Originally posted by melatonin


1. Why would I want to dispute it? It is a fact that there is global warming.

.....dispute =the disagreement or argument about some topic..... Are you not making arguments about the Global Warming topic?....

Originally posted by melatonin
2. I don't link to realclimate that often at all. I tend to bring forth as much primary literature as possible.

Lol...you live and dwell in these forums just to claim "Mann's data was right and it is corroborated"... Despite the fact to the contrary...

Originally posted by melatonin
I discarded the chaff.

No, you want to a=constantly agree with people like Mann and want to discredit people like Dr. Akasofu, who has more credence and "he has not provided rigged/flawed data" to corroborate any of his claims.

Mann was the biggest mistake that the IPCC did when they believed him and did not corroborate his data but accepted it at face value...

Now there is another agenda to give some credence back to Mann by "extrapolating" several of Mann's graphs with Jone's graphs and colleages. Yet when those graphs are separated you can see a different picture of what is claimed by you and people like Mann.



[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
.....dispute =the disagreement or argument about some topic..... Are you not making arguments about teh Global Warming topic?....

OK, interesting way with words. I guess occassional unclear language is not only my failing.

Lol...you live and dwell in these forums just to claim "Mann's data was right and it is corroborated"... Despite the fact to the contrary...

No, Mann's data did have a few minor issues, but it has been broadly supported by both NAS and NRC reviews; and subsequent data is, again, broadly consistent with MBH98.

Akasofu discredited himself by his words in Durkin's documentary.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

1. When Roble & Dickenson (1989) made a prediction from AGW theory that the middle atmosphere would cool, was this a scientific prediction?

No.

2. What did you find compelling about the one scientific article you posted?

I posted ELEVEN links. If you find no science in them, then you may not belong in this discussion.

3. Did you know that when water vapour and clouds are removed from the NASA GISS model that 34% of the absorption of longwave radiation remains? If you don't like this, as it is from realclimate, we could use Ramanathan & Coakley's (1978) figures that show removing CO2 shows a 12% reduction in the greenhouse effect (within the 9-26% attribution suggested by the GISS model), and H20 removal shows a 36% reduction. The CO2 figure seems a bit higher than you propose ('only 5% of the thing to begin with' - whatever the thing is meant to be).

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]

I previously mentioned that I do not agree with the mechanism offered in their paper and even they caution that it may be a flawed theory. That is my OPINION. This claim is pure Gristmill/Real Climate regurgitation. I did see one of the genius writers at a believer G.W. response site say that CO2 makes up 3.3% of the air, which is 100X higher than reality. How can you trust writers who are off by two orders of magnitude? Not very convincing to me. I suggest finding a better source of anti-global warming skeptic propaganda.

I thought I had made it clear last night that I am not interested in taking your quiz or quizzes. (your #1) Any real questions I will try to answer and give my opinion. Your loaded questions are not welcome. This thread is about a lecture conducted by Dr. Art Robinson that I posted. If you don't wish tp comment on my original posting, then please, by all means, go start your own thread.

You're doing that thing where you post links and don't explain again.

Johnmike:

It's merely for reading enjoyment. I have no point to make with this link. Sorry.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, interesting way with words. I guess occassional unclear language is not only my failing.

I am not here to teach you or anyone else the meaning of words, but we have been disputing, or aguing the topic of Global warming.. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, then pick up a dictionary.

Originally posted by melatonin

No, Mann's data did have a few minor issues, but it has been broadly supported by both NAS and NRC reviews; and subsequent data is, again, broadly consistent with MBH98.

Akasofu discredited himself by his words in Durkin's documentary.

Akasofu did not discredit himself in the least, he has far more knowledge and understanding of the Climate than you and your friend Mann.

The people that keep trying to defend Mann are the ones who keep discrediting themselves.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by melatonin

1. When Roble & Dickenson (1989) made a prediction from AGW theory that the middle atmosphere would cool, was this a scientific prediction?

No.

Why?

This was a prediction based on the effect of human activity on the atmosphere, using the basic physico-chemical properties of atmospheric constituents, it made a clear prediction that has been found to be correct.

This is what science is made of, Hypothesis and theory - testable, falsifiable predictions. We could well have found these areas to not be cooling. But they are. This is a verified prediction of AGW theory, and is therefore evidence that you claim does not exist.

I posted ELEVEN links. If you find no science in them, then you may not belong in this discussion.

As a scientist you would know that links to opinion are not really what science is made of. You said you would present scientific articles, but was wary of our ability to understand such complicated matters, yet we do have one for close analysis. So, I am focusing on that.

What did you find compelling about it? You must have at least read the thing, no?

I'm sure you can explain it at a level I could understand.

I previously mentioned that I do not agree with the mechanism offered in their paper and even they caution that it may be a flawed theory. That is my OPINION. This claim is pure Gristmill/Real Climate regurgitation. I did see one of the genius writers at a believer G.W. response site say that CO2 makes up 3.3% of the air, which is 100X higher than reality. How can you trust writers who are off by two orders of magnitude? Not very convincing to me. I suggest finding a better source of anti-global warming skeptic propaganda.

Whose paper? I have two sources for the fact CO2 has a greater effect on the longwave absorption than you have suggested. One is completely unrelated to realclimate, and was published years before even the internet.

As for your opinion, doesn't count for much, just another contrarian opinion, if you and the rest would actually do some real science, we might get somewhere.

