What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

Originally posted by Animal
Shows a CLEAR consensus.

"Peer" is the right word. The same people writing the papers are the same ones reviewing them while turning down those to the contrary. This very 'conspiracy' has been disclosed in the email controversy:

#2 consensus is NOT merely opinion. It is the collective agreement by a MAJORITY on any issue. In this case it is the MAJORITY agreement that the research into climate change points to a human element.

"Consensus" is ]EXACTLY opinion. I cannot stress EXACTLY enough. It is the opinion of a group of people. Consensus OPINION, not SCIENCE. Catastrophic global warming is a THEORY, more like a HYPOTHESIS, ABSOLUTELY NOT "LAW". "Law" is true, proven undisputable science. While things may be in the realm of 'science', that alone doesnt make them 'lawful' science in any of the context in this sort of discussion. PERIOD.

I agree we can not be 100% certain,

Thank you, because if we could be certain, then that would be science. There wouldnt be ANY debate to be had. But the fact is there is SERIOUS debate, both sides having great points that counter certain parts of other points. Clear signs of 'lawlessness'. By and large, or at least in my case, we 'deniers' argue 'we dont know absolutely', the science in inconclusive. The Alarmists are the ones SCREAMING they're absolutely right and there is nothing to duscuss other than how much to tax everybody, overall.

This includes the alarmist 'scientists'. If they had their way, as proven by the emails, their opponents would be silenced, there would be no discussion. It would end on their arguments alone. THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. How can you follow these people, and take part in it yourself??

but we can make decision based on our best analysis of the situation.

Then follow my link to my old 'consensus' thread and comment on the 'Consensus of Economists" subsection I wrote. 'Put your money where your mouth is.' lol

To say 'well I am not sure I drank enough to be legally drunk and therefore a danger on the road I will just go ahead and drive home' is no excuse for killing someone while under the influence.

The funny thing is, if you have a breathalyzer, you can rather scientifically test your blood alcohol level. Alarmists love to refer to the entire earth and its entire history as well as future in such simple terms as a breathalyzer. Rational skeptics know better, and yes there are plenty of irrational 'deniers' out there (even more irrational alarmists (you basically have to be irrational to be an alarmist)).

Just because we can't be 100% sure does not mean we should not modify our behaviors that are causing potential impacts on the planet.

I'm waiting for the Alarmist messiah, Al Gore, to modify his behavior. Honestly, I long ago have. I'd bet I'm greener than most of the alarmists out there, but I do it for personal reliance, financial sustainabilty, freedom, survivalism and hobby. NOT to repent my guilty sins based on flawed 'science'.

Your first link to your thread "Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!" has nothing to back it up other than a link to wiki. and is FAR from solid evidence.

Wiki-copout, how weak. The wiki article was a summary of all the GROUPS involved in the so-called consensus. Its probably been updated since then, but it is a snapshot of the 'consensus of 2 years ago, back when the debate was already over. A summary of the groups. It had each groups 'press release' type quotes on the matter. You could/can follow the links. Dont be retarded.

This includes ANY type of science degree, you know things like veterinary science, computer science, etc...

Only 9100 have PhDs and it does not even bother to say how many research climate or even work in the profession. Thus it is another weak, if not worthless, argument.

"Only" 9100 Phd's? Have you ever tried to count all the way to 9100? And computer scientists who write flawed computer models are surely in the IPCC group.

is exactly what I am talking about.

Explain!

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Animal
Shows a CLEAR consensus.

Go ahead and ignore the fact that of 920 randomly selected scientific article written on the topic of climate change NONE of them, NOT ONE, argued against the consensus position.

"Peer" is the right word. The same people writing the papers are the same ones reviewing them while turning down those to the contrary. This very 'conspiracy' has been disclosed in the email controversy:

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.

link

Yes peer-review has been criticized for being ineffective and creating gate-keepers that disallow dissenting opinions but because the process has continued to prove its worth it is still the standard.

Trying to dismiss the Science Article I posted by saying 'it is hooey because it is peer reviewed' is incredibly weak.

Sorry I did not watch the video but arguing that peer-reviewed scientific literature is a joke mate. First you decry AGW science as phony science then you bash the peer-review process. It seems to me you use any angle to argue your point with no regard for consistency.

You quote me saying:
#2 consensus is NOT merely opinion. It is the collective agreement by a MAJORITY on any issue. In this case it is the MAJORITY agreement that the research into climate change points to a human element.

and then you reply:

"Consensus" is ]EXACTLY opinion. I cannot stress EXACTLY enough. It is the opinion of a group of people. Consensus OPINION, not SCIENCE. Catastrophic global warming is a THEORY, more like a HYPOTHESIS, ABSOLUTELY NOT "LAW". "Law" is true, proven undisputable science. While things may be in the realm of 'science', that alone doesnt make them 'lawful' science in any of the context in this sort of discussion. PERIOD.

See the definition of CONSENSUS SCIENCE:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]

What I presented is both science and consensus. Sorry it is contrary to what you would prefer to be the truth.

You quote me saying:

I agree we can not be 100% certain,

And reply:

Thank you, because if we could be certain, then that would be science.

Science does not equal 100% certainty. Show me any proof of such a statement?

There wouldnt be ANY debate to be had. But the fact is there is SERIOUS debate, both sides having great points that counter certain parts of other points.

Science is the continual advancement of UNDERSTANDING. Not the end of discussion or exploration.

Clear signs of 'lawlessness'.

What?

By and large, or at least in my case, we 'deniers' argue 'we dont know absolutely', the science in inconclusive. The Alarmists are the ones SCREAMING they're absolutely right and there is nothing to duscuss other than how much to tax everybody, overall.

#1 there is no absolute proof but there is EVIDENCE. How arrogant to assume we dont need to change behavior because we dont know 100% that our actions are endangering the planet.

#2 I am technically what you call an alarmist however ignorant i find the title. I also dont believe they are 100% correct. I do believe that there is enough evidence to make the decision to act to prevent the POSSIBILITY that we are on a dangerous course.

