Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Even James Inhofe recognizes that some actions to protect the atmosphere can be undertaken with greater results and less expense than the currently hyped AGW "solutions.

US SENATOR James Inhofe co-authored legislation last week to study the impact of black carbon, or soot, on climate change and ways to reduce the emissions of the pollutant.
...
On the day the legislation was submitted, a scathing article written by Inhofe appeared in the conservative Washington Times. In it he attacked "the false notion that man-made greenhouse gases threaten our very existence".
...
A study in 2008 found that soot is second only to CO2 as an agent of global warming. But soot washes out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks after it is emitted, so reducing emissions could have an immediate effect on climate.

www.newscientist.com...

jw

Originally posted by Boom Slice
I think Electric's main point here is simple and should be obvious to us all.

Electric's main point is that since natural factors affect climate he refutes any suggestion that human activity can affect climate.

But that's religion for you

Us sceptics accept that both affect climate. As too do most scientists.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
reply to post by melatonin

 

I'm yet to see you provide anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. You have dismissed all the information as irrelevant, yet provide no relevant information yourself? I'm intrigued in the subject of global warming (well, climate change), so can you point me to anywhere that proves AGW that doesn't use dubious models? I have an open mind, and like to look at things from multiple angles. Any info would be much appreciated.

lol

You think so? All I've posted is insults and ad hom? Get a life. But your concern is noted. I'm sure if you are that intrigued you might have bothered to read my posts.

Try from just the first page:

here

here

here

here

here

If you want teaching, for you, £20 an hour?


[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]

Way to prove a point Melatonin. You post another insult
"Get a life". I've got one thanks, and I'm completely satisfied. The surf was good yesterday, and I'm going snowboarding tomorrow

If you mean subscribing to a lifestyle of ignorance and insulting others, no thanks. Thanks for the links back to the OP, though. And I'm sorry, but as you know, I'm new(ish) here, so I don't want to be trolling through 2 year old threads of more of the same bickering and arguing.

So your teaching is worth £20 an hour? Well this is ATS, and you're so sure you're right and that people that believe anything other than what you believe are "morons", so it should be easy to provide some useful information right? Even just a link to the AGW is irrefutable site?

Cheers

Originally posted by Essan
Providing evidence that things other than human activity can affect climate does not prove that human activity does not affect climate.

Any more than proving that people die of cancer proves a person wasn't murdered.

There is plenty of research showing how human activity affects climate, over and above the yet unrefuted "greenhouse effect" theory. Until some one can demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature, the common idea of AGW stands. Until someone can show that massive deforestation, other land use change, contrails, black carbon, etc all have no effect on climate (particularly warming) then the wider theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (of which AGW is just a part) stands.

You can post all the research you like showing that solar activity causes warming/cooling. But it does not prove that research showing land use change also causes warming/cooling is wrong.

For a sceptical view on the subject, I suggest checking out Roger Pielke Sr

Of course, as well as warming, human activity is causing precipitation pattern changes, leading to increased risk of drought

Are humans responsible or not? Maybe it's easier to pretend we're not and hope it's all go away or the space aliens will save us?

Thanks for the info, I'm looking over it now. (I don't have the net at home, so it can take time to read through and reply.)
Although, I'm just curious...

Originally posted by Essan
Until some one can demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature, the common idea of AGW stands"

So we need to enforce legislation, regulation and tax the hell out of you and me, until its proven that CO2 has no effect? Wheres the evidence that it is the major influence on climate that the mainstream media makes it out to be? I think the major argument of AGW skeptics, is that CO2 has not been proven to have devastating effects on our climate, yet laws are being passed that say it is. I'm all for reducing harmful pollutants, cleaning up our waterways, and reducing poverty and hunger in the world, but yet to see how limiting carbon emmisions will achieve that.

Not attacking you at all, just like you, I'm trying to get all the information, and make educated decisions based on that. Cheers

Originally posted by Long Lance
we have 2009, we are way above the Kyoto targets and since there is no decrease in sight, actually achieving these goals would result in something like i've described. a more pragmatic approach won't yield much, because nukes aren't being built on the required scale and renewables' energy density is generally low with the exception of hydro, maybe.

Aye, Kyoto was a failure and until we actually really do grasp the need to change rather than giving lip-service, we will continue to do so.

Still, you were essentially misrepresenting Kyoto. Yes, if we were trying to meet kyoto right now, before the end of the year, then we are talking about such figures for reduction of CO2 emissions.

However, we had from 1997 to get our crap together. Not one year. Moreover, it didn't require reducing energy use, just changing energy sources and increasing efficiency.

correct in principle, but you've nailed quite reightly that my concern is along these lines. no energy. welcome to 1850AD. for those who survive, that is.

lol, yeah, correct it is. No energy, lol. We have been provided with a large chunk of easily sourced cheap energy, we could set ourselves up sustainably readily enough with enough determination.

