History of climate gets 'erased' online

Here is another example of how "scientists" are quashing dissenters.

Climategate deniers like to point to the peer review process and support of thousands of scientists as evidence for man-caused global warming. But more researchers are talking about their own unpleasant encounters with the cozy cabal of global warming cops who routinely rigged peer review, giving each other a boost while conspiring to quash publication of anything from skeptics.

www.nctimes.com...

Well lets see here.

I wonder what the graph that got thrown out looks like..



hmmmmmmmmmm.

Tells a pretty different story. It's almost as if this has happened naturally before...

Hmmm. Oh well we caused climate change!

[edit on 22-12-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by maybereal11

Yes. Practically anyone can “edit” Wiki. It does have “reviewers”, but more to the point he stated “source”…not “writers” as you inserted.

He was referring to the sources for the written material at the end of the Wikipedia page which do in fact link to scientific research or “scientists”.

Everything you just said is correct, except for one thing: he and I were referring to writers and not sources. The sources are usually very good, but I have seen pages that exactly opposed sources listed for that page. Is this an oversight that I just happened to see before someone corrected it? Possibly. But is it therefore dangerous to rely solely on Wikipedia? Yes.

Not everyone reads the small print at the end of the article, and that is where the reliability problem lies. Wikipedia is written for researchers, and written well, but it is open to anyone with an Internet connection and therefore must be verified.

Portraying the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists that are actually qualified to analyze Global Warming as Al Gore’s pet issue…well that is..how did you put it?

In actuality the person who most prminently brought Global Warming to the attention of the public was James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Yes, Jim Hansen was the guy who headed up the Global Warming hysteria among the scientific community. But he did not bring it to the forefront of public perception. Al Gore accomplished that. There is a difference between doing the science and telling the public about the science. Ask anyone on the street who Al Gore is and they will probably say more oft than not "He's that Global Warming guy". Ask who James Hansen is and you will likely get a bunch of confused looks.

I can debate the science. But this has become a debate about personalities rather than about science. Thus, I will bring up the personalities involved. What's good for one side is good for the other; do you not agree?

Context, my friend, context.

TheRedneck

www.youtube.com...
awesome little video on climate.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by HappilyEverAfter]

It isn't about the science any more. It is all about the FUNDING. The Vice President of the US is also the head of the National Science Foundation and NASA. Gore was in a position to determine which studies got funding and which ones didn't. Several people in this post have criticized some findings because they were suposedly from studies financed by the oil companies. What is the difference between a scientist who skews his results to obtain funding from Global Warmong proponents and one that skews his results to obtain funding from an oil company. A whore is a whore. So many biased studies have been done and promoted I don't think anybody actually knows what's going on.

Originally posted by malcr
In all viewpoints, left-right, religious-atheist etc etc there are extremists. Those who like to distort information to their own ends. Now you can be a moron and listen to these people or not.

NB Listening does not mean agreeing you could have an opposite viewpoint that listens as above! only dismissing the odd extremists and listening to reasonable people is the answer.

So re: connelly a person known for extreme viewpoints and incidentally had editorial privileges revoked for reasons NOT related to GW articles!!!!!!!!!!!! point to note for those who can think.

Next point: wikipedia is known to have it's problems due the method used to populate it i.e. anyone can! So nobody should use wikipedia as the definitive reference. Point to note for those who can think.

Finally : read some goddam scientific studies done by people who have qualifications in the subject matter. That means the medieval warming is well documented, understood and explained and DOES NOT detract from modern human induced global warming. I can understand the temptation to hide it though since most people won't take the time to read and understand instead they will "educate" themselves with the tabloid headlines "Medieval global warming not man made". Note how that headline is 100% accurate and yet worded in a way that implies modern warming is therefore not man made as well. But oh boy how dumb to believe the inference!

Aren't you skeptics ashamed of the current tactics employed? All this mud slinging in the hope that some of it sticks. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed.

Why can't you provide factual researched evidence?

let me put this as simply as possible.

