Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics.

Originally posted by C0bzz
It's in the abstract for one. Page two.

Why me?... i asked you to excerpt it for a reason... Let's check page two....

Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-
house eects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned dierence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275[364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, www.worldscinet.com...

arxiv.org...

So let me get this straight.... they are CLEARLY talking about the fictitious mechanism as claimed by the AGW proponents and YOU are claming the two scientists are the ones making the claim of some "balanced mechanism"?....... talk about BS...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Not really, I think the answer lies somewhere here. Show me that modern climate-science is dependent on an equilibrium? It isn't.

Oooh i see...so you made a random search and you claim all those prove your religion is true?.... You are dealing with someone smarter than your typical AGW fan Cobzz.... You are not debunking anything, you are showing how ridiculous your argument is...

Originally posted by C0bzz
Let's use your way of doing science..:

Hundreds? Hundreds compared to what? 58,200?

My way of "doing science" includes showing peer reviewed articles and excerpting from them and not just making a random search and claiming all those prove your point when they don't....

Try again...

Originally posted by C0bzz
I could say the same thing about the climate deniers. For example, the science and scientists in "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

BS, even the IPCC chief scientist who gave a scaremongering statement on Copenhagen had to admit recently they used "errors", but then the scientist who actually posted one particular "error" admitted they KNEW the information was false but they were just trying to push for nations to accept the Kyoto protocol...

Sorry kid but once again all you are doing is showing that AGW is nothing more than a religion to people like you...

Originally posted by C0bzz
About a month ago I decided I should probably look at it fairly. And I discovered most of the claims made by climate deniers are BS.

So you claim that you started to look at this a month ago and because of this what i saying is BS?...

BTW kid, and yes i have to call kids those members who show they don't know how to make an argument, no one denies Climate Change.... What we are denying are the lies, and the scam that AGW is...

There is a BIG difference between the AGW scam, and NATURAL Climate Change....

Nce try, but again all you are showing is that to kids like you AGW is nothing more than a religion... REAL scientists even say it is nothing more than a religion...

Don't get angry if more and more people don't attend your churches services for religious fanatics of AGW...



[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by C0bzz
So, no real surprise here. Misrepresent the science and then "prove" that it is wrong. Classical straw man.

Even worse, they are like pyromaniacs in a field of straw-based humanoids.

Not sure who said it here recently, but it's true that deniers often 'debunk' themselves. They tend to not be big fans of internal consistency.

Alice laughed, "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[edit on 31-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
(all that stuff)

[edit on 31-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

So wait. I just want to get this straight. You're attacking MC for using blogs and wikipedia... and you're basing your position for doing so off of an OP/ED piece published by the national Review, which openly and happily admits its conservative political bias, written by a guy who's opposition to Global Warming amounts to "Al Gore says it so it must be wrong" and who's position on Wikipedia is largely based on the fact that Wikipedia disagrees with him?

How do you keep your head from exploding from all that cognitive dissonance?

heh I am definitely not bothering with this clown anymore. He's been completely pwned in this thread - made a total a## out of himself, and yet he's still barking away at us with nothing better to say than call everyone "kid". Like he can't win the intellectual fight so he's taking it to the "street" now or something.

The ironic thing is I used Wikipedia as a reference on purpose - so he could see that this basic information he has completely wrong is so readily available even a 5 year old could look it up. But no he's still in complete denial claiming that Wikipedia is now in on the scam too, as if you couldn't verify that information in a million other places...

yeeesh.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Byrd
Never claimed to be.

Yet you are judging that the points presented in this paper are "trash" to you, without even debating the points themselves?

Let's go back to the beginning.

There was an argument about this paper with wild accusations on both sides.

I looked it and the authors up so I could settle the questions.

I found that while they ARE mathematicians, they aren't physicists and their papers on math are cited in a number of places.

I said so.

I said that that it's poorly written and its references are incorrectly cited and it wouldn't make it into any juried journal on physics. Both are true.

That wasn't an opinion on content. It was an opinion on workmanship. I have read (for my degrees) well over a thousand research papers (my reading list for this degree is currently at 370 papers, many of which won't make it into the dissertation.) I know good scholarly format when I see it, and this sure wasn't it.

I said nothing about my beliefs on global warming or anything else. I said nothing about the content other than I agreed with some of the quoted problems.

I simply commented that they are not physicists and that their screed is an op-ed and not a research paper, no matter what the source said (your source appears to have made some unwarranted conclusions, by the way.)