We'd rather just be myopic.

are there ways to get net CO2 to zero? sure, nukes, which you honestly support, while the political landscape usually does not. are enough nukes being built? is it going to cost an arm and a leg? is it even realistic, i mean such industry isn't growing on trees either is it? not to mention they would be built on the surface, posing a hazard, but i'll overlook that, because that can be solved by burying and really isn't a technological limitation.

It will cost. Building coal-fired plants costs. What doesn't cost?

The nuclear option is a breathing space. It just provides more time for us to develop more sustainable sources. A temporary approach to fill the energy gap.

We can just soak up a tripling of oil prices without a whine. We can with determination make the change.

Q: were SO2 emissions traded like a commodity or simply outlawed or fined? SO2 is an actually pollutant, creating a strong acid when reacting with water and CO2 isn't really comparable, its effects in queston (GHG, not carbonic acid) are indirect and therefore subject to very different limitations.

Co2 creates an acid with water. It is as natural a gas as CO2. There's little difference at the basic level. One is a gas that causes cooling and a wealth of other problems, the other causes warming and will cause a wealth of other problems.

SO2 has been limited by cap and trade. It's been very successful.

just because these rivers supply water to a billion people, glaciers need not be the main source. precipitation happens even when it does not fall on ice, so maybe there's be more floods if there's less of a buffer and longer drought seasons, a change for the worse, if that's what's going to happen. if it does get warmer, vegetation should creep up to higher altitudes, though, mitigating the effect. lower areas seem to do fine without ice, though, so there's definitely hope, even IF they were completely lost, which is quite a stretch.

But they are a main source. It is a reliable source of fresh water. Making millions of people depend on unreliable precipitation in a world which will likely be drought and flood-ridden is going to be misery for them. Water wars is what some like to call it.

It's neither here nor there now. These glaciers will be very likely be gone in a few decades, the forcing is already in the system, lol. Bar the sun or some other natural variable saving the day.

if you read on (not going to quote entire pages) you'd see that the estimated maximum in modern times was roughly three centuries ago. did they melt from there on their own account or was it our fault too? just curious when the threshold of responsibility kicks in, because even if the lss of glaciers was as catastrophic as you make it out to be, the point of contention is still whether we are at fault and if so how much.

Some of the early cause is solar. Few really question that (except maybe Leif Svalgaard). More recently we have been contributing and are the main contributor, and the predictions have been made - in 2030 probably an 80% loss.

how we are at fault would be interesting as well, because singling out one trace gas out of many strains my poorly developed credulity. i agree with Essan that destroyed the land cannot be good for anything, climate included. i'd add oceans to that, for obvious reasons.

True, there are a number of important factors. But CO2 is the elephant in the room. I respect Essan, I know he's big on land use and other influences, perhaps they are underestimated. And to show that these factors are more important than the current data suggests, data needs to be collected. Until then, the data is pretty clear - CO2 is shown to be one of the major causes of recent warming, and will be in the future.

corn ethanol is a must to curb GW, but overfishing and mercury pollution accumulating in the sea is OK and a sideshow? i think not. say they have the wrong priorites would be an understatement.

We can do both. It's not either or. But I disagree on the priorities. I think accepting the potential risk of a 6'C warmer world in 100 years is important enough to take priority.

in a market, usually the guy who supplies gets the money. this isn't the case in emissions trading, because here all the recipient does is writing it down in his ledgers. the market argument simply doesn't wash.

Sounds a bit like banking, lol.

Yes, the supply is in the permits to emit. Just like people might need to get a permit to do any number of things. You pay, you get paper that says you can emit. The more you want to emit, the more you pay. The people who make emissions savings can sell.

It can work, and has worked. Like many other products the supply is limited (total quantity of CO2 emissions) and the price for units of CO2 can vary. We determine the value. The product is the ability to spew emissions. The more efficient and the more carbon-friendly you are, the better off you are.

Sounds like a marketeers dream. Indeed, many whine about the free market getting a foot in the door in this area, lol. As long as the cap is sufficient, should help move us in the right direction. I'm sure it's not perfect. What is?

[edit on 2-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Essan


Just looked at your first link massive deforestation , and found this interesting

"The effects here are rather subtle and appear to be limited to the dry season. The overall effect of this deforestation on annual and daily rainfall cycles is probably small and requires more study," Negri said. Future research will use numerical models for investigating the linkage between deforested land surface and the cloud-precipitation components of the water cycle.

Is this what that link was meant to prove? Lets hope the others have more substance. I'll be honest though. I've never really trusted NASA sources regarding climate change. I remember reading about one of the NASA scientists (who I believe was a major contributor to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient "9 major flaws" Truth') who had been caught out twice manipulating data to try and strengthen the AGW case. I can't remember exactly who he was, but I'll try find the info on him.