1- i work in the field. i have been a meteorologist for the last 9 years.
2- i have looked at alot of data, and not just what the people who are pushing mmgw have wanted me to see.
3- the earth is warming (although it has actually been fairly steady for the last several years)
4- man made co2 emmisions are simply not physically capable of causing the increase in global temperatures.

pollution is real. it is not good. it destroys water supplies, ruins food sources and creates a disease and illness risk. This is not my debate.

the problem comes in when you have a load of people who have been cramming mmgw down humans throats and they have now been caught tampering and altering information that could cause doubt in thier claims.

funny thing about science:

in most fields of study, a good scientists comes up with an idea, or identifies a potential problem or solution, and begins to potulate on possible mechanics and causes. Then the good scientist provides ALL data both for and against the theory to his/her community for review. then the community can further postulate and hypothesise, doing their own independant experiments and studies, in hopes of finding a repeatable result. once found then theories can be developed and used, unless some seriously undoubtable evidence and data becomes available, then we have scientific law..

bad scientists come up with an idea, and begin trying to prove thier hypothesis by collecting as much data as possible that SUPPORTS their idea, and really really bad scientists who have no respect for the very nature of science will omit or alter damning evidence againts their hypothesis in order to gain not only notoriety, but also grants and other fundings. (sound familiar?)

the REAL issue here is grant money.

when a college recieves grants or donations to the science department because of their awesome abilityto produce fine life saving and money saving research, the science department only sees a portion of those dollars. The rest goes to departments that simply do not recieve funding. (as in the english department and so on...) now take something like global warming and throw that on scientists plates and all of a sudden you have a cash cow. not only are the schools profiting from publishing papers that show bits and peices of the whole story in order to help shove mmgw forward, but then there are many other hands in the fire.

Understand, there are many awesome sounding scientific theories out there that have been tried but failed. anyone can come up with a theory and support it, but be cautious when the theory is not only improvable, but when the data is tampered with.


is the earth warming? sure it is. Has there been an increase in co2 in the atmosphere? i would say yes. but here is what i have been trying to say.

this froma scientific stand point only proves that one of the following hypothesis is correct.

1) an increase in co2 has caused an increase in global temperature
2) an increase in temperature has caused an increase in co2
3) an outside variable is causing both global temperatures and co2 to increase.

now before we can even THINK about trying to say that the industrial age has caused it, we have to decide which one is in fact the real scenario.

and once you do that, try explaining to the world why it has done so at leat 4 other times in the last million years, AND how it did so with no modern human industrialization. I guess there were many many more animal farts than we could ever imagine?

Originally posted by heyo


The rest of your post is just ad hominem attacks.

i mentioned whom exactly in my post? i just posted an article concerning Wikipedia's apparent slant (sorry, 'consensus') and followed up by saying that on shouldn't trust any single source, or several sources derived from the same set for that matter.

either you intended to quote somebody else or your post reveals a complete mental disconnect.


==============

since noone seems to have clicked that link, i will add another paragraph, so my quotes won't grow too long.

www.cbsnews.com...

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

the question here is whether they have taken a postion when they should just be a neutral, unbiased platform.

[edit on 2009.12.23 by Long Lance]

they should remain neutral on the debate of global warming, as anyone who chronicles factual knowledge should do.

they should take a platform on who is editing the articles and why.

simple, offer editorial status to those who seek it. take note of who edits what. if someone is found to be malignantly editing content, ban hammer prevails.

Originally posted by wx4caster
4- man made co2 emmisions are simply not physically capable of causing the increase in global temperatures.

I would suggest you need to brush up on the physics.

this froma scientific stand point only proves that one of the following hypothesis is correct.

1) an increase in co2 has caused an increase in global temperature
2) an increase in temperature has caused an increase in co2
3) an outside variable is causing both global temperatures and co2 to increase.

now before we can even THINK about trying to say that the industrial age has caused it, we have to decide which one is in fact the real scenario.

2) not required, we release twice as much CO2 required to account for current increases in atmospheric CO2. Releasing 30ish billion tonnes of CO2 is all we need to know. However, even if it was a normal ice-age scenario with CO2 as feedback, this doesn't negate the physical properties of CO2. That is, even when acting as a feedback CO2 still acts as a GHG.

