Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Mez353

 

You lifted parts if not this entire post from here.
www.climatecooling.org...

I suggest you link other peoples work as it is against ATS T and C.

Incorrect. I referenced the website continually in my posts, continually.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
Mez, I asked you to come up with a single piece of evidence that could not be easily debunked using Google and so far you have failed.

If you read the debate between you and Melatonin carefully, you will see that he uses facts to dispute you...while you consistently grasp at straws to prove your point.

Why are you so reluctant to accept reality? I mean that with all sincerity.

If a doctor tells me that I have incurable cancer and am going to die in 2 months, then I am going to die in 2 months. I can try to find a cure, and I can drink wheat grass juice until I piss green, but that doesn't change the fact that an expert (my doctor) has told me that I'm dying.

The experts, climate scientists, are telling us that we are warming. They also tell us that if we go beyond 2 degrees C, natural feedbacks will kick in that will cook us like a chicken in a Chinese restaurant.

That is what they tell us. Period, end of discussion.

I will go a step further and tell you that feedbacks have ALREADY kicked in and the permafrost is venting methane at a level not seen for thousands of years. Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to stop it.

This is from December 2, 2010: www.desdemonadespair.net...

You really do love your dog. What facts has Mel come up with exactly? All he attempted to do was to pick holes in my arguments against global warming and try his bast to split hairs. There were no facts offered up by him that were relevant to the argument we were having. As for your other cronies, hear this. What I tried to show was another point of view. Now, call it data mining if you like but I really don't see how I can get a point across on a forum in any other way. Oh and by the way, where I gleaned info I referenced it, so much so I'm sick of it as I feel like I'm back doing my disertation.

Here's an interesting article from Joanne Nova on the recently released wikileaks material (my own personal saviour and the person who has ideologically taken my plebeian-rodent brain hostage). Worth taking a peak at.

The wikileaks material shows again that voting at these COP meetings is nothing to do with the science put forward in the IPCC reports (which in turn are not based on the scientific method, or what wide body of the worlds scientists actually said anyway).

Now, at long last, it is dawning upon them that their plot has failed and they are undone. The game is up, the cats are out of the bag and there is no way of getting that towering mushroom cloud back inside those shiny metal hemispheres.

reply to post by Mez353

All he attempted to do was to pick holes in my arguments against global warming and try his best to split hairs. There were no facts offered up by him that were relevant to the argument we were having.

You may as well get used to having your arguments continually misrepresented, your opposing viewpoints slammed into the ground and deemed meaningless by CAGW-advocates, reminded that you are in fact an uneducated denier, even though the information you are presenting comes from scientists who have carried out studies and published peer-reviewed papers, it doesn't matter if you are simply relaying information just like they are, they will still hypocritically label you a denier and assure you that the world will soon be reaching irrevocable tipping points that will cook the planet and everyone on it, settling on the achingly uninsightful "the science is settled and the time for debate is over", with themselves judge, jury and executioner.

The arguments and questions you have presented over the last few pages seem legitimate enough to me. It is a shame that intellectual debate is stifled so quickly by people "who know the facts" and "know that you are wrong".

reply to post by Mez353


The post I refer to had no such link, at the time, which was why I stated what I did.
Yet you had pretty much quoted the whole site, without any link.
So your claim that you consistently referenced your material is false.




In fact, it was a moderator who sourced and linked your post.

edit on Sat Dec 4 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

But anyway, keep on denying it.

I lold.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Thanks Nathan, I tried. Worringly, what to do now eh? Give up, give in? Nah, not me.

reply to post by atlasastro


Miss, miss, Mez's eating in class miss! Okay, whatever. My point was I'd cited the reference to the site many times earlier, just missed one as it was late. Are you a traffic warden by any chance?

Anyway, you've contributed 3 posts, two having a go at my lack of citation for a site I've referenced alot in previous posts and one other. That makes 2 out of 3 posts that could be deemed OFF TOPIC. Thought I'd point that out, seeming as your a stickler for the rules. Getting battered in The Ashes getting to ya?

