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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
OK so answer some questions then,

Why are the Martian ice caps melting also? Is that also human caused?

How come long before the Industrial Revolution and the explosion of greenhouse gases, Olives grew in Germany in the Middle Ages?


How come you only point out one 'scientist' that was accused of being a denier and yet ignore the many that are not yet convinced? Remember what the NASA guy said just this last week....




posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
OK so answer some questions then,

Why are the Martian ice caps melting also? Is that also human caused?

How come long before the Industrial Revolution and the explosion of greenhouse gases, Olives grew in Germany in the Middle Ages?


Why would we expect humans to be affecting climate on mars?

It may well be some local effect, such as dust storms.

Maybe it was warm in Germany at that time, this doesn't really tell us much about the current trend in climate.



How come you only point out one 'scientist' that was accused of being a denier and yet ignore the many that are not yet convinced? Remember what the NASA guy said just this last week....


The NASA guy is not a scientist, he's a political appointee.

Maybe you could answer my question now. Why is cosmic rays a good explanation for current warming? I know it sounds good, but is it actually a robust explanation?

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I will try..

If the amount of Solar activity has increased, which we believe it has, then the same pattern of thought that see global temperatures rising on earth is also seeing global temperature rise on Mars.

If that is the case, then by default, the amount that CO2 is causing earthly warming might be a very small portion of the full cause. Since the jury is still out on these ideas, why spend trillions of dollars hitting the industrialized world with more environmental laws that will not affect the warming anyway.

Plus,, one that I have not really considered but have noticed is the claim that warming will actually have positive effects.

In other words, the whole human caused global warming issue is a scare tactic by the same environmentalist that were claiming and ice age is coming.

I remain unconvinced.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I will try..

If the amount of Solar activity has increased, which we believe it has, then the same pattern of thought that see global temperatures rising on earth is also seeing global temperature rise on Mars.


Solar activity has actually been fairly constant for the last several decades. I posted Sami Solanki's data in the 'spot the global warming thread'.

There was a good correlation between temps and solar irradiance, but this has decoupled since about 1980 (as Solanki notes in the quote I posted earlier).


If that is the case, then by default, the amount that CO2 is causing earthly warming might be a very small portion of the full cause. Since the jury is still out on these ideas, why spend trillions of dollars hitting the industrialized world with more environmental laws that will not affect the warming anyway.

Plus,, one that I have not really considered but have noticed is the claim that warming will actually have positive effects.

In other words, the whole human caused global warming issue is a scare tactic by the same environmentalist that were claiming and ice age is coming.


It seems that it is not an insignificant proportion, more probably about 40-50% of current warming. The highest recent attribution of solar warming is about 25-35%, but it's probably much lower than this.

It is quite probable that in some areas the warming may have positive results, I'm sure those in Bangladesh may not be so chuffed though.

Is that all that bothers you, money? At some point, we will have change to alternative energies, fossil fuels won't last for ever anyway. Paying for that now will save later, not in your lifetime maybe, but lets think about this long-term rather than being myopic - I'm sure your kids and your grandkids will thank you. We kill two birds with one stone, we reduce our highly likely significant effects on climate and prepare for a future without fossil fuels.

The global cooling idea in the 70s was not a widely held scientific viewpoint.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Because Bush & his people say so. Right? Couldnt we have the foresight to meet somewhere in the middle?
Although this is a cyclical pattern earth goes through, there is also no doubt that man is helping it along.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Solar activity has actually been fairly constant for the last several decades. I posted Sami Solanki's data in the 'spot the global warming thread'.


Wrong.... Why do you keep giving such "disinformation melatonin"?...

It is in fact known that the Solar output has been increasing for the past 60 years more than for at least 8,000 years, and solar flares have increased in the past 60 years also more than the past 1,000 years.

The sun's output has been increasing 0.015C per decade.

There have been other research which corroborates the fact that the sun's output has increased during the last few decades.



Published: 14:13 EST, September 26, 2006

Ilya Usoskin (Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland) and his colleagues have investigated the solar activity over the past centuries. Their study is to be published this week in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. They compare the amount of Titanium 44 in nineteen meteorites that have fallen to the Earth over the past 240 years. Their work confirms that the solar activity has increased strongly during the 20th century. They also find that the Sun has been particularly active in the past few decades.

www.physorg.com...

