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.

 

The War of Data, And Why I Am Lukewarm About Global Warming

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, I have exposed discrepancies and measurements complexity. So what? If AGW is truly a good theory, it should withstand all these arguments with no trouble.

Now. Please forward any further personal attacks via U2U, I'd like to keep this thread clean.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, I have exposed discrepancies and measurements complexity. So what? If AGW is truly a good theory, it should withstand all these arguments with no trouble.


It does, I'm not even a scientist and I debunked them rather easily.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's because you either don't know or ignore the scientific method.


Sorry sweetie, but that would imply that you also must follow this scientific method: which is to account for discrepancies. You seem to forget about the record-breaking colds in Siberia, India, Canada and United States, some of those breaking records from decades ago (between 20 and 70 years, depending on the states and countries.

No one is arguing that there is climate change, and CO2 is way too high in the atmosphere. What some of us argue (in vain, apparently), is how this CO2 layer actually affects the Earth. And everyone should worry alot more if the answer reveals to be global cooling rather than global warming. And we should all worry right now before it becomes too late. Because NO plants survives in cold, unlike hot weathers. No plants means no food for us.
I think when faced with a second threatening possibility, it is only logical to also explore that possibility, instead of immediately labelling it as "layman's stupid theory".

You are not at all acting scientifically there, sweetie. You want scientists looking if AGW if right or not? Here's the lists:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...

cfact.org...

ricochet.com...

www.businessinsider.com...-giaever-5

www.businessinsider.com...-happer-6

www.telegraph.co.uk...

patriotpost.us...

townhall.com...

rightwingnews.com...

www.friendsofscience.org...

Need I go further? That was only two pages of results. As much there is data for AGW, there is as much data against AGW, and once that happens, you can't say AGW is the final (or "probably final", in your own words) theory. One must scientifically account for the discrepancies. Discrepancies exposed by scientists, since you want proof by scientists, because you think "layman" aren't smart enough.

But wait, I forgot... You are going to say that all those scientists are wrong, right? They are all layman.

Your problem. Some of us will actually use our brain to try and analyze the discrepancies instead of being spoon-fed with one possibility, when many exists.

edit on 30-7-2015 by Yavanna because: adding more links



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep believing that, Krazyshot.


edit on 31-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Why do people keep attributing the word "final" to me in this thread? I've NEVER used the word "final" in conjunction with AGW or climate change. Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't even say "probably final". In FACT these are my exact words I used when the word "final" was brought up to me.


Final truth? Where did I ever call AGW final anything?


So now, on to your evidence.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalresearch.ca...
cfact.org...
ricochet.com...


Lists of scientists that are opposed to global warming? Is this supposed to impress me? For one it's an appeal to authority fallacy AND a bandwagon appeal fallacy, and for two, it's not even evidence AGAINST global warming. It's just proof that there are scientists that exist that don't believe global warming. So? There are scientists that exist that don't believe the earth is billions of years old. That doesn't mean they are right.

Damn I had to delete some of your links because I got tired of reading the same "non-evidence" against global warming over and over again.


www.telegraph.co.uk...


This is an opinion piece from a newspaper journalist and NOT a scientist. He is using graphs that he hasn't sourced where he got the data from. Why is HE speaking for Remote Sensing Systems anyways? Why not let RSS do it for them?
Climate Analysis - WARNING very sciency. I hope you can take actual science and not a newspaper article to disseminate your information for you.


patriotpost.us...


Oh boy! A right wing propaganda site, I'm sure THAT'S not going to be overly biased and not present strawmans about global warming.

Oh, it's apparently using science from 2007 as most recent data, so the article is out of date. Off to a great start here. Then the article proceeds to quote bomb a bunch of scientific papers and take opinions said in them out of context to make it appear the papers are saying things they aren't (yes, I'm clicking on the links in that article).


townhall.com...


A list of misrepresented stats about global warming. Nothing to see here.



rightwingnews.com...