Enlightening final statement from Dr. Knorr
Further, Knorr noted that we still have a good bit of work to do to completely understand why this is the case, especially if we want to be able to predict the future course of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (a necessity if we want to predict future climate change). Knorr concludes:

'Given the importance of the [the anthropogenic CO2 airborne fraction] for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough understanding of why it has stayed approximately constant in the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and when it changes. The most urgent need seems to exist for more accurate estimates of land use emissions. Another possible approach is to add more data through the combination of many detailed regional studies such as the ones by Schuster and Watson (2007) and Le Quéré et al. (2007), or using process based models combined with data assimilation approaches (Rayner et al., 2005). If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why the AF has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.'

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Basically he admits that his work isn't without doubt but he stresses the important need to get the models right, prove that they're right by direct comparison to past and current data that's actually been measured and then move forward with the correct models before making any assumptions.

Hopefully by pointing this out I've addressed Mel's concerns that he had about my statement that the models are too coarse, the lack of verifiable computer modelling and why the models cannot be believed to be accurate because they are not.

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

Thanks Nathan, I tried. Worringly, what to do now eh? Give up, give in? Nah, not me.

lol, not surprised you've found a friend in Nathan. A pair of intellectually dishonest denialists (assuming anything more than trollery) - birds of a feather and all that jazz.

So far, you've made several comments, all of which are easily shown to be wrong/misrepresentations. I always like to summarise the ignorance expressed by people like yourself - it tends to be fragmented throughtout threads, so good to get it together in one place.

Mezrepresentation 1: "Discarding data"

What I am referring to, and need no help with thankyou, is the "accidental" deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones

Now, this can only really refer to the Met office data. Indeed, your source mentions it is related to raw temperature data and the HadCRU temperature series.

As noted, the original raw data is held at the Met Office. So the 'deletion' is neither here nor there. They maintain archives of their own processed data (i.e., homogenised).

Mezrepresentation 2: "Trick"

While the term “trick” can be used to denote a sophisticated mathematical method, it can also denote something as simple and unscrupulous as deleting adverse data.

A simple perusal of a few dictionaries would show that it can be used to mean a neat method/approach.

Mezrepresentation 3: "Models 1"

Failure to discuss computer models that do not seem correct

There's a whole chapter of the IPCC WG1 report that discusses models. Chapter 8.

www.ipcc.ch...

Mezrepresentation 4: "Only human causes & warming"

Attribution of the warming trend to human activities only and no natural source

Solar activity is one pretty well-established natural forcing, and is accepted to have contributed over the 20th century. WG1 Chapter 2 (2.7.1 p.188)

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used
in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995)
have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating
that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance
increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally
suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and
Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical
results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar
forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric
changes associated with solar variability, including during the
solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and
Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et
al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke,
2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005).

www.ipcc.ch...

Mezrepresentation 5: "Models 2: too coarse"

Reluctance to admit that the computer models are too coarse

I assume this means poor resolution etc. Chapter 8 p. 591

There have been ongoing improvements to resolution,
computational methods and parametrizations, and
additional processes (e.g., interactive aerosols) have been
included in more of the climate models.

www.ipcc.ch...

They admit ongoing efforts to improve.

Mezrepresentation 6: "Models 3: reliance"

Total reliance on these computer models

3 chapters of WG1 are on observations and one is for paleoclimatology. Even your own arguments contradict this - but I wouldn't expect much coherence from deniers.

Mezrepresentation 7: "Solar influence"

Influence of the Sun totally ignored

See Mezrepresentation 4.

Mezrepresentation 8: "Natural variability"

No realisation that this warming may be natural variability

See WG1 Chapter 2 p. 135. The section titled: "How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?"

www.ipcc.ch...

Mezrepresentation 9: "LIA recovery"

Given no thought to the fact that any warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age

When asked for evidence we get this:

Okay I'll start with the recovery from the last Ice Age AKA rebounding theory....

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.

This is the term for the rebounding of Earth’s crust following the last Ice Age.

Which is completely irrelevant to your original claim, and merely shows that your barely know ass from elbow.

Mezrepresentation 10: "Airborne Fraction"

If the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years that could show that human activity has had little or no effect on temperatures.

This was a result of you posting studies you had no understanding of - that is, here we can see you don't know ass from elbow. Airborne fraction is merely the proportion of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. It alters the rate of accumulation. Says nothing about the GHG nature of CO2. Indeed, Knorr's study notes how determining changes in AF is important for understanding climate change:

Given the importance of the AF for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course

Knorr (2009)

As AF is only focused on how CO2 accumulates due to sink responses, this obviously implies that CO2 is important for climate change. Which pretty much means - surprise-surprise - you had no clue about the nature of study. You just simply parrot BS.

