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.

 

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by melatonin
 


You have basically posted unsubstantiated hype from the warmist bible and have not backed it up with one single reference and in addition have accused a member of being a liar.


I did. There is a link to his post, and if you follow what happened afterwards you would observe Nathan lying.

But I don't mind posting it for you. Exposing the dishonest is always a honourable pursuit.

Nathan starts here:


Originally posted by Nathan-D
You don't understand the logarithmic effect. An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is not the same as an increase from 300ppm to 560ppm. Here is a graph (below) using the IPCC's logarithmic computation (over-exaggerated) showing how when CO2 gets past 500ppm it's radiative forcing effect is essentially on a curve asymptotically approaching zero. Because CO2 has a strong logarithmic effect the only way climate models can produce catastrophic warming is through various feedback factors.


Link.


Which produces chuckles from me and the maths grad (MCsquared) he accused of not understanding logarithmic effects (lol). In response to me he posts:


Originally posted by Nathan-D
Laugh all you like my friend. You won't be the first and you surely won't be the last. Not sure why my post deserves a 'lol'. After about 1400ppm the warming effect is so infinitesimal the 2600ppm increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm (even though it's a substantially greater increase) still wouldn't rival the 260ppm increase from 300ppm to 560ppm using the IPCC's logarithmic equation


MC put this together later, nice of him really:



This produces more lulz and astonishment from myself and MC. MC responds that Nathan has misinterpreted the graph he posted. Nathan responds:



Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by mc_squared

You clearly have no idea what this graph even is. It is a Planck distribution. The numbers on the bottom are wavenumbers, aka frequencies - not CO2 concentrations.

Where did I ever say that the numbers at the bottom represented CO2 concentrations? I never did. That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination. I merely said after around 500-600ppm the effect is ever-diminishing which is clearly presented on the graph in blue (top right-hand corner).


And we have the lie and goalpost shift. Now he's saying that the plot shows the CO2 effect is 'ever-diminishing' as shown in blue. I point out that he is again very wrong yet again:


Originally posted by melatonin
Look, Nathan, you really do not have a clue. Earlier you said:


That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination. I merely said after around 500-600ppm the effect is ever-diminishing which is clearly presented on the graph in blue (top right-hand corner).


Now I would assume here that you mean the "600ppm CO2 F^ = 256.72Wm-2" (the only part in blue in the RH corner), which you infer shows an ever-diminishing radiative effect of CO2. And, by jove, it's lower than for the 300ppm measure using the modtran radiative transfer code (260.12wm-2)

Do you actually even have a clue what that means? Because it doesn't say what you think it does. The clue as to what it does mean is in the title of the plot. It does show a diminishing of something, not radiative forcing.

....

Now go and do some lernin' of what 'upward irradiance at 20km' might be telling you.

Once upon a time, a confused child found hisself at 20km above the earth in the stratosphere looking down at the surface, he happened to have a spectrophotometer and measured the irradiance leaving the earth. One year he measured it at 300ppm, and then later at 600ppm...


Nathan then disappeared for a few days, surfacing spouting BS as usual, completely avoiding his exposed ignorance and lie.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" Darwin
edit on 14-11-2010 by melatonin because: I'm so dizzy my head is spinning, like a whirlpool it never ends...




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

and that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"

www.geographictravels.com...

The link lists enough of the proven global warming scandals to leave little doubt as to its actual credibility.


No statistically significance does not mean no global warming. One would need to have a grasp of statistics to know what it means.

It simply means that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thank you for that. You completely missed the point, but then I am not surprised. Whether the other member was incorrect or not was not my issue. The issue was they way that you dealt with it and your numerous science quotations with not one single reference to back any of them up.

I shall still peruse your efforts tomorrow however since you did take the time to respond.
edit on 14/11/2010 by PuterMan because: Ah, the inevitable speeling erra




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thank you for that. You completely missed the point, but then I am not surprised. Whether the other member was incorrect or not was not my issue. The issue was they way that you dealt with it and your numerous science quotations with not one single reference to back any of them up.

I shall still peruse your efforts tomorrow however since you did take the time to respond


I don't mind responding, dude. However, it is late and I have discussed this issue with Nathan multiple times. The papers I posted in the other thread (where you decided I didn't post evidence, but needed to respond like a skinner's pigeon to your exact demands) would cover the issue that might need some evidence (i.e., climate sensitivity is estimated at around 3'C).

The points you made in that other thread, about how models have only just accounted for solar and volcanic forcings, is actually wrong. Hansen actually used data from the Pinatubo eruption to support the veracity of the NASA-GISS model in 1992:

pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

and solar activity has been accounted for in models since the early days.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

To be honest, the erroneous points you made were of no interest to me. The only things I needed to do to support my points are that:
(i) human sourced GHGs (e.g., CO2) can alter climate (I did that with Harries et al., 2001)
(ii) The estimated effects of CO2 are potential adverse (I did that with Annan & Hargreaves, 2006)

And, as your response showed in that thread, the fact you don't get that climate sensitivity is an important point is not really my problem.

Must sleep. Ciao.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
the other thread (where you decided I didn't post evidence


The other thread. Are you serious? Since when in my posts in this thread have I referred to anything you posted in another thread?


The points you made in that other thread, about how models have only just accounted for solar and volcanic forcings, is actually wrong. Hansen actually used data from the Pinatubo eruption to support the veracity of the NASA-GISS model in 1992:


Oh dear, it seems that you are not up with current news. I was referring to an article I read today - which I cannot just now lay my hands on - where this was stated. I assumed that being a interested in climate change you would follow the news but obviously not. I will find the article and post it tomorrow. You could say it was sort of tongue in cheek which had you read the article you might have recognised.