A right wing blog. Nothing to see here.


www.friendsofscience.org...


A bunch of unsourced claims about climate science, many of which misrepresent the myth they are trying to debunk.

And that's it. You really didn't present ANY evidence against global warming. Though it's nice that you tried. That was fun, debunking all that. Though you made it easy by allowing me to discard like half your links because they all said the same thing.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Well I didn't see you address any of the refutations I made, so until you do, they are debunked in my book. You were all hot about ME looking at all YOUR evidence, but then don't address anything I said when I do.

Instead you hit me with some strawman that I never said then move the goal posts on me when I prove you wrong.
edit on 31-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do people keep attributing the word "final" to me in this thread? I've NEVER used the word "final" in conjunction with AGW or climate change. Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't even say "probably final".


Not saying "final" doesn't mean you aren't implying it. You refute the possibility that the CO2 layer creates global cooling; you refute the data exposing that there was no temperature rising since 20 years, despite the CO2 climbing; you refute the possibility that the Earth might just also be entering its warm cycle; all you acknowledge is AGW.

It doesn't take a genius to deduce that even though you don't use the word "final", you are pretty much implying that the only theory available is AGW.


Lists of scientists that are opposed to global warming? Is this supposed to impress me? For one it's an appeal to authority fallacy AND a bandwagon appeal fallacy, and for two, it's not even evidence AGAINST global warming. It's just proof that there are scientists that exist that don't believe global warming. So? There are scientists that exist that don't believe the earth is billions of years old. That doesn't mean they are right.


You must have been one of these people, in the 16th century, that labelled Galileo of heretic for standing up to the "scientific consensus" that the sun and the sky wasn't moving around the Earth, but the opposite. Scientific consensus means nothing if the data doesn't match the "consensus" to a 100%.


Climate Analysis - WARNING very sciency. I hope you can take actual science and not a newspaper article to disseminate your information for you.


Thanks! Here are graphs from that paper (everything in yellow are the computer models, and the black line is the actual recorded temperature):






That is from your own link, from a scientific paper. As you can see, the temperature is, in some graphs, either falling, or stabilized. The few warmings are followed by cooler temperature.
And you can most of all see the discrepancies between the computer model and the reality.

We have a right to examine these discrepancies.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna
Not saying "final" doesn't mean you aren't implying it. You refute the possibility that the CO2 layer creates global cooling; you refute the data exposing that there was no temperature rising since 20 years, despite the CO2 climbing; you refute the possibility that the Earth might just also be entering its warm cycle; all you acknowledge is AGW.

It doesn't take a genius to deduce that even though you don't use the word "final", you are pretty much implying that the only theory available is AGW.


So now you are declaring that you can put words in my mouth huh? By the way it IS the only theory available, but that still doesn't make it final. As for your data "exposing" things, I refuted each of your points individually and I didn't see a single bit about global cooling. I saw a lot of right wing hit pieces though that misrepresented the science.


You must have been one of these people, in the 16th century, that labelled Galileo of heretic for standing up to the "scientific consensus" that the sun and the sky wasn't moving around the Earth, but the opposite. Scientific consensus means nothing if the data doesn't match the "consensus" to a 100%.


Lol. What does any of this have to do with you posting an appeal to authority fallacy? Pointing out that Galileo is an example of a scientist who disagreed with mainstream accounts doesn't automatically make Galileo correct. What matters is his evidence, which was sound.


Thanks! Here are graphs from that paper (everything in yellow are the computer models, and the black line is the actual recorded temperature):






I have never said that the models are 100% accurate. In fact, the OP and I discussed this earlier in the thread. Scientists acknowledge that the models aren't perfect and they need more data so they can figure out other variables that go into the climate change, but as you can see from those graphs, they aren't TOO far off from their predictions.