I just keep wondering why you keep trying to spread more disinformation...



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Because Bush & his people say so. Right? Couldnt we have the foresight to meet somewhere in the middle?
Although this is a cyclical pattern earth goes through, there is also no doubt that man is helping it along.


DG, you see the phrase that you have in your avatar about "deny ignorance"? Please do follow that advice...

Many of the people and scientists who agree that mankind is not to blame for Climate Change/Global warming are not "Bush' people"...

I don't agree with everything that the administration does, but that is really a red herring on your part.

Let's actually discuss the evidence and the facts instead of making asinine claims please.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Muaddib,

Is it not possible for the earth to be going thru this cycle, as well as planets in our solar system as they have many times, and at the same time the earth's emmissions that we put out contributing to Global Warming? Why not?

Please explain it to me so that i can get the correct information once and for all. Many scientists claim its us, many claim its ^ what i posted above, some claim its something else.

So there are three choices? Which is it and where do you get your information sources?

Just trying to clarify things once and for all because i know you're very savey about this.

Thanks- DG



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
the real issue is not whether we might just influence climate (we surely do), but whether hysterically demonizing a harmless gas like carbon dioxide, complete with centralized, tax based power schemes and well-meant but ecologically devastating measures to 'combat global warming'.


the issue is that our only options have apparently been reduced to either surrender to the hysterical CO2 hating crowd and endorse lots of questionable policies which will, predictably, not just hurt natural forests, agriculture, individual farmers, consumer of energy everywhere (ie everyone) for negative gain (even more damage to ecosystem) OR be slandered as boneheaded, Bush supporting, right wing bigots.

an example:

Ethanol-blend auto emissions no greener than gasoline

from an old post of mine:


Source

In Malaysia, the production of palm oil for biodiesel is a major
industry. According to a recent report by Friends of the Earth,
"Between 1985 and 2000 the development of oil-palm plantations was
responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in
Malaysia." In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest
have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares
are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in
Indonesia...

In the Guardian newspaper George Monibot writes: "Almost all the
remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national
park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The
orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos,
tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other
species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have
been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been
tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so
often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm
growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable
oil field.



is this a price worth paying for a perceived gain in 'climate safety' or whatever you call it? is it not true that a climate change might actually help many people, yet this aspect keeps being ignored for whatever reason. why only doom&gloom?

another: Bush in Brazil, ethanol deal and the destruction of the Amazon forest

i keep posting like a broken record, simple y/n questions are simply ignored and the rest does not fare much better.

so, again: Has the Antarctic ice shield increased in size since 1970

Y/N ?

[edit on 4.6.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin

Solar activity has actually been fairly constant for the last several decades. I posted Sami Solanki's data in the 'spot the global warming thread'.


Wrong.... Why do you keep giving such "disinformation melatonin"?...


Show me where this large increase is, I said fairly constant for several decades, and looking at the data, it has been:



Same figure but nicer to look at:



Stating that the 20th century has seen a large increase in solar irradiance is actually correct, in the early part it increased significantly, but over the last few decades it has been fairly constant. OK, you can quibble over a minor increase in the last 30 years if you like. But the increase is not of the same order as the early 20th.

It hit a peak in around 1940-1950 (at around 1367wm-2) and has been fairly constant for the next 57-67 years. It has certainly not been much higher than 1367wm-2 since then.

And solar irradiance has clearly decoupled from temperature during that period.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Muaddib,

Is it not possible for the earth to be going thru this cycle, as well as planets in our solar system as they have many times, and at the same time the earth's emmissions that we put out contributing to Global Warming? Why not?
................


DG, i have been giving dozens of data, research and graphs and i have shownthe people that i trust, which Mann is not in the list and neither is malatonin/regenmacher.

You see that graph that melatonin put on the irradiance of the sun and he uses trying to claim the sun is not a mayor reason for the current warming?..

Let's actually put in numbers so you can see the difference between the lies and misrepresentation that people like melatonin/regenmacher are trying to spread about this topic.

The total luminous energy output that the Earth gets from the Sun is 174 Petawatts, which equals to 174,000,000,000,000,000 watts, or is equal to 174 billion megawatts.