This includes the alarmist 'scientists'. If they had their way, as proven by the emails, their opponents would be silenced, there would be no discussion. It would end on their arguments alone. THAT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. How can you follow these people, and take part in it yourself??

I am not sure of what you speak of. I am sure that there have been questionable actions on the part of pro-AGW as well as anti-AGW scientists. Such is life.

you quote me:

but we can make decision based on our best analysis of the situation.

and counter:

Then follow my link to my old 'consensus' thread and comment on the 'Consensus of Economists" subsection I wrote. 'Put your money where your mouth is.' lol

No thanks it looked uninteresting to me.

you again quote me saying:

Just because we can't be 100% sure does not mean we should not modify our behaviors that are causing potential impacts on the planet.

you reply:

I'm waiting for the Alarmist messiah, Al Gore, to modify his behavior. Honestly, I long ago have. I'd bet I'm greener than most of the alarmists out there, but I do it for personal reliance, financial sustainabilty, freedom, survivalism and hobby. NOT to repent my guilty sins based on flawed 'science'.

I have never seen gore's movie, i did not vote for gore, nor do i like gore. using him as the whipping boy for an entire theory is weak weak weak.

It also avoids the REAL issue i raise in my above quote. We have evidence that we are endangering the PLANET shouldn't we act regardless of not having 100% positive knowledge on the issue.

Your first link to your thread "Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!" has nothing to back it up other than a link to wiki. and is FAR from solid evidence.

Wiki-copout, how weak.

What is weak is your thread, not the article. but is was the ONLY evidence you show and tenuous too. For example, from the ONE source you use to back up your thread we have this:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

So um ya....your thread is beyond weak it is a joke.

you quote me:

This includes ANY type of science degree, you know things like veterinary science, computer science, etc...

Only 9100 have PhDs and it does not even bother to say how many research climate or even work in the profession. Thus it is another weak, if not worthless, argument.

and reply:

"Only" 9100 Phd's? Have you ever tried to count all the way to 9100? And computer scientists who write flawed computer models are surely in the IPCC group.

9100 phds and because so few of them even studied let alone work in the climate field the article does not mention the #. Try to wiggle out of the fact that your 31,000 'scientists' is a joke.

Your whole argument is based on fantasy and bull-poo. how frustrating.

Want to know why I think you don't buy AGW? Because you are bought and sold by corporations and politicians.

continued...

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Animal]

bought and sold just like my article pointed out:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case

link

Go ahead listen to Glen Beck and not scientists, just don't expect to get respect for your point of view.

In case youre unaware, the 'consensus' study is deeply flawed, but even at face value her updated report only shows 20% claiming the human element. 55% merely talk about cliamte change in general, NOT saying that humans are causing it. So your consensus arguement is ridiculous on that front.

I strongly encourage you to go do some research via google etc on the 'peer review global warming' issue, actually read some critics writings, and you will see valid flaws in her process, unless you're irrational.

Peer review...

link

lolz. So after slamming me for using a wikipedia summary youre now quoting wikipedia verbatim. Pricelss.

Trying to dismiss the Science Article I posted by saying 'it is hooey because it is peer reviewed' is incredibly weak.

Sorry I did not watch the video but arguing that peer-reviewed scientific literature is a joke mate.

What you cited has been beaten to death by both sides of anyone not new to the subject. That video is hot off the presses about something that has happened in the past few days. At this point its already pointless to waste time on you.

First you decry AGW science as phony science then you bash the peer-review process.

Consensus of opinions IS NOT SCIENCE.

It seems to me you use any angle to argue your point with no regard for consistency.

Just like you just did with wikipedia. And let me guess you quoted wikipedia on the consensus 'science' deal too, eh?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

According to your own 'source'. Nuff said.

Science does not equal 100% certainty. Show me any proof of such a statement?

I've already explained this. I thought I had in laymans terms. Let me try again. There are fields of science, and then there is settled science. Settled science is law. It is settled that the climate is a field of science, but say being able to predict is unsettled. If it were scientific law, as Al Gore claims, then there would be very little debate. We wouldnt be having this discussion. There'd be nothing to talk about.
Read about Science Law here:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Science is the continual advancement of UNDERSTANDING. Not the end of discussion or exploration.

Then why do the alarmist scientists and proponents work in tandem to stomp out debate and discussion? i.e. holocaust deniers.

Clear signs of 'lawlessness'.

You didnt get that? If climate science, especially being able to predict it, were scientific law then the world wouldnt be engaged in nonstop debate. As I thought of that it almost seemed that perhaps that might be why its named 'law'.

#1 there is no absolute proof but there is EVIDENCE. How arrogant to assume we dont need to change behavior because we dont know 100% that our actions are endangering the planet.

To what degree do humans affect the earth beyond what nature does? Please answer me this question or dont bother responding to anything else because I wont respond to you.

#I do believe that there is enough evidence to make the decision to act to prevent the POSSIBILITY that we are on a dangerous course.

What do you suggest we do, that wont harm more lives in the process? er wait, you dont know because you obviously havent listened to the actual economists and dont intend to. Scientists arent the ones who should write policy. Scientists give their take and then economists tell the people and the politicians the cost/risk analysis. SOmehow we rarely hear from economists, only the scientits and politicians.

Just because we can't be 100% sure does not mean we should not modify our behaviors that are causing potential impacts on the planet.

It also avoids the REAL issue i raise in my above quote. We have evidence that we are endangering the PLANET shouldn't we act regardless of not having 100% positive knowledge on the issue.

I just responded to that. I'll add that be sure to factor in the percentage of human understanding we have into the formula of how far to go with it. Can you tell us what percentage of this thing human do in FACT understand?

What is weak is your thread, not the article.