That is from your own link, from a scientific paper. As you can see, the temperature is, in some graphs, either falling, or stabilized. The few warmings are followed by cooler temperature.
And you can most of all see the discrepancies between the computer model and the reality.


Now you are comparing weather to climate. I suggest you learn the difference before continuing this discussion.


We have a right to examine these discrepancies.


Um... Ok? Not sure why this was even needed to be said. Though if you want to examine any discrepancies, then DO it. Talking about people who disbelieve in climate science is just a distraction. Go sit down with some peer reviewed papers and comb through the data to see if scientists are lying to you. Don't post stupid right wing blogs and news sites that pretend to do it for you. You aren't proving or disproving anything there. Just presenting strawmans.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's because you either don't know or ignore the scientific method.


Sorry sweetie, but that would imply that you also must follow this scientific method: which is to account for discrepancies. You seem to forget about the record-breaking colds in Siberia, India, Canada and United States, some of those breaking records from decades ago (between 20 and 70 years, depending on the states and countries.

No one is arguing that there is climate change, and CO2 is way too high in the atmosphere. What some of us argue (in vain, apparently), is how this CO2 layer actually affects the Earth.


And everyone should worry alot more if the answer reveals to be global cooling rather than global warming. And we should all worry right now before it becomes too late. Because NO plants survives in cold, unlike hot weathers. No plants means no food for us.
I think when faced with a second threatening possibility, it is only logical to also explore that possibility, instead of immediately labelling it as "layman's stupid theory".



So let's start with minimum scientific feasibility. You're in 1st year graduate physical oceanography.

Your have to give your presentation for your class project. Your professor asks, make sure to cover these key topics:

a) what do you propose as the physical mechanism behind CO2 making the Earth cold?
b) what observational data supports this theory?
c) How do you explain the current laboratory measurments and in-situ measurements of greenhouse effect?
d) how do you explain how this new effect was not seen before in the previous experimental and observational literature?

Alright, let's start. You go ahead.
edit on 31-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna
You must have been one of these people, in the 16th century, that labelled Galileo of heretic for standing up to the "scientific consensus" that the sun and the sky wasn't moving around the Earth, but the opposite.


This is historical misinformation.

Firstly, anybody who could remotely be called a 'scientist' at that time, agreed with Galileo after looking at Galileo's evidence.

It was a Church court which convicted Galileo, because he was criticizing and mocking the Church (criticism much deserved), not only for astronomical reasons. It was a political conviction.



Scientific consensus means nothing if the data doesn't match the "consensus" to a 100%.


This is completely false. Nobody would apply it in any other circumstance. It's like saying "oh science doesn't completely understand all the details of atherosclerosis at a biological level, see look at these discrepancies" (which can be true), and then using that to argue that some crack pot theory about bad humors and leech-bleeding is every bit as valid as the scientific consensus which must be wrong because it's not 100%, and hence replaced with a black hole of total ignorance.

Or as the phrase goes "fear, uncertainty and doubt". Not any actual science in favor of anything else that's consistent, but emotional FUD.

Doesn't work this way. How it does work is: What explanation BEST fits the data and theory as we know it? How strong and diverse are the links in favor of that explanation? How strong is the evidence in favor of other explanations?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

what do you propose as the physical mechanism behind CO2 making the Earth cold?
b) what observational data supports this theory?
c) How do you explain the current laboratory measurments and in-situ measurements of greenhouse effect?
d) how do you explain how this new effect was not seen before in the previous experimental and observational literature
It's not something I've investigated myself but apparently one of the proposed mechanisms for climate cooling from increased CO2 is that because CO2 only absorbs a limited amount of radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum (in the 15 micron-band) its temperature is consequently limited at 193K according to Planck's/Wein's law. Since the surface temperature of the planet is 288K atmospheric CO2 radiating at 193K would then not be able to increase the temperature of the surface and would instead have a cooling effect. Not saying it's true, just one of the mechanisms I've seen been put forward. I think one of these such papers is 'Carbon Dioxide 15um Band Cooling Rates in the Upper Middle Atmosphere' and there are some others referenced over at the HockeyShtick blog. Again, not saying it's true, just throwing it out there for discussion. Oh, and it was recently discussed in the comments-section of WattsUpWithThat in the article 'The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide'.
edit on 31-7-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yavanna

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do people keep attributing the word "final" to me in this thread? I've NEVER used the word "final" in conjunction with AGW or climate change. Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't even say "probably final".


