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.

 

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

page: 6
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I'm 100% sure that this Carbon Footprint Nonsense will go away
by 2014.
All we need is the real truth to come out and it will.
Al Gore will not be the messenger.
It will be someone else.
We will all have a really big laugh and that will be that.
The Climate Change Era will come to an end.
Turn the page.
Al Gore will be unemployed.......again.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

All we need is the real truth to come out and it will.
Al Gore will not be the messenger.
It will be someone else.
We will all have a really big laugh and that will be that.
The Climate Change Era will come to an end.
Turn the page.
Al Gore will be unemployed.......again.


I believe the truth is always in plain view, more oft than not we can't see it. More and more people will see it whatever it is when they stop letting politicians (and corporations) with hidden alliances and agendas do the thinking for them.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


This is getting ridiculous. First, stop the personalized attacks. You've called me immature...you've asked how old I was...these aren't arguments, these are attacks.

Second, there are many logical fallacies in some of what you've said.

ACS - I'm done arguing about it. All I was trying to do is point out how easy it is to join to show that size means nothing. But, it doesn't even matter in the end. Not everyone in ACS is against man-made global warming...I've just seen some letters directed towards the editor. I don't care.

I'm sure many intelligent scientists think global warming is not occurring because of man-made changes. And many think we are contributing as well.

You seem to think that I am fighting for the idea of man-made global warming even though I've said numerous times (more or less) that I don't know if or if it isn't occurring.




Duh?..... You really need to grow up. There is no way to stop using gas, coal, and oil right now, that was my point, but people such as you demand the changes to be made right now.


You sure think I demand a lot.

Who cares about RIGHT NOW? I don't...therefore I couldn't be demanding it. Stop saying I'm demanding anything.

I've seen many technologies stalled because of how large and consuming the oil industry is. I'm just hoping for society to be more open to change. There are many wonderful technologies that have been around for a long time.

The changes are happening slowly whether you want them to or not. I know the power company for my city (an oil and gas city) created a new plant which outputs 50% less CO2. Does that bug you???




Originally posted by Nickmare
I never demanded anything. What I want is changes to the energy industry.


That is a demand...


That is not a demand, it is a want....




Originally posted by Nickmare
And I'm pretty sure I use less then half the energy of an average North American if not less.


That's presumptuos to say the least.... Exactly how do you know this?....


Wow...I said it is not my argument. And, I don't know this. I'm pretty sure...

I've looked up my city's per person average energy consumption and calculated fairly roughly my energy consumption and I was just under average. I've since cut down my energy consumption by about half.

I don't care if I am or if I'm not, but I am happy that I'm living on less then I was previously.


On the sun causing global warming:


Simply because there is no evidence that CO2 causes the wamring claimed by people like you and the rest of the AGWers...


There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming, therefore the sun causes global warming? Logical fallacy if I've ever seen one.

You spout off some sources for evidence that the sun causes global warming? Just like most of your arguments you only look at one side of things. The side that supports your argument.

Here is some stuff I found with two minutes of research. I'm not going to go into the time delving deep and finding what I think is the best evidence. I don't know if it is or isn't causing it...get a grip:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

And the Sun Isn't Causing Global Warming Either

Global warming is not caused by solar activity



Oooh, I see...so tampering with nature is going to solve the problem?....


Maybe? Pumping CO2 in the air is tampering with nature and you are okay with that because you believe it helps plant life.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




I just showed you that with less atmospheric CO2 plants stop growing, which means animal life won't have enough food, and means you won't be able to grow your vegetables, or to eat meat since cows, and every animal need plants, which need CO2...


I'm sorry...but were plants not able to grow before the industrial revolution? Are you trying to argue that not only is CO2 not bad, but the increase is required?



What about doing something about the plastic island in the Pacific?... Oh of course not, they don't want to stop that, instead they want to tax the regular people over a perfectly good gas which is needed for life on this planet.... And people like you are so brainwashed that you believe the lies from the rich elite, and politicians like Al Gore, meanwhile he laughs behind you back, meanwhile he keeps using two lincon limousines, and an SUV to go everwhere, as well as his private jet meanwhile he demands for everyone else to use a bicycle...