Now if there is a simple 0.01% increase in the amount of energy we get from the Sun that would equal to 17,400,000,000,000 watts, or 17.4 Trillion watts.

Another fact that melatonin would like for you not to know, is the increase in solar flares also does increase the temperature of Earth, it is not only the total irradiance of the Sun which affects climate on Earth.



And last but not least the fact that water vapor is the most important GHG in heat trapping efficiency and the fact that during warming cycles, the levels of all GHGs do increase naturally which is another fact that melatonin/regenmacher would like for you not to know.

As for what sources do I have to corroborate my statements, DG, you really need to be up to date with the threads. I have been presenting dozens of research several times which corroborate my statements.

BTW, this link will show you some data with some graphs for those who prefer graphs to tell them what is going on, that shows the irradiance of the sun is increasing in other planets to.

Well, that link shows that it has been increasing also in Neptune.



Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.

www.worldclimatereport.com...


[edit on 4-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Here's some graphs that explain many things. Enjoy them. Note the only group of college educated people who believe more in A.G.W. while the two other college educated groups believe in it less.

Please also note that most Americans do not believe in A.G.W. Where is this "consensus" I keep hearing about? Even world polls I have seen do not support A.G.W. as strongly as many would have you believe. I will try to find a current poll limited to scientists to post here later.

I added another link dealing with the "scientific consensus".

Pew Research



National News Canada




[edit on 6/7/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
That was interesting indeed, thanks.

It would seem that it is also a polarizing issue.

I know one thing, the Skeptic's guide to an inconvenient truth sure does make the case that it is not human caused, people decry the site and author, but so far not the science of his data.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Here's a link to a PDF file that summarizes a couple of polls of scientists on global warming. The latest was 2003, which is just too old, and I really want a poll conducted by a truly independent and unimpeachable source. Short of urging Gallup or another well-known and trusted polling organization to do a poll of scientists, this is the best I can come up with for now. My goal is to prove or disprove the widely alleged scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

Global Warming Polls Of Scientists





[edit on 6/8/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Considering it was a web survey which quickly became the target of a climatesceptics mail-list, we can all but ignore the results due to questionable sampling:


the survey (below) is directed to those involved in the natural sciences related to climate change and not, for example, those involved in policy analysis or economic issues.

I suggest that you participate by completing the questionnaire (instructions to participate below).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lähettäjä: CLIMLIST Climatology Distribution List
[mailto:CLIMLIST@…] Puolesta CLIMLIST
Lähetetty: 19. syyskuuta 2003 18:12
Vastaanottaja: CLIMLIST@…
Aihe: Survey of Climate Scientists
CLIMLIST Mailing Number 03-09-24
Origin: “Dr. Dennis Bray”

Due to the nature of the distribution of electronic surveys some recipients of this message might have received the same previously. If that is the case, my apologies. Please do not submit the survey twice, although, once would be much appreciated. The survey is directed to those involved in the natural sciences related to climate change and not, for example, those involved in policy analysis or economic issues. Your discretion in choosing to participate in the survey on this basis would be greatly appreciated, as would your cooperation in making the survey a success. If you know of colleagues not contained on climlist but involved in the climate sciences, it would be appreciated if you could bring this survey to their attention with the suggestion that they too might like to participate by completing the questionnaire. Simply forwarding this message is likely the most convenient method.

… If you do choose to participate, the survey can be reached by opening your web browser and going to the following link:

w3g.gkss.de...

When the page opens click the link to “survey of climate scientists” Here you will be asked for a username and password.

For username enter “respondent” (without quotation marks)

For password enter “ccsurvey” (again without the quotation marks).

The survey is password protected as an effort to limit the respondents to those involved in the climate sciences. There is also the option to print the survey from a PDF file and submit though regular postal services. Electronic submissions do not transmit your email address and consequently anonymity is ensured. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Considering it was a web survey which quickly became the target of a climatesceptics mail-list, we can all but ignore the results due to questionable sampling:


That's why I want a universally recognized and trusted firm to conduct a new poll of climate scientists. I contacted the Gallup organization about this possibility today, but haven't heard back from them yet. Naturally, as an independent business, whether they choose to conduct such a poll is their decision. I can only make the suggestion. Perhaps if they heard from a few other people, it might help. I want absolute proof of this scientific consensus that I do not believe exists. If a Gallup poll of climate scientists says that I am wrong, I will accept their findings. Will you?