3) See 2. Although it doesn't negate other variables forcing temps. We can add in other GHGs (CH4 etc), for instance.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Releasing copious amounts leads to alterations in radiative balance. An effect that has been observed in the atmosphere and was predicted over 100 years ago.

We can see the alterations of outgoing longwave radiation...

Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

1.Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

and other studies indicate the increase in downward longwave radiation.

and once you do that, try explaining to the world why it has done so at leat 4 other times in the last million years, AND how it did so with no modern human industrialization. I guess there were many many more animal farts than we could ever imagine.

For someone who presents themselves as some sort of authority, that's a ridiculous logically fallacious strawman. The sort I'd expect from the run of the mill layman.

Just because people died of heart failure naturally in the past doesn't preclude my causing heart failure by pumping you full of KCl.

No-one but deniers propose that if humans are influencing climate now, they must have influenced all past climate.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by melatonin]

I would suggest you need to brush up on the physics.

Orly?

So you are saying that humans are producing an increase in co2 sufficient enough to produce a rise in earth’s temperature?

In the earth, a little less than 28% of earth’s spherical face is occupied by humans.

Of that 28%, there is only about 30% of that land that is inhabited (don’t forget Antarctica)

So 8.4% of the earth’s spherical surface is inhabited. But of that there is a portion that does not have any more co2 emissions than pre global warming.

Now. Seeing as co2 is a trace gas making up less than ½ of a tenth percent. (or less than 1/2500th ) of the atmosphere, man that gas has GOT to be stopped!

But wait there is more!

Of that 1/2500th how much are earthlings responsible for? About 5% or so.

That means that 0.000019% of the earth’s atmosphere is co2 that is produced by humans. AND that 0.000019% is supposed to be raising earth’s temperature enough to cause global catastrophe.

Now… knowing that… just what kind of co2 are we producing? Super evil co2? Perhaps man made co2 is a more efficient heater than naturally produced co2…

Now brush me up on my physics good sir, and show me how 0.000019% of the earth’s atmosphere is going to kill us all.

Man, god forbid if we ever find a way to increase water vapor, or methane, or no2…

2) not required, we release twice as much CO2 required to account for current increases in atmospheric CO2. Releasing 30ish billion tonnes of CO2 is all we need to know. However, even if it was a normal ice-age scenario with CO2 as feedback, this doesn't negate the physical properties of CO2. That is, even when acting as a feedback CO2 still acts as a GHG.

3) See 2. Although it doesn't negate other variables forcing temps. We can add in other GHGs (CH4 etc), for instance.

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Releasing copious amounts leads to alterations in radiative balance. An effect that has been observed in the atmosphere and was predicted over 100 years ago.

No that is NOT all we need to know, because 30ish billion tons doesn’t mean didly squat when you are talking atmospheric weight, and out of that “30ish billion tons” you quote, how much settles? Co2 is heavier than “air”, and unlike mmgw, scientific law tells us that heavier gases will settle over time, and in the troposphere, pollutants and particulates settle in a few days to a week. Now I understand that atmospheric mixing will keep some of the stuff a part of the mix, but still a portion of it will settle, and a portion of it will be used by plants and such.

We can see the alterations of outgoing longwave radiation...

Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

1.Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

and other studies indicate the increase in downward longwave radiation.

Fantastic writing, sounds well written.

Unfortunately it was written in January 2001, since this paper has been written, the earth has actually cooled… bad timing for the globe to turn on the ice box.

I also like how you have shown something that is out dated that supports your theory in an effort to sound right… WTG

and once you do that, try explaining to the world why it has done so at leat 4 other times in the last million years, AND how it did so with no modern human industrialization. I guess there were many many more animal farts than we could ever imagine.

For someone who presents themselves as some sort of authority, that's a ridiculous logically fallacious strawman. The sort I'd expect from the run of the mill layman.

Just because people died of heart failure naturally in the past doesn't preclude my causing heart failure by pumping you full of KCl.

No-one but deniers propose that if humans are influencing climate now, they must have influenced all past climate.

