Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

How do you know that the increase from 280-390ppm is anthropogenically-derived?

a) isotopic composition
b) that it stayed stable since 10,000 BCE until the time that industrial coal mining started, and has rocketed up since then
c) estimating how much fossil fuel we've burned and doing the accounting
d) lack of any other mechanism explaining the observations

And do you recognize the intrinsic contradiction in these two assertions which you have at times made:

a) water vapor is 96% of the greenhouse effect (it's substantial but not that much)
and
b) there is no positive feedback from CO2 forcing

Originally posted by sremmos

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Patriotgal

 

So basically, you don't believe in science / statistics, but cite one of Al Gore's graph as an example, probably believe it's just a natural cycle, and also that the NWO killed 60% of the population which allowed us to expand and create a middle class that the NWO will destroy anyways.

Alright. Quite a puzzling stance on the issue, but interesting to say the least.

Are you familiar with the ice core data studies that were done which showed co2 and warming trends of a full 250,000 year periodt?

At first, because of the sheer length of time, it appeared that co2 coincided with global warming.

Then, in 2002 and 2003 it was discovered that the warming temperature of the earth preceded raises in co2.

EG when global warming occurs, co2 increases follow.

You are absurdly claiming that the data suggests that co2 increases come before 'warming' when in fact it is the other way around, warming comes before co2 increases.

If co2 has been increasing it's because we've been warming up not the other way around, at least according to the best source we have for this, the vostok and other ice caps.

Good to see you are commenting on something with such emphatic resolve when you clearly have absolutely no idea about the science beyond a rudimentary 'vibe' - perhaps instead of dismissing the most considered, well researched and carefully deliberated scientific challenge in the history of humanity with such flippant disregard you actually have SOME understanding of what is being said.

The historical record shows an almost exact correlation between heating and Co2 - the primary reason for ice ages -etc - is in fact what is known as the earths wobble and elliptical variation - this is very minor heat variation - however it is enough to kick off the Albino effect in the northern hemisphere as it melts ice and glaciers.

This causes the Co2 to be released - and in an historical measure it is almost synchronous - this melting releases vast quantities of Co2 and Methane - green house gasses - these in turn cause what are known as positive feed back effects and cause run away heating. In other words an increase in Co2 causes a massive increase in temperature. Yes there is an initial increase in temperature - fractional - but that increase has the effect of releasing the co2 which causes exacerbated heating.
We are currently mimicking the effect of a 'wobble' - causing massive co2 and methane release - this will cause global warming. GET IT ?!!!

Arguing against global warming is like wanting to have an accident because you drive a car.

Here are the facts - and before you post may i suggest you take the time to read them, understand them so that you can avoid future embarrassment by commenting so emphatically about things you do not fully understand and are in fact entirely wrong.

Cheers,...

scienceblogs.com...

www.realclimate.org...

reply to post by Nathan-D


Honestly - please give it a rest - you are so clearly wrong, uninformed and simply refuse to even try and understand the facts. Just give it a rest will you...

reply to post by Nathan-D


You really are amazing.

No matter how much you get shown your sources and your information are completely full of it - you keep going right back to the same well to drink the same dirty water.

CO2 is saturated by water vapour and positive feedbacks don't exist because "professional speaker" Joanne Nova and her "adapted" graphs said so??

Yeah, forget what all the hundreds of actual climate scientists have to actually say in all the actual papers about the actual issues in the actual reports. Let's just ignore all that because, you know, Jo Nova's got the straight goods on cloud feedback yo!

You're right about one thing - this has grown utterly dreadfully tiresome.

And I'm glad you're keeping score on how many times I've apparently ignored something (while I'm cleaning up the 57299 other myths you throw into every post), because how many times have you ignored each point you've been wrong on, and quickly scrambled to change the subject and hope no one would notice? Let's see: one...two...thr...EVERY single time.

You would think any sane, logical person by now might be at least a little suspicious of their own source information but you just keep jumping the gun and pulling the trigger completely indifferent to the fact you've been shooting blanks this whole thread. It's like climate denier OCD or something...


Anyway I'm glad that was your last post because I don't think you could top that.


I guess I'll make my closing statement by summing up this entire debate up in one perfectly appropriate video:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
mbkennel and mc_squared...

You are now my new friends. Thanks for responding to Nathan, I believe you covered everything AND MORE! Otherwise I would have had to do all the typing work.