Pick it apart then!!! And there not here. Part of the consensus argument is all the science body's that have made statements on it. Alarmists love to cite that element, except the problem is they always sum a group saying there is actual warming with the idea that humans are CAUSING it. CAUSE AND EFFECT. In truth, by reading the statements, as summarized on wikipedia, most say yes there is warming, and that humans do contribute to it, but few actually say that humans CAUSE it, as most alarmists suggest.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
To what degree do humans affect the earth beyond what nature does? Please answer me this question or dont bother responding to anything else because I wont respond to you.

Seriously? Humans have a massive impact on the Earth beyond what nature does. It is mind boggling to even question this.

Nature does not create POLLUTION.

Nature does not cause HABITAT FRAGMENTATION.

Nature does not cause RESOURCE DEPLETION.

Nature does not, like humans do, decrease the earths ALBEDO

on and on and on.

Your entire argument is based on weak attempts to discredit and does so very little to offer any reliable evidence.

I began by trying to have a civilized debate on a topic and you continually resort to personal critique and criticism of people who have an opposing view to yours.

I have offered evidence that counters you points and you ignore it.

You have shown yourself to be little more than the run-of-the-mill denier.

You try to laugh off my criticism of you using a wiki page that argues against the point you were trying to use it for.

You try to argue the points of the ideologues who have convinced you that trying to counter the potential of AGW is going to harm humanity.

What ever mate, you are clearly only interested in arguing the points the media and anti-agw politicians have filled your head with.

although i have continually agreed that there is no absolute on the topic and only good evidence to support he notion of humans causing problems, you still wont address the idea that when presented with a 'strong possibility' that we may be doing damage we need to change our actions.

lets continue though. you state:

In case youre unaware, the 'consensus' study is deeply flawed, but even at face value her updated report only shows 20% claiming the human element. 55% merely talk about cliamte change in general, NOT saying that humans are causing it. So your consensus arguement is ridiculous on that front.

interesting, could you supply the link to this 'update'?

you state:

Consensus of opinions IS NOT SCIENCE.

Re-read the article Scientific Consensus

you tried to show that because the word OPINION is present the consensus is npot based on reality. when the link states:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.

the OPINION is the agreement that the research points to a likely conclusion, in this case AGW.

I've already explained this. I thought I had in laymans terms. Let me try again. There are fields of science, and then there is settled science. Settled science is law. It is settled that the climate is a field of science, but say being able to predict is unsettled. If it were scientific law, as Al Gore claims, then there would be very little debate. We wouldnt be having this discussion. There'd be nothing to talk about.

Laws change mate, and every scientists will agree with the notion that nothing is 100%. furthermore these 'laws' are often very limited int heir scope and application. As your source states:

As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

Just because AGW is not considered LAW does not mean it should be ignored.

you state:

Then why do the alarmist scientists and proponents work in tandem to stomp out debate and discussion? i.e. holocaust deniers.

first off the parallel to holocaust deniers is so incredibly funny. thanks for the laugh. now back to reality, i did not realize that there was no debate on the issue. funny to hear you say that after making hte case over and over that there is debate.

you say:

What do you suggest we do, that wont harm more lives in the process? er wait, you dont know because you obviously havent listened to the actual economists and dont intend to. Scientists arent the ones who should write policy. Scientists give their take and then economists tell the people and the politicians the cost/risk analysis. SOmehow we rarely hear from economists, only the scientits and politicians.

funny also. i don't think we should do anything that harms people. i dont knwo where you got that idea. and yes i listen to what economists say. my favorite economist is herman daly who was a department head of the world trade organization, his proposal was a steady state economy.

you may not hear much from economists but that would be because you dont listen.

you dance around this issue like a psychotic chicken with its head recently removed.

your over arching point is what? 'nothing to see here carry on as usual'? 'anyone who believes that humans are impacting the earth's planetary systems is a wacko and nothing they say should be listened to'? why the continued personal attacks and jabs at anyone who disagrees with you? scared of debate? sure sounds like it.

Finally, once again, for me to believe that AGW is not real i would need to see a scientific consensus. got one of those around?


[edit on 22-11-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by redgy
...........
Glaciers that hold trapped CO2, when melted release those gasses, Ice from thermofrost fields that hold much of these gasses, after being melted will also add to the growing amount.

Glaciers have been receeding, and grown for millions of years, and the Earth has been MUCH WARMER than it was in the 20th century or the beginning of the 21st century and there was no "point of no return", the ice grew back, temperatures went down and life kept on going. You seem to be implying that the glaciers will not grow back, well sorry to tell you that the AGWers have been claiming "there will be no ice on the Arctic" several times and EVERY TIME THEY WERE WRONG...

Originally posted by redgy
Changes in the temperature and salinity of oceans which hold most of all trapped CO2, will release these gasses in very lage quantities when these changes get even worse. All of which can and will flood the atmosphere with substancial amounts of greenhouse gasses that nothing will be able to stop or trap enough to not make any difference on this planet.

Really? first of all why didn't this occur the dozens upon dozens of time that "the salinity of the oceans, and the melting of glaciers was worst?

PLEISTOCENE AND HOLOCENE GLACIER ADVANCES IN CENTRAL ASIA AND
NEPAL AS ASSESSED BY IN SITU COSMOGENIC 10Be EXPOSURE AGES OF
MORAINE BOULDERS
U. Abramowski, B. Glaser, W. Zech (Univ. Bayreuth); S. Ivy-Ochs (ETHZ); P.W. Kubik (PSI)
In situ cosmogenic 10Be concentrations in samples from lateral and frontal moraine boulders from the Turkestan
Range and the Alay Range (Kyrgystan), and the Gorkha Himal (Nepal) yield exposure ages corresponding to glacier
advances ~3000, ~11,000, ~20,000, ~60,000 and >60,000 y BP. Our results corroborate the hypothesis, that, at
least in the Alay Range, the maximum glacier advance was during the late Pleistocene (OIS-4).

www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch...

The Holocene, Vol. 16, No. 5, 697-704 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0959683606hl964rp


Multicentury glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene
Ulrich E. Joerin
Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland, [email protected]

Thomas F. Stocker

Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Christian Schlüchter

Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 1, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850- 9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene.

hol.sagepub.com...

Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Dmitri Mauquoy, a, , Maarten Blaauwb, Bas van Geelb, Ana Borromeic, Mirta Quattrocchioc, Frank M. Chambersd and Göran Possnerte

aPalaeobiology Program, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

bInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 318, 1098 SM Amsterdam, The Netherlands

cDepartamento de Geologı́a, Universidad Nacional del Sur, San Juan 670 (8000), Bahı́a Blanca, Argentina

dCentre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, GEMRU, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK

eÅngström Laboratory, Division of Ion Physics, S-75121 Uppsala, Sweden


Received 11 February 2003. Available online 31 January 2004.

Abstract
A ca. 1400-yr record from a raised bog in Isla Grande, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, registers climate fluctuations, including a Medieval Warm Period, although evidence for the ‘Little Ice Age’ is less clear. Changes in temperature and/or precipitation were inferred from plant macrofossils, pollen, fungal spores, testate amebae, and peat humification. The chronology was established using a 14C wiggle-matching technique that provides improved age control for at least part of the record compared to other sites. These new data are presented and compared with other lines of evidence from the Southern and Northern Hemispheres. A period of low local water tables occurred in the bog between A.D. 960–1020, which may correspond to the Medieval Warm Period date range of A.D. 950–1045 generated from Northern Hemisphere tree-ring data. A period of cooler and/or wetter conditions was detected between ca. A.D. 1030 and 1100 and a later period of cooler/wetter conditions estimated at ca. cal A.D. 1800–1930, which may correspond to a cooling episode inferred from Law Dome, Antarctica.

www.sciencedirect.com

Late Holocene, high-resolution glacial chronologies and climate, Kenai Mountains, Alaska
GREGORY C. WILES1 and PARKER E. CALKIN1
1 Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, 415 Fronczak Hall, Amherst, New York 14260

Recent retreat of outlet glaciers from the Harding and Grewingk-Yalik Icefields has revealed a vast array of deposits on the eastern and western flanks of the Kenai Mountains that records multiple glacier advances into coastal forests during late Holocene time. Treering dating, together with radiocarbon and lichenometric analyses, allows for the reconstruction of these glacial fluctuations to decadal precision over the past two thousand years.

The records of fluctuations are derived from 16 land-terminating and seven tidewater glaciers in three fjord systems, as well as two cirque glaciers. Three major intervals of Holocene glacier expansions are evident; they occurred about 3600 yr B.P., 600 A.D., and during the Little Ice Age, from 1300 to 1850 A.D. The earliest expansion beyond present ice margins is known only from the McCarty tidewater glacier. The 600 A.D. event involved the simultaneous advance of land-terminating and tidewater glaciers. During the Little Ice Age, however, tidewater glaciers were advancing several centuries prior to their land-terminating neighbors. Those land-terminating glaciers on the western mountain flank retreated from their Little Ice Age maxima as much as two centuries before those on the eastern mountain flank.

Land-terminating tongues on the eastern, more maritime, mountain flank have shown more sensitivity to variations in winter precipitation during the Little Ice Age and within recent decades than the more continental glaciers on the western flank that are affected more by summer temperatures. The glacial and climatic records suggest that advances of the ice tongues from about 1420 to 1460 A.D., between 1640 and 1670 A.D., at about 1750 A.D., and from 1880 to 1910 A.D. reflected times of increased winter precipitation. Advances between 1440 to 1460 A.D., from 1650 to 1710 A.D., and from 1830 to 1860 A.D. followed intervals of lower summer temperatures.

bulletin.geoscienceworld.org...

Originally posted by redgy
Is there global warming from these gasses, YES, and things will get worse as these levels will rise.

First of all the main gas the AGWers are going after is CO2...do you see any "Kyoto protocol" type of hoax in which they want to target other ghgs?... NO...

Second of all throughout the entire 20th century there have been COOLING events, and even now starting in 2006 -2009 there has been a GLOBAL COOLING TREND, with temperatures going DOWN and not up...

Global Warming? NO... Natural Climate Change?.... YES.....

Was the warming in the 20th century "the worse" or "more intense, and fastest" like the scare monger AGWers claim?... NO...

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

What was the MAIN cause for the warming during the 20th century?...

Science 26 September 1997:
Vol. 277. no. 5334, pp. 1963 - 1965
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5334.1963
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Total Solar Irradiance Trend During Solar Cycles 21 and 22
Richard C. Willson

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scales.

www.sciencemag.org...

Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
......................

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

And have there been times when oceans were less saline than today?... YES, several times, the following is one example...

Title:
Late Holocene Environmental and Hydrologic Conditions in Northwestern Florida Derived from Seasonally Resolved Profiles of δ18O and Sr/Ca of Fossil Bivalves.
Authors:
Elliot, M.; de Menocal, P. B.; Linsley, B. K.; Howe, S. S.; Guilderson, T.; Quitmyer, I. R.
Affiliation:
AA(Edinburgh University, Dept. Geology and Geophysics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW United Kingdom ; [email protected]), AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ; [email protected]), AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ; [email protected]), AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; [email protected]), AE(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; ), AF(Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; )
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP72A-0429
Publication Date:
12/2002
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
3344 Paleoclimatology, 4215 Climate and interannual variability (3309), 4227 Diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles, 4870 Stable isotopes, 4875 Trace elements
Bibliographic Code:
2002AGUFMPP72A0429E