This has nothing to do with me. I hate Al Gore.




You are made out of CARBON, and every form of life on this planet NEEDS CO2....


I'm made out of water too but I can't live in the ocean.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Are you saying I was not a member? WERE you THERE when I applied for membership??? If you were not then you can not call me a LIAR.


Wow. Did I ever say you weren't a member? You most likely are.



My statement applied to MY experience with ACS, rules change but many of those in ACS applied under the same rules I did. ACS started losing members and had membership campaigns fairly recently. I would GUESS money is why the rules were changed.

With out the statistics of how many BS, MS and PhD Chemists and Chem EEs are members your statement is meaningless and insulting to those of us who applied under the same rules I did.

Perhaps a current member could look it up from the annual salary data survey. I am not going to bother digging in the attic, just to be called a LIAR again.


How are my statements meaningless? All my statements said were that there were graduate and undergraduate members, as well as chemists and chemistry related scientists. That is all.

I never called you a liar. You were just saying that you need to be certified by two members, and I'm showing that everyone automatically is.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

...blah blah blah...

Simply because there is no evidence that CO2 causes the wamring claimed by people like you and the rest of the AGWers...

The Sun's activity was at the highest than at any time for about 1,000 years during the part of the 20th century, and part of the beginning of the 21st century...


OK, if the sun is doing it all by itself that is great, we can all go back to operating as normal and Al Gore can be put back into his place.

But what would we expect to see if that was so? That is the test of an hypothesis: does it match the observed data? Wouldn't we expect to see the plot of solar radiation match the plot of the average temperature?

To answer that question have a look at this graph.

Well it does seem to show that solar radiation in the 90's was the greatest its been this since the beginning of the 20th century. But it doesn't match the temperature change at all, does it?. So does anything else in that graph grab your attention with respect to the curve of the temperature change? Ozone levels? Volcanic activity? Sulfates?

Oh! Duh! Greenhouse Gases! My Oh My Oh My!

Just curious, here now: why do AGW deniers seem to think that Climatologists ignore the effects of the sun? Do you honestly think these people are so stupid that they would ignore it? Especially since you have been protesting about it for years? Do you not think that they would have already plugged it into their models by now if your protests were somehow a revelation to them?

Please stop insulting your own intelligence.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Another Diatribe from the ATS local loon - good to see you are trying to keep us amused - in the interests of not having this post deleted lets see if this cant be backed up with facts -

so lets TAKE A LOOK at your CLAIM and the TRUTH -

Your CLAIM is that the worlds largest science group rejects global warming - well I went to your link which was from a committed anti-global warming evangelical who had politicised the article and its response by taking VERY SELECTIVE RESPONSES - and high lighting them OUT OF CONTEXT - so I went to the source and counted the number of responses that disagree with his position - and the number was FOUR.

All the rest of the response were either regarding DIFFERENT topics all together, were upset with the correlation to to holocaust victims in the use of the word "deniers" or the majority of topics were actually AGREEING WITH HIM.

So you ahve actually posted evidence which points to the exact opposite of what you are claiming - which makes you a LOON and highly amusing.

-Snip-

Mod Edit - Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:30:54 -0500 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Firstly,
You really should highlight the BIAS in the site you use as a source. The author of your piece is a former REPUBLICAN communications director, runs an anti-global warming website and belongs to a right wing anti-environmental think tank. www.sourcewatch.org..., hardly independant.

The article is about members of a group who disagree with an editorial in a magazine. That is it. It is not a DECLARATION from that body that states that Anthropogenic Global warming is wrong.

It is spin like that that highlights the desperation of certain groups and the lengths they will go to to try and discredit anthropogenic global warming.
Science should be enough, should it not!