And on the topic of arguing with propagandists... I personally think that many deniers go into the issue wanting the truth and wanting to hear all the facts. Of course their mindset tends to focus more on the more exciting/paranoid and less actually dire/life-changing "side" of it... but ultimately we must trust that each human CAN and WILL (at some point) change their minds when presented with irrefutable/rational facts. Also we must consider any fence-sitters/on-lookers who are reading this discussion right now... we wouldn't want them to base their knowledge/opinion on bogus facts and bad science would we?

So I give us all a pat on the back, every little bit counts, and people CAN be informed about global warming above the racket of propaganda/conspiracy theory that supports hidden agendas (of the fossil fuel industry) that constitute the REAL conspiracy theory.

Yeah - cheers dude

It's good to know there's still some people left on ATS that have their own brain that they like to rely on during times like this instead of just going along with the rest of the tin-foil parade.

I would also like to believe that the truth and the facts take care of themselves, but it scares me how much our number one resource for these things (the internet) is just being exploited by those focused on the propaganda. Well...actually it's not that part that scares me, because you have to expect that, what scares me is the amount of sheeple who just eat it up.

In either case, facts are facts - and lately I have been noticing a few public skeptics beginning to change their tune:
The crack in the roof of the world: 'Yes, global warming is real - and deeply worrying'
As World Burns, CNN Skeptic Chad Myers Finally Admits Global Warming ‘Is Caused By Man’

And of course what's happened in Russia this summer has forced an entire government to finally start accepting reality:
Russian fires prompt Kremlin to abruptly embrace climate change

But it's sad that it takes this level of smack in the face reality to wake people up. The death toll there has been estimated as high as 15,000, as well as $15 Billion in economic damages and lost crops.

And this is all happening while we are still in the beginning baby steps of this problem - where the global temperature anomaly has only been around +0.5C. But you know, according to people like Nathan-D - there's no evidence any of this is going to "catastrophically heat the planet".

The deniers should be pleased.

Everything they want is going their way: greenhouse emissions are at, or above, IPCC worst-case projections. No emissions restrictions in any high per-capita (USA/Canada/Australia) or high-industrial-growth-rate (China) nation.

Of course climate response is at mainstream science projections too, so we'll be getting the warming we deserve.

100 years from now, the unrestrained burning of coal will be regarded as slavery is today. Just like slavery, people will be revolted by the immorality and astonished at how widely accepted business-as-usual it was in its day.

Except that slaves didn't leave a screwed up, impoverished planetary civilization.

Oh BTW, about cloud feedback. People should remember that among climatologists they consider 'clouds' distinct from 'water vapor' (clear).

Clouds are complicated because they reflect energy (cooling). So the question is whether the weather patterns with warming will have fewer or more clouds. Best guess now is 'fewer', i.e. positive (bad) feedback.

Water vapor is of course always positive feedback, because (unless you listen to Nathan-D's denialist nonsense) warmer air takes in more water vapor than cooler air, and water vapor (clear, not in clouds) is a greenhouse gas. This is Meterology 101 physics which people usually learn in 9th grade, and is why there has to be some positive feedback from CO2/CH4/etc induced radiative forcing.


[edit on 13-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by mbkennel]

You really are amazing.

Shucks. Thanks. I wouldn't describe myself as amazing, but it's very nice for you to say so.

CO2 is saturated by water vapour and positive feedbacks don't exist because "professional speaker" Joanne Nova and her "adapted" graphs said so?.

Do you have any evidence that the positive feedbacks assumed in the PCMs are real?

Yeah, forget what all the hundreds of actual climate scientists have to actually say in all the actual papers about the actual issues in the actual reports.

Yes, and there are hundreds of scientists telling us that carbon is nothing to worry about. Who do we trust? Whether you like it or not, this is not a settled science. Far from it. There are now 800 peer-reviewed references (www.populartechnology.net...) that challenge the key tenets of AGW, should we dismiss all of these? Do you agree that we should be very careful in approaching AGW, since the repercussions it's having around the world are huge? AGW proponents sometimes forget that millions of people are dying, predominately in third world countries because of the rush for bio fuels caused by this scare. Before transforming the energy economies of the world and imposing impoverishing-inducing carbon taxes, the science has to be watertight. Clearly, at the moment, it is not, and there is still considerable dissent.

Let's just ignore all that because, you know, Jo Nova's got the straight goods on cloud feedback you.

The idea that clouds cause a negative feedback is based on satellite data from Roy Spencer.

You're right about one thing - this has grown utterly dreadfully tiresome.

Indeed.

And I'm glad you're keeping score on how many times I've apparently ignored something (while I'm cleaning up the 57299 other myths you throw into every post), because how many times have you ignored each point you've been wrong on, and quickly scrambled to change the subject and hope no one would notice? Let's see: one...two...thr...EVERY single time.