If I die of a heart attack, I can be examined. Silly, there is no autopsy for earth, and we really do NOT understand exactly what is going on here. You don’t want to set and think about what cause the other warm periods before human co2 emission? Why not? They are observed and just as real as the one today, with higher levels of co2 and warmer temperatures. All minus the smoke stack.

I understand that if the world does warm that it would be bad. But what is worse is a bunch of politicians trying to tax people on the presumption that the earth is warming because humans are to blame, when the science is either not there, omitted, altered, or fabricated, in order to keep up the hysteria in the face of a near ten year cooling trend.

Now… please brush up my physics.

God knows we can't have another renaissance happening now can we? All that warming making plants super-productive and allowing free time so people can invent things to improve the quality of life and what not. HEAT BAD! HEAT KILL HUMANS!

Originally posted by wx4caster

Orly?

So you are saying that humans are producing an increase in co2 sufficient enough to produce a rise in earth’s temperature?

In the earth, a little less than 28% of earth’s spherical face is occupied by humans.

Of that 28%, there is only about 30% of that land that is inhabited (don’t forget Antarctica)

So 8.4% of the earth’s spherical surface is inhabited. But of that there is a portion that does not have any more co2 emissions than pre global warming.

Now. Seeing as co2 is a trace gas making up less than ½ of a tenth percent. (or less than 1/2500th ) of the atmosphere, man that gas has GOT to be stopped!

But wait there is more!

Of that 1/2500th how much are earthlings responsible for? About 5% or so.

That means that 0.000019% of the earth’s atmosphere is co2 that is produced by humans. AND that 0.000019% is supposed to be raising earth’s temperature enough to cause global catastrophe.

Now… knowing that… just what kind of co2 are we producing? Super evil co2? Perhaps man made co2 is a more efficient heater than naturally produced co2…

Now brush me up on my physics good sir, and show me how 0.000019% of the earth’s atmosphere is going to kill us all.

Man, god forbid if we ever find a way to increase water vapor, or methane, or no2…

Jeez, did you get a gold shovel with that job of yours? Do you use it beat the strawmen you appear to have a fondness for?

Humans are responsible for almost all of 37% increase from pre-industrial baseline. We are responsible for 27% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pre-industrial CO2 280ppm; current CO2 385ppm. 280ppm was pretty consistent for a few thousand years before humans began releasing billions of tonnes of CO2. And before that CO2 hadn't gotten much above 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. There's a reason why oceans are acidifying rather than the converse.





CDIAC emissions and CO2 level data together:

No that is NOT all we need to know, because 30ish billion tons doesn’t mean didly squat when you are talking atmospheric weight, and out of that “30ish billion tons” you quote, how much settles? Co2 is heavier than “air”, and unlike mmgw, scientific law tells us that heavier gases will settle over time, and in the troposphere, pollutants and particulates settle in a few days to a week. Now I understand that atmospheric mixing will keep some of the stuff a part of the mix, but still a portion of it will settle, and a portion of it will be used by plants and such.

lol, whatchoo on about?

How much settles? Like dust? You've gotta be kidding me that you're a meteorologist of any sort? lol

The earth's sinks remove about 50% of what we emit. That's why we can say that we release twice the amount of CO2 to account for the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2. The current yearly increase in the atmosphere is about 15 billion tonnes of CO2. We currently release around 30 billion tonnes of the stuff every year. The measurements are of the CO2 in the troposhere; even if it did 'settle', it wouldn't be here nor there.

Unfortunately it was written in January 2001, since this paper has been written, the earth has actually cooled… bad timing for the globe to turn on the ice box.

I also like how you have shown something that is out dated that supports your theory in an effort to sound right… WTG

Show me the data. You'd need to show a negative trend in temperatures that is significantly different from no trend. This would require some statistical testing on your part, so get to it. Show me the trends between 2001 and late 2009 with 95% CI. Cheers.

Even if it had cooled on a short-scale it wouldn't be any great shakes - natural variations will still be important, but GHGs will result in a long-term positive forcing - which is what we see, a noisy but gradual rise in the long-term. It's only you deniers positing either-or strawmen. Moreover, climate is not weather, but as a supposed meteorologist you'd know that.