Overall

That's 10 misrepresentations which excellently show your ignorance in less than a handful of pages - indeed, that's probably a higher rate of BSpost^-1 than even Nathan can achieve. Reading through the progression of the posts also illustrates your intellectual dishonesty.

[Jim Royle]Skeptic, my ass[/Jim Royle]

You're pretty good for comedic value, dude. But perhaps lose the red nose and clown shoes.

Cheers.

reply to post by melatonin


Hell's bells nice work.
The Trick was actually deleting a whole bank of data as it contradicted the policy, namely the Medieval Warming period. Alas, it ceased to be Met Office data once the records were edited (deleted) so please stop referring to the data as such.

Mezrepresentation 5: "Models 2: too coarse"
Your response:They admit ongoing efforts to improve.
Oh well that's okay then. Now show us the improved models please and the data sets used. Complete with Medieval Warming period re-inserted please. Could you provide an example of what that does to your hockey stick graph at all? I'd be very interested to discuss this with you.

Mezrepresentation 9: "LIA recovery"
My point is totally relevant. Sea level rise has been estimated without taking this into account and should be revised accordingly. Again, my point is of the need to revise the estimates based on actual, recordable, scientific events and empirical data. As global sea level rise is a mainstay of the global warming argument and that the estimates are wildly inaccurate I think that discussing how they became so wildly inaccurate is extremely relevant to the discussion. Do you concur that using all available empirical evidence proves a point more conclusively than modelling?

Just to nitpick, you say that 'Airborne fraction is merely the proportion of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere'.
It isn't. You got it half right. It's the the proportion of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere but on it's own it is useless unless compared to the other part of the coeffiecient, the proportion taken up by carbon sinks, namely land and ocean. If you have some difficulty remembering the coefficient let's call the atmosphere the ass and the land/ocean the elbow.

At the moment the coefficient has been expertly calculated based on emprical data to show no change in the past 160 years regardless of what your models want to prove. That means equilibrium. The airborne fraction is important: if land or oceans become less effective at soaking up CO2 the AF will rise, and the concentration in the air will go up faster for a given rate of emissions over time. They're not, proving that the carbon sinks are still as effective now as they were 160 years ago. Equilibrium. Google biosphere - it should tell you all you need to know about adaptability of life on earth wrt to CO2. Check this out for adaptability from the British Antarctic Survey:

Antarctica glacier retreat creates new carbon dioxide store:

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

Pretty amazing eh? We have retreating glaciers caused by global warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere proving to provide an environment for the large blooms of phytoplankton that flourish there to soak up the CO2. How adaptable those little buggers are.

Gotta go, when I beeped my horn earlier all 4 wheels fell off my car for no reason.

reply to post by The_Liberator


That's just your opinion. Read through my posts agan and there are countless facts referenced relevant to the discussion. You are blowing alot of hot air which is expelled CO2, not good for the environment. Take a break and read my posts and citations again and try not to be obscured by your bigotry.

reply to post by RUSSO


Russo, you are correct. It's all down to the sun. Our earth adapts accordingly to natural variations but eventually the sun will win by dying in a blaze of glory.

reply to post by melatonin

This was a result of you posting studies you had no understanding of - that is, here we can see you don't know ass from elbow. Airborne fraction is merely the proportion of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. It alters the rate of accumulation. Says nothing about the GHG nature of CO2. Indeed, Knorr's study notes how determining changes in AF is important for understanding climate change.

Mez simply said that studies show the "airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years" and as far as I can see he never claimed that CO2 was not the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. Indeed, upon looking at his previous posts, he never claimed such a thing. As discerning readers will notice, this is just more of the same old evasion at which Mel has grown adept through long practice. It is merely a diversionary tactic by him intended to either bury Mez in the study of irrelevances or give him a pretext for dismissing his argument on the grounds that he is not serious about understanding climate science. It won't work this time though. I think you should have taken a closer look at his argument. You might then have seen that he was quite correct in his observation that studies show the "fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years". Wikipedia states:

The fraction averages about 45%, meaning that approximately half the human-emitted CO2 is absorbed by ocean and land surfaces. There is some evidence for a recent increase in airborne fraction, which would imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO2 for a given rate of human fossil-fuel burning.[2] However, other sources suggest that the "fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