To be honest, the erroneous points you made were of no interest to me. The only things I needed to do to support my points are that:
(i) human sourced GHGs (e.g., CO2) can alter climate (I did that with Harries et al., 2001)
(ii) The estimated effects of CO2 are potential adverse (I did that with Annan & Hargreaves, 2006)


You state 'human sourced GHGs can alter climate. Yes they can and so can non-human sourced. You also refer to human sourced but make no mention of what proportion of the total increase in CO2 this human element represents. (By the way if you answer that be prepared to back it up with peer reviewed figures from a reputable source.) Your inference by making that statement is that ONLY human sources are relevant. Once again I am having to try and get you to be a bit more 'scientific' in the way you present information. It is not sufficient to say eggs from brown hens produce flatulence.

You have to say that "In a study of hens it was found that eggs from browns hens caused flatulence whereas eggs from whilte hens did not." (Assuming of course that this was the result of the study.) Can you not see your erroneous method of reporting what you consider to be facts?

I have made no erroneous points and I take exception to your rude and disparaging tone. Your ignorance of how to refer to a scientific paper, considering your time on ATS and your supposed interest in science astounds me. Once again as I said before if you have the full text to Harries et al then quote it. An abstract is not sufficient.

I have managed to find a full copy of Annan & Hargreaves.

By the way as I was finding that I also came across October figures for CO2 and temperature and added them to the August figures I had.




And, as your response showed in that thread, the fact you don't get that climate sensitivity is an important point is not really my problem.


My response in that thread showed no such thing. I am perfectly aware of climate sensitivity and once again if you bother to read what I said you would have seen that I agreed with you. You however do not want to read what is written, only what you think is written and then to make disparaging and inaccurate remarks about others to cover up your own shortcomings. In addition on that other thread which was NOT about climate change, you decided to make it so despite being requested not to.


Must sleep. Ciao.


Likewise.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by melatonin
the other thread (where you decided I didn't post evidence


The other thread. Are you serious? Since when in my posts in this thread have I referred to anything you posted in another thread?


Yeah, you were asking for some evidence for a comment I made.

Do you effectively want me to post the exact same study I posted in the other thread to support the same claim I made in this thread?


Oh dear, it seems that you are not up with current news. I was referring to an article I read today - which I cannot just now lay my hands on - where this was stated. I assumed that being a interested in climate change you would follow the news but obviously not. I will find the article and post it tomorrow. You could say it was sort of tongue in cheek which had you read the article you might have recognised.


What you mean that you didn't support a claim you were making? I'm shocked. I thought it was like some sort of rule of discussions with you.

There's no 'Oh dear' needed. I posted just a while back showing how volcanoes have been shown to alter climate, why would it surprise me? It was to a claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than man, when the evidence actually shows they cause decreases in rate of CO2 increase (via sulphates altering biosphere) .

Your comment was:


Please do not omit factoring in the effect of our star on that as well, since as was recently 'discovered' the fact that the sun and volcanoes, when taken in to account in the computer models, do have an effect upon climate, something which was originally not taken into consideration it would seem.


Which is obviously wrong. These things have been taken into account for quite a long time.I just posted some studies showing that.


You state 'human sourced GHGs can alter climate. Yes they can and so can non-human sourced. You also refer to human sourced but make no mention of what proportion of the total increase in CO2 this human element represents. (By the way if you answer that be prepared to back it up with peer reviewed figures from a reputable source.) Your inference by making that statement is that ONLY human sources are relevant. Once again I am having to try and get you to be a bit more 'scientific' in the way you present information. It is not sufficient to say eggs from brown hens produce flatulence.


lol, so I need to provide evidential support, but you don't. You're funny.

Humans can account for 100% of the yearly increases in CO2. This doesn't need peer-review. Accounting of human sourced emissions show this. We emit around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. The ocean and biosphere take in around abouts half of this. The remainder accumulates. In other words, we emit more than is required to account for the yearly increases. Are you actually questioning whether human are the cause of CO2 increases since the beginning of the industrial age? Burning old crusty dead things locked out the carbon cycle will do that, you know...

This study was actually pushed by deniers, as usual they barely had a clue what it meant.


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.


So Knorr's data shows the biosphere has been absorbing a continuous fraction (ca. 50-60%) of our emissions for a long time. The remainder accumulates in the atmosphere.

And at no point did I say that only human influences are important in climate. To say I did would be a misrepresentation. And would merely be a non sequitur from my statement that human sources can influence climate. I'm hopefully clever enough not to make such an obvious logical error.


You have to say that "In a study of hens it was found that eggs from browns hens caused flatulence whereas eggs from whilte hens did not." (Assuming of course that this was the result of the study.) Can you not see your erroneous method of reporting what you consider to be facts?


Wut? Yes, so it would be a fact that the study showed blah blah. Then when we had a good number of studies showing blah blah we would class it as a scientific fact.

I think you're trying to play on the truth vs. fact style problem.


I have made no erroneous points and I take exception to your rude and disparaging tone. Your ignorance of how to refer to a scientific paper, considering your time on ATS and your supposed interest in science astounds me. Once again as I said before if you have the full text to Harries et al then quote it. An abstract is not sufficient.


You didn't say that before. I can access Harries et al. (2001), however, it is a university access. I shouldn't give it to you. If you are nice I might, lol.

So when you said that models have only just started showing that the sun and volcanoes can influence climate you were correct? Even though model studies have been showing this for a decade and more.

Interesting.


My response in that thread showed no such thing. I am perfectly aware of climate sensitivity and once again if you bother to read what I said you would have seen that I agreed with you. You however do not want to read what is written, only what you think is written and then to make disparaging and inaccurate remarks about others to cover up your own shortcomings. In addition on that other thread which was NOT about climate change, you decided to make it so despite being requested not to.


lol, you said it was irrelevant...


This is a completely irrelevant point. Is anyone arguing about the sensitivity? You are pointing out effect and not cause.


Climate sensitivity is the warming resulting from a doubling of CO2. It's both effect and cause. CO2 is the cause, and 3'C warming is the estimated effect.

I don't have a good feeling about discussion with you puterman. At the moment, you seem rather worried about your ego. The last person I was in a discussion with hurt ego issues was Nathan. Don't be so delicate. No harm or shame in not knowing things, or being wrong, or just learning stuff.