My quibble with the Journal of Irreproduceable results is that they just cited it and never gave references (in a professional paper you give volume, page, and author when you quote so other readers can go look it up if they have questions -- and I would have looked it up.) They cited the whole Al Gore book... no page and chapter references, cite web pages without giving the retrieval date (again, bad form because webpage content changes.)

From an academic standpoint that's Really Bad Writing -- and anyone who suffered through a Masters' in any subject can tell you that.

You didn't know a thing about my background (which is not an issue with me), but you made some wild assumptions and sneered at me before I handed you my CV. Then you proceeded to tell me what *I* believe about this issue and lecture me about your view of my beliefs.

I never actually said what my beliefs are -- nor did you ask. You simply launched into a diatribe, as you did with others posting here, assigning them some sort of belief system without actually asking what they believe.

Personally, I think you would do far better to ASK what a person's opinion is and ASK where they got it from rather than going off on a canned rant about what you THINK they believe.

Originally posted by mc_squared
The ironic thing is I used Wikipedia as a reference on purpose - so he could see that this basic information he has completely wrong is so readily available even a 5 year old could look it up. But no he's still in complete denial claiming that Wikipedia is now in on the scam too, as if you couldn't verify that information in a million other places...

In all fairness, there was a flap about 2 years ago concerning one of the Wikipedia editors. Lawrence Solomon published on a CBS blog a diatribe against another editor and accused the editor of making all sorts of changes to tweak the data so that Wikipedia would support AGW:
www.cbsnews.com...

Some of the anti-AGW sites leaped gleefully on this and said it was a CBS news article (it's not) instead of a blog.

This led to a blog war and several long articles (like this one) on Wikipedia about how consensus editing is done:
Why Wikipedia cannot claim the world is flat

When the "scientist emails" emerged recently, WorldNetDaily re-ran the old controversy as recent news (something they have done before) and a number of anti-AGW sites picked that up and started the whole furor again.

I *think* Solomon's complaint is more of a "they won't agree with me so I'm going to take my toys and scream" sort of thing. I talked with several Wikipedia editors (in areas not in Climate Change) who said that Solomon had misrepresented how changes are done and how consensus is achieved and that on some topics there will always be editors who disagree with the results. They showed me how to find the Wikipedia change blogs, and I briefly read through some of those. What I see in other areas supports the idea that Solomon is someone with a strong belief who is angry that his anti-AGW edits were NOT allowed to stay.

WND actually has a nice snapshot of editing (this on Barack Obama and the Kenya claim) showing how one editor can post claims that others find unsubstantiated and how others can re-edit to remove those claims:
www.wnd.com...

Things like the above lead to people shrieking about conspiracies.

EU may have gotten that information from someone who read the WND article and believed that it was current news and didn't do any fact-checking or followups to the WND story.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Byrd]

reply to post by melatonin


And yet AGAIN Melatonin presents NOTHING that corroborates his lies... he just flip flops nothing but incoherent mumbling and thinks that's evidence to support his claims....

Originally posted by mc_squared
heh I am definitely not bothering with this clown anymore. He's been completely pwned in this thread - made a total a## out of himself, and yet he's still barking away at us with nothing better to say than call everyone "kid". Like he can't win the intellectual fight so he's taking it to the "street" now or something.

For crying out what you have shown is that you people can only use insults, and stupid rhetoric to keep pushing for your agenda which has been shown to be a lie...

You don't even understand what the two scientists are saying, and I showed you proof of it, and still you continue like nothing, as if you, and the two others were right, when you have shown the same absurd, incoherent responses because you don't understand, or even want to understand what is being discussed hence you can only insult as a response....

And BTW, yeah calling kids those members who keep insulting me like they are high school children is really bad....

Calling kid members who keep insulting is a lot better than the high school insults you people keep using...and even though there is a Super Moderator discussing in this thread, and he is overlooking those insults because he happens to agree with the same lies that you believe, and which btw proves nothing except the fact that you people are still basing your incoherent reponses on nothing more than a religion which you don't want to accept is dead....

Originally posted by mc_squared
The ironic thing is I used Wikipedia as a reference on purpose - so he could see that this basic information he has completely wrong is so readily available even a 5 year old could look it up. But no he's still in complete denial claiming that Wikipedia is now in on the scam too, as if you couldn't verify that information in a million other places...

yeeesh.

Christ....now you "used wikipedia on purpose"....

And btw yes there are many other sources that show why the "greenhouse effect" was labeled as such... because GHGs act as a GREENHOUSE.... That is why is called GREENHOUSE effect... what these scientists are saying, among many other facts, is that GREENHOUSES become hotter than the outside because there is no air circulation...which anyone who doesn't base their opinions on a dead religion knows that if you are inside a house of glass it is hotter inside simply because there is no air circulation....