From what I've looked at so far regarding US land usage and cloud formations, they have valid arguments. Might not get to read through all of it though. The surf is 3 to 5 foot and offshore and I really want to get outside and enjoy the beautiful day here in NZ. Also, if last years winter season (highest snowfall ever recorded ) was a hint at things to come, you won't hear too much complaining from me.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Way to prove a point Melatonin. You post another insult

"Get a life".

lol, yeah, how insulting.

You said all I do is post insults and ad hom, so it proved nothing. That was a lie and one that you and your tag-team played on. I find that more insulting than someone saying 'get a life'. As I said, if you lie about me don't expect kittens and flowers.

You post little but a lie about little moi, while suggesting I post nothing of substance. How ironic.

I'm new(ish) here

Of course...

So your teaching is worth £20 an hour?

Apparently.

If you're just so intrigued, go read the latest IPCC report. They write them for a reason.

I've never really trusted NASA sources regarding climate change. I remember reading about one of the NASA scientists (who I believe was a major contributor to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient "9 major flaws" Truth') who had been caught out twice manipulating data to try and strengthen the AGW case. I can't remember exactly who he was, but I'll try find the info on him.

lol

How concerning. Perhaps what you read was a lie. If you're so curious, the truth is out there apparently.

For someone so open minded and naive, you sound so familiar. Tuppence a dozen on here.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Way to prove a point Melatonin. You post another insult

"Get a life".

lol, yeah, how insulting.

Hey, I didn't say I was insulted, but some might say that a snide remark insinuating that my life and/or beliefs are somehow inferior to yours (that was what you were trying to achieve wasn't it?) would be classified as an insult.

Originally posted by melatonin

So your teaching is worth £20 an hour?

Apparently.

Really???

Originally posted by melatoninIf you're just so intrigued, go read the latest IPCC report. They write them for a reason.

Well it's a lot to go through, in the mean time I'll leave this for everyone else to read

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.

Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.

source

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

I've never really trusted NASA sources regarding climate change. I remember reading about one of the NASA scientists (who I believe was a major contributor to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient "9 major flaws" Truth') who had been caught out twice manipulating data to try and strengthen the AGW case. I can't remember exactly who he was, but I'll try find the info on him.

lol

Heres some info on Mr James Hansen, who was also responsible for the black carbon link of Essan's. I know it's from prison planet (hardly the most trusted source, but give it some thought). I havn't found the article showing how James Hansen knowingly used incorrect data, when the corrected data showed cooler temperatures, and he has knowingly used data from recording stations that were situated in an urban heat island ie.above expansive car lots.

Originally posted by melatoninHow concerning. Perhaps what you read was a lie. If you're so curious, the truth is out there apparently.
[edit on 2-5-2009 by melatonin]

Exactly

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Hey, I didn't say I was insulted, but some might say that a snide remark insinuating that my life and/or beliefs are somehow inferior to yours (that was what you were trying to achieve wasn't it?) would be classified as an insult.

Nope, it was an expression of how pathetic I thought it was to actually bother posting what you did.

Really???

Apparently.

Originally posted by melatoninIf you're just so intrigued, go read the latest IPCC report. They write them for a reason.

Well it's a lot to go through, in the mean time I'll leave this for everyone else to read

Amazing, so rather than go read the IPCC report you are so intrigued you investigate further and find a blog that criticises their approach. Moreover, you were just perusing the web/media and you find something about someone important at NASA. It says that he's dishonest - manipulating data - and you take it at face value leading you to mistrust NASA scientists.

Curious.

some info on Mr James Hansen, who was also responsible for the black carbon link of Essan's. I know it's from prison planet (hardly the most trusted source, but give it some thought). I havn't found the article showing how James Hansen knowingly used incorrect data, when the corrected data showed cooler temperatures, and he has knowingly used data from recording stations that were situated in an urban heat island ie.above expansive car lots.

Were you not so intrigued, concerned, and curious to investigate further?

You seem to convey a lot of deniers talking points for a naive open-minded concerned and curious individual, lol.

Exactly

Yup, and good places to find it for science is on random blogs and prison-planet.

Take care. I'm sure I'll see around you in one form or another.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Well it's a lot to go through, in the mean time I'll leave this for everyone else to read

LOL, yeah the IPCC reports are alot to go through but before you actually read it you'll post a BLOG opinion attacking it. Nice.

The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently yadda yadda, about how the author dislikes the findings and the authors of IPCC, yadda yadda nothing refuting the FACTS found therin, yadda yadda, more dribble for deniers to surf the net on goggle, they find this blog hit on their serch results for "IPCC Global warming is a scam"........acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.

source

From here.

This page provides information on the Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4), recently published by the Fraser Institute.

www.uoguelph.ca...