I'm usually wrong about a dozen or more times a day. It goes with the territory.
edit on 15-11-2010 by melatonin because: Boom-Boom-Boom shake the room



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Climate sensitivity is the warming resulting from a doubling of CO2. It's both effect and cause. CO2 is the cause, and 3'C warming is the estimated effect.

I don't have a good feeling about discussion with you puterman. At the moment, you seem rather worried about your ego. The last person I was in a discussion with hurt ego issues was Nathan. Don't be so delicate. No harm or shame in not knowing things, or being wrong, or just learning stuff.

I'm usually wrong about a dozen or more times a day. It goes with the territory.


I am assuming the quote tags got a bit mixed up there!

Ho Ho worried about my ego? Me delicate? ROFLMAO ME delicate!!! Where in the world did you dredge that one up from? That is about the most comical thing you have said all evening/wee small hours of the morning.

Way too long in the tooth to be bothered about that sort of rubbish. You can be perfectly happy about discussing with me. I shall just keep on giving as good as I get. Now don't let that bruise your ego will you. You can't win all the time and nor can I, but I don't actually care about winning, and just to be scientific before you pull me on it, I don't care about losing either. I will edit this post shortly when I have read the rest of yours.

Well there you go, you fixed the quotes.
edit on 15/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I think climate change or not all corporations should be able to release as much toxins into the air as they want. I think the catalytic converter was a waste of time and I also think people should not be bugged all the time about leaving trash around. Recycle my butt. It is all a hoax to get us not to pollute the atmosphere and our environment. It is a trick to get us to stop spewing toxins in the atmosphere.
Everyone knows this stuff goes out into the atmosphere but later it gets sucked out a small hole into the galaxy like sucking the smoke from a bong.

Wouldn't it be a bummer to protect the atmosphere and keep it all clean and then get hit with a meteor that wipes us out anyway? This is Murphy's Law.

I am sick of fighting the huge number of people actually willing to fight tooth and nail against NOT polluting the planet. People is a term I use loosely here too.
Web bots from another planet that thrive on mercury and PCB's, adverse to oxygen and trying to get so they can breathe here instead of humans. It is the only answer that makes any logical sense to me.
In fact, I think I am going to take up smoking myself.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
What you mean that you didn't support a claim you were making? I'm shocked. I thought it was like some sort of rule of discussions with you.


Certainly is an I have apologised for not having the material to hand. I will seek it out.


Humans can account for 100% of the yearly increases in CO2. This doesn't need peer-review. Accounting of human sourced emissions show this. We emit around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. The ocean and biosphere take in up to half of this. The remainder accumulates. In other words, we emit more than is required to account for the yearly increases. Are you actually questioning whether human are the cause of CO2 increases since the beginning of the industrial age? Burning old crusty dead things locked out the carbon cycle will do that, you know...


First of all I must profusely apologise for sending you off to the site in the link below but it is the only web source I can find of document I wish to refer to.

William Pratt. The Debate is not over.

Don't worry you will get over the taint.

....We emit around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 each year....


The approximate annual human contribution to the overall atmospheric CO2 content is apparently about 8 billion (some say six billion) tons per year. Humans emit approximately 8 billion tons of CO2 per year. It sounds like a lot doesn't it? But if we compare that to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we can put that figure into perspective. Approximately 8 gigatons is the total human annual output of CO2.


Now I am not saying you are wrong, but my 'source' gives a different figure. You do not quote your source, you just pluck a figure out of thin air. Now do you see my problem?

Run with this for a moment assuming that the 8 billion figure is right. He then goes on to say:


It is said that the atmosphere contains an average of about 750 gigatons of CO2 which is roughly 385 ppm. (parts per million)

8 gigatons into 750 gigatons = 93.75
385 ppm ÷ 93.75 = 4.1066666666666665 ppm.

So assuming these figures are correct, our annual contribution of CO2 to the total average of 385 ppm is at most, a fraction over 4.1 parts per million. 4.1 ppm is the entire annual CARBON FOOTPRINT of the whole of the human race. That means that if all 6.8 billion of us reverted to a state before the discovery of fire we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 4.1 ppm per year, out of a claimed total average of 385 ppm


If we apply your 30 instead we get:

30 gigatons into 750 gigatons = 25
385 ppm ÷ 25 = 15.4 ppm.

Now 385 - 15.4 = 369.6

What he omits to point out is that this annual figure, taken back over 200 years is 820 ppm, and your figure is 3080 ppm.

It is patently obvious that neither of these figures is correct when applied on a straight line back 200 years so we need a figure that accounts for the correct annualised ppm.

Well I am too tired to work out that maths but this NOAA site shows < 1ppm in the 60s 1.5ppm in the 80s and 2.4ppm in 2006


Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase.


Mauna Loa observatory confirms a continuing trend at the same rate so we are at 390+ppm now.

I believe both our figures are incorrect. By the way before anyone says you can't take CO2 samples at a volcano I had good discussion with a scientist involved in this and he ably demonstrated that indeed you can.

Just for good measure here is another site that attempts to put forward 6.0ppm even though NOAA only say 2.4ppm. Oh yes they are all out there.


This study was actually pushed by deniers, as usual they barely had a clue what it meant.


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?


...............sorry, something has come up - gotta go. I will get back to it.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by melatonin
What you mean that you didn't support a claim you were making? I'm shocked. I thought it was like some sort of rule of discussions with you.


Certainly is an I have apologised for not having the material to hand. I will seek it out.


That's absolutely fine. I'm not even that bothered, tbh.


William Pratt. The Debate is not over.

Don't worry you will get over the taint.

....We emit around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 each year....


The approximate annual human contribution to the overall atmospheric CO2 content is apparently about 8 billion (some say six billion) tons per year. Humans emit approximately 8 billion tons of CO2 per year. It sounds like a lot doesn't it? But if we compare that to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we can put that figure into perspective. Approximately 8 gigatons is the total human annual output of CO2.