Not saying "final" doesn't mean you aren't implying it. You refute the possibility that the CO2 layer creates global cooling;


I do. How does CO2 create global cooling?


you refute the data exposing that there was no temperature rising since 20 years, despite the CO2 climbing;


I refute that data by saying that that's not the truth.

The temperature has been rising for 20 years, particularly in the ocean.

www.nodc.noaa.gov...


you refute the possibility that the Earth might just also be entering its warm cycle;


What cycle are you talking about? What is 'its warm cycle'? How does it happen?

What is the mechanism of the warm cycle causing the Earth to get warmer? What observational evidence is there for this cycle? What observational evidence would distinguish this cycle from other physical effects?

And if this were the case, how would the greenhouse effect not be added on top of this cycle?


all you acknowledge is AGW.
It doesn't take a genius to deduce that even though you don't use the word "final", you are pretty much implying that the only theory available is AGW.


There are plenty of theories available.

Which theories are physically predictive and have confirming observational evidence?

In Einstein I trust. Everybody else, bring data.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

what do you propose as the physical mechanism behind CO2 making the Earth cold?
b) what observational data supports this theory?
c) How do you explain the current laboratory measurments and in-situ measurements of greenhouse effect?
d) how do you explain how this new effect was not seen before in the previous experimental and observational literature
It's not something I've investigated myself but apparently one of the proposed mechanisms for climate cooling from increased CO2 is that because CO2 only absorbs a limited amount of radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum (in the 15 micron-band) its temperature is consequently limited at 193K according to Planck's/Wein's law.


Firstly, CO2 isn't re-radiating as a blackbody necessarily. Secondly, how does that lead to global cooling?

You have more re-radiation back to Earth, which would otherwise escape to space.

Do you think that water vapor is also not a greenhouse gas?

Why would the proposed explanation apply to CO2 but not water vapor?

How would you explain the existing temperature of the Earth even pre-industrially if CO2 were not a greenhouse gas? (Quantitative numbers matter).

You do understand that increased stratospheric cooling is in fact expected from greenhouse effect and is observed, and cooling in the stratosphere is accompanied by global warming over the surface.

www.xplora.org...


www.realclimate.org...

edit on 31-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Wow, well said.


I didn't knew the exact temperature, only that the effect of a dark layer between the sun's radiation and the surface of the Earth would thus prevent heat from reaching the surface, and thus, cool the planet.

Just like a volcano, when it explodes and the ash and smoke rise to the atmosphere, block the sun, and by consequence, cool down the surroundings.

Thanks for putting it out there!



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Firstly, CO2 isn't re-radiating as a blackbody necessarily.
Of course CO2 can't radiate as a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs all radiation.


Secondly, how does that lead to global cooling?
By my understanding, because CO2 is said to have a maximum radiating temperature of 193K and because 193K is cooler than 288K it would therefore have a cooling effect on the surface. Something that is colder than something else can obviously not heat it up. You know, like pouring cold water in a warm bath tub won't heat it up.


Do you think that water vapor is also not a greenhouse gas?
I have no idea why you would think I would think water vapour is not a greenhouse gas.


Why would the proposed explanation apply to CO2 but not water vapor?
Probably because water vapour absorbs radiation over a much wider spectrum and has a higher emissivity than CO2 and so would radiate at a higher temperature. Not sure. Maybe you should ask the authors of the paper. Like I said, I was just throwing it out there for discussion and have not really investigated it thoroughly.