Same old tired Think Tanks, spoonfeeding opinion, fueling doubt and apathy. Thanks alot Curious and Concern, perhaps your avatar should read Swallowed and Regurgitated. More rubbish from this mob. You are the Third poster to add the same poor arguements from the same pathetic sources. The source you linked also has Mr Joe D' aleo(also on ICECAP). The board of advisors also contain a list of geologists, mathemticians, economists and a long list of Emeritus Prof(note to poster...this means they retired, have nothing to lose). Yet the blog piece is by a journalist who attacks the process of the IPCC review process, without telling us about any of his "advisors" or why none of them(all listed as researchers and writers, could not write a scientific review of the reports. Instead we get this dribble.

However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias.

. Well, if there is Bias, show it rather than infer it is there and present. opps, he can't show bias.

Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light.

So now we have bias, we must have authos flattering their own work, really. Where?

Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative.

What, you mean biasd, self promotion is now reasonable and comprehensive information?????

Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.

Well then, instead of whining about all the research that contradicts AGW that is ignored, under reported or one-sided, why not create a blog that shows and promotes it instead of think tank blogs that crap on about all these ignored reports in opinion pieces funded by Think Tanks funded by Energy Co. I mean, that is really simple isn't it. You would think. Why has the International Scientific community not releases its own Paper compiling its argument against AGW? Why, because generally. There isn't one.
All we get is the OP's compendium(choke, giggle, compose ones self), attacking Models.
No one seems to mention that many aspects inspired by human behaviour that are input into these models that predict climate change and GW are real and generally accepted scientific facts.


ICECAP from Long Lance, Little Bunny and now Fraser Institute from Swallowed and Regurgitated(formally know as Curious and Concerned).
It about time you searched some else besides Blogs, think tanks and opinion pieces.

You said in a previous post that you had a life, it seems it may be based on lies going by what you accept as the truth. Surf that dude, I'd say that you just got wiped out in the barrel and spat out the back. But thats what happens to kooks who drop in. My wave.

There is no consensus. To claim that the debate is over (when it clearly is not) is tantamount to walking off the battlefield claiming victory before the fight has begun.

I would advise against the practice of linking everyone that opposes your viewpoint with some nefarious agency of the enemy. I could (and will if necessary) call into question the integrity of a good number of prominent members of the opposing camp.

You might rather keep it about the science, as intended by the OP. I know it is a lot to ask, as this is such an emotional issue, where neither side is likely to give an iota, and each will always think the worst of the other. C`est la vie!

Oooops! Seems that the "Global Warming" marketing strategy got sent to the wrong people.

(Watch for some back-pedaling and face saving before they start using new, consumer friendly language.)

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is "global warming."

The term turns people off according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, an environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives.

A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

www.nytimes.com...

Since the "science " is so compelling, why do the AGW cabal and their financiers need a marketing strategy?

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month.

Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

(A Pew Research Center poll in January found global warming last among voter concerns; trailing issues like moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.) “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals.

(Id.)

So, how best to communicate the 'danger' and the 'threat' of CO2 and AGW? Facts? Science? No, how 'bout a sales pitch!

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ... “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “ ...It doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

(Id.)

How do you spell 'smoking gun?"

Isn't it time AGW advocates admit their self-interest and conflicts of interest?

The baselessness of their faked 'modeling' and made-up "facts" needs the support of a private, foundation and corporate-financed advertising consultant!

Deny ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by melatonin

But they are a main source. It is a reliable source of fresh water. Making millions of people depend on unreliable precipitation in a world which will likely be drought and flood-ridden is going to be misery for them. Water wars is what some like to call it.

water war in the region will become inevitable when China finishes its river redirection project. i know it's easy to blame GW for all the ills in the world, though.

It's neither here nor there now. These glaciers will be very likely be gone in a few decades, the forcing is already in the system, lol. Bar the sun or some other natural variable saving the day.
..

Some of the early cause is solar. Few really question that (except maybe Leif Svalgaard). More recently we have been contributing and are the main contributor, and the predictions have been made - in 2030 probably an 80% loss.

so we have 20 years for a loss of what? 60% ? (d'uh the number of 8% was for 1993.. i'll assume 40% loss just to be on the safe side), that'll make around 3% a year, if scaled linearly or conversely, any reduction below 3% a year would mean it will take even more than that in the remaining time to catch up with the projection. shades of the Kyoto protocol's timetable. i hope you realise that a 'natural variable saving the day' will be widely considered a failure of AGW, because noone forbade taking said variables into account.

i'd like to add that the trend of melting is centuries old, is it a stretch that it's still the same trend at work here? how do you seperate human from natural influences? that's the issue at hand, obviously. the reason for all these lengthy threads. what if human influence were f-ex. only 50%? would that change your view of GHG reduction or would you wish to do the same for only half the gain?

True, there are a number of important factors. But CO2 is the elephant in the room.
...

We can do both. It's not either or. But I disagree on the priorities. I think accepting the potential risk of a 6'C warmer world in 100 years is important enough to take priority.

i know it accumulates, that's problematic of course, if you think it can go on forever, but nothing ever does, so the mechanism how blocking out ( iirc) two relevant IR wavelengths a bit more is going to do us all in needs to be elaborated, imho. it all boils down to models, which man people don't have enough faith in (me obviously included).