Now I am not saying you are wrong, but my 'source' gives a different figure. You do not quote your source, you just pluck a figure out of thin air. Now do you see my problem?


Well, just ask. I'm not an ogre, lol.

It's on page 17 of the IPCC AR4 Ch7.

What he's done is confused GtC (gigatons carbon) and gigatones of CO2. One is the mass of carbon, the other includes the oxygen bit as well. As you'll note in the IPCC document, there is a total of 8GtC (6.4 + 1.6GtC; fossil fuels & land use) from human activity. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, RMM of CO2 = 44.

So, 44/12 * 8 = 29ish gigatonnes of CO2.


Run with this for a moment assuming that the 8 billion figure is right. He then goes on to say:


It is said that the atmosphere contains an average of about 750 gigatons of CO2 which is roughly 385 ppm. (parts per million)

8 gigatons into 750 gigatons = 93.75
385 ppm ÷ 93.75 = 4.1066666666666665 ppm.

So assuming these figures are correct, our annual contribution of CO2 to the total average of 385 ppm is at most, a fraction over 4.1 parts per million. 4.1 ppm is the entire annual CARBON FOOTPRINT of the whole of the human race. That means that if all 6.8 billion of us reverted to a state before the discovery of fire we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 4.1 ppm per year, out of a claimed total average of 385 ppm


Wut? He's gotta be kidding...

CO2 was around 280ppm for over a thousand years before we started burning stuff. It's now 385+ppm.

Thus, 385-280 = 105ppm

105/385 = 27%

That's how much of the CO2 we can account for in the atmosphere at 385ppm. At 560ppm, we will have the first doubling (= ca. 3'C warming). 650ppm is seen as they best target we could achieve if we start acting now by some at the moment (it used to be 450ppm). We are easily capable of hitting 1000ppm-ish (so around 6'C warming, lol). And that's ignoring some of the rather wyrd feedbacks that lurk (methane clathrates etc).


It is patently obvious that neither of these figures is correct when applied on a straight line back 200 years so we need a figure that accounts for the correct annualised ppm.

Well I am too tired to work out that maths but this NOAA site shows < 1ppm in the 60s 1.5ppm in the 80s and 2.4ppm in 2006


Yeah, we see an increase of around a couple of ppm each year. I don't see why he needs to attempt such a silly calculation. We see increases of about 2ppm a year, roughly half of which is absorbed so it would be around about 4ppm each without the sinks helping us out.

Don't see his point. I suppose his argument is, "well, it's only 4ppm, who cares!". Cool. But our emissions are increasing every year, and they are accumulating all the time. Like the death of a thousand cuts, it all adds up.



Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase.


Mauna Loa observatory confirms a continuing trend at the same rate so we are at 390+ppm now.

I believe both our figures are incorrect. By the way before anyone says you can't take CO2 samples at a volcano I had good discussion with a scientist involved in this and he ably demonstrated that indeed you can.


Nice to hear you accept that! They just need to be clever about it.

It is basically around about 8GtC, which is equivalent to 29 gigatonnes of CO2. Same thing.


Just for good measure here is another site that attempts to put forward 6.0ppm even though NOAA only say 2.4ppm. Oh yes they are all out there.


...............sorry, something has come up - gotta go. I will get back to it.


That's cool, take it easy.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

Nathan starts here:

Okay, I hold up my hands, I'm a disingenuous reprobate. I like how you bring up previous posts that have nothing to do with this current discussion in an attempt to paint me as a liar. I will admit that I made a mistake and misinterpreted the graph but misinterpreting something does not make me a liar.


A single doubling is probably certain at this point in time. A second is possible. Indeed, some groups are talking about aiming for 650ppm rather than the 450ppm that was proposed as the best we could achieve. Thus we are talking of a best of over 3'C, with an upper potential of 6'C.

That is significant. Indeed, we will be in a situation not seen for a very long time. The estimates of climate sensitivity are based on observational data and modelling. Again, you are just a dishonest ideologue.

And other scientists, like Lindzen have presented buttressing evidence that it is more in the magnitude of 0.5°C. The IPCC's hypothesis of a high climate sensitivity has been blown away by the non-appearance of the predicted hotspot in the troposphere.


Much like water vapour (which some may know deniers will constantly remind people is an important greenhouse gas and therefore causes warming), CO2 is affected by temperature. Thus, when temperature rises, the atmosphere can hold more water vapour (which is sourced from oceans). This increase in water vapour causes warming. So in this case water vapour is a feedback.

Sure, increased water vapour causes more warming but that is a temporary effect that lasts only until the water vapour turns into cloud whereupon it becomes a negative feedback by reflecting incoming sunlight away into space. Of course the cloud eventually falls out of the atmosphere as precipitation and takes the climate back to square one, but anyone who claimed to know, or to be able to calculate the complex energy interactions involved in these turbulent processes would be a fraud. As water vapour increases more of it should condense into clouds increasing albedo and thus allowing less energy to reach the surface automatically arresting any catastrophic warming. Spencer and Braswell 2008 have shown using satellite data that clouds are a strong negative feedback. The IPCC's modellers cannot model this negative feedback from clouds and that is one of the main reasons why skeptics reject them. Indeed the IPCC themselves concede that clouds remain the greatest area of uncertainty. Do you agree that we need to do more research into this area before restructuring the energy economies of the world? In any case if the water vapour feedback hypothesis was correct we should see the troposphere above the tropics warm twice as fast as the surface and this isn't happening in neither radiosonde or satellite data. But then we've been through this before and I already know that you think windshear has superseded thermometers.


For CO2, when ice-age terminations are triggered by orbital variations, the initial warming results in release of CO2 from oceans, this CO2 causes warming. In this situation, CO2 is a feedback.

Sure, CO2 is a feedback, but finding one single feedback tells us nothing about the overall feedbacks. And you should provide evidence that this extra CO2 can produce significant warming.


So the idea he is proposing here is that because temperature causes CO2 increases during ice-age terminations (well-accepted and even predicted), CO2 cannot 'control' temperature. Yet earlier in his post he says:

Agreed. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be having an effect. But how much warming is caused by MMGW due to CO2?

