance. The longer residence time of CO2 is very important.

If I emit a large amount of water vapour, the system will very rapidly, in weeks, reach equilibrium.

If I emit a large amount of CO2, the system will quite slowly, decadal timescales, reach equilibrium

I appreciate your position but cannot agree that human added CO2's role in GW has been proven to be anything more that a negligable contributor.

Well, taking the figures calculated, we are talking about at minimum over 1'C by 2100, at worst, quite a bit more. Glad you're happy to play the odds.

This is an excellent example of the state of the science we're depending discussing. Assigning RF contribution ratios of 66% water and 26% CO2 should lend to giving CO2 appreciable attention, however 86% water and 9% CO2 gives concerns about human added CO2 much less wieght. Especially when one considers the small fraction of CO2 currently present, that can be attributed to human activity.

But this is due to overlapping absorption. You can be concerned at whatever level you like, others will look at the range of possibilities and be a tad more concerned.

How much of the current CO2 level is due to human effects?

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Melatonin - I think, based on some recent exchanges we've had, you and I see things pretty much the same way in terms of being realistic about how best to address the percieved dangers of anthropogenic climate change. I don't think we will achieve the same level of agreement on the percieved dangers themselves.

Regardless, some of the changes in human behavior which could be reasonably enacted today would be beneficial in many other ways than combating "global climate change" and I'm not against them (nor do I think are most people). I just worry that the alarmists will scare enough people into believing we're facing the end of civilization to get their BS world carbon tax scheme enacted.

Regards.




[edit on 4/6/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by melatonin
How much of the current CO2 level is due to human effects?
[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Many of my recent edits are not posting. Has anyone else had this problem?

Anyway to respond: I'd say most anthropogenic backers would estimate that of the 380 ppm-v of CO2 present, approx. 25% is attributable to human activity.

Regarding the linked papers I inserted into an earlier post, I have heard from both Dr. Beck and Mr. Courtney. Mr.Courtney's paper was indeed published by the The Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

Dr. Beck sent me a PDF file of his entire paper and wrote the following:

Dear (edited for privacy)

Attached my paper "180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods" ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007 and a summary in pictures. Additionally I want to give you access to a supplementing webpage with most important historic resources.

(link edited out because Dr. Beck only gives this site to other scientists)

Because of explosive content of my paper let me give you some further comments.

It´s clear that it is not possible to reconstruct 150 years of scientific evolution concerning one subject thoroughly in 20 pages. This is the main difference to other papers concerning one single problem. I had to sample, evaluate and select hundreds of problems. Therefore my selection out of available data can always be criticized with all possible arguments.

For this reason the online support should serve as a first help before projected publication of the monograph with all inspected sources.

So perhaps you realize that my paper is only a first sign of pointing to those "forgotten data". Your work will start right here.

Probably you also agree that my paper is not in first place a climate paper, it´s a chemical paper, because most historic resources are written by chemists.
As a biochemist I feel much more connected to CO2 as a climate scientist because of CO2 being an essential substance for all living things.
Modern propagated image of carbon dioxide as a climate killer contradicts natural importance ( biology, chemistry, medicine, nutrition science) in total.

Looking at history of modern natural science and measuring CO2 we see a time line of two lines of arguments:

1. a 200 hundred year of consecutive evolving natural science establishing most modern knowledge and laws of nature ( honoured by dozens of NOBEL awards in 20th century)
2. a 60 year of climate science in parallel to (1) establishing a different, contradicting view of CO2 in nature with no real knowledge but most hypothesis and speculations.

Viewing from point 2 my paper is junk science.
Viewing from scientific point we have to evaluate verify and falsify both lines and join them together without excluding one or both a priori at the base of laws of nature.

In that sense I appreciate your comments and critics and your contribution to establish real truth.


Thank you for your help.
best regards

Ernst Beck
Merian-Schule Freiburg
Dep. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science
79104 Freiburg
Rheinstr. 3
Germany



I don't know that hosting and putting Dr. Beck's full paper here would improve the understanding of his thoughts and ideas much better than the short version I already linked to, so I won't bother. Anyone who does want it may send me
a u2u requesting it.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Many of my recent edits are not posting. Has anyone else had this problem?

Anyway to respond: I'd say most anthropogenic backers would estimate that of the 380 ppm-v of CO2 present, approx. 25% is attributable to human activity.

I think Avenger had a similar issue earlier.

So, if we take 25% as acceptable (it's probably a bit higher), that's not really insignificant. When you think that for 650,000 years it never gets much higher than 280-300ppm, this is quite a change.