If you actually go to the ACS website and do a search on Global warming you will fing many, many, many, many articles and published works acknowledging Global warming.
portal.acs.org...:/portal/acs/corg/memberapp?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=mapp_search


Those pioneers are chemists, chemical engineers, and other scientists who are searching for solutions to the challenges of global warming. The United States Congress got that stark assessment of global warming’s potential impact in June 2008.



Today’s global challenge in this ongoing saga of chemistry for life: The quest for permanent solutions to global warming. We will talk about advances toward permanent solutions to global warming.



*American Chemical Society Reducing Your Carbon Fo...
American Chemical Society 6 Human Activity and Greenhouse Gases – Estimation Using 2000 Data Global greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 weighted by their global warming potential and organized by sector. The sheer size of cow herds makes a significant contribution to global warming.” Source: Reducing Other Greenhouse Gases – Exhibit on Global Warming at Koshland Science Museum www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes04.jsp Livestock lead rice-growing, gas-flaring, and mining in global emissions of this highly potent greenhouse gas.



Global Climate Change Article
ACS Journals C&EN CAS ACS Position Statement Global Climate Change ACS Statement on Global Climate Change Summary The ACS statement on global climate change reviews the science and recommends action on global climate issues. Letter from Katie Hunt to Reps Udall & Inglis on Global Change Research 6/19/07


ACS also publish a teacher guide every month, in most issues they raise Global Warming. Where are the letters regarding this? If the general consensus as painted by Morano in your OP think tank piece is correct, why is this teacher aid promoting and educating Global Warming as being real?

What about this article on the American Chemical Society from April,09.

WASHINGTON, April 9, 2009 — In celebration of Earth Day, the American Chemical Society and the Koshland Science Museum invite the public to attend a special Science Café session on global climate change, including what we know, what we don’t know, and a look at possible solutions.........
Why: A community outreach program designed to raise awareness of the importance of chemistry to everyday life, including the human dimension of climate change and how we can find solutions to the problem.
portal.acs.org:80... &sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5133d235-492e-4414-b219-5ea99f03cfd9

This is an invite to the PUBLIC to hear ACS discuss Climate Change.



I agree that debate on this topic is needed and scrutiny and caution in reviewing ALL opinions is required.

But in the case of the OP, this is just SPIN.

ACS clearly has a position on Global Warming that is quite different to that Opinion as stated by in the OP source by Marc Morana. Yes, some member will disagree but in General the WOrlds Largest group of scientists clearly say something different.

GO TO THE SOURCE.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


The only troll, are you and the other member, but hey everytime evidence is presented against the AGW religion some trolls have to come along and claim "it is all spin".... Not only that, but again Audas does nothing more than posts insults...

How in the heck does being a REPUBLICAN dismiss the sources by anyone?... NOW THAT IS SPIN!!!


You two keep being as trollish as you want, you won't stop the truth.



[edit on 3-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
*** attention ***

All of you stop it.

Get on topic and stay there. The insults will cease now.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
This is a reminder that there will be no discussion of other members and that the discussion should remain on the topic.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


They do not put the role of the Sun, nor the clouds, nor a myriad of other factors that affect the climate into their models. They just claim, it doesn't matter and that CO2 is more important than the Sun's effect on climate.

Not to mention the fact that they have claimed the activity of the Sun stopped increasing either in the 50s, or the 80s, yet there is evidence that the Sun's activity had been increasing until 2002-2005, until in 2006 the Sun's activity slowed down to a crawl.

Dozens of times I have presented facts form research which shows that GCMs are downright flawed, if not rigged.

The following are just some of the examples that GCMs, which are the computer models used to make "projections" in cliamte are unreliable, and don't take into consideration factors that affect the climate.



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...


The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...




Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...

Not to mention the fact that there is "peer-reviewed research" from all over the world which shows that we are neither in the warmest climate during the recent, past, nor the "fastest Climate Change" which many AGW proponents claim is happening yet the evidence shows the contrary.



On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

The same thing is found all over the globe, and not just in "some regional areas".