Believe it or not, but both my statements can be true at the same time. You forget that a minor force can still be warming while a major force cools. There's no reason CO2, anthropogenically originated or otherwise, couldn't have a slight warming effect and yet the planet cools, indeed - given that temperatures have dropped precipitously on innumerable occasions throughout history while CO2 has risen, if CO2 has any warming effect, that must have happened. Whatever warming effect CO2 has it is clearly no match for other climatic forcings because temperatures have shifted consistently throughout geologic time (take a look at the graph below) without any abrupt changes in CO2 levels - and visa versa - so however way you look at it - CO2's role must be trivial. Also, as aforementioned, temperatures have been level for over a decade now while CO2 continues to rise.


Or here.


You might note that after making a total hash of trying to look like he knew what he was talking about and blatantly lying about what his said posts to save face, he disappeared for a few days to resurface spouting the same old BS.

And I suppose you do know what you're talking about, right? You obviously aren't just mindlessly regurgitating the CAGW-dogmas with which you have been brainwashed.


he dissapered for a few days

Believe it or not, but I do have a life outside this forum. Shocking, isn't it?
edit on 15-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

Agreed. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be having an effect.


So it is not merely a correlation as you state, but the two variables are linked.

But how much warming is caused by MMGW due to CO2?
Ummm! That would be trends in the average anomaly going up, and up observed over a time period that appears anomalous in conjunction with the observed increase in CO2 contributed by Anthropogenic activity.
It is a pretty simple equation Nathan.
But Like I noted in a previous post, math is not your strong suite is it?
For further clarification please refer to the sudden increase in one of the two variables(that would be CO2), the one which you agree effects the other(that would be temperature).


No-one has offered any empirical evidence that it is more than insignificant, or that what has happened to the temperature is not merely mother Earth rolling on with natural temperature cycles has she has done for millennia.


What is significant Nathan, and if you were honest you would admit it, is the trend. The trend of warming and the trend of CO2 output is significant. AND if we continue we will see significant change.
There are already many examples of negative feedback related to these trends.

Also.

Can you please point out in the cycles and the history of "Mother Earth rolling on" that 6 billion people existed and pumped massive amounts of sequestered Carbon that we then converted by way of combustion into a Gas, a gas that you agree effects temperature.
Can you point that human activity out in the "History of natural cycles of Mother earth rolling on "so as to dismiss it as being insignificant and just a part of the normal cycles.

It is the fact that our activity is unprecedented, that makes it significant as a variable related to climate change when considering the patterns of natural cycles and events that are extracted from historical records like Ice Core Data.


Oh atlasastro, you haven't been doing your homework, have you? All glaciological proxies, without exception, show that temperature controls CO2.
I have done my homework, I just use valid material rather then dismissing the issue with red herrings.
What you fail to consider is that proper scientific investigation actually looks at the trends in net radiative forcing involved( of which CO2 is just one, but one that increases rapidly) so as to validate the idea that CO2 is driving the trends we are seeing now, and especially the last 35 years.
By calculating the net forcing involved we see that it correlates with the temperature anomalies. Again, whilst your criticisms of correlations are noted, so too is your acceptance that CO2 will effect temperature. And that is exactly what the net radiative forcing is, a calculation of the increased CO2. So we are able to see a trend in CO2 that precedes the temp rises, calculate the net value of the forcing and see if it matches the temp. anomaly trends. And guess what Nathan, they do.
Go figure hey!
Imagine using the laws of physics to calculate a value of impact from GHG's in relation to climate temperature.
Giss Global mean net forcings from 1880
Giss global L/O temp index
Plot the graph yourself, you will see that net forcing(GHGs) precedes Temp rises and not the other way round as you claim.
Here is some valuable information on all the elements related to the net forcing calculations I mention.
data.giss.nasa.gov...


So you can see that the concept that Temp. increase is responsible for the increase in CO2 seems rather weak.
Especially considering in an earlier post you actually provide us with a graph detailing the level of Anthropogenic CO2 impact on atmospheric CO2.


Even, in a fit of generosity, we concede and consider that temps will increase CO2, as per your post, you still have to calculate the fact that YOU show us OUR input of a KNOWN variable(CO2) which we can calculate as an agent involved as an element of radiative forcing that will contribute to Temperature and this will appear as Temp anomalies because it is a variable will can specifically associate with anthropogenic activity in relation to temperature.

I won't address this issue any further because Mel does it much better then I ever could.


There is a lag lasting, on average, 800 years between changes in temperature and corresponding changes in CO2.
Which you introduce as conjecture to explain the recent warming whilst ignoring all that I mention above.

This is because the oceans are so vast and deep they literally take hundreds of years longer than the continents to react to temperature changes - especially at the very bottom of the oceans where the deepest ocean currents take the longest to circulate. And as everyone knows, as the oceans warm they release more CO2 and as they cool they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere - thus the "cause and effect" link is most likely the other way around. Instead of CO2 controlling temperature, it is more likely that temperature actually controls CO2, thus explaining the correlation.

No, it is not more likely. Because you point out we know we are increasing CO2 concentration very rapidly.

You argue against yourself by introducing the lag because the trend in concentration does not correlate with any lag, but with anthropogenic activity.
Fail.



Right. But we already know that CO2 follows temperature, right?


Smoke up buddy!


The graph you cited, I'm assuming is from Lockwood and Frohlich.
You will also note that solar irradience is also trended in the link and graph above in relation to net forcingm which you should consider in relation to the following.

The counterargument to Lockwood's and Frohlich's methodology can be found here: icecap.us... You should note that other scientists like Willie Soon and Douglas Hoyt have come to different conclusions so this is by no means a settled subject. Even if the correlation between solar activity and temperature had broken down from 1970 onwards, that doesn't prove anything because the alternative possible drivers of observed global temperature changes are innumerable and climate scientists have hardly begun to explore the tip of this vast iceberg as yet. What about PDO, AMO, and GCRs? All possible alternatives. If we are doing proper science we must endeavour to exhaust all of the possibilities - thoroughly.