I have always wondered how the IPCC can claim with such undiluted certainty how humans have increased the atmospheric-concentration of CO2 by a hefty 130ppm since industrialization levels since it is accepted that both terrestrial decay and human emissions both have an indistinguishable depleted isotopic C14 signature and thus it is not possible to make a distinction between the two (at least not to my knowledge). Thus the notion that one can even measure the leftover anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (AF) appears illusory to me. It is also impressive how some sceintists claim to know the CO2 absorption-limitations of the sinks and that CO2 is rising because the sinks are oversaturated. This strikes me as amazing too, considering the oceans have around 60-70 times the amount of CO2 compared to that of the atmosphere. I think most skeptics simply accept this though provisionally for argument's sake.

[As AF is only focused on how CO2 accumulates due to sink responses, this obviously implies that CO2 is important for climate change.

Because CO2 accumulates due to sink responses that means it is an important factor in climate change? This is one of the strangest statements I have ever heard.

That's 10 misrepresentations which excellently show your ignorance in less than a handful of pages - indeed, that's probably a higher rate of BSpost^-1 than even Nathan can achieve. Reading through the progression of the posts also illustrates your intellectual dishonesty.

I think you need to lift your standards dramatically Mel and stop talking down to people with such disdain.

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Its guys like you that reinforce how honest and rational our side of the debate is, and deniers as deliberate liars with little interest in reality.

Yeh, so honest your science advocates deletion of the Medieval Warming period data in order to produce an alarmist hockey stick graph.
Whilst on the subject, can you give me an example of a deliberate lie posted here in this thread and what reasons you have to back that statement up please?

Correction: C13. Not C14.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Mez simply said that studies show the "airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased in 160 years" and as far as I can see he never claimed that CO2 was not the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. Indeed, upon looking at his previous posts, he never claimed such a thing.

He did say that. Indeed, that's exactly what the study found, and that's not in any way contentious.

But that isn't all he said. Perhaps go back and read.

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by melatonin

 

Hell's bells nice work.
The Trick was actually deleting a whole bank of data as it contradicted the policy, namely the Medieval Warming period. Alas, it ceased to be Met Office data once the records were edited (deleted) so please stop referring to the data as such.

My parrot does something like that sometimes. He picks up little snippets here and there - 'Wanna drink', 'go and sit down', 'tickle, tickle'. But, then, because he doesn't really understand English, he'll occasionally spout something incoherent like 'tickle drink sit down'.

You need to go back and relearn your denier memes. You've bastardised them into incoherent deniobabble.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

I don't agree the sun be only minimal influential. without it there wouldn't be a climate.
The sun can and will meddle . The sun is only even more stable then the Earth therefor only causing minimal effect

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant. The sun has a minimal effect when compared to CO2. That is a fact.

reply to post by atlasastro


Thanks Atlas...back at you

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

That's just your opinion. Read through my posts again and there are countless facts referenced relevant to the discussion. You are blowing a lot of hot air which is expelled CO2, not good for the environment. Take a break and read my posts and citations again and try not to be obscured by your bigotry.

Which of my "opinions" are you referring to? I try to delineate clearly between my opinions and facts (unlike deniers). It is my OPINION that runaway global warming has begun, and it is my OPINION that the methane being released by the permafrost is going to raise the temperature of the planet by a few degrees within the next 5 years (2 if I had to guess, but I'll be conservative and say 5). That means crop failure on a global scale and weather extremes that are the stuff of nightmares.

Those are my opinions. Everything else I have stated is fact. I am careful not to state something as fact unless I know it to be FACT.

Please tell me what opinion you are referring to.

Furthermore, I pointed out a few statements of yours that are blatantly and demonstrably untrue. If I remember correctly:

1. You said that that the earth is not warming in unison (globally).

That is false. Global temperatures have been rising for the past few decades and continue to rise.

2. You said the correlation between CO2 rise and temperature was not understood (or something to that effect).

That is false.

Please point out exactly what statements I have made that are demonstrably and objectively false such as the above.

Furthermore, please admit that both of the above statements are in fact false and apologize to the forum for interjecting falsehoods into what is supposed to be an intelligent and fact based debate.

ps-I have not responded to some of your longer posts because, frankly, Melatonin pretty much destroyed them with facts.