Abstract
We reconstruct environmental conditions of coastal Northwestern Florida from combined measurements of δ18O and Sr/Ca of fossil marine bivalves deposited in an archeological site during the late Holocene period. We first investigated the environmental controls of seasonally resolved records of δ18O and Sr/Ca of modern Mercenaria mercenaria and Mercenaria campesiensis collected live from five coastal sites along the east coast of North America. Seasonal profiles were obtained by sub-sampling the incremental growth layers of aragonite and were compared with in situ historical records of temperature and salinity. We show that these bivalves precipitate their shell in isotopic equilibrium with the water in which they grew and that the δ18O records are not affected by variations in growth rate. Winter growth appears to be interrupted or strongly reduced below water temperatures ranging from 7 to 18° C, depending on latitude. The annual average δ18O decreases with latitude, reflecting both the parallel trend of freshwater δ18O with latitude over the North American continent and the reduced winter growth rate. The Sr/Ca records of the 5 modern bivalves also exhibit seasonal variations can be correlated to water temperature. However, contrary to corals, the Sr/Ca ratio is considerably lower than the average sea water Sr/Ca composition and is positively correlated to the water temperature. We dated and measured the δ18O and Sr/Ca of 30 fossil M. campesiensis from an archeological site close to Cedar Key, in the Gulf of Mexico. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C dates obtained for each shell show ages which cluster between 1100 to 1400 and 2300 to 2600 14C years BP corresponding approximately to two historical warm periods known as the Medieval Warm Period (~ 1300-900AD) and the Roman Warm Period (~ 250AD-200BC). The average annual and summer Sr/Ca of 4 fossil shells are higher than that of modern bivalves from the same location suggesting that annual coastal water temperatures were 3 to 4° C warmer than today. The bulk δ18O values show a marked trend towards more positive values. 24 fossil shells have bulk δ18O values 0.2\permil to 0.7\permil more positive than modern bivalves from the same location. These results suggest that the coastal waters off northwest Florida were warmer and less saline compared to today and attest of considerable differences of the regional climate and hydrological balance during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

That is what happens EVERY TIME there is a warming cycle, and there have been SEVERAL and life continued to be as normal..

You should be more worried about other things. The activity of the Sun, the increased radiation, and the weakening of the interplanetary shield, plus the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field are REAL causes of concern.

If you want to be worried about the environment, worry about the plastic islands in the oceans...worry about the fact that the "Climate Change meetings" that the elites are going to, and trying for every country to adopt will MOVE all manufacturers to China, India, Russia, and other third world nations ALL of which have stated quite clearly THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EMISSION CAPS....

Those countries, at least their governments, don't give a hoot about the environment, yet that is what the "Kyoto protocl" and other similar plans by the policy makers, and politicians are agreeing on doing....

All that the passing of these "treaties" will do is redistribute wealth to the rich, meanwhile the environment gets more polluted, and meanwhile the rich also fill their pockets with the "cap and trade" and taxes on CO2....

[edit on 22-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Oh and btw, before I forget, your claim that surface of the oceans old most of the CO2 is false. The BOTTOM of the oceans are were most of the trapped CO2 is, it is not at the surface of the oceans.

Well thanks for turning the thread into a consensus debate only. I linked my consensus thread in to you right away to avoid all this, but as usual with thread derailment the debate stayed over here.

Originally posted by Animal
Seriously? Humans have a massive impact on the Earth beyond what nature does. It is mind boggling to even question this.
Nature does not create POLLUTION.
Nature does not cause HABITAT FRAGMENTATION.
Nature does not cause RESOURCE DEPLETION.

Nice Straw Man. I cant believe you didnt know what in what context i was refering to. It should have been obvious, this being a global warming debate, that i was talking about to what degree do humans affect 'global warming'. I could have worded it better, i suppose. You didnt address that. What pisses me off about alarmism is it diverts all the energy away from actual pollution of the environment, somethine to which there is no debate to.

interesting, could you supply the link to this 'update'?

In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%); Oreskes did not classify these as taking a position on contemporary global climate change.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

Consensus: a collective of OPINIONS. How hard is this? No wonder alarmists are typically collectivists philosophically. And I thought the neocons / republicans were sheeple.

Laws change mate, and every scientists will agree with the notion that nothing is 100%. furthermore these 'laws' are often very limited int heir scope and application. As your source states:

As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

Just because AGW is not considered LAW does not mean it should be ignored.

Reread your own citation. It shows were each Law doesnt apply in different scenarios, conditions. Your citation is irrelevent.

first off the parallel to holocaust deniers is so incredibly funny.

Are you insinuating that the 'deniers' label wasnt propaganda by the alarmist consortium to discredit AGW skeptics?

now back to reality, i did not realize that there was no debate on the issue.

If youve been following this issue closely for the past 3+ years you'd know that the bigshots like Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al have been saying this for some time.

i don't think we should do anything that harms people. i dont knwo where you got that idea.

Please list proposed global warming policy that wont harm people. I have economists independent of the WTO (who helped destroy US economy and represents the corporations not the people) or UN and you said youre not interested.

steady state economy: I looked at it. On the face value it describes an ideal economy. But how to get there rapidly without communism is the real question? In the meantime we have the world we live in, and economics for how to make it as ideal as realistic come into play, especially when talking about climate change measures. How much do we affect the climate, how certain of that figure are we, how much WILL we affect teh climate in the future, how certain are we of that, and then whats the cost/risk analysis applied to the real world. I'd love to see these figures, SERIOUSLY.

Show me some real numbers, please. Do you actually know them? Does ANYONE, on ATS, on earth?

Finally, once again, for me to believe that AGW is not real i would need to see a scientific consensus. got one of those around?

I showed you 9100 Phd's and you called them pet doctors without any citations. Blanket termed the entire thing. I showed you the scientific body's takes on the matter, you ignored it. I glanced at the wikipedia summarization as it is today. Noticed afew new ones listed, sure enough groups formed around the climate issue. Hardly impartial. Dont have time right now to in-depth compare changes in independent groups on my original listing.

I also showed you how flawed the idea of a collctive of opinions is, but you wont budge. You have faith in their opinions. So I begged for some real numbers and what to do about them. Still waiting. I'm trying to be fair here.

Do some googling and you'll find plenty of denial:
www.infowars.net...
epw.senate.gov...