Heh.

matter how much you get shown your sources and your information are completely full of it - you keep going right back to the same well to drink the same dirty water.

People in this thread have shown you graphs from Vostok ice core data showing not very good correlation between CO2 and temperature but you continuously ignore it. See how temperature constantly fluctuates without any abrupt changes in CO2 concentration?

"adapted" graphs said so?

I can link you directly to the graph from the IPCC if you want? It's "adapted" because it makes it easier to understand, that's all.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D

You really are amazing.

Shucks. Thanks. I wouldn't describe myself as amazing, but it's very nice for you to say so.

CO2 is saturated by water vapour and positive feedbacks don't exist because "professional speaker" Joanne Nova and her "adapted" graphs said so?.

Do you have any evidence that the positive feedbacks assumed in the PCMs are real?

Yeah, forget what all the hundreds of actual climate scientists have to actually say in all the actual papers about the actual issues in the actual reports.

Yes, and there are hundreds of scientists telling us that carbon is nothing to worry about. Who do we trust? Whether you like it or not, this is not a settled science. Far from it. There are now 800 peer-reviewed references (www.populartechnology.net...) that challenge the key tenets of AGW, should we dismiss all of these? Do you agree that we should be very careful in approaching AGW, since the repercussions it's having around the world are huge? AGW proponents sometimes forget that millions of people are dying, predominately in third world countries because of the rush for bio fuels caused by this scare. Before transforming the energy economies of the world and imposing impoverishing-inducing carbon taxes, the science has to be watertight. Clearly, at the moment, it is not, and there is still considerable dissent.

Let's just ignore all that because, you know, Jo Nova's got the straight goods on cloud feedback you.

The idea that clouds cause a negative feedback is based on satellite data from Roy Spencer.

You're right about one thing - this has grown utterly dreadfully tiresome.

Indeed.

And I'm glad you're keeping score on how many times I've apparently ignored something (while I'm cleaning up the 57299 other myths you throw into every post), because how many times have you ignored each point you've been wrong on, and quickly scrambled to change the subject and hope no one would notice? Let's see: one...two...thr...EVERY single time.

Heh.

matter how much you get shown your sources and your information are completely full of it - you keep going right back to the same well to drink the same dirty water.

People in this thread have shown you graphs from Vostok ice core data showing not very good correlation between CO2 and temperature but you continuously ignore it. See how temperature constantly fluctuates without any abrupt changes in CO2 concentration?

"adapted" graphs said so?

I can link you directly to the graph from the IPCC if you want? It's "adapted" because it makes it easier to understand, that's all.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Who are these "hundreds" of scientists who claim that increasing CO2 levels like we have is nothing to worry about?

As for those "800 peer-reviewed references" that challenge AGW... have you actually checked out each one for yourself and made sure that they ACTUALLY challenge AGW to any considerable degree? Do most of them directly disagree with AGW? Were they ACTUALLY peer-reviewed? Until these are analyzed, I think it's hearsay. We all know about the "30,000 scientists" petition fraud (or at least we should)... that list has the ring of a smaller version of that.

Though I'm open to the fact... please cite proof that "millions" of people are dying due to the rush for bio-fuels. If that's true, it's terrible and should be stopped, but even so... bio-fuels have been proven as a poor substitute for our fossil fuel-driven energy economy. Also, prove that carbon taxes will impoverish people and that their poverty isn't BETTER explained by other factors... because right now, poverty is endemic and has COMPLETELY DIFFERENT factors than carbon taxes. In FACT, there are many countries with carbon taxes which have LOWER levels of poverty than the US. Something tells me blaming carbon taxes is a cop-out. Though EVEN SO, most environmentalists support a radical SWITCH to renewables and skipping the carbon-taxes altogether. Carbon-taxes are just another way of prolonging the inevitable good and milking the unsustainable bad. The science supporting the theory of AGW is about as watertight as you can get... the holes in it have either been manufactured or grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

Clouds DO cause negative feedback when they reflect sunlight back into space:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

As you can see, low clouds tend to have a cooling effect while higher clouds (i.e. cirrus) have a warming effect in their radiative/reflective properties.

Regardless though, water vapor contributes from 35%-65% of the greenhouse effect. But this is via a FEEDBACK effect rather than a FORCING effect:

www.realclimate.org...

Your vostok slide there is from this website: www.palisad.com...
Not sure if I trust that. Perhaps you should find a more reputable/scientific source for your graphics.
Here's a much better one:

www.grida.no...

reply to post by Nathan-D


I thought that was supposed to be your last post?