I already showed several times that these two scientists say yes there is a REAL greenhouse effect, but it doesn't act in the way the AGW proponents claim it does... that's what they are saying, among other things...

But you go ahead and keep insulting, it shows that you people have no rational response to defend your dying religion....



[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Byrd

In all fairness, there was a flap about 2 years ago concerning one of the Wikipedia editors. Lawrence Solomon published on a CBS blog a diatribe against another editor and accused the editor of making all sorts of changes to tweak the data so that Wikipedia would support AGW:
www.cbsnews.com...

Some of the anti-AGW sites leaped gleefully on this and said it was a CBS news article (it's not) instead of a blog.

Byrd, please do not call it "in all fairness" when it is obvious you are extremely biased at least when it concerns this topic....

BTW Byrd, once again you are showing a complete lack of knowledge on this... It wasn't just "the CBS article"....

Again you are showing to be completely ignorant, and in this case as to what wikipedia has been doing with some topics, including "Global Warming/AGW....

Global Warming
Issues with Wikipedia

In general, Wikipedia provides good information on various subjects. However, when it comes to Global Warming, the quality goes down considerably.

The main problem is that the articles push a single point of view ... very strongly. The "rules" are that new information can not be added unless it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Well, for something this controversial, that is a good rule. However, these guys cheat - even when it is in a journal, and even when written by their heroes, these guys remove anything that does not agree with their preconceived position. Really.

There is way too much to say - it is not worth my time to write it all down. This page just gives a few examples.

To be clear, I am not just discussing the Global warming page, these comments apply to most of the related pages, including biographies of people on both sides of the issue.
...........

mc-computing.com...

Once again, I do have to wonder why someone like you would agree with wikipedia, when it is a fact that the editors of wikipedia edit topics, such as Global Warming because of their preconceived ideology on AGW...

Wikipedia is a source where anyone can post ANYTHING... but the editors who happen to be believers in AGW, edit every topic dealing with AGW...

And of course when people can't debate a point, such people resort to try dismiss those who disagree with them by claiming that those who opose their view are "Republicans/Conservative" and that's why they think that way.

These people do this instead of debating the subject at hand... and of course you have to claim only "rightwing website" have this story, and you claim they exagerate, when the one exagerating, and leaving out facts is you...

How the global warming cult took control of Wikipedia
December 22, 2009, 2:00 am · 15 comments


No one’s ever accused Wikipedia of being impartial nor even particularly accurate. But Lawrence Solomon’s story in the National Post reveals how one global warming cultist, William Connolley, (PHOTO, RIGHT) single-handedly twisted the truth in more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles on global warming:

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the worlds most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
..........

www.ihatethemedia.com...


There have been scientists who have tried to respond to false accusations, yet the editors time and again delete, and or edit their responses because of their preconceived belief in AGW...

So when you want to dismiss the fact that wikipedia is a propaganda website when it comes to some topics, including Global Warming it just keeps showing your stance on this issue Byrd...

I have to wonder why the AGW proponents so "gleefully" use sources which are completely biased, and they keep beleiving in a "religion" when it has been shown it is based on false information, rigged data, and on the claims by people, and even scientists who use any and every legal and illegal way to deceive the world...

Nice try...

Originally posted by Byrd

Things like the above lead to people shrieking about conspiracies.

Not really, it leads to the truth. It also leads to the fact that you even see members using nothing more than insults, yet being a Super Moderator you keep allowing them to do so, just because like you, they believe in AGW....

Talk about "fairness, and "being "biased"...

Then again showing this might even lead me to being banned....

Originally posted by Byrd
EU may have gotten that information from someone who read the WND article and believed that it was current news and didn't do any fact-checking or followups to the WND story.

Actually I made my research a lot better than you did Byrd. I have shown time and again that you are behind in the research when it concerns AGW, and Climate Change, and the fact that wikipedia is a propaganda machine when it comes to topics like AGW/Global Warming, among other things....




[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Byrd

I said that that it's poorly written and its references are incorrectly cited and it wouldn't make it into any juried journal on physics. Both are true.

That's fine and well, and it is still your opinion Byrd. You have shown to be completely biased towards AGW Byrd.

You have also shown a total lack of knowledge on the subject of Climate Change, and AGW to the point that you want to claim that the Greenhouse effect was not labeled because it is believed that GHGs act as a greenhouse?...

What these scientists are saying is that what keeps a greenhouse hot is the fact that there is no air circulation, so the analogy is a bad one.

Yes I know about the excuses you people keep coming up with, but those excuses don't change the fact the term "greenhouse effect" has been a bad way to label a mechanism which is a lot more complex than what happens in a greenhouse.