Behavior: Have you stopped eating meat? Bought a hybrid? Installed windmills or solar panels? Grow your own food? Wipe with your hand? Collect rainwater to water your garden? Installed LED lighting in your work / home? Quit using air conditioning or severly limit? Dry your clothes on a clothesline. Change your clothes in a way throughout the day that reduces the amount you need to do laundry? Shower less than every single day? Installed power strips / surge protectors all throughout your home / work and manually cut the power to devices while not in use (most devices still suck power after you hit the power button)? Built and installed a solar hot water heater to replace your energy / fossil fuel sucking water heater. Ride a bike / walk to store / bar on a regular basis. Built fresnel lens solar stove for cooking, other means of cooking that use less fuel than a range? and some others i cant think of right now.

HOW MANY OF THESE HAVE YOU DONE? I have quite a few on that list, and the others that I actually would do already in development. Some I wont do. I wont wipe with my hand (then you'd use more water anyways). A real environmentalist's FIRST argument would be to legalize industrial hemp, but I hardly see this in the rhetoric (no time because AGW is all that matters).

I hope to see the numbers I keep asking you for. I really do hope you actually know them as worried you seem to be about all of this.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Well thanks for turning the thread into a consensus debate only.
I linked my consensus thread in to you right away to avoid all this, but as usual with thread derailment the debate stayed over here.

I didn't so you can close that back door mate. I have in no way derailed this thread or made it all about consensus.

Originally posted by Animal
Seriously? Humans have a massive impact on the Earth beyond what nature does. It is mind boggling to even question this.
Nature does not create POLLUTION.
Nature does not cause HABITAT FRAGMENTATION.
Nature does not cause RESOURCE DEPLETION.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Nice Straw Man.

My bad.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I cant believe you didnt know what in what context i was refering to. It should have been obvious, this being a global warming debate, that i was talking about to what degree do humans affect 'global warming'. I could have worded it better, i suppose. You didnt address that.

This I cannot answer. However, the belief that we contribute is still there and still supported so my support of the issue stands.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What pisses me off about alarmism is it diverts all the energy away from actual pollution of the environment, somethine to which there is no debate to.

This is just poor form all around mate. #1 I am not an alarmist. That is a label created to objectify and de-humanize those who disagree with you and such statements and labels have no place in open and honest debate. I am, like many i know of my 'ilk' would be found more often working to prevent over consumption and pollution that taking or worry about AGW.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisssinteresting, could you supply the link to this 'update'?

you offer:

In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%); Oreskes did not classify these as taking a position on contemporary global climate change.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

This is in the article I cited. Refer to my first quote from this article this is exactly what it says. So I fail to see your point citing it or stating it is a new analysis....

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Consensus: a collective of OPINIONS. How hard is this? No wonder alarmists are typically collectivists philosophically. And I thought the neocons / republicans were sheeple.

Please see my cited information again. Try to ignore what a Scientific Consensus is all you want, it still exists.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Reread your own citation. It shows were each Law doesnt apply in different scenarios, conditions. Your citation is irrelevent.

What it shows is that the type of law you are referring to is severely limited. as your cited source states: [exScientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops.

furthermore scientific laws can and do CHANGE for example: Newton's Laws of Motion

You cite me:

first off the parallel to holocaust deniers is so incredibly funny.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Are you insinuating that the 'deniers' label wasnt propaganda by the alarmist consortium to discredit AGW skeptics?

You are denying man made global warming correct? we both know the answer is yes so why is calling you a denier derogatory? how is it in anyway shape or form equivalent to you comparing us 'alarmists' to holocaust deniers? don't even try to wriggle out of that one mate.

you quote me saying:

now back to reality, i did not realize that there was no debate on the issue.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If youve been following this issue closely for the past 3+ years you'd know that the bigshots like Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al have been saying this for some time.

Okay man, clear this up. you have said repeatedly that there is NO CLEAR CONSENSUS and the DEBATE on AWG continues. You Also say the 'alarmists' are preventing debate. So which is it?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Please list proposed global warming policy that wont harm people. I have economists independent of the WTO (who helped destroy US economy and represents the corporations not the people) or UN and you said youre not interested.

Reduce Consumption. Reduce Pollution. Two real easy ones.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I showed you 9100 Phd's and you called them pet doctors without any citations.

Show me a list of these 9100 PhDs. No show me the list of the 31,000 you originally cited. Who are they? What did they study in school? What do they do for work now? It is not my place to disprove anything you have not even attempted to prove.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I showed you the scientific body's takes on the matter, you ignored it.

Which scientific communities?

These have released statements supporting the consensus:
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Academy of Sciences
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
link

The list is HUGE and continues. But that is a good Intro. So they agree with the AGW consensus who was it you said disagreed?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I glanced at the wikipedia summarization as it is today. Noticed afew new ones listed, sure enough groups formed around the climate issue. Hardly impartial. Dont have time right now to in-depth compare changes in independent groups on my original listing.

Your going to need to do some real work to find a more reputable and sizable list of scientific bodies and groups who disagree with AGW....

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I also showed you how flawed the idea of a collctive of opinions is, but you wont budge. You have faith in their opinions. So I begged for some real numbers and what to do about them. Still waiting. I'm trying to be fair here.

Your assertion that because there is no 100% proof positive evidence of global warming some how eliminates the value and worth of the scientific communities consensus on AGW is your own choice to live in a box. Your problem not mine.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Do some googling and you'll find plenty of denial:
www.infowars.net...
epw.senate.gov...

The infowars article is good fantasy reading, thanks for that. Who were the 650 scientists? how many scientists are members of the MASSIVE list in support of AGW? ya...

The senate article is an OPINION piece, how interesting you would post it.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by atlasastro
So you are going to Ignore the World Radiation Centre link.

Oh, so you are going to ignore the thousand of scientists who disagree, the link from the Energy Information Administration, and the fact that REAL Climatologists like Prof. Richard Lindzen say quite clear that in the Toroposphere WATER VAPOR constitutes from 95% to 98% meanwhile CO2 and other ghgs constitute about 2% - 5% of the greenhouse effect?...