Oh well...

Do you have any evidence that the positive feedbacks assumed in the PCMs are real?

Seriously?? I just gave you like 4 links in the last response showing not only that - but in fact many of the positive feedbacks appear to be underestimated.

You once again automatically skipped past all this information, and then you respond with nothing but a "heh" at the suggestion you're ignoring everything that says you're wrong? What planet are you having this discussion on??

I can link you directly to the graph from the IPCC if you want? It's "adapted" because it makes it easier to understand, that's all.

Yes please! Anything to make you read an actual piece of proper science for once instead of another ridiculous, distorted blog.

Show me the graph where the IPCC took all their feedback projections, concluded water vapour produces a negative effect instead of a "strongly positive" one (read the abstract), concluded all the other feedbacks are irrelevant anyway because good ole Roy Spencer said the uncertainty in clouds is definitely negative - so this somehow trumps all the contradictory evidence suggesting the skeptics are wrong about that (again, just read the abstract), and then to top it all off they drew a big X over all their future projections.

...or is that the part Joanne Nova "adapted" so it would be *cough* "easier to understand"?

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Your vostok slide there is from this website: www.palisad.com...
Not sure if I trust that. Perhaps you should find a more reputable/scientific source for your graphics.

Not only that but his slide is only for the last 15 000 years and still manages to show a pretty good correlation between temperature and CO2.

Everyone knows there are other drivers of climate, so any reasonable graph is going to have a certain amount of noise. The only place that graph shows a distinct change in the temperature trend - the CO2 spikes down right with it.

But as I'm sure we've all learned by now, Nathan has a "unique" way of looking at things

reply to post by Nathan-D


Anyway look - I don't know if you're just being a troll, or you really are this naive, but I'll give you one last benefit of the doubt. You obviously don't fact check or cross-reference your information: you made that abundantly clear when you tried to pass off all the nonsense about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And it's also apparent you get all your info from one side of the fence like it's the only side that matters: (showing off all your "skeptic" graphs as if they're the gospel truth, and then repeatedly dismissing or ignoring anything that contradicts them).

So I guess because you obviously get all your misunderstandings of the science from these disinformers - you also inherit all their backward rantings and stereotypes about us warmist "fanatics" that come with the territory.

Therefore I can only assume (again giving you the benefit of the doubt here), you're just ignoring all the information being presented to you because you're afraid we're all just trying to hypnotize you with our Al Gore magic potion or something.


So I'm just going to remind you: you're not on treehugginghippysocialistutopia.com or something like that ok?

You're on abovetopsecret - where most of the members here like myself completely believe there are globalist puppet master conspiracies in this world, where we absolutely don't trust whatever we're told by "the mainstream". But this is also a place where the motto is "deny ignorance", not "hey everybody, jump on the bandwagon and automatically believe in this nonsensical conspiracy just because on the surface it looks like it's going against the establishment, even though if you look at the actual facts, read between the lines, and just use some critical thinking skills - it becomes obvious it's completely supporting and protecting it."

So maybe if you actually manage to see this somehow - you'll be able to "get it". You'll get that people like me aren't here to antagonize you, to belittle you, to try and shut you up because we can't handle what you have to say. That in fact we're here to try and help you, to stand against all the bullsh** with you - it's just we can't do that until you come to realize how much YOU'RE SWIMMING IN IT, instead of fighting the current like you're supposed to.

Originally posted by mbkennel
100 years from now, the unrestrained burning of coal will be regarded as slavery is today. Just like slavery, people will be revolted by the immorality and astonished at how widely accepted business-as-usual it was in its day.

Except that slaves didn't leave a screwed up, impoverished planetary civilization.

Not only that, but just from a conspiracy perspective alone - none of the deniers seem to be capable of processing how action against global warming represents their FREEDOM from this slavery.

The powers that be have us chained to their gas prices, to their grid, to their profit-centric way of life that keeps all of their dinner plates full while the rest of us run around feeding their gluttony just so we can rummage through their table scraps after.

And then we're conditioned to instinctively ignore all this blatant repression by instead congratulating each other on our supposed "freedom". We do this by pointing the finger at life in 3rd world countries (which they exploit), or the evils of socialism, or whatever other boogie men they can come up with so we don't bother noticing how enslaved we all actually are.

Anyone who actually understands the Global Warming issue for what it is - i.e. not for "taxes and stealin muh sovereignty, waaaaah" - understands it holds the key to finally dismantling this corrupt system, which is exactly why they're trying to cover it up either with convoluted political nonsense or flat out denial.