Sounds a bit like banking, lol.

it is, that's why.

Yes, the supply is in the permits to emit. Just like people might need to get a permit to do any number of things. You pay, you get paper that says you can emit. The more you want to emit, the more you pay. The people who make emissions savings can sell.

who determines the amount of certificates? that's the focal point of the issue. such power is much like controlling the money supply but a bit more direct. do i need to get into Federal Reserve topics?

let me correct the following passage for you

Sounds like a banker's dream. Indeed, many whine about the free market getting a foot in the door in this area, lol. As long as the cap is sufficient, should help move us in the right direction. I'm sure it's not perfect. What is?

without thinking it through, people are prone to going in the wrong direction. speeding the process up will only get us nowhere faster.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by Essan
Until some one can demonstrate that increasing the amount of CO2 has no effect on temperature, the common idea of AGW stands"

So we need to enforce legislation, regulation and tax the hell out of you and me, until its proven that CO2 has no effect?

Ah, well that's a different issue (IMO). Any excuse to raise taxes ..... Whilst I believe that CO2 probably does/will lead to global temp rises I do not condone the over-reaction (IMO) or some authorities and personally consider the legislation and taxes to be futile in terms of cutting emissions and just a cynical tax raising ploy. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.

Just looked at your first link massive deforestation
~ ~ ~

Is this what that link was meant to prove? Lets hope the others have more substance.

With deforestation I think the effects on precipitation are far more important. I do trust NASA data - a lot of people work there in many different areas of climate research. I don't think they're all wrong/misleading us

The links I posted were just examples and are not the only research in any particular area. There's been a lot of interesting stuff on the consequences of deforestation coming out of China, for example. So not just Americans and Europeans raising concerns.

Originally posted by jdub297

Isn't it time AGW advocates admit their self-interest and conflicts of interest?

Careful you don't confuse so-called environmentalists and lobby groups with science

And remember that CO2 is just one factor behind AGW and AGW is just one part of the much widr picture of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

There are many scientists who do not agree with the IPCC and its predictions. Some thing they watered down their report due to political pressure. Others think they placed too much emphasis on CO2 and not enough on other factors.

The consensus is that human activity is causing climate change including AGW. The disagreement is exactly how those changes are being caused, what the longer term predictions are and what in the shorter term we should do about it.

Emphasised because I think a lot of people fail to understand what consensus means. It's a compromise position, not universal agreement on details.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I remember reading about one of the NASA scientists (who I believe was a major contributor to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient "9 major flaws" Truth') who had been caught out twice manipulating data to try and strengthen the AGW case. I can't remember exactly who he was, but I'll try find the info on him.

just a guess

epw.senate.gov...


attack the sources all you want, the IPCC report summary is usually released before the real thing, what does that tell you? double standards are a swell thing, aren't they?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

are we supposed to use GW proponents' data do defend our point of view? try reversing the notion for a while. attack the data, not the source. were lots of sensor stations closed in 1990/91? y/n ?

were discontinuities found in the data? y/n?

www.dailytech.com...

don't know how many times i posted this here already...


PS: i saw articles from NASA removed which can be seen f-ex. here:


www.abovetopsecret.com...


it's now back online again, probably just a hiccup. the taste remains stale, though, because it'S not the only occasion such a thing happened:

............
According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
.................
The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...


the link is currently dead like the one above was and the archive does not list it. SooL i guess.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
water war in the region will become inevitable when China finishes its river redirection project. i know it's easy to blame GW for all the ills in the world, though.

I'm sure those downstream will be distressed by what China is doing. But you think that the potential rapid melting of massive glaciers that feed a number of fresh water sources in asia isn't an important issue?

lol

You have a habit of this. Showing that the chinese are water imperialists or that sunscreen might bother corals doesn't make other important factors disappear.

so we have 20 years for a loss of what? 60% ? (d'uh the number of 8% was for 1993.. i'll assume 40% loss just to be on the safe side), that'll make around 3% a year, if scaled linearly or conversely, any reduction below 3% a year would mean it will take even more than that in the remaining time to catch up with the projection. shades of the Kyoto protocol's timetable. i hope you realise that a 'natural variable saving the day' will be widely considered a failure of AGW, because noone forbade taking said variables into account.

No, it won't be a failure of AGW. That would be your failure to understand how climate works. If you want to throw dice in the hope of some unpredictable natural variable saving the day, do so.

Just remember you're playing craps with people's well-being.

AGW doesn't go away if solar activity falls.

i'd like to add that the trend of melting is centuries old, is it a stretch that it's still the same trend at work here? how do you seperate human from natural influences? that's the issue at hand, obviously. the reason for all these lengthy threads. what if human influence were f-ex. only 50%? would that change your view of GHG reduction or would you wish to do the same for only half the gain?