As for more recent data try Wang et al (2009), Wild et al (2008), Philopona et al (2004), and Chen et al (2007). All show expected changes in either outgoing or downward longwave radiation.

If I die of a heart attack, I can be examined. Silly, there is no autopsy for earth, and we really do NOT understand exactly what is going on here. You don’t want to set and think about what cause the other warm periods before human co2 emission? Why not? They are observed and just as real as the one today, with higher levels of co2 and warmer temperatures. All minus the smoke stack.

The causes of earlier climate change are an active area of research. Indeed, I posted a great talk earlier from the recent AGU meeting about this issue. As it points out, a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule. It doesn't care where it came from - human-influenced or not, it's still a GHG. And the data shows its influence in climate throughout geological history.

Do you think posing that question covers up that specious strawman you want to beat senselessly? Your logic is awful.

I understand that if the world does warm that it would be bad. But what is worse is a bunch of politicians trying to tax people on the presumption that the earth is warming because humans are to blame, when the science is either not there, omitted, altered, or fabricated, in order to keep up the hysteria in the face of a near ten year cooling trend.

Now… please brush up my physics.

And finally the tax cooties make their appearance. Same as it ever was. No surprise.

Brush up? lol. That was an error on my part. Freshman classes take time and effort. David Archer has his non-science major course on his site, should be about right:

geoflop.uchicago.edu...

Have fun.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by melatonin]

I for one am not suprised, Science is a religion and they want to protect it before the Reformation breaks out. National Museums are their churches and publics schools are their seminaries. OPEN YOUR EYES!

This is an honest paper, it highlights the fact that it is but a model.. a theory, and does not try to shove things down your throat. It deals with the oceans increase in temperature precipitating an increase in Co2. Coincidently Co2 rises after surface temperature rises has been noted before in ice core samples taken in Arctic regions. This paper also acknowledges a suspicion that changes in cloud cover is responsible for the initial rise in ocean temperatures, but that cloud cover changes are not well documented. So this is a good read for us peasants, who would rather "believe the tabloid headlines" Oh dear!

www.drroyspencer.com...

lol i dont need freshman classes, i have my degree already thank you, bachelors of science in meteorology from mississippi state, class of 01. and i am employed using my degree. i am AMS Certified, certified through the navy for not only surface weather technician, upper air technician, but also:

tactical forecaster
maritime forecaster
theater forecaster
aviation forecaster
strike forecaster

i have experience with weather regimes, not only in the US but also in the atlantic, middle east, and med.

ok so you want to see where we are at with past warming periods? here is one graphic



and one that reflects the actual cooling since 2001 vs the forecasted calamity.



i dont beat a straw man, or no one. just because i have valid points does not mean that we are beating anything.

why was the earth warmer before humans could have been the reason? and several times? in a cyclic manner?


yes CO2 settles. All things settle in the atmosphere.

there are vertical oscillations for sure, escpecially below the tropopause, and this can cause a lot of the heavier gases to remain mixed, but those vv's are not always sufficient.


now... you say that we increased the co2 by 105ppm and that we are responsible for 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere. ok. so 27% of .0038% (which is total amount of co2, it being a trace gas and all...) is 0.001% of the earths atmosphere. 1/1000th of a percent. that is what we humans are responsible for, and that 1/1000th of a percent is really going to cause all these horrible hurricanes and disasters???

and MAN i wish i could see your graphics at work, photobucket is blocked here, i will check it out later at home.

and what am i on about 30 billion tons? well an average every day thunderstorms weish over a million tons if that gives you perspective. the real nasty ones can weigh as much as 10-15 million tons, and a hurricane can weigh as much as a trillion tons.

the oceans contain much much moer co2 than the air, so does the land. (although the ocean is much more stock full of the stuff), and there is a constant interchange of co2 back and forth between land water and air.

now about your long term...

where are you getting this from? computer models?? "i thinks" from the science community???

i work with numerical models every day. the gfs is no good after 4-5 days or so, and even after 3 it is sketchy. anyone who forecasts beyond 3-5 days may as well throw darts. even good models like the nam, or nogaps (not my favorite, it is fnmoc) canadian models, they try to go out but to think that a computer can model atmospheric anything that far out with any degree of accuracy is fooling themselves.