Because all this really demands a green "revolution" in every sense of the word: implementing sustainable practices that put all of our mutual needs ahead of theirs, building-integrated renewable energies that allow us to take ourselves off of their grids, going back to organic farming practices that make us healthier and bring down the industrial monopolies that control our food, etc. The list goes on and on...

But none of these automaton wannabe conspiracy theorists can figure this out for themselves because they're too busy bitching about how TPTB control their lives, and then sitting around waiting for the same people to tell them exactly what they should think and do next.

reply to post by mc_squared


I hate to think how many books I have devoured on global warming, facts and myths / propaganda - but still finding many new insights from your posts. Thanks - great work.

Nathan - please - for the love of God SHUT UP ! You are just embarrassing yourself - you have no idea how stupid you look.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

You're on abovetopsecret - where most of the members here like myself completely believe there are globalist puppet master conspiracies in this world, where we absolutely don't trust whatever we're told by "the mainstream". But this is also a place where the motto is "deny ignorance", not "hey everybody, jump on the bandwagon and automatically believe in this nonsensical conspiracy just because on the surface it looks like it's going against the establishment, even though if you look at the actual facts, read between the lines, and just use some critical thinking skills - it becomes obvious it's completely supporting and protecting it."

So maybe if you actually manage to see this somehow - you'll be able to "get it". You'll get that people like me aren't here to antagonize you, to belittle you, to try and shut you up because we can't handle what you have to say. That in fact we're here to try and help you, to stand against all the bullsh** with you - it's just we can't do that until you come to realize how much YOU'RE SWIMMING IN IT, instead of fighting the current like you're supposed to.

Almost EXACTLY my thoughts.

There is something that no one ever seems to address in these sorts of debates, something that is lost on almost all who bang the loudest on the "science" drum. Unlike many, I do understand what it means when scientists come up with a theory. Basically, as one of my favorite grade school teachers put it, a theory is a current "best guess" in the world of science, somewhat akin to a guilty or non-guilty verdict in the legal world.

It is the best that can be done with the available evidence and technology, and by no means does it always stand the test of time.

All one need do to see this sort of thing in action is to pick up an old, outdated book on whatever branch of science comes to mind. My particular interest is in paleontology and zoology, so I'll use a couple examples from those fields to illustrate.

If you open up a book from, say, the early to mid part of the last century about dinosaurs, you will notice some things immediately (especially if you follow current theories and discoveries), like depictions of dinosaurs as sluggish, tail-dragging reptiles. You'll see no mention of dinosaurs having feathers, and likely nothing at all about their very likely being the ancestors (at least some dinosaurs) of birds. Were these old books wrong? Yes and no - no in that they were using the most current, up to date knowledge available at the time they were published, and yes, in that they were proven wrong by more recent discoveries.

Another example is in the field of astronomy. Why did the infamous "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast of the early 1930's strike such terror into the public? It seems laughable today that anyone would be stupid enough to think that there could be any living, intelligent beings on Mars that might have the will and capacity to invade the earth. But, remember, back then, the Viking probes hadn't landed on Mars, and what blurry telescope images were available didn't reveal much about the planet's surface. Some early astronomers had even seen what they interpreted as being manufactured canals on the surface of Mars. So there was nothing in the world of scientific fact that precluded the possibility of intelligent beings living on one of our nearest planetary neighbors. Then, that whole possibility was laid to rest as NASA gathered more and better data on Mars, Venus and other planets.

Finally, in the field of medical science there was the coffee wars of the late 80's and early 90's. Remember? Back in those days coffee was one of the worst things you could drink. It was linked to high blood pressure, heart attacks, cancer, and in general could lead avid drinkers to an early grave. Now the prevailing scientific thoughts on the beverage is that, for the most part, it's good for you - lots of antioxidants and it might even protect you from Alzheimer's and dementia, diabetes and a host of other things. A total 180 degree turn about there.

And back to the legal thing, I'm sure all of us have seen cases where someone was convicted of a crime, spent long years in jail (or even on death row) and then was exonerated by DNA evidence. Were the original judges and juries wrong? Based on the original info they were given, essentially no, but based on a relatively new scientific tool, yes they were eventually proven to have convicted the wrong person.

I'm not even going to go into the Piltdown Man hoax, that trickery fooled prominent paleontologists for more than two decades before it was exposed for what it was.

This is how science works, take it or leave it. This is why I believe the AGW theory is dead wrong, as there is still plenty of information and data that we still do not have and that which we do have is not enough to convict humankind of this "crime". Like the global cooling of the 70's, this theory will go by the wayside as have so many prevailing scientific theories and be replaced with something else. Just wait and watch.