And it is likely to keep increasing, unless we make some sort of effort.

Ai, I missed this darkbluesky..

Melatonin - I think, based on some recent exchanges we've had, you and I see things pretty much the same way in terms of being realistic about how best to address the percieved dangers of anthropogenic climate change. I don't think we will achieve the same level of agreement on the percieved dangers themselves.

Regardless, some of the changes in human behavior which could be reasonably enacted today would be beneficial in many other ways than combating "global climate change" and I'm not against them (nor do I think are most people). I just worry that the alarmists will scare enough people into believing we're facing the end of civilization to get their BS world carbon tax scheme enacted.

Regards.

I think taking action to change the ways in which we are using energy, and affecting the biosphere, is essential and has many good effects. It will cost money, but it will be a long-term benefit.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm pretty much an economic/political retard, I know little about this stuff, and care little for it. How best we go about the changes we do need to make, I'm not too sure. Best left to those who are most suited to this.

As for the scare tactics, I tend to agree, and it doesn't help the science. The media feed off this sort of stuff, which is why I read the science rather than the fluff.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
1. a 200 hundred year of consecutive evolving natural science establishing most modern knowledge and laws of nature ( honoured by dozens of NOBEL awards in 20th century)
2. a 60 year of climate science in parallel to (1) establishing a different, contradicting view of CO2 in nature with no real knowledge but most hypothesis and speculations.

Seeing he is interested in the history, he might want to extend the 60 years back to about 1896.

Svante Arrhenius. A well known figure to all chem students, well at least his kinetics equation will be.

Maybe even to 1859 - John Tyndall.

We could even go back further to 1820s - Joseph Fourier.

But, I think Arrhenius and Tyndall are the dudes to start with.

ABE: cool, here's his original paper from 1896 - On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.

www.globalwarmingart.com...

Maybe you could send it to Beck. He may have missed this paper.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by melatonin]

Further message from Richard Courtney:


Dear (private)

You ask:

In a message dated 06/04/2007 03:44:25 GMT Standard Time,

I write
Mr. Courtney:

"Significant differences in determinations of mean global surface temperature trends for recent decades" that Nature rejected for no good reason ever get published elsewhere? I thought it was outstanding. Any new related papers?


I answer:
Yes, but not as a peer-reviewed paper. I got a very similar paper published as an article in a geology journal. Since then I have tried to published an exposition of problems with global surface temperature measurements that I attach. However, the providers of the temperature data sets held a workshop where they "homogenised" thier data so concealing the problem. In the old-fashioned science that I like we want correct data not homogenised data (sigh).

Also, I attach a copy of the presentation I gave in Stockholm. It is an exposition of our 2006 paper Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, 'The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle' E&E v16 no2 (2005). Perhaps the significance of this analysis is best expressed as follows:
1.

Our paper provides six different models of the causes of measured atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that each match the empirical data. (Please note that this means they are all superior to the model(s) of the concentration changes used by the IPCC because the IPCC model(s) do not match the empirical data).

2.

Three of the models in the paper assume the measured recent changes in the concentration have an anthropogenic cause, and the other three models assume natural causes for the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

3.

The six models each provide very different projections of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the same inputs. And other models are also probably possible.

4.

Hence, any 'projection' of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has at least a 5 to 1 probability that it is wrong.

5.

Therefore, any decisions (e.g. for Kyoto-type measures) based on 'projections' of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have a probability of being wrong that is at least 5 to 1.


All the best

Richard


Stockholm Presentation


I think a lecture presentation before the 2,500 I.P.C.C. scientists qualifies as "peer reviewed".

[edit on 4/6/2007 by TheAvenger]

To sum it up, there's been a slew of ice ages and warm periods in between (fact or fraud? please adress each point individually...) as well as widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations in the air, with some of the peaks during colder, others coinciding with warmer periods (yes/no). despite these strong variations, the climate cycle continued as usual, even when high CO2 concentrations and warm periods fell together, a runaway warming did not happen (yes/no).

all of these ancient climate changes happened before mankind had any influence (yes/no), i fail to see how CO2 from fuel would differ in terms of greenhouse effect (agree/disagree?), so we could in theory derive a safety margin by comparing our current situation to the 'worst case' in the available data sets. (yes/no).

before you send my scurrying for sources and quotes, which you surely will, i'd like to pinpoint the disputed details. with this thread going nowhere fast, i think this approach can only help. the next step would of course be agreeing on trustworthy data sets.