It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
enough is enough.


Errm, OK.


it's misleading to paint doomsday scenarios without foundation, while constantlay ignoring evidence of warmer climate in the past. it's misleading to use fuzzy graphs of CO2 and heat indicators of past climate to scare people, which, upon closer scrutiny show that temperature is actually leading, therefore the cause, not an effect.


I haven't painted any doomsday scenarios. And the second bit about the lag is just a logical fallacy.


just a simple question without much room for evasion: is it true that surface temperatures have remained stagnant, as the article states, or not?


Only if you pick one particular set of data, then decide that we should focus on everything after 1998, ignore long-term trends and the fact 1998 was a year with a substantial El Nino. Although, he does think El Nino is important for the incorrect satellite data he uses, guess it only applies when Carter wants it to. He's either clueless or dishonest, you decide.

NASA-GISS data.



Hadley data

You basically just want people to parrot a comforting line for you. Sorry, sometimes the data gets in the way.


btw, i'm still waiting for your answers on the increase of ice area on the southern poles and remnants of forests below glaciers in the Alps.


I remember answering the glacier thing, as I said last time, I live near a ex-glacial valley, if we do enter a new ice-age, I expect it to develop a new glacier with a bedding of trees. I don't really see why you think this is something important. Glaciers come and go, climate does change naturally, but that has absolutely no impact on the mechanisms that are driving current climate, anthropogenic and natural.


considering all these points and my experience with you so far, i conclude that a) you'r er.....misleading
on purpose b) you're not citing the real reasons for your engagement in global warming or climate change debate (which i presume to be purely political in nature) and c) you could not care less about climate.


heh, yeah. I'm an environazi who supports nuclear power. The reason I get into these debates are numerous.

If I have misled you, maybe you could point it out.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

just a simple question without much room for evasion: is it true that surface temperatures have remained stagnant, as the article states, or not?


Only if you pick one particular set of data, then decide that we should focus on everything after 1998, ignore long-term trends and the fact 1998 was a year with a substantial El Nino. Although, he does think El Nino is important for the incorrect satellite data he uses, guess it only applies when Carter wants it to. He's either clueless or dishonest, you decide.

NASA-GISS data.



good, so you say the satellite's orbital changes skew data and that 1998's El Nino has to be considered. since the article only mentions it and does not provide any real data, your explanation is plausible. 'stagnant' can mean many things to many people.



You basically just want people to parrot a comforting line for you. Sorry, sometimes the data gets in the way.
...


it's not about a comforting line, it's about inherent goals. i know that merely debating climate is innocous on the face of it, that's not the point. the problem afaics, is that many so called solutions already tend to make things worse. i know that's not your specialty, though.



I remember answering the glacier thing, as I said last time, I live near a ex-glacial valley, if we do enter a new ice-age, I expect it to develop a new glacier with a bedding of trees. I don't really see why you think this is something important. Glaciers come and go, climate does change naturally, but that has absolutely no impact on the mechanisms that are driving current climate, anthropogenic and natural.


yes, fine but don't you think that large, natural variations in the past essentially prove that the biosphere (as long as it remains at least somewhat intact) is perfectly able to sustain higher overall temperatures? i'd like to point out that, under the circumstances (large variations in the past), loss of ice mass alone cannot be construed as clear signs of human intervention.



If I have misled you, maybe you could point it out.



i don't feel mislead in the least, and tbh, i originally intended to use a different word, which i elected to replace before posting.

but since you asked, what if a 56k user finds

www.abovetopsecret.com...

he's unable to d/l the video within a reasonable timeframe, now imagine Loam's last post didn't exist. don't you think that would slightly overvalue an argument, which in its essence, says that you can ban/object to anything as long as the inferred threat is overwhelming enough.



PS: i still don't get how a lagging factor can cause anything in the past, but perhaps it's just me. kind of hard to ascertain with so few regular posters.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
good, so you say the satellite's orbital changes skew data and that 1998's El Nino has to be considered. since the article only mentions it and does not provide any real data, your explanation is plausible. 'stagnant' can mean many things to many people.


The satellite data does need correction for various factors. But, essentially, the data that Carter is referring to is the incorrect and unadjusted MSU data (he also had an article in the Daily Telegraph not long back where this was clear), which has since been corrected.

But the main point with Carter is the blatent cherrypicking. He selects a questionable set of satellite data, then claims accounting for El Nino, there is no significant warming. Then cherrypicks 1998, completely ignoring it was a very significant El Nino year, and claims no warming.