Are you going to IGNORE scientists like Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu who was the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and who had been studying Climate Change in the Arctic for 9 years and who alongside a list of more than 700+ International scientists united because of their disagreement with the AGW claims?...

BTW, those 700+ international scientists are not the only ones who disagree... as a matter of fact I started a thread in which most of the scientists from the world's largest scientific group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) who responded to the claims of the "editor in chief" who claimed all his scientists agreed, but then he got ashamed because he got responses from the scientists of this group and most of them disagreed with his claims, and disagreed with the AGW claims...

Are you going to ignore the dozens, upon dozens of "peer reviewed scientific papers" ALL of which dispute the claims of the IPCC, and the "policymakers, and the politicians, and the rest of the environmentalists who are trying to pass as scientists? most of the "so called scientists" from the IPCC report were NOT real scientists, and there has been several threads about this throughout the years....

Originally posted by atlasastro
Ok. Fair enough. I guess Wilson rocks your socks and that is enough. Oh, and now its water vapor too. Of course. So water vapour warms but cools. Ok. In a constant feed back cycle that gets warmer but then cools. Ok. Sure. So why the increase in temp trends?
Oh. I get it, Solar, more water vapor that warms but makes clouds that cool, but its still warmer!

Oh boy, so now you are going to tell us that you don't know that high clouds do cool the atmosphere?.....

I am not like you AGWers who claim "CO2 causes warming, and then causes cooling, and then causes warming"....

Water vapor in the Troposphere for the most part retains more radiation from the Sun than CO2 ever will, but in the form of clouds they also act as shades...and what do shades do atlasastro?......

BTW, there are more scientists than Wilson, but he is and has been one of NASA's best.

Then again are you going to side with the likes of Hansen who have been caught at least a couple of times accepting data with errors, and he accepted that data just because it corroborated his AGW claims?....

What about Mann...the one that started the whole controversy by posting his rigged data MHB98 from which the infamous Hockey Stick Graph came from, and it is a known fact, except for Mann and his partners in crime who are directors of "realclimate" and who have accepted paychecks from Al Gore's director for presidential campaign, and of course the suckups at Realclimate.org, and Mann himself put Al Gore in high steem for an obvious reason....

Originally posted by atlasastro
Considering too, that we are at solar minimum, the planet is not cooling.

Oh boy.... first of all... Thanks to Aggie Man for making the following photo small enough to fit in the forums.



For the past three years thee has been a COOLING trend.

Then again recently SCIENTISTS found...

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

And please learn how to read...before you start jumping all and down claiming that this something is "CO2" or some other ghg this is happening because the Interplanetary Magnetic Field is weak...and is allowing more radiation, and charged particles to enter the Solar System, as well as the Earth. The Earth's magnetic field is also now weaker than it has been for tens of thousands of years....

Yes there is more than one NATURAL factor that affects the climate of Earth, as well as the magmatic and seismic activity of Earth...

reply to post by Animal


That's what the "in chief editors" and the "councils" of those scientific groups WANT you to think...

We have had several threads throughout the years which shows the truth... Most scientists in those scientific groups DISAGREE with the AGW claims, some disagree more than others, and there are other differences in the disagreements, but yes, in short most scientists in these groups DISAGREE...

There was a thread i posted not too long ago about this exact same thing.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Behavior: Have you stopped eating meat? Bought a hybrid? Installed windmills or solar panels? Grow your own food? Wipe with your hand? Collect rainwater to water your garden? Installed LED lighting in your work / home? Quit using air conditioning or severly limit? Dry your clothes on a clothesline. Change your clothes in a way throughout the day that reduces the amount you need to do laundry? Shower less than every single day? Installed power strips / surge protectors all throughout your home / work and manually cut the power to devices while not in use (most devices still suck power after you hit the power button)? Built and installed a solar hot water heater to replace your energy / fossil fuel sucking water heater. Ride a bike / walk to store / bar on a regular basis. Built fresnel lens solar stove for cooking, other means of cooking that use less fuel than a range? and some others i cant think of right now.

answers in order:
yes, nope, yes, yes, nope (yuck), yes, yes, yes (none), yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, nope.... I do a LOT to limit my impact man, a lot....

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I hope to see the numbers I keep asking you for. I really do hope you actually know them as worried you seem to be about all of this.

Which numbers?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Animal

 

That's what the "in chief editors" and the "councils" of those scientific groups WANT you to think...

We have had several threads throughout the years which shows the truth... Most scientists in those scientific groups DISAGREE with the AGW claims, some disagree more than others, and there are other differences in the disagreements, but yes, in short most scientists in these groups DISAGREE...

There was a thread i posted not too long ago about this exact same thing.

Proof that most disagree?

Originally posted by Animal

Proof that most disagree?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then there is the fact that the AGU council also posted a similar statement agreeing with the IPCC and the AGW, but the scientific members WERE NOT NOTIFIED, and their input was not asked.

There is another thread that i would have to check and repost, but yes, the "policymakers' of scientific groups are posting claims without the input from the rest of their scientists....

Then there is the fact that scientists have been fired, or have lost their funding because they DISAGREED with the AGW claims.... a day or two ago I posted some examples of the scientists who have been fired, or lost funding because of their "disagreement over AGW and the IPCC"...

I have to go now....the forums are not my life and I got a date, so laters.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Interesting. Isn't Marc Morano the Al Gore of Deniers?

Regardless I looked this up and not surprisingly the only thing I could find was more and more Marc Morano articles, no real proof beyond his word. I saw the letter to the editor on the particular story too and they despite their disdain for the topic did not seem like a 'majority' of members of the society.

So while I see what you are saying I don;t think this perticular story has any teeth. Have any other 'proof'?

This I cannot answer. However, the belief that we contribute is still there and still supported so my support of the issue stands.