[edit on 14-8-2010 by Schrecken Licht]

Who are these "hundreds" of scientists who claim that increasing CO2 levels like we have is nothing to worry about?

You can find their names and individual quotes from the scientists in the US Senate Minority Report, currently, it's close to 750 intentional scientists, including climatologists, atmospheric physicists, et al, on this rapidly growing list of dissenters.

As for those "800 peer-reviewed references" that challenge AGW... have you actually checked out each one for yourself and made sure that they ACTUALLY challenge AGW to any considerable degrees.

If you're asking me whether I've checked the verisimilitudinous of all 800 of them, er, no, but I've checked a lot of them.

Not sure if I trust that. Perhaps you should find a more reputable/scientific source for your graphics. Here's a much better one

The information on the website that you dismiss also shows the graph that you linked me to. There is no doubt a correlation between CO2 and temperature, albeit a weak one, though we know why there is a correlation, because temperature changes first, followed by changes in the atmospheric-concentrations of CO2. Mull this over in your mind for a few minutes until it becomes tolerable. Done? Now, the sweet contents of this paper should help you swallow that bitter pill. www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

Clouds DO cause negative feedback when they reflect sunlight back into space:

Why do the IPCC modellers assume that clouds are net-warming and respond to warming instead of being a driver of warming?

But this is via a FEEDBACK effect rather than a FORCING effect

Garth Paltridge, using radiosondes, found that relative humanity has dropped, showing that water vapour actually causes a large negative feedback.

Show me the graph where the IPCC took all their feedback projections, concluded water vapour produces a negative effect instead of

For one thing, you should take basic comprehension classes, because I never claimed that the IPCC concludes water vapour causes a negative feedback. Second, direct radiosonde observations show that there is no hotspot above the equator, as the models predict. The hotspot is the signature of positive feedback. If the hotspot was there, I would be much more worried about our CO2 output.

or is that the part Joanne Nova "adapted" so it would be *cough* "easier to understand

I told you, it was in the IPCC report.

Everyone knows there are other drivers of climate, so any reasonable graph is going to have a certain amount of noise. The only place that graph shows a distinct change in the temperature trend - the CO2 spikes down right with it

The point is, whatever the noise is, it's obviously much more important than CO2.

Nathan - please - for the love of God SHUT UP ! You are just embarrassing yourself - you have no idea how stupid you look

Do you think telling me to "SHUT UP" is a good way of making me stop? Just simply don't respond. I don't intend trading blows with you guys all week, because really, it would be pointless. You lot are so married to AGW if you were 8-feet deep in snow you would all still probably be screaming 'GLOBAL WARMING, WE MUST STOP GLOBAL WARMING!' You're True Believers. It's impossible to reason with True Believers.

I thought that was your last reply

Don't worry, this is definitely my last reply. You lot can continue fretting about an imaginary problem now.

reply to post by Schrecken Licht


That's a lot of hot air for not much delivery on your main point...

Ok... so science is never 'complete' and certain information/assumptions can be proven wrong or incomplete later on... yeah? So what? Everybody knows this, especially scientists! However, the fact remains that much of our collective science CAN be trusted to be accurate... otherwise we wouldn't be able to build/invent the things we do, we wouldn't be able to calculate the positions of celestial bodies or theorize quantum mechanics, we wouldn't be able to cure diseases or perform successful medical procedures. The science behind global warming isn't some prehistoric pseudo-science, it's quite respectable, modern, and deep in its scope.

While the details are complex, the big-picture is quite simple/undeniable- CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it contributes quite a bit to Earth's temperature and climate stability; humans have emitted quite a bit of CO2 (and triggered positive feedbacks) over the last century; atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 390ppm in a very short amount of time; this will surely cause warming; the entire planet has warmed rapidly over that same time; we can tell by calculation and certain "forensics" that humans are the main source/cause of the emissions and subsequent warming.

Denier arguments are all wild goose chases and smoke and mirrors... they seem (to some) like promising leads to open up vistas of new truths, but they always turn out to be dark, dank cellars of lies.