How would you explain the existing temperature of the Earth even pre-industrially if CO2 were not a greenhouse gas? (Quantitative numbers matter).
If CO2 were not causing warming what would the temperature of the planet be? Well according to the HITRAN radiative transfer model codes the total radiative forcing from the entire CO2 greenhouse amoumts to 32W/sq.m which equates to about 8C above its effective temperature of 255K. So the planet would be 8C cooler than it is now, assuming HITRAN is correct. I accept the results from HITRAN for argument's sake (as others such as Lindzen do) and so I agree the Earth would be cooler without CO2. Understand that I am only proposing the idea above because you were interested in knowing how CO2 might cause cooling. I am not an advocate of the idea. If you want to know more about the idea, you could try reading the article or paper I suggested rather than interrogating me for all the answers.


You do understand that increased stratospheric cooling is in fact expected from greenhouse effect and is observed, and cooling in the stratosphere is accompanied by global warming over the surface.
I am aware of this. But the argument is that if CO2 can only radiate at a temperature of 193K then it cannot heat the surface which is 288K. That's the basic idea as I understand.
edit on 31-7-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I am drawing something up so you can better see, since obviously talking doesn't work, but here's a good start:



LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.

TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.

KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.

Krakatau sunset

In London, the Krakatau sunsets were clearly distinct from the familiar red sunsets seen through the smoke-laden atmosphere of the city. This is demonstrated in the painting shown here of a sunset from the banks of the Thames River, created by artist William Ascroft on November 26, 1883.

The vivid red sky in Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream"

The vivid red sky in Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream" was inspired by the vibrant twilights in Norway, his native land.


For a more thorough description of the 1883 eruption, see Krakatau.

PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.


www.geology.sdsu.edu...


Now replace the ash and haze by CO2 and polluants. Works the same way. Heavy particles blocking the sun's radiation.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Have you even given considerations to my last reply to you??



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Perhaps he has better things to do on a Saturday.

What you are presenting is NOT backed by science. It is almost like you have a script and like to use technical terms in hopes to convince the layperson, someone not well studied in science, that you have a valid point when you are just presenting pseudo-science and then asking rhetorical and impossible questions and pretending like no answer = AGW theory is bogus. At least that is my take on your posts in this thread.

After reading through this thread, I think you can use some science courses to better understand the subject.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Perhaps he has better things to do on a Saturday.


Strange, he had time to talk to me... three times. And to another member.

Maybe he just didn't had a proper argument against swanne's post...


What you are presenting is NOT backed by science. It is almost like you have a script and like to use technical terms in hopes to convince the layperson, someone not well studied in science, that you have a valid point when you are just presenting pseudo-science and then asking rhetorical and impossible questions and pretending like no answer = AGW theory is bogus.


How is what he said "pseudo-science"?!

The radiation being reflected off the atmosphere toward the satellites, and the variables, its all based on science and logic.

The CO2 effect we both discuss is observed when volcanoes erupts: the ash, CO2, and haze layer that forms blocks the Sun's rays, and the local temperature drop down. That effect on Earth is observed on a hot sunny day, when a cloud pass in front of the Sun, and the temperature cool slightly down.

Now all we do, swanne, I, and other members on this thread, is suggest that the same thing happen when the CO2, water vapor, and polluants layer thicken and densify: acting just like a cloud passing in front of the Sun, or the ashes from an erupted volcanoes blocking the Sun. It blocks the Sun's radiation, and cool down the atmosphere.

A): How is that pseudo-science mumble-jumble?
B): how hard is that to understand?
C): If it is hard for you guys to understand, you're the ones in need of a science class. Because apparently, you're not even smart enough to understand the concept of "opaque layer of particles blocking the sun's radiation = cooled temperature"

You don't get it, do you? We are not arguing AGW might be a possibility. As all your links shows, there are data out there that show a rising in temperature. And most of all, everyone agree that the CO2 level has drastically rised.