It's a quite disingenuous approach.


it's not about a comforting line, it's about inherent goals. i know that merely debating climate is innocous on the face of it, that's not the point. the problem afaics, is that many so called solutions already tend to make things worse. i know that's not your specialty, though.


Heh, most certainly isn't. I really don't know the best solutions, and I agree with many of the problems that you raise for them. I suppose it's a case of a cost-benefit analysis.


yes, fine but don't you think that large, natural variations in the past essentially prove that the biosphere (as long as it remains at least somewhat intact) is perfectly able to sustain higher overall temperatures? i'd like to point out that, under the circumstances (large variations in the past), loss of ice mass alone cannot be construed as clear signs of human intervention.


I think the biosphere will be fine, it usually recovers in time. I don't buy the doomsday scenarios some want to hold to. All I know is that it will affect our society in numerous ways. Most negative.


i don't feel mislead in the least, and tbh, i originally intended to use a different word, which i elected to replace before posting.

but since you asked, what if a 56k user finds

www.abovetopsecret.com...

he's unable to d/l the video within a reasonable timeframe, now imagine Loam's last post didn't exist. don't you think that would slightly overvalue an argument, which in its essence, says that you can ban/object to anything as long as the inferred threat is overwhelming enough.


I think what I said was fair but probably not detailed enough, the logic is sound given the 4 options the guy raises, all were based on extremes, which he clearly pointed out. The issue loam raises - the cost$ in one column not explicitly pointing out the negative - is fair enough, but when I saw it myself, I accepted that cost$ in one box was equivalent to the other (i.e. both had the economic issue). The major difference to me between the cost analysis for acting was just that in one option it was worth it (i.e. benefit outweighed cost). And in this case, even flagging an extreme economic cost more explicitly, with flags and bells maybe, the benefit still outweighs the cost. Given the four options, there is only one rational choice.

But that's the problem with logic analyses in such a way, it over-simplifies such complex issues. Thus, it is questionable whether economic depression would be an outcome for acting, or that wars an outcome for not acting, it is also important that the uncertainties are not equivalent, it is not a 50/50 issue. I just accepted the options for what they were - an extreme and simplified case, which the video author did point out clearly. Maybe posting at 3am is not my forte, heh.

A comparable logic analysis is Pascal's wager. When the options are assessed as is, the logic is sound, but the uncertainties are not equivalent and the issue is way too simplified. But the logic with the options presented is sound. However, I only pray to the FSM.

But I agree that my response was inadequate and a bit lazy. Sorry.



PS: i still don't get how a lagging factor can cause anything in the past, but perhaps it's just me. kind of hard to ascertain with so few regular posters.


It's not really the case that CO2 causes the warming in the past when it acts as positive feedback, some other variable initiates a temperature increase, which in time results in a release of CO2. There are many similar systems in nature. For example, when in labour a contraction causes the release of oxytocin, which then results in further contractions. So does this mean that oxytocin can't cause contractions?

Contractions cause oxytocin, and oxytocin causes contractions.

Temperature increase evetually causes CO2 release, CO2 release causes temperature increase.

Administering Oxytocin to pregnant mothers causes onset of labour.

Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature.

[edit on 20-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Sorry Melatonin can't resist but I can think of many things all pleasurable that lead to the release of oxytocin...

I am sure you know what I am referring too I am sorry for being off topic ..



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg

I am sure you know what I am referring too I am sorry for being off topic ..


Dont let the genie out of the bottle or that will be on the GW agenda next!



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
Sorry Melatonin can't resist but I can think of many things all pleasurable that lead to the release of oxytocin...

I am sure you know what I am referring too I am sorry for being off topic ..


Suppose some would say that it's also pleasurable to drive around a 4x4 and release CO2, heh.

Hopefully not as pleasurable as the bonding processes that oxytocin is involved in, but people's attachment to emitting makes it a close call



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
16/106 is all one needs to know. Here's a pic of my gas guzzling, CO2 spitting SUV and the stickers attached thereto:

My Nissan

[edit on 6/20/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
And still you keep going around the fact that the warming is caused mainly by water vapor and not CO2...

If your theory was right the experiments which mimicked a doubling of CO2 in the mid U.S. would have shown an increase of more than just "0.014C".

The warming of the surface of the Earth is caused mainly by what happens in the troposphere, and water vapor contributes at least 95% of the warming in the troposphere.

[edit on 20-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The warming of the surface of the Earth is caused mainly by what happens in the troposphere, and water vapor contributes at least 95% of the warming in the troposphere.


No, it really doesn't constitute 95% of the greenhouse effect.