Again, you don't understand the implication that your counter argument bring.
Even considering that the role of the sun has been under estimated, the solar irradiance as a factor in NET forcing is still calculated on the elements involved.
All we need to do is adjust the suggested upward trend in TSI that your paper suggest with the observed level of variable involved in calculating the net forcing and then see if it matches temps.

Put simply, instead of suggesting that TSI has increased and this alone explains the temp anomalies, simply calculate the net forcing involved with the adjusted TSI and show it matches the temp records.
Do they do that?
No.
Fail. Again.


The average 800-year time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes is certainly not conjecture. See here: www.palisad.com... These detailed graphics from analysis of Dome and Vostok ice core data mathematically show that CO2 follows temperatures.

I didn't say it was.
What was conjecture is that you use it to explain current temp. trends.
Fail. Again and Again.


Again, we already know that temperature controls CO2 levels, so why should we be surprised to see a correlation?

Fail.


NASA's GISS data is compromised because the surface temperature readings from thermometers are conveniently sited next to the air-conditioning vents of large buildings.
Explain the Ocean anomalies then.


NASA's temperature data is in pretty bad shape. Please see here: wattsupwiththat.com... Quote from the article:


NASA's disgrace was affirmed in March 2010 when they finally conceded that their data was in worse shape than the much-maligned Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK's University of East Anglia. (Dr Anderson) advises it is fair to assume that NOAA were using this temperature anomaly to favourably hype a doom saying agenda of ever-increasing temperatures that served the misinformation process of government propaganda.

Here is a more revealing graph of the surface temperature readings from the GISS data. See any significant warming since 1995? See here: www.junkscience.com...


When all else fails, try and ignore the data when it argues against, but use it when it suits you.
Fail.


I didn't say no warming. I said no statistically significant warming.
Statistically speaking 1998 is significant as the warmest year on record comes after 1995. Statistically speaking it is significant of a trend in warming. Statistically speaking it is evidence of the trend in warming we are seeing and is related to anthropogenic CO2 that statistically is noted to precede these statistically significant warm records.



Firstly, that graph concerns only one country, not the globe, and secondly, I am talking about the rate of warming, not absolute temperatures.
The rate of warming is trended from absolute temperatures. It can be trended for the globe, my use of the graphic was to show the trend. Wether you reduce to anomaly trends or trends in absolutes, it is the same. Up. For the globe.

The trends are more or less the same.

Yes they LOOK the same when placed beside each other, do you know why.
Whilst the trend in MOST other elements are relatively constant, the one significant difference is anthropogenic CO2.
So the trend is the same, but the value(see RADIATIVE NET FORCING WILL INCREASE AND WE SHOULD SEE A TREND IN HIGHER TEMPS) for the second trends is significantly higher.
Which is exactly what your graph shows.
Thank you.
Look at this again.

Note the increase in concentration with increase anthropogenic CO2
Now lets look at your graph again.

Let us look at the similarities between the trends from 1905 and 1942 and 1980 and 2010.


As isolated trends, they look very similar.
But when looked at over a longer period that significant difference in the trends is what they are measuring.

The trends, that look similar between 1905/1942 and 1980 to 2010 and are measuring in relation to the temp.
There is a significant difference in value though, between the two trends even though the trend characteristics are very similar.
This shows that something is effecting the trend in a way that relates to temperature. So while the over all up and down trends remain the same as a pattern, the value is going up long over time especially in relation to the second trend.
I wonder what characteristic related to temp. that is?

That certainly matches with the later trend showing a high value in the temp.


Once again, thanks for pointing out the overwhelming link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature trends.
Nathan, by pointing out the similarity in trends, but a distinct difference in value, you have helped demonstrate how we are able to show CO2, and specifically anthropogenic CO2, is increasing temperature.

I think you contribution to this thread is extremely valuable. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for pointing out the scientific methods used in deducting the link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and how that are effecting our climate.


Oh, atlasastro. The rate of warming between around 1975-2000 in the graph I presented in my initial post (and above) is exactly the same as the rate of warming that occurred between around 1910-1945 and both occurred during significantly different periods of anthropogenic emissions.

Yes, but again you failed to consider the value of the warming.
But you actually cleared that up for us above.




Where does the level of anthropogenic CO2 input appear as being cyclical so as to dismiss it as insignificant to the warming trends?

Excuse me?

You are excused, as I ask above, you and others often site cycles and historical records etc as being typical of the climate we are seeing now.
Where does the level of anthropogenic CO2 input appear as being cyclical in the entire history of earth so as to dismiss it as insignificant to the warming trends?
edit on 15/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Misinterpreting a graph is not the part that makes you a liar. This is the part that makes you a liar:


Originally posted by Nathan-D
Where did I ever say that the numbers at the bottom represented CO2 concentrations? I never did. That was simply dreamt-up in your over-active imagination.


This is what you routinely do around here. You constantly misinterpret the science and then try to blame your folly on everyone else's supposed lack of understanding. Hence Dunning-Kruger effect.

And it is relevant to this discussion, because your blatant intellectual dishonesty on this topic becomes automatically relevant to any thread you decide to post on at this point. As melatonin said - you will disappear for a day or two and then be right back on here pretending nothing happened and posting the same tired arguments that have already been debunked over and over and over again. It's really lame.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


PuterMan I'm directing this next part to you so you can see an example of what I'm talking about in the above post to Nathan, while also addressing your point about not posting sources.

Because consider it in this context:

Here we have Nathan once again pushing the carbon lags temperature fallacy. Now take note I have explained this to him before in painstaking detail, as I'm sure other members have as well (those of us who made the mistake of once thinking he was actually here to discuss rather than troll).

You can find some of my previous responses for example here, here and here.

In those you can see for yourself - I not only left sources explaining the paleoclimatic lag between temperature and CO2 - I even linked him to this 1990 James Hansen paper that predicted it. I explained that this prediction was based on the fact that orbital forcings alone were too weak to account for past glacial-interglacial cycles, and I even linked him directly to the data itself on this.