However, if you would have taken the time to look up all the graphs we provided, the OP, I, and other members, there are other datas out there such as:

A): Raw Temperatures Records fiddled with, with altered temperature rising up to 5 degrees more than the actual raw temperatures recorded.
B): Data, collected by scientists themselves, that the ocean levels hasn't rised over the last 20 years, unlike what we've been told; despite the rise in CO2 levels.
C): Scientists, all over the world, collected data that in some part of the world, the temperatures indeed rose, but only 20% of what the computer models predicted, resulting in a negligible warming.
D): Scientists, all over the world, collected data that on most of the Earth, there has been no rising or cooling temperatures since 20 years; despite the CO2 level rising.
E): Scientists, all over the world, collected data that showed on the contrary, a slight cooling trend, with thr rising of CO2 level.
F): It has been observed since the dawn of time, that eruption of volcanoes result in a cooling local temperature, explained by the layer of ash, haze, and CO2 blocking the sun's radiation to the Earth's surface. The same effect applies to the growing CO2 layer in our atmosphere, with the likely effect of creating a giant, global, haze across the atmosphere, blocking the sun's radiation to the Earth, with the very possible outcome of global cooling.
G): There is record-breaking colds in the last few years.

Datas exists out there, from scientists in both sides, about both possibilities. Data also exists about the sun's 11-year cycle (google it up, if you don't know what it is), about the Earth's own cyclic warming and cooling history (google it up, if you don't know what it is), all of which can also be possibilities as to what we're going through. And each one of them can be a lie. Including AGW. If you refute data collected by genuine and respected scientists as a lie, you can't go saying AGW is thus not also a lie. It has as much potential to be a lie than global cooling or any other theories out there.

Our point, one which you guys don't seem to get, is that there is other possibilities out there, all scientifically proven, all scientifically observed, than purely AGW.

So why are we always exposed to AGW when these other possibilities exists and are researched by highly respected scientists?

And the answer "They are all wrong", or "You're just a stupid layman" won't get you anywhere.

If that is your only answer after reading this, then fine, I give up, you "win". This is my last reply to all of you, because clearly, even if I argue further, it still won't get through.

The OP only tried showing that out there exists data that contradicts AGW. Data showing raw temperature being fiddled with, data showing no rise in ocean level, data showing stable temperature, data showing cooling temperature. All from scientists.
The only message the OP tried to say was: there is more to climate change than AGW, so lets explore also those other data. And you guys made it as a personal attack, and then went on calling everyone else who objected as stupid, 100% wrong, pseudo-science, and "purely layman theory". And if you didn't wrote those exact words, you heavily implied it.

This is a scientific method: all possibilities must be explored in equal intensity until the data irrevocably match only one theory. Up to now, no one from you guys followed the scientific method. None of you want to acknowledge there are other theories, and despite data contradicting AGW, you still blindly refute them in favour of AGW, even though its flawed.

And frankly, your intelligence level is an insult if you don't even understand the two simple concept of "thick opaque layer = no radiation passing through", and that the Earth and Sun have a cycle of warming and cooling. Both are 101 geology and basic physics concept that you learn in highschool. So you guys not understand those concept is really mind-boggling to me from three people who claim to be smart.

That you prefer the theory of AGW over the others, fine by me. I have nothing against that. If everyone covers all possibilities, each their own, then we have a greater chance at solving the problem in the future. However, don't go around calling everyone else of idiots and waving a flag written "layman" when they suggest other possibilities.

a reply to: mbkennel

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reply above is also for you, as you all basically said the exact same thing to me and the OP than jrod. I didn't wanted to waste time to write three separate posts, when the message is the same for all three of you.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Care to provide links that back up your alphabet list of claims?

Also CO2 does not form clouds or haze like water vapor or sulfur ash like we would see from a volcano.


edit on 1-8-2015 by jrod because: lost n space




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join