Yes. It is a stretch. The science is out there. Solar activity has been a minimal influence for decades. Human influence is estimated to be about 40-50% since, I think, either 1850 or 1750 (can't recall which at the moment).

i know it accumulates, that's problematic of course, if you think it can go on forever, but nothing ever does, so the mechanism how blocking out ( iirc) two relevant IR wavelengths a bit more is going to do us all in needs to be elaborated, imho. it all boils down to models, which man people don't have enough faith in (me obviously included).

Doesn't revolve just around models. Climate sensitivity is supported by observational data. The influence of GHGs is supported by observational data.

it is, that's why.

OK, no worries then.

As long as they don't get shrimp poop and wrap it up as caviar, we should be OK.

who determines the amount of certificates? that's the focal point of the issue. such power is much like controlling the money supply but a bit more direct. do i need to get into Federal Reserve topics?

Hopefully not, I might have to mention lady-bits, and they're off limit. I'm not a fan of libertarians.

The number isn't the problem - that's like deciding between $10 in $1 dollar notes or nickels. Setting the cap at a correct level is the big problem and then ensuring the system works properly.

let me correct the following passage for you

Yeah, cheers, lol.

Sounds like a banker's dream. Indeed, many whine about the free market getting a foot in the door in this area, lol. As long as the cap is sufficient, should help move us in the right direction. I'm sure it's not perfect. What is?

without thinking it through, people are prone to going in the wrong direction. speeding the process up will only get us nowhere faster.

Yeah, that tends to happen when emotion and ideology rather evidence and reality drives their actions.

But cap and trade has been shown to work. Didn't result in the collapse of society.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

But cap and trade has been shown to work. Didn't result in the collapse of society.

Wrong again. Or just denying?

China's Xiaoxi dam project displaced thousands, rewarded German developers for a COAL power plant, and proved the failure of "carbon credit" and cap-and-trade programs.

"China Dams Reveal Flaws In Climate-Change Weapon"
...
Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.
...
The Clean Development Mechanism is a market-based tool under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to combat climate change. The CDM allows industrial nations, required by Kyoto to reduce emissions of gases blamed for global warming, to comply by paying developing nations to cut their emissions instead.
Companies thousands of miles away, such as Germany's coal-burning, carbon dioxide-spewing RWE electric utility, accomplish this by buying carbon credits the U.N. issues to clean-energy projects like Xiaoxi's. The proceeds are meant to make such projects more financially feasible.

As critics point out, however, if those projects were going to be built anyway, the climate doesn't gain, but loses.

Such projects "allow covered entities" _ such as the German RWE Consortuium_ "to increase their emissions without a corresponding reduction in a developing country," the U.S. GAO said in its review.
...
The bottom line _ some 450,000 tons of global-warming gases each year _ would be added to RWE's permitted emissions at a current annual cost of $8 million. And such calculations will be repeated at 37 other Chinese hydro projects where RWE will buy credits.

All told, the 38 are expected to produce more than 16 million CDM credits by 2012, legitimizing 16 million tons of emissions in Germany, equivalent to more than 1 percent of annual German emissions.

At today's low market prices, those credits would be worth some $300 million, paid to Chinese developers and presumably billed to German electricity customers, who by 2007 were already paying more than double the U.S. average rate per kilowatt-hour.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

How long will it takes us to catch up to those lucky German consumers?
What a sad joke on the Chinese, Germans, and soon, Americans! Higher electricity costs, higher emissions, and falling value of the "credits."

A 100% failure of cap and trade!

Cap and trade avocates, have you read this? Do you care? Do you DARE?

Not enough? How about the incredible scam perpetrated by the British Parliament and the CRASH in the value of "carbon credits?"

The Financial Times has been exposing the scam that is carbon credits, exhibiting an honesty which America’s media sorely lack.

FT published an article about this travesty which is also almost guaranteed to be ignored by U.S. press outlets far more concerned with glorifying folks like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David.

FT exposed how the British government bilked companies interested in offsetting carbon emissions out of huge sums of money by advising them to purchase what turned out to be “worthless” carbon credits.

Britain’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been advising businesses and consumers wishing to offset their emissions to buy carbon credits through the European Union or UN carbon trading scheme. However, phase one of [the scheme was discredited last May for flooding the market with too many permits to achieve any emissions cuts. The result is that many were persuaded to buy environmentally worthless carbon credits.

Reflecting the surplus in ETS permits, the market price has plunged to less than €0.50 (£0.34) per tonne, but offsetting companies are selling permits for more.

The British government recommended that companies buy credits based on phase one of this scheme. One company in question was selling such credits for £6.40 per tonne (1000 kilograms), or about $12.80 at today’s exchange rate.

Yet, these credits are currently trading on the open market for £0.34 per tonne, or about 68 cents. This represents a 95 percent decline in value.

Now, given the media’s focus on solving global warming, and the press’s fascination with Al Gore and Hollywood’s carbon credit scheme, wouldn’t it be newsworthy to report how such strategies are failing miserably across the Atlantic, and how the only people benefitting from this scam are the folks selling worthless pieces of paper?

newsbusters.org...