You also seem to make a lot of false black and white blanket statements which don't necessarily apply. For instance, scientists have clarified DETAILS about dinosaurs over time, of course, but nobody has DISPROVEN their existence. Just as the EXISTENCE of global warming won't be disproven, we'll simply see the picture in greater detail as data comes in and the body of knowledge grows larger. You point to coffee as being blamed for every ailment under the sun... and while I'm not sure if those are exaggerations, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (since I was born in the 80's and wasn't cognizant of the media, hah). Regardless, I'm sure what you're referring to are sensationalized MEDIA reports on coffee based on scattered studies showing possible side effects, and was subsequently NOT indicative of widespread scientific consensus on the dangers of coffee. This reminds me of one product that HAS proven quite dangerous to many bodily systems... and that of course would be cigarettes. Cigarettes originally were advertised and reported to be safe for everyone with very minimal side-effects, certainly nothing life-threatening. We now know that the OPPOSITE is the case and that a very real cover-up of the dangers of cigarettes occurred. What's funniest about this bit of our history is that some of the VERY SAME groups/people who helped tobacco companies cover up their evils and spread dis/misinformation about cigarettes are NOW helping the fossil fuel industries to spread disinformation about!.... you guessed it... GLOBAL WARMING.

PLEASE READ:

www.sourcewatch.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...


PLEASE WATCH:



As for the "cooling" hype of the 70's, that was BY NO MEANS a scientific consensus and was based on a few studies. The vast majority of scientific thought/studies predicted global warming and not cooling, even in the 70's...

www.skepticalscience.com...

[edit on 14-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]

Originally posted by Schrecken Licht
This is how science works, take it or leave it. This is why I believe the AGW theory is dead wrong, as there is still plenty of information and data that we still do not have and that which we do have is not enough to convict humankind of this "crime". Like the global cooling of the 70's, this theory will go by the wayside as have so many prevailing scientific theories and be replaced with something else. Just wait and watch.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Schrecken Licht]

It's about time someone took a step back, and injected some common sense back into this "debate".

I like your "legal" approach to the matter, but I suspect that anyone who asks the modern person to "wait and watch", is out of sync with the rest of their fellows. No one wants to wait. The "believers" on both sides actually prefer to debate "doctrine" it seems.

I know that "Climate Gate" has already been touched on, with believers on each side taking up their usual positions, but I think from a "legal" angle, it's worth mentioning again.

For those who aren't sure what this is about, it's about leaked emails that seemingly prove that Global Warmists may be fabricating and skewing info when it comes to data that fails to fit in with the official theory.

In the UK, there were hearings in parliament, and interesting things came out. The guy caught in the middle, Phil Jones, tried to explain away over 1,000 emails (yes, you read that right) between him and his colleagues, basically asserting that what they were doing was "standard practice".

Not everyone agreed, here's a quote from Nigel Lawson:

"Scientists with integrity wish to reveal their data and all their methods. They don't need freedom of information requests to force it out of them."

The emails revealed...

"prima facie evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with honorable scientific traditions..." through "manipulation of the publication and peer-review system" and "intolerance to challenge."

Hmmm. That sure sounds familiar.

This Jones fellow did have it figured out though, when it came to source data. In the hearings, he admitted that the raw data from weather stations was protected by "confidentiality agreements"...

Jones was asked about his esteemed peers, certainly these other respected climate scientists that reviewed his work, wouldn't they have required the source data, from the weather stations?

Jones responded, "They never asked". Good one!

Not to worry. The UN, realizing how awful this all was, appointed a so-called "independent" investigative body to get to the bottom of it. Predictably, even after such a severe situation, Global Warming remains intact, thanks to our official governing criminals, who are masters at sweeping practically anything under the rug. Nice PR show though.

To Nathan, I would say that you have succeeded in proving that this "intolerance to challenge" is part of the GW religion. It makes perfect sense for the opposition to call you a troll, and try and intimidate you by saying you "look stupid", etc. From where I sit, and perhaps others reading this heated exchange might agree, you're certainly not a stupid troll. Your message reduces to a rather plausible one: There are other opinions out there, held by respectable scientists. Good job refusing to be bullied.

As for the "opposition", I do have to say that it is nice that they largely agree that the carbon tax schemes, as they are shaping up, are obviously a money-making scam. So, there is agreement.

One thing I might suggest is that the whole idea that Big Oil is behind the "deniers" (don't you just love their propagandistic terminology?), might just be the other way around. Counterintuitive (as usual it seems).

"What if" Big Oil really preferred Global Warming for their long range plans to succeed? What if it's the SAME people running Big Oil, will also be pocketing the big bucks from the carbon tax scam? What if, they could give a rip if useful idiots in the meantime become "true believers"?

Based on what we learned in Climate Gate, where even raw data was totally ignored by the whole scientific community, who ever is on control of this circus, probably has the power and resources to have us believing the very opposite by the end of next month, if it suited their purposes. A sobering thought, with huge implications, but alas, only one for the more 'umble among us.