[edit on 3-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
As to the claim that we have been going through the worse Climate Change known to mankind?


doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.06.001


Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications





References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK


Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract
Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0cd5fe98deb558901327c2fe0377ae8e


P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss (in press) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa


P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.

1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: g.heiss@gmx.de



Abstract

The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

www-user.uni-bremen.de...

The same evidence can be found in every continent, and during that time atmospheric CO2 levels did not change much.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You can spam the thread as much as you want, But the OP is simply wrong. A lie and spin Job.
Thanks for avoiding my post.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




They do not put the role of the Sun, nor the clouds, nor a myriad of other factors that affect the climate into their models. They just claim, it doesn't matter and that CO2 is more important than the Sun's effect on climate.


I provided you with unequivocal proof that 'they' do most certainly do.

What possible reason would 'they' have to perpetrate a lie that could be so easily caught out?

What possible reason do you have to ignore direct documentation?

What possible reason do you have to disguise your false assertion with unrelated out-of-context papers about cloud cover parameters when the topic is solar activity parameters? Where are the modeler's responses to the difficulties noted in the papers you quote? Do you understand the papers you quote? Are they trashing the entire methodology, or merely pointing out limitations inherent in the approach?

Never-the-less, I'll bite. The argument for cloud cover is the same as for solar activity: if scientists, reviewing the results from models see possible problems with the cloud cover assumptions, then the model can be rerun with different cloud cover assumptions. Or if the complaints in the negative review are not serious or do not affect the conclusion, that can be explained.

That is the nature of science. This stuff is not hidden. I expect that the software for the models is available to other researchers who want to repeat the experiments, find flaws, improve the detailing for one parameter or another. But to assume that problems are ignored because of ego or an agenda is to misunderstand both the scientific method and the psychology of the scientists. Scientists, unlike you apparently, have no desire to be wrong.

Part of a scientist's training actually involves defending his work against colleagues trying to shoot him down. I had to sit through several of these torture rituals as an undergrad. This is so the scientist learns that they cannot possibly anticipate every contingency and review and criticism makes the work stronger. You are completely out of touch with scientific reality to assume that that toing-and-froing is not an inherent, vital, part of science. Picking out only the negative reviews and not understanding what the review is saying and ignoring the response reveals bias for an agenda, not scientific curiosity.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

I provided you with unequivocal proof that 'they' do most certainly do.


and i provided three different peer reviewed research which says they do not...


Originally posted by rnaa
What possible reason would 'they' have to perpetrate a lie that could be so easily caught out?


and it has been caught several times... the scientists which are in the AGW bandwagon claim they take every factor in account, but they don't. Either that or they claim "other factors are not as important as CO2.

Can you provide proof, or even evidence that CO2 causes the amount of warming claimed by the AGW scientists? I am not talking about claims, but evidence.



Originally posted by rnaa

What possible reason do you have to ignore direct documentation?


What direct documentation?... I gave you three different peer reviewed research which debunks your claims.

What possible reason do you have to deny the fact that for a long time the AGW scientists have claimed that factors like the Sun are not important?

They even made up the claim that solar activity stopped increasing either in the 50s, or the 80s, when there is evidence Solar activity continued to increase until probably 2005.



Originally posted by rnaa
What possible reason do you have to disguise your false assertion with unrelated out-of-context papers about cloud cover parameters when the topic is solar activity parameters? Where are the modeler's responses to the difficulties noted in the papers you quote? Do you understand the papers you quote? Are they trashing the entire methodology, or merely pointing out limitations inherent in the approach?


Unrelated?... another red herring from someone who doesn't want to accept facts... The fact that GCms do not take in consideration many natural factors, but instead are programmed to think that temperature should increase with increased atmospheric CO2, that is exactly what the models will do.


There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMsare too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse protagonist)was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere’s warming by the suns ultravioletradation and its impact on the circulation in the troposphere, he answered: “This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into models”[8]. Since there are other solar-terrestrial relationships which are too complex such as, for example, the dynamics of cloud coverage modulated by the solar wind, it is no wonder that the predictions based on GCMs do not conform to climate reality.

plasmaresources.com...