Wow. How about that? Credit trading didn't work "across the Atlantic," but you don't hear about that over here, and AGW advocates say it's a program "proven to work!"

Yeah, it works for the thieves selling the credits and the program itself.

How about the U.S. program?

From a 2009 Purdue University study:

Last summer carbon had a value of $7 per ton. However, the value of carbon has dropped significantly. Today, carbon offset credits are worth about $2 per ton of carbon.

news.uns.purdue.edu...

Or, from the producers, themselves:

Will Carbon Credits Mean Blackouts?

A study from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) raises fears that the phase out of coal could lead to a loss of power in some regions.

Clean air or electric lights? That could be the debate if carbon policies are implemented in advance of new technologies, a new study warns.

In a survey conducted by NERC, utility executives express fears that the cancellation of coal-fired power plants and the implementation of carbon reduction policies could make it difficult to deliver power in some regions.

Nonetheless, demand for power keeps increasing and a mismatch between supply and demand could mean lights out in some places. Increased demand could also crimp the supplies of natural gas.

www.greentechmedia.com...

How about "Green Business News:"

[Global Warming Solution Known as ‘Carbon Credits’ Collapses

One of the primary solutions for climate change being touted by global warming alarmists is the purchase and sale of carbon credits. Put simply, companies, countries, and individuals could balance their CO2 output by purchasing credits from others that are emitting less greenhouse gases than prescribed maximums.

Unfortunately, there’s a hitch in this scheme that threatens to totally derail it: carbon prices are plummeting due to an excess supply.

The world's two leading carbon trading schemes are failing to deliver the expected benefits due to a collapse in the price of carbon credits - and the situation is likely to get far worse before it gets better.

The scheme requires a price for a ton of carbon emissions of $20, rising to $30, $40 or even $50 to stabilize the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at manageable levels. But there is a good chance that the carbon credits that are meant to provide incentives for reducing emissions will be available for next to nothing.

newsbusters.org...
www.businessgreen.com...

Proven programs?

Proven Fraud!

Deny Ignorance!
jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin

But cap and trade has been shown to work. Didn't result in the collapse of society.

Wrong again. Or just denying?

About what? Cap and trade?

Worked for SO2 emissions. What are you showing? That at the moment there is little more than lip-service for real and determined action?

Yeah, I know. I've mentioned it a number of times.

How long will it takes us to catch up to those lucky German consumers?
What a sad joke on the Chinese, Germans, and soon, Americans! Higher electricity costs, higher emissions, and falling value of the "credits."

A 100% failure of cap and trade!

I wasn't talking about CO2 cap and trade. I was talking about SO2 cap and trade, I mentioned it a number of times. It was a success. But more on CO2 cap and trade later...

SO2 Emission Reductions from Acid Rain Program Sources and Improvements in Air Quality

Since its inception in 1990, the cap and trade component of the Acid Rain Program (ARP) has reduced SO2 emissions from power plants by more than 40 percent. The program is on track to reach the cap—reducing 1980 emissions by 50 percent at full implementation in 2010.

EPA's cap and trade programs to date have delivered significant environmental results. The interactive map below demonstrates the success of these programs.

www.epa.gov...

Cap and trade can work.

Cap and trade avocates, have you read this? Do you care? Do you DARE?

lol

Wow. How about that? Credit trading didn't work "across the Atlantic," but you don't hear about that over here, and AGW advocates say it's a program "proven to work!"

It has worked. It is working for SO2 and NO2 emissions in the US.

Yeah, it works for the thieves selling the credits and the program itself.

lol

How about the U.S. program?

From a 2009 Purdue University study:

Last summer carbon had a value of $7 per ton. However, the value of carbon has dropped significantly. Today, carbon offset credits are worth about $2 per ton of carbon.

news.uns.purdue.edu...

That's not the point.

Or, from the producers, themselves:

Will Carbon Credits Mean Blackouts?

A study from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) raises fears that the phase out of coal could lead to a loss of power in some regions.

Industry in 'cry like a little whining baby' shocker!

[Global Warming Solution Known as ‘Carbon Credits’ Collapses

One of the primary solutions for climate change being touted by global warming alarmists

Yeah, sounds a great source of unbiased news and opinion on the issues.

Proven programs?

Proven Fraud!

Nope, cap and trade can work. It has worked. It needs to be implemented effectively.

Deny Ignorance!
jw

lol

So what's the reality of CO2 cap and trade on the ground in Europe...

Carbon emissions trading in Europe: Lessons to be learned

For the past three years, the European Union has been operating the world's largest emissions trading system and the first system to limit and to trade carbon dioxide emissions. An MIT analysis of this initial "trial" phase finds that—despite its hasty adoption and somewhat rocky beginning—the European Union cap-and-trade system has operated well and has had little or no negative impact on the overall EU economy.