The carbon lags temp issue, despite being one of the denialists favorite talking points (since on the most superficial, one-dimensional level it sounds like such an obvious way to dismiss the case for CO2 altogether) is actually one of the best pieces of proof we have for CO2 induced warming. Because when you look at the science in its FULL scope, it not only all adds up - the fact that increases and decreases in CO2 can amplify otherwise minor changes in temperature so much, also help us solve other scientific enigmas like what caused the ice ages.

But as you can see - after taking the time to put all this information together, to support ATS' motto of deny ignorance by injecting some real science into this conversation, here we have Nathan-D once again skipping along pushing his "carbon lag temp, cause and effect, carbon lags temp" mantra - totally unfazed by all the actual science that makes him sound like a total dumbass.

And the problem goes beyond Nathan here unfortunately, because you will find all across ATS as well as the interwebs in general - people will constantly gravitate towards the over-simplified 2 second soundbite "global warming for dummies" answer rather than the wordier, more complicated TRUTH.

So forgive us if we sometimes get jaded posting sources, but I think as mel implied above it starts to get real redundant after a while - and nobody pays attention to them anyway. No matter how many times these things get debunked and explained in detail, somebody always comes along 5 minutes later going "climate change is natural, because it's teh sun shtoopid! yr brainwashed lollollol".

The ones who do this out of lack of understanding can at least be forgiven for their ignorance (although it would be nice if they toned down the arrogance) - the ones who do this deliberately however IMO should be banned from this place outright, since they piss all over ATS' motto.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Danbones if I can offer some advice - don't read somebody's distorted blog version of the interview. Go read the actual interview itself:

BBC Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

In it you'll see Phil Jones' comments in their full context:


B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.



E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


When you read someone else's interpretation you get subjected to the law of broken telephone, not to mention their straight up propaganda.

In latest attack on climate science, conservative media distort BBC interview with CRU's Phil Jones




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


I do not think your Google search really proved your case either, you can do that for almost every other year as well and will be bound to get something. Just try it for yourself....

Based on all of the information presented on this first page and after studying most of it I can safely assume we have no catastrophe to be worried about in regards to human climate change.


Perhaps it is your concern for the environment which has clouded your judgement which is by all means understandable but why continue trying to deny it? Instead of trying to debunk the skeptics how about you promote information about why we should take care of our environment instead?

For me it was looking at the original data which was modified during the "Climategate Scandal" which made me realize what is happening and with this new Carbon Tax; my theory has only been confirmed.....



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by s7ryk3r
reply to post by Muckster
 


I do not think your Google search really proved your case either, you can do that for almost every other year as well and will be bound to get something. Just try it for yourself....

Based on all of the information presented on this first page and after studying most of it I can safely assume we have no catastrophe to be worried about in regards to human climate change.


Perhaps it is your concern for the environment which has clouded your judgement which is by all means understandable but why continue trying to deny it? Instead of trying to debunk the skeptics how about you promote information about why we should take care of our environment instead?

For me it was looking at the original data which was modified during the "Climategate Scandal" which made me realize what is happening and with this new Carbon Tax; my theory has only been confirmed.....


You make a good point sir, but just to clarify something... My Google search was really not trying to prove anything other how invalid a Google search is when dealing with debates. You can find virtually anything you want on the internet and back up ANY position you have...

I do agree with you though... if i am honest about it i must admit that my concern for the environment has clouded my judgement from time to time. It is something a care deeply about.

However, i don’t trust many people when dealing with this... especially those who are funded by oil companies... And i must admit that i get very tiered of the self appointed experts on ATS who spout off as if they are the authority on climate issues.

I don’t understand all the data that’s thrown around... the endless numbers, stats and figures... does that make me ignorant or honest??

All i know is what i see with my own eyes and follow with my heart... I’ve seen miles of dead corral in the Caribbean.... ive seen Jellyfish blooms in the med... ive seen an increase in extreme weather events and watched insects disappear from my garden only to be replaced by more exotic ones... As for all the climate change arguments... blah blah blah bla blah...

All i know is that i would rather not take a chance on something i do not fully understand... i would rather cut back on my consumption and energy than take a risk with the planet.


You are also correct when you say "Instead of trying to debunk the skeptics how about you promote information about why we should take care of our environment instead?"

That is normally the path i follow... somehow i got sucked into two threads on this... guess im just tired of seeing all the sceptics threads lately and couldn’t resist offering my opinion



But it is just an opinion... i am certainly no authority on this subject. I will now walk away from this debate and let the mildly insane argue about stats and figures while the environment around them degrades...


Oh... as a final note i will leave you this quote...




"You don't have to understand the desert: all you have to do is contemplate a simple grain of sand, and you will see in it all the marvels of creation."



Peace to you my friend



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

No, it is not more likely. Because you point out we know we are increasing CO2 concentration very rapidly.

How do you claim to know these things? You state them as matters-of-fact as though you know them without a shadow of a doubt. Is that really so? I fear such confidence would be unfounded for two reasons. First, how would you go about differentiating a decrease in, say, phytoplankton growth associated with warming to an increase in CO2 emissions from an anthropogenic source since vegetation decay and anthropogenic emissions both have a depleted C13 signature? How does one go about distinguishing between the two? Second, there is evidence from the likes of Georg Beck 2007 and re-analysis of chemical measurements showing the variability of CO2 over the last century has been greater than what was previously thought. See here: www.biomind.de...


That would be trends in the average anomaly going up, and up observed over a time period that appears anomalous in conjunction with the observed increase in CO2 contributed by anthropogenic activity.

Since you're having such immense trouble grasping this simple logic I'll lay it out for you nice and pictorially so even a child could understand.


The warming has not accelerated as our emissions have increased. Do you understand this simple logic? The rates of warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-2000 (according to Phil Jones) is "similar and not statistically significantly different from each other" : news.bbc.co.uk...