I thought I had made it clear last night that I am not interested in taking your quiz or quizzes. (your #1) Any real questions I will try to answer and give my opinion. Your loaded questions are not welcome. This thread is about a lecture conducted by Dr. Art Robinson that I posted. If you don't wish tp comment on my original posting, then please, by all means, go start your own thread.

My questions are about science, they are real questions. You have made claims I would like to test the robustness of.

This thread is labelled 'no evidence global warming is man-made', I am trying to present you evidence. I am also challenging claims you have made, and the science you have presented.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
A tax isn't, changing our behaviour could have some effect.

As homo economicus, affecting our financial state can readily change behaviour. If these behaviours are related to those that the evidence suggests are contributing to current climate change, then a carbon tax is obviously one way to have an indirect effect on climate.

I respectfully disagree. Confiscatory and punitive taxes on gasoline have not helped to reduce its usage, it's consumption increases every year.

It doesn't work on a commodity that is at least fractionally discretionary...how will it work on non-discretionary energy consumption such as heating and lighting your home? I agree some people will be incented to erect solar panels, wind turbines, geo-thermal systems, etc. but the energy they do not use will still be used by someone else...there will be no net savings..It's the nature of the beast.


Other examples of a punitive tax failure:
Taxes on cigarettes (which in some states amount to 70% of the total cost, have not reduced their consumption either.

It's been shown again and again, build a new car that gets twice the mileage efficiency as the old one and the car will be driven twice as far or twice as often.


The only workable, readily available answers, if you believe human use of carbon based fuels is the problem, is many, many fewer people, or large scale use of nuclear energy. Other exotic energy alternatives are hundreds of years away.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I respectfully disagree. Confiscatory and punitive taxes on gasoline have not helped to reduce its usage, it's consumption increases every year.

Other examples of a punitive tax failure:
Taxes on cigarettes (which in some states amount to 70% of the total cost, have not reduced their consumption either.

I actually agree, it works for some and not others. I think the duty on tobacco has helped some give up, but not more determined people....like myself, heh.

I really just posted the theoretical point of view. In theory, homo economicus will change behaviour in a rational way to changes in economics.

But real-world behaviour is a tad different.

The only workable, readily available answers, if you believe human use of carbon based fuels is the problem, is many, many fewer people, or large scale use of nuclear energy. Other exotic energy alternatives are hundreds of years away.

Again, I do agree. Attempting to alter individual behaviour by taxes will have some effect, likely pretty minor on the scales we need to be working at.

Like the CFC issue, we need industry to take a leading role. Things like incandescent light bulbs are no longer needed, other wasteful items are readily replaced.

And, again, I agree with nuclear power. It can act as stop-gap until we have even better forms of energy. I know many really don't agree with such an approach, but I think the current issue is important enough for this.

Originally posted by melatonin

Why?

This was a prediction based on the effect of human activity on the atmosphere, using the basic physico-chemical properties of atmospheric constituents, it made a clear prediction that has been found to be correct.

This is what science is made of, Hypothesis and theory - testable, falsifiable predictions. We could well have found these areas to not be cooling. But they are. This is a verified prediction of AGW theory, and is therefore evidence that you claim does not exist.

You disagree with the basic "physico-chemical properties" and the basic thermodynamics when you claim an increase amount of charged particles entering the atmosphere only cause cooling and don't release any energy in the form of heat...

You disagree with anything the "policymakers" tell you to disagree with and when it suits you....

Originally posted by melatonin

As a scientist you would know that links to opinion are not really what science is made of.

and the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming is not "just an opinion/claim"?.... Yes it is....

Originally posted by melatonin
Whose paper? I have two sources for the fact CO2 has a greater effect on the longwave absorption than you have suggested. One is completely unrelated to realclimate, and was published years before even the internet

And I also have sources which state water vapor retains more heat than CO2, some of the sources are also older than the internet.....

Originally posted by melatonin
As for your opinion, doesn't count for much, just another contrarian opinion, if you and the rest would actually do some real science, we might get somewhere.

Your claims and opinions don't count, actually they count for less since you continuously try to defend Mann and try to dismiss the statements from a PhD in Geophysics who has more credence than you, Mann and colleages put together....

Originally posted by melatonin
My questions are about science, they are real questions. You have made claims I would like to test the robustness of.

This thread is labelled 'no evidence global warming is man-made', I am trying to present you evidence. I am also challenging claims you have made, and the science you have presented.

How is it that you put it?.... You, melatonin, wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.....

I've heard enough from you Muaddib, all the chaff gets tedious after a while.

You can bring your stuff into the other thread. I'd like to discuss this with another scientist, I'm sure he's quite capable of answering for himself.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I've heard enough from you Muaddib, all the chaff gets tedious after a while.

You can bring your stuff into the other thread. I'd like to discuss this with another scientist, I'm sure he's quite capable of answering for himself.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

I guess you're only allowed to agree with him. I'd better watch out, he might get the Gestapo on me.

I try to edit my previous post to correct a link it it won't allow it. Strange.

Update: I had to log out then back in to edit my previous post.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]

Johnmike, I don't know. He must have encountered a problem that environmental activist blog Gristmill's anti-A.G.W. skeptic playbook couldn't resolve. My Ph.D in chemistry certainly must make me a poor source of A.G.W. informational reality, in that my opinion on climate change was meaningless to this gent.

A.T.S. is unique in that you never know who you're talking to. They can be anything from a bright 14 year old schoolchild to a world class scientist.



[edit on 4/5/2007 by TheAvenger]