But I'm sure you'll keep spewing such misinformation. If you could find such a number for water vapour in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (apart from E&E), I'll give you a cookie.


For clear skies, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 60% of the total. The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m-2. The results in the column for combined effects were obtained by splitting the overlap effects among the gases. This is approximate but enables us to arrive at representative percent contributions for each absorber. Because there is strong overlap between clouds and water vapor, the radiative forcing of water vapor is significantly different (22 W m-2) between clear and cloudy conditions.

The longwave radiative forcing by other gases is less affected by the presence of clouds, but cloud influence is still important since the total radiative forcing for clear and cloudy conditions differs by 39 W m-2, a value that is as large as the longwave cloud forcing. Thus, clouds have a direct effect on the longwave flux escaping to space due to their absorption and emission, and they have an indirect effect on the flux by shielding absorption and emission by gases (mainly water vapor). Our cloudy radiative forcing calculations are in good agreement with the results of Ramanathan and Coakley (1978), who also provided results for cloudy conditions.

www.atmo.arizona.edu...



[edit on 20-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
HAARP is man made global warming.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Peer Review itself is no guarantee of quality research. Several recent studies have found failures in the peer review process. See Richard Smith's article in the British Medical Journal 1997;315:759-760. Also McNutt R A, Evans A T, Fletcher R H, Fletcher S W. in the Journal of the American Medical Association 1990;263:1371-6. Blind testing of peer reviewers sent articles with deliberate errors in them showed that the reviewers found an average of only two out of eight errors. Authors have been caught cherry picking results to justify their conclusions, using the wrong statistical model to display the results, and even simply making up their results. Then it is no small matter that the editorial boards of these publications are affected by the funding for their own research. Nature and Science for example, just flat refuse to accept any paper against A.G.W.

There are at least dozens of peer-reviewed publications that cast doubt upon anthropogenic global warming, but editorial bias has severely limited where one can "publish or perish". Things are beginning to change in the favor of the A.G.W. skeptics however. Just one old man's opinion.






[edit on 6/20/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Aye, peer-review is far from perfect, however, it is a necessary but not sufficient quality control. A lot of crap makes it through, a lot of good stuff takes time to make it through. Such is life. Good ideas and data will prevail though.

It allows the scientific literature to be more reliable than BS numbers from random websites


Interesting that the only response so far is to cast doubt on the scientific process itself. Suppose we should just take all our original knowledge from random websites instead. I'm sure that will increase quality control, heh.

Sorry, no cookie for you


[edit on 21-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, peer-review is far from perfect, however, it is a necessary but not sufficient quality control. A lot of crap makes it through, a lot of good stuff takes time to make it through. Such is life. Good ideas and data will prevail though.
Sorry, no cookie for you


[edit on 21-6-2007 by melatonin]


What? you don't realize that the 5%/95% water graph above came from a peer-reviewed publication? 16/106.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
You want peer-review? Here's a list our Canadian friends put together:

Peer-reviewed papers which question anthropogenic global warming



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Do any of them have the 95% figure for water vapour?



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It will have to wait until I leave work to find that for you. Patience, I'm a simple environmental chemist working 50 hours a week to earn a living, not an environmental activist with no other work on my plate. I also try to sleep 5-6 hours a night.

Meanwhile, out of respect for the deceased Augie Auer, here's a spot from New Zealand. I'll do Australia tonight and thereby offer input from most of the former colonys today.


The Weatherman








[edit on 6/21/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I'm a simple environmental chemist working 50 hours a week to earn a living, not an environmental activist with no other work on my plate. [/url]


Cheeky



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I am under the impression that we have damaged our planet.

However, we are also in a mini ice age.

The oceans have been much higher than they are now.

Ice ages and "hot" ages happen in cycles.

We are moving back towards a hot age...

We should be treating our planet a LOT better though. Its the only home we have.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Do any of them have the 95% figure for water vapour?


I do believe that the U.S. government does.

Looking back over the thread I see that your 95% question was actually directed at Muaddib. I didn't mean to hijack the exchange with my comment about peer-review. I apologize for that, and I need to give Muaddib his opportunity to respond to you without my interference.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Looking back over the thread I see that your 95% question was actually directed at Muaddib. I didn't mean to hijack the exchange with my comment about peer-review. I apologize for that, and I need to give Muaddib his opportunity to respond to you without my interference.


No worries.

I'll give muaddib a chance to respond first (won't hold my breath though, I have difficulty imagining him trawling through scientific manuscripts attempting to find what is required, it would be a waste of time anyway, as this 95% number is BS) and then I'll post about Khandekar.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by melatonin]







 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join