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade)
1860-1880 - 21 0.163
1910-1940 - 31 0.15
1975-1998 - 24 0.166
1975-2009 - 35 0.161

Are you managing to follow this simple logic?


It is a pretty simple equation Nathan. But Like I noted in a previous post, math is not your strong suite is it? For further clarification please refer to the sudden increase in one of the two variables (that would be CO2), the one which you agree effects the other (that would be temperature).

Indeed. CO2 and temperature have increased, but we already know that increased temperature result in increased atmospheric-concentrations of CO2 because as the oceans warm their capacity to dissolve CO2 decreases and they release more CO2. If CO2 pushed up temperatures we should see this in rock-strata and ice cores. We don't. Where is the evidence of yours that CO2 is capable of significantly pushing up temperatures apart from a correlation? Also I am quite consistent in saying that AGW is probably real, but insignificant. CO2 may effect temperatures, but not drastically enough that we need to impose carbon taxes.


It is the fact that our activity is unprecedented, that makes it significant as a variable related to climate change when considering the patterns of natural cycles and events that are extracted from historical records like Ice Core Data.

What unprecedented activity might this be? Please be more specific. I suppose you are referring to the supposed "unprecedented" CO2 levels? There is so much intrinsic uncertainty in paleoclimate reconstructions, especially ice-cores. Ice-cores have been found to consistently underestimate the amount of atmospheric CO2 because there will inevitably be diffusion of CO2 especially very old ice core measurements which come from highly compressed layers. Stomata records show much more variability and contradict the ice-core. I am not arguing for any specific paleoclimate sensitivity since just about every aspect of paleoclimate reconstruction seems extremely conjectural and uncertain to me. Unfortunately though, they are the only evidence we have at hand. And natural temperature swings in the past have been far greater than what AGW-advocates say that man has achieved since we started burning hydrocarbons. During 1700 the Central England Temperature recorded a rise of 2.2°C in just 33 years.


Can you please point out in the cycles and the history of "Mother Earth rolling on" that 6 billion people existed and pumped massive amounts of sequestered Carbon that we then converted by way of combustion into a Gas, a gas that you agree effects temperature. Can you point that human activity out in the "History of natural cycles of Mother earth rolling on "so as to dismiss it as being insignificant and just a part of the normal cycles.

Super volcanoes have dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere in a shorter space of time than we ever could. Anyway you seem to be missing the point. The warming over the 30 years since our emissions have increased have been entirely within long-term, established climate trends as I have demonstrated ad nauseam with numerous graphs and sources that for some brain-twanging reason you invariably brush off as meaningless. Also by far and away the chief contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapour, which makes up around 95% of the overall greenhouse effect. Consider also that water vapour's variability in the atmosphere is far greater than CO2's too and it becomes strikingly apparent that anthropogenic CO2's effects are utterly overwhelmed by those of water vapour and we cannot even pretend to control water vapour. The 'threat' from anthropogenic CO2 is thus totally insignificant.


What you fail to consider is that proper scientific investigation actually looks at the trends in net radiative forcing involved (of which CO2 is just one, but one that increases rapidly) so as to validate the idea that CO2 is driving the trends we are seeing now, and especially the last 35 years. By calculating the net forcing involved we see that it correlates with the temperature anomalies. Again, whilst your criticisms of correlations are noted, so too is your acceptance that CO2 will effect temperature. And that is exactly what the net radiative forcing is, a calculation of the increased CO2. So we are able to see a trend in CO2 that precedes the temp rises, calculate the net value of the forcing and see if it matches the temp. anomaly trends. And guess what Nathan, they do. Imagine using the laws of physics to calculate a value of impact from GHG's in relation to climate temperature.

This conclusion is not supported by the scientific arguments and data. According to the IPCC's logarithmic equation (RF = 5.35loge(C1/C0) W/m2) a doubling of CO2 alone is predicted to give us around 1°C of warming, however, this warming from CO2 alone would need to be amplified massively by positive feedbacks (around three times) in order to produce the warming the IPCC claims. In the climate models the most important feedback factors and which contribute most to radiative forcing are water vapour and clouds (they make up about two thirds of the predicted warming) however if there is no troposphere hotspot (as is predicted in the PCMs) then there is no amplification from water vapour and the warming is reduced by about 60%. Since 1969 there have been thousands of radiosonde observations and none have found the hotspot, so the 3°C warming scare is only 1°C at best. And if the feedbacks are negative as some scientists like Paltrdige, Spencer and Lindzen claim, then that 1°C will be reduced even further.


So you can see that the concept that temp increase is responsible for the increase in CO2 seems rather weak.

Weak? It is evident in every single ice core going back 800,000 years. All of these studies confirm that temperature controls the amount of atmospheric CO2: Petit et all 1999, Fischer et al 1999, and Monnin et al 2001. If CO2 has such a significant impact on the temperature we would see CO2 rise before temperature, however, ice cores show exactly the opposite. How do you explain how an increase in CO2 could be responsible for a corresponding increase in temperature that occurred hundreds of years earlier?


Yes, but again you failed to consider the value of the warming. But you actually cleared that up for us above.

The temperature has been increasing for 300 years.


Put simply, instead of suggesting that TSI has increased and this alone explains the temp anomalies, simply calculate the net forcing involved with the adjusted TSI and show it matches the temp records. Do they do that? No. Fail. Again.

What?



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


And it is relevant to this discussion, because your blatant intellectual dishonesty on this topic becomes automatically relevant to any thread you decide to post on at this point. As melatonin said - you will disappear for a day or two and then be right back on here pretending nothing happened and posting the same tired arguments that have already been debunked over and over and over again. It's really lame.

My advice to you is this: stop scapegoating us and go and do some work on yourselves. Examine your own denialism and find out what has caused you to reject the scientific method that we skeptics are doing our best to practice and which you accuse us of not practicing whilst making no attempt to practice it yourselves.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


As per u2u just confirming that for personal reasons I shall not be replying for a day or so.

I have not run away. No way Jose!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join