we dont know alot of what you claim we do. all we have is ice samples and a hundred years or so of collecting data. not to mention all the data sparse regions of the world, like the ocean, mexico, northern canada, russia, the middle ease, africa... these places simply dont have the data. the dots are not close enough together to write any model with any degree of accuracy.

we are talking standard equations here. but there are outside influences.


i know climate is not weather. we have climo books that tell us what the conditions are supposed to be for this time of year, by month and season and so on...

you are not getting it at all.

you cannot prove that man made co2 emissions are causing the earth to warm, yet there are so many out there that try. i get it that pollution is bad. i have said that over and over. no one wants to made mud pies out of industrial sludge so to speak. we all want clean parks.

spare the human race the rod on this one because there is some outside force or variable that we are not seeing. i can say with a dereen of certainty that if we humans still rode horses and had no industrial works, that this increase in global temps would still be occuring, and so would the increase in co2.

we are talking trace gas, with eratic absorption windows. now nitrogen, or water vapor... thats completely different. co2?? come on man.

anthropogenic climate change is a very real problem, the thing is is that usless climate change bills will increase the appel of our so called presidents.

Originally posted by wx4caster
lol i dont need freshman classes, i have my degree already thank you, bachelors of science in meteorology from mississippi state, class of 01. and i am employed using my degree. i am AMS Certified, certified through the navy for not only surface weather technician, upper air technician, but also:

tactical forecaster
maritime forecaster
theater forecaster
aviation forecaster
strike forecaster

i have experience with weather regimes, not only in the US but also in the atlantic, middle east, and med.

Cool, you're a technician. I'm surprised they never taught you how to do proper research.

I have a 50m swimming certificate which I acquired at 7 yrs old and an D grade 'O' level in Art, and I'm pretty experienced in baking cakes. Now the meaningless fluff is out the way, I'll just keep showing how specious your arguments are.

ok so you want to see where we are at with past warming periods? here is one graphic

Yeah, seen it a few times before. Those are the ice-age cycles. Not once have we seen CO2 levels much above 300ppm for at least 400,000yrs. Indeed, a recent study showed it's actually about 15 million or something since we had levels of 380ppm.

and one that reflects the actual cooling since 2001 vs the forecasted calamity.

I note you didn't actually provide the data I asked for.

And the graph is awful, did you find it on some random deniers website? Looks like a kid put it together. It's a total misrepresentation of the data. Here's the actual model-data comparisons from Rahmstorf (2007).

i dont beat a straw man, or no one. just because i have valid points does not mean that we are beating anything.

why was the earth warmer before humans could have been the reason? and several times? in a cyclic manner?

Because climate is also readily altered by natural variations.

Is that like a surprise to you or something? That doesn't negate the influence of human activity. You're still stuck in an overly simplistic logical fallacy. It's not either-or. CO2 from human activity is just as influential as that from natural pertubations. Indeed, it explains a good chunk of ice-age climate change and many other major climate changes over the geological timescale.

yes CO2 settles. All things settle in the atmosphere.

there are vertical oscillations for sure, escpecially below the tropopause, and this can cause a lot of the heavier gases to remain mixed, but those vv's are not always sufficient.

lol, yeah. At times it would be true, hence why a lake burp of CO2 can, and does, kill. But in general it is pretty well-mixed by a number of processes.

You do get that even if CO2 was like dust it wouldn't matter? We are measuring the CO2 that is actually pretty well-mixed in the troposphere (between 382-389ppm at mid troposphere across the globe; see AIRS data). The sinks do absorb a good chunk of our CO2. Just not enough, the rest is accumulating.

now... you say that we increased the co2 by 105ppm and that we are responsible for 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere. ok. so 27% of .0038% (which is total amount of co2, it being a trace gas and all...) is 0.001% of the earths atmosphere. 1/1000th of a percent. that is what we humans are responsible for, and that 1/1000th of a percent is really going to cause all these horrible hurricanes and disasters???