JR

Do you agree that we should be very careful in approaching AGW, since the repercussions it's having around the world are huge? AGW proponents sometimes forget that millions of people are dying, predominately in third world countries because of the rush for bio fuels caused by this scare.

That should be an argument against biofuels, rather than global warming. I am concerned about that too - which is why I encourage energy sources that work, rather than deny global warming.

You linked 21st century science and technology... well:

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...

On the flip side, if we don't take a pragmatic approach to combating global warming, then hundreds of millions of people could very well die from crop failures.

[edit on 14/8/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Nathan-D


Oy...I just can't resist... you leave me so much to clean up every time you open your mouth:

The point is, whatever the noise is, it's obviously much more important than CO2.

Do you understand what "noise" is? Obviously you don't.
Look it up.

I told you, it was in the IPCC report.

And you also told me you were going to show it to me. I'm still waiting...

For one thing, you should take basic comprehension classes, because I never claimed that the IPCC concludes water vapour causes a negative feedback.

And for another thing you should take reading comprehension classes, not to mention reading between the lines. Go look at that joke of a graph from Jo Nova: at three different points she groups clouds and humidity into one blanket statement about feedbacks, which she then idiotically claims don't exist. So while there is still some legitimate debate on whether clouds will result in an overall positive or negative feedback (with the literature leaning towards positive anyway as I already showed you), there is virtually no debate that humidity itself results in a resoundingly positive one.

So do the math yourself: how does this add up to NO net feedback? It doesn't. But this is exactly the point I'm making about Jo Nova and her "easier to understand/adapted" crapfest.

...

Oh wait...but I see...you're trying to peddle all the tropospheric hotspot hullaballoo again as if that somehow proves there's no water vapour feedback. Well, let's see - I could leave you all sorts of links showing you how wrong you are about that. Links like these:
How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
The Australian's War on Science XV
Tropical tropospheric trends
Tropical tropospheric trends again

But we all know you won't bother reading them, let alone addressing any of the 6 million points they make that blow your argument to sh**. (We know you won't do this because you're clearly sooooo much more objective and open-minded than the rest of us pathetic shut in "true believers" blah blah blah).

So how about this - why don't you just try using some old fashioned common sense instead (haha, I literally just cracked up while typing that, but regardless let's show you how it's done, just for kicks):

First of all you understand that the tropospheric hotspot is not a telltale signature of warming from "increased CO2 output" right? It's just a sign of warming. Period. You don't need fancy papers to understand this, it's just simple physics and common sense: Warming (any warming) = more evaporation, warm moist air rises until eventually it reaches a point where it condenses, condensation (which is the opposite of evaporation) releases a lot of heat, therefore wherever this process is more prevalent we should find a "hot spot" somewhere up in the sky.

The tropics have more warming and more water, so hence we expect to find one there. If we don't it says one of three things:
1. Warming (again - any warming, not just the manmade kind) isn't happening.
2. The measurements are wrong.
3. The physics are wrong.

So which one is it?

1. Are you really going to try and argue with all the mountains of evidence that correlate and show the planet clearly warming for the last century? Even most skeptics will acknowledge this much, you have in your own posts before. The only question is whether that warming is due to CO2, and again - the tropospheric hotspot (or lack thereof) tells us NOTHING about this. A much more telltale sign of actual human influence is tropospheric warming versus stratospheric cooling, which is clearly there:
The human fingerprint in global warming

Now one point you could argue about the warming itself is whether or not this is a regional artifact rather than a global one - and once again this falls in line with all the predictions and observations saying that regional warming will be worse towards the poles. Although bear in mind this doesn't mean the tropics won't suffer the worst consequences anyway:
Warming most evident at high latitudes, but greatest impact will be in tropics

2. The measurments are wrong. By far the most likely possibility. Plenty of evidence to back it up, but of course you won't read it - because what do actual climate scientists know about climate science that professional speaker Joanne Nova doesn't, right?

3. The physics are wrong. Well if you want to prove that then be my guest, somehow I don't think you have it in you. But again - why not try a little common sense: you think positive water vapour feedback doesn't exist? Does more warming not lead to more evaporation? This is the whole reason why we sweat, so are you going to tell me that's a hoax too? More evaporation means more water vapour in the air, aka humidity. So does this logically not make things warmer? Have you ever been outside on a humid day? Warming = evaporation = humidity = more warming. This is exactly what a feedback is - ding!


So really all you need to verify all this is some simple logic and common sense.

But unfortunately I have NO FAITH in your ability to do that, which is especially ironic considering I'm such a "true believer"