The MIT results provide both encouragement and guidance to policy makers working to design a carbon dioxide (CO2)-trading scheme for the United States and for the world. "This important public policy experiment is not perfect, but it is far more than any other nation or set of nations has done to control greenhouse gas emissions—and it works surprisingly well," said A. Denny Ellerman, senior lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management, who performed the analysis with Paul L. Joskow, the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor in the Department of Economics.

The cap-and-trade approach to controlling emissions is hardly unprecedented. For years, the US has operated highly successful cap-and-trade systems for emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Based on a national emissions cap, facilities that emit those pollutants receive a limited number of emissions permits, or "allowances," for a given period. Facilities that emit more than their allowed limit must buy allowances from facilities that emit less. Markets for trading allowances operate smoothly, and—in response to the strong economic incentive—facilities have reduced their emissions significantly.

web.mit.edu...

Deny pigs in pants!

reply to post by melatonin

Your 2-year-old MIT study of phase 1 of the EU program also noted:
"in April 2006, when the first verified emissions reports came in, actual emissions were far lower than expected, allowances were plentiful, and the carbon price fell by half within a week (see the figure)."

Of course, that study did NOT predict the ACTUAL 2008 and 2009 precipitous collapse of the value of EU credits (a loss of over 70% of value and growing), and the failure under Phase 2 to improve CO2 emissions or value.

Can't dispute the truth of the failure of CO2 cap and trade, can you?

Do you have a pig in your pants?

Your only 'substantive' reports of the utter failure of cap-and trade is "lol" or "SO2."

(Actually, that's the sum total of your response to any cogent proof of the man-made 'Climate Change', nee 'Global Warming', hoax.)

Doesn't really cover up the AGW/CO2 fraud, though.

The gig truly is just about "up."

jw

Originally posted by melatonin

I'm sure those downstream will be distressed by what China is doing. But you think that the potential rapid melting of massive glaciers that feed a number of fresh water sources in asia isn't an important issue?

yeah, sure flood & draught aren't fun, so they would result in tensions. what i've had enough of is the latest heatwave being blamed on GW, when it's nothing extraordinary if one bothered to take a look at the records.

but let me rephrase that: what would you deem more likely to cause upheaval? too much and too little water at the wrong time or no water at all?

You have a habit of this. Showing that the chinese are water imperialists or that sunscreen might bother corals doesn't make other important factors disappear.

you know the standard strategy of GW?

1) claim something is caused by GW, establishing the fact as proof for GW

2) deny any other cause

3) attack people who say it's unproven, because there's factor xy in play

4) when factor xy can no longer be denied claim that it's irrelevant, because it would merely add to GW's burden, which should be adressed first and foremost


the only saving grace is a delay of several weeks or months between each phase, so there will be different people reading different threads so the show can go on. circular logic isn't convincing when you recognize it as such, though.

No, it won't be a failure of AGW. That would be your failure to understand how climate works.

i do know how a prediction works, much like a bet in fact and if it doesn't come true, you can learn from it, but you still have to pay all the bucks and don't get any.

Yes. It is a stretch. The science is out there. Solar activity has been a minimal influence for decades. Human influence is estimated to be about 40-50% since, I think, either 1850 or 1750 (can't recall which at the moment).

solar immissions are only one aspect, there could be more, it just seems that glaciers have been melting for three centuries, maybe the pace has increased, maybe not, at any rate, while it's not at all a given, the trend could go on without our help or despite our attempts to stop the A portion of GW. in that case, they would eventually melt off no matter what we do or do not do.

so, how again and when again did they arrive at the conclusion that man caused a significant portion of the melting there and how again does the interlude during the 70s play into it? could that be explained without hindsight?

Doesn't revolve just around models. Climate sensitivity is supported by observational data. The influence of GHGs is supported by observational data.

which observational data? lab experiments with CO2 columns? i'll let you in on secret: the real greenouse effect is the result of inhibited convection, which can be seen nicely when you consider that a car's interior will be smoking hot when standing in the sun, while the panes (the greenhouse agent in this case) are still quite cool (air cooled). there's even a lab experiment comparing glass to NaCl (let IR pass, too) panes mentioned in one of Electricuniverse's links. want to know the results?

Q on a sidenote: why do you think some solar panels (water heater type, not photovoltaic) utilise a vacuum for insulation purposes? because then you can use radiation models.

Hopefully not, I might have to mention lady-bits, and they're off limit. I'm not a fan of libertarians.

you obviously have no idea about the monetary system and how money is created. i can see how this lack of insight could lead one to embrace zero-gain redistribution schemes.

The number isn't the problem

i meant the amount, ie. total mass. the unit in use is tons, isn't it? or am i mistaken?


the rest was already adressed by jdub297. thx.

let me just add that SO2 emissions can be prevented quite easily (albeit at some cost) and are only a small part of all emitted gas.

[edit on 2009.5.3 by Long Lance]