[edit on 6/8/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I want absolute proof of this scientific consensus that I do not believe exists. If a Gallup poll of climate scientists says that I am wrong, I will accept their findings. Will you?


It would depend really.

For one, I don't think polls are ever perfect or even the optimal way to assess this issue. Even the web survey has issues apart from the sampling problem. I use and create the odd questionnaire for my own research, and I can see issues with ambiguous questions in the Von Storch survey.

For example, 'do you agree or disgree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes' could be interpreted as meaning all climate change (i.e. in the past)- all it needs is a 'current' in the right place - and I'm not sure myself whether current warming is 'mostly' due to human effects, just that a significant amount is. If I was asked this question I might just say 'disagree'. It's important to make the questions clear. Secondly, it would also depend who the sample was. IMO, it should be focused on those producing research (i.e. doing the science), but that is the way I would do it and I'm sure it would remove a lot of the septic talking heads, heh.

Finally, it would depend what you determine as scientific consensus. What do you think it means? 100% of scientists? 70%? 60%? 51%? I would also say there are differences between scientific opinion and the opinion of scientists. One is based on literature and science, the other on subjective opinion of whoever you ask, which is why your Oregon Petition is meaningless, and why I don't think polls are the way to assess this.

The best assessment of the scientific consensus so far is Oreskes study, and that is pretty clear. We can ignore Pieser's attempt to replicate, as in essence, he fluffed the study completely. The IPCC also expresses scientific opinion (i.e. what the consensus of the science is).

But I suppose people want to know the opinion of scientists, and that will tell us something - their subjective opinion. But I think if the right people (those producing climate science) are asked, it could tell us something of worth.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I would say 90% agreement or more would be a consensus in my mind. Polls certainly have their flaws, but I can't think of anything better. There are too many ways to twist the truth with opinions and comments. Merely saying "there is a scientific consensus" does not make it so, and I require proof before I accept it as fact. Again, if Gallup conducts a scientific poll of climate scientists (with their usual +/- 3 points accuracy deviation) that shows even 85% agree that man made CO2 is the greatest cause of global warming, I will accept that result and confess the error of my ways. I will publish my admission in the Sunday Oklahoman newspaper and the Sunday London Times (or whatever paper you designate) with my real world signature attached. Hows that for believing in my position on the subject? This is how convinced I am that the often published and referred to "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic global warming is a fairytale. I wonder if that alarmist AGW bet maker .... Annan? wants of piece of this action? How I doubt it.









[edit on 6/9/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 9 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Again, if Gallup conducts a scientific poll of climate scientists (with their usual +/- 3 points accuracy deviation) that shows even 85% agree that man made CO2 is the greatest cause of global warming


But, again, I wouldn't think that is the right question to ask. Even the IPCC only suggest about 40-50% (IIRC) of warming can be attributed to CO2, so therefore if we use this metric (i.e. greatest cause), the answer could be to disagree. Someone like Pielke Sr still suggests CO2's effect is maybe 26%, which I think is significant enough but certainly not the greatest if we take Scafetta & West at their extreme (35% solar). And you also need to highlight this question pertains to the current warming trend.

The best question IMHO would be along the lines of:

"Human activity is having a significant effect on the current trend in climate change'

Strongly Agree/Disagree/Not sure/Disagree/Strongly Disagree.

Or if you want to turn the question round:

Human activity is having an insignificant effect on blah blah'

Either would work well. If you felt CO2 should be substituted for Human activity, that would work as well, but that ignores other important human activity.

However, I still think if you want to see the consensus, it is obvious in the scientific literature, and Oreskes shows this to some extent.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
PDF file of the actual measured CO2 from 1800

Figured I slap that one here also, maybe our "believer" can tell us how those measured CO2 values are not true and we should trust the CO2 estimates from the icecore data.





Image for those who just want a picture of the chart with the measured CO2 from the above document.

[edit on 10/6/07 by Gonjo]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join