Then what is there to discuss. Without this data all discussion becomes conjecture.

you offer:

In 2007, Oreskes expanded her analysis, stating that approximately 20 percent of abstracts explicitly endorsed the consensus on climate change that: "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities". In addition, 55 percent of abstracts "implicitly" endorsed the consensus by engaging in research to characterize the ongoing and/or future impact of climate change (50 percent of abstracts) or to mitigate against predicted changes (5 percent). The remaining 25 percent focused on either paleoclimate (10%) or developing measurement techniques (15%); Oreskes did not classify these as taking a position on contemporary global climate change.[3]
en.wikipedia.org...

This is in the article I cited. Refer to my first quote from this article this is exactly what it says. So I fail to see your point citing it or stating it is a new analysis....

I said that only 20% of the studies actually applies to human related warming, the rest were about warming in general. You asked what I was talking about so there it is.

Please see my cited information again. Try to ignore what a Scientific Consensus is all you want, it still exists.

A collection of opionions. Go with it. The globalist agenda UN know whats best for you.

What it shows is that the type of law you are referring to is severely limited. as your cited source states:

Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops.

But the premise of 'climate change science' is that there is no debate, man is CAUSING global warming everybody freak out. It's spoken in simple terms as if it is a law. It is not. Nobody can even predict el nino events, yet the debate is over with catastrophic global warming.

furthermore scientific laws can and do CHANGE for example: Newton's Laws of Motion

So how does this help your argument? In electronics engineering we use a whole range of law such as Ohm's Laws. Laws are on parallel with constants, such a Plank's Constant. Without these things it'd be impossible to engineer modern electronics. To me 'science', in the context as spoken by catastrophic alarmists, is like this, whereas electronics in general is a field of science. Hansen and Mann et al will not be able in their lifetimes to engineer a 'lawful' predictive computer model, let alone the climate itself.

You are denying man made global warming correct?

If you were taking in my words you'd know that I deny the idea that anyone knows FOR SURE that humans are CAUSING it. Cause and effect. I've never denied that human contribute. I've begged you to tell me how much, and with what 'tolerance' (percentage of certainty).

how is it in anyway shape or form equivalent to you comparing us 'alarmists' to holocaust deniers? don't even try to wriggle out of that one mate.

You sound the alrm, it is alarmism. I'm an Artificial General Intelligence Alarmist, and proud of it. I can show you public military websites, and then some (click items in my sig), that PROVE billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on the military building Skynet. There is absolutely no debate, unlike with catastrophic AGW. Are you not proud to sound the alarm, as you are doing here?

Okay man, clear this up. you have said repeatedly that there is NO CLEAR CONSENSUS and the DEBATE on AWG continues. You Also say the 'alarmists' are preventing debate. So which is it?

The elitist within the alarmist community are proven by their own leaked emails to conspire to stomp out debate. Al Gore and the rest, like those in the emails, are on video record screaming that the debate is over. AGW people sound the alarm: alarmists. AGW skeptics try to keep things rational: holocaust deniers.

Reduce Consumption. Reduce Pollution. Two real easy ones.

Those are ideas. I begged for actual real life policy. This stuff isnt simple, kind of like trying to predict global climate.

Show me a list of these 9100 PhDs. No show me the list of the 31,000 you originally cited. Who are they? What did they study in school? What do they do for work now? It is not my place to disprove anything you have not even attempted to prove.

Fair enough:
www.petitionproject.org...

It's remarkable how quickly you rejected them all as pet doctors and googlers.

Which scientific communities?

Follow the discussion: the ones I listed in my thread which wikipedia summarized.

These have released statements supporting the consensus:

I havent yet had time to review all the additions and their actual statements in context of "cause" etc as presented in my other thread.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I glanced at the wikipedia summarization as it is today. Noticed afew new ones listed, sure enough groups formed around the climate issue. Hardly impartial. Dont have time right now to in-depth compare changes in independent groups on my original listing.

Your going to need to do some real work to find a more reputable and sizable list of scientific bodies and groups who disagree with AGW....

Not tonight. But I'd say 31,000 not affiliated with group think scientific bodies is a good start. You're claiming that the new entires counter my other thread. I argue that its up to you to use my criteria there and prove my analysis wrong.

because there is no 100% proof positive evidence of global warming some how eliminates the value and worth of the scientific communities consensus on AGW is your own choice to live in a box. Your problem not mine.

I keep asking you what the value of the threat is and you dont know.

The infowars article is good fantasy reading, thanks for that. Who were the 650 scientists? how many scientists are members of the MASSIVE list in support of AGW? ya...

I'm sure the Senate brought in pet doctors to support their case.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Behavior: Have you stopped eating meat? Bought a hybrid? Installed windmills or solar panels? Grow your own food? Wipe with your hand? Collect rainwater to water your garden? Installed LED lighting in your work / home? Quit using air conditioning or severly limit? Dry your clothes on a clothesline. Change your clothes in a way throughout the day that reduces the amount you need to do laundry? Shower less than every single day? Installed power strips / surge protectors all throughout your home / work and manually cut the power to devices while not in use (most devices still suck power after you hit the power button)? Built and installed a solar hot water heater to replace your energy / fossil fuel sucking water heater. Ride a bike / walk to store / bar on a regular basis. Built fresnel lens solar stove for cooking, other means of cooking that use less fuel than a range? and some others i cant think of right now.

answers in order:
yes, nope, yes, yes, nope (yuck), yes, yes, yes (none), yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, nope.... I do a LOT to limit my impact man, a lot....

Everything but wipe, basically, huh? I'm skeptical. Getyour photos ready because I'll be posting a thread on this very issue tomorrow...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I hope to see the numbers I keep asking you for. I really do hope you actually know them as worried you seem to be about all of this.

Which numbers?

How much do humans impact climate?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hey thanks for stepping in. It's been about 2 years since I've actually debated this stuff, as you probably remember, and have missed a lot of grimey details. Hope you dig up the rest here. I tried making that consensus thread as a vehicle for the consensus issue, think it was even my last gw thread here, but never got any input from either side.