Then there is the fact that the AGW scientists have been claiming that the Sun's activty stopped increasing decades ago hence it could not be the reason for the warming when we know for a fact this is not true.



Originally posted by rnaa
Never-the-less, I'll bite. The argument for cloud cover is the same as for solar activity: if scientists, reviewing the results from models see possible problems with the cloud cover assumptions, then the model can be rerun with different cloud cover assumptions. Or if the complaints in the negative review are not serious or do not affect the conclusion, that can be explained.


and the conclusion that many scientists have reached is that GCMs are unreliable. Assumptions are not facts, more so if they are flase assumptions.



Originally posted by rnaa
You are completely out of touch with scientific reality to assume that that toing-and-froing is not an inherent, vital, part of science. Picking out only the negative reviews and not understanding what the review is saying and ignoring the response reveals bias for an agenda, not scientific curiosity.


Making such a claim and puting it in bold does not prove your claim, it just shows that you are willing to give red herrings and try to derail the thread by claiming "the OP is out of touch with scientific reality"....

I have proven through dozens of research from all over the world that what I speak is the truth.

BTW, stop trying to talk people's ears off, metaphorically speaking, with more of your claims, i am familiar with the scientific method, if you are going to show evidence that GCMs are relibale, show it, instead of making nothing more than claims.

I showed "peer reviewed research work" from scientists who have found GCMs are unreliable.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
and i provided three different peer reviewed research which says they do not...

No, you quoted papers that made assertions that there are errors in the models, not that solar output is not considered in the models. I linked a report that showed at a glance that solar output was most definitely accounted for.



and it has been caught several times... the scientists which are in the AGW bandwagon claim they take every factor in account, but they don't. Either that or they claim "other factors are not as important as CO2.


Stop calling disagreements between interpretation of data a lie by one side or the other. At worst, it is a debate. The inclusion of solar output in climate models is neither a lie nor debatable, the results are published, available to anyone who wants to look. The data, the modeling software, and the results are available for examination by 'legitimate' researchers.

Your insistence on labeling scientists liars with respect to their methodology borders on defamation.



Can you provide proof, or even evidence that CO2 causes the amount of warming claimed by the AGW scientists? I am not talking about claims, but evidence.


Since you refused to acknowledge the evidence in the link I provided earlier what's the point?. And no I can't be bothered to provide a link to any of the hundreds of papers that cover the issue from any number of different viewpoints. If you won't acknowledge the link I provided, and chase the links there, why should I bother.

Oh, snap. Might as well give you another chance. Try this one. Note especially these paragraphs:


The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.




What direct documentation?... I gave you three different peer reviewed research which debunks your claims.


The graph of data showing the effect of solar radiation variance on temperature change compared to greenhouse gas variance and other radiance forcer variances that I linked in an earlier post. Also the review I linked in this post, which I predict that you will reject.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Of course the climate isn't going to respond instantly to solar radiance. The climate has many heat sinks, predominantly the ocean, which can absorb solar radiation, and release it to the atmosphere over time.

But the truth is, the climate is simply far too complex for us to comprehend, let alone model accurately, as there are too many variables that we haven't accounted for, or simply neglected.

I honestly don't see why so many people cling to the belief that co2 drives climate change, with political scaremongering as the main source of evidence. Has CO2 driven climate change in the past 10 years??



Or could it be a climatic response to a solar minimum?

I'll concede that 10 years isn't exactly evidince of full blown climate change, but it is 10 years that has gone against all the AGW's, especially the IPCC's, projections

Also regarding scientists who have criticized the IPCC due to it becoming politicized, such as Chris Landsea,
here is a link to Dr Vincent Gray's (who is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception) letter to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. In it, he states:

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.


Also Nils-Axel Mörner, regarding sea level change.



A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

Source

And this is the organization that most governments are basing their climate change policy on?? Isn't it obvious that there is something seriously wrong with that?!



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join