I don't find arguments from small numbers convincing. If you do, find a microgram of polonium and eat it.

and what am i on about 30 billion tons? well an average every day thunderstorms weish over a million tons if that gives you perspective. the real nasty ones can weigh as much as 10-15 million tons, and a hurricane can weigh as much as a trillion tons.

Cool. Relevant how?

the oceans contain much much moer co2 than the air, so does the land. (although the ocean is much more stock full of the stuff), and there is a constant interchange of co2 back and forth between land water and air.

Cool. Relevant how?

I've already laid the basis of the carbon cycle. The ocean and terrestrial sinks remove around 50% of what we emit. They are net absorbers.

where are you getting this from? computer models?? "i thinks" from the science community???

I agree that there is a distinction between you and the science community.

And you pull yours from denier websites. This data needs no model. We have estimates of how much fossil fuels we burn etc and the consequence of this on the atmosphere via direct measurements.

We release around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, the atmosphere shows increases of 15 billion tonnes.

i work with numerical models every day. the gfs is no good after 4-5 days or so, and even after 3 it is sketchy. anyone who forecasts beyond 3-5 days may as well throw darts. even good models like the nam, or nogaps (not my favorite, it is fnmoc) canadian models, they try to go out but to think that a computer can model atmospheric anything that far out with any degree of accuracy is fooling themselves.

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate? I might not be able to predict very well the presence of rain next thursday, but I'm pretty sure that the first thursday in july will be warmer than next thursday.

i know climate is not weather. we have climo books that tell us what the conditions are supposed to be for this time of year, by month and season and so on...

you are not getting it at all.

Oh, no. I get it well enough. It's not me who keeps conflating weather and climate.

you cannot prove that man made co2 emissions are causing the earth to warm, yet there are so many out there that try. i get it that pollution is bad. i have said that over and over. no one wants to made mud pies out of industrial sludge so to speak. we all want clean parks.

I just showed evidence in one paper and cited many more. This is based on very simple physics that has been around for over a hundred years.

spare the human race the rod on this one because there is some outside force or variable that we are not seeing. i can say with a dereen of certainty that if we humans still rode horses and had no industrial works, that this increase in global temps would still be occuring, and so would the increase in co2.

Must be fairies. Dude, we know the vast majority of the CO2 is human sourced. To be arguing otherwise just shows that your not even in the game here.

When we release 30 billion tonnes of CO2 it has to go somewhere.

we are talking trace gas, with eratic absorption windows. now nitrogen, or water vapor... thats completely different. co2?? come on man.

Nitrogen isn't a GHG, but I assume you mean N2O. So you accept that water vapour is a GHG and that it can alter climate? But a different GHG isn't able to act in the same way? lol

Water vapour will alter climate. In fact, forcing from GHGs like CO2 will lead to a water vapour positive feedback. Which again we have observed:

PNAS September 25, 2007 vol. 104 no. 39 15248-15253

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content

B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+ Author Affiliations

Abstract
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by wx4caster


Thank you for your experience, knowledge, and common sense. Your post makes some excellent points. I would take YOUR opinion over Melatonin's any day. You didn't have to, but you gave your credentials, and all Melatonin can do is mock you, and others, while admitting that his academic record is pathetic. The problem with AGW advocates is that when they have no real retort, they resort to name-calling, and making comments about people's research abilities.
The bottom line, as you said, is that there is far more that we DON'T KNOW about what affects the climate, and to what degree those factors play in climate change.
Thank you very much for your experienced contribution to this thread. It is very much appreciated.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Thank you for your experience, knowledge, and common sense. Your post makes some excellent points. I would take YOUR opinion over Melatonin's any day. You didn't have to, but you gave your credentials, and all Melatonin can do is mock you, and others, while admitting that his academic record is pathetic.

Did you think that was my academic record? lol

I wouldn't care even if the dude holds the Chair of Inane Babblings at the University of Hicksville.

I'm sure you will want to accept the inane position that this dude is holding, you both appear to be gut-thinkers.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

you both appear to be gut-thinkers.

there you go again. You just cannot debate without name calling. Any time someone does not accept your position, you resort to name-calling. I think you should look in the mirror, and see the person you have become. You really need to do some serious self-reflection on the way you talk to people. I will pray for you.