Originally posted by Byrd

That wasn't an opinion on content. It was an opinion on workmanship. I have read (for my degrees) well over a thousand research papers (my reading list for this degree is currently at 370 papers, many of which won't make it into the dissertation.) I know good scholarly format when I see it, and this sure wasn't it.

It was a biased opinion byrd. Sorry but you keep showing to be completely biased to the "BELIEFS" of AGW.

You are so ignorant about this topic that you claim desertification, and the dust bowl are proof that mankind can affect the climate, when you don't even know that the dust bowl was caused by NATURAL events, and ended because those same NATURAL events stopped occurring...

The fact that there are cities, or even man-made lakes in the desert doesn't change the fact that it is still the desert and the climate in that region hasn't changed because of mankind...

What you are claiming is the same as claiming winter stopped occurring because you have several layers of clothes on you....

Originally posted by Byrd
I said nothing about my beliefs on global warming or anything else. I said nothing about the content other than I agreed with some of the quoted problems.

Well, you are agreeing with members who you should know are wrong and have been using insults because they can't even form a concise, intelligent response... It shows that you are biased towards their "beliefs".

Originally posted by Byrd
I simply commented that they are not physicists and that their screed is an op-ed and not a research paper, no matter what the source said (your source appears to have made some unwarranted conclusions, by the way.)

And you are an Anthropologist who seems to be biased to believing AGW no matter what. You are basing your conclusions on your own biased beliefs, and the fact that those scientists have PhDs in Mathematics, and at least one of them teaches Mathematical Physics, this fact does not refute what they are stating in their paper.

BTW, you need to show these "unwarranted conclusions" you are talking about.

I already showed how those members you agree with don't even understand what the two scientists are saying, and instead they make claims which the scientists did not say...yet you keep siding with these members?.....and of course with melatonin.....

Originally posted by Byrd
My quibble with the Journal of Irreproduceable results is that they just cited it and never gave references (in a professional paper you give volume, page, and author when you quote so other readers can go look it up if they have questions -- and I would have looked it up.) They cited the whole Al Gore book... no page and chapter references, cite web pages without giving the retrieval date (again, bad form because webpage content changes.)

Again, all of this are claims of yours, and your opinion. Nothing more.

They gave many references, and in many of them they give page, author, etc, such as:

[169] C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen, \Does a Global Temperature Exist?" J. Non-Equil. Thermod. 32, 1-27 (2007)

And again Byrd, their paper was published in a "peer-reviewed scientific journal", the International Journal of Modern Physics...

BTW, I am also sorry to tell you that although you might think you know how to properly reference a paper, you have shown a total lack of knowledge in the subject of Climate change, Global Warming/AGW, and even with how wikipedia edits their website when it comes to some topics like Climate Change, AGW/Global Warming...

Originally posted by Byrd

You didn't know a thing about my background (which is not an issue with me), but you made some wild assumptions and sneered at me before I handed you my CV. Then you proceeded to tell me what *I* believe about this issue and lecture me about your view of my beliefs.

You seemed to be attacking the two scientists because of their PhDs in Mathematics, and one of them at least teaches Mathematical Physics, which is why I pointed out that you are an Anthropologist, even when I got your field of science wrong at first.

Not only that, but you have also been throwing "sneers" at me, and you even agree with members who you should admit are wrong, and have been only thrown insults at me.

BTW, sorry to tell you that when you are agreeing with members who are wrong, and do nothing more than insult, and you agree even with Melatonin about this issue when Melatonin uses the same tactics of insulting, and claiming "all scientists who disagree are kooks", you are showing what your stance on this topic is. No matter how many fields of science you have studied, none which make you an expert on Climate Change.

Originally posted by Byrd
I never actually said what my beliefs are -- nor did you ask. You simply launched into a diatribe, as you did with others posting here, assigning them some sort of belief system without actually asking what they believe.

Byrd, the fact that you are agreeing with members who are wrong, who don't even understand what the scientists are saying, and they are even making up claims that are wrong and even you didn't seem to understand what they were saying...

The fact that you are a Super Moderator, yet you are allowing these members to continue insulting me, just because you seem to agree with them in AGW is also very telling, but i guess because i am calling them children for their responses it is alright for them to just keep insulting me...

Originally posted by Byrd
Personally, I think you would do far better to ASK what a person's opinion is and ASK where they got it from rather than going off on a canned rant about what you THINK they believe.

I didn't go on any "canned rant".. i specifically stated you SEEMED to be agreeing with these other members, and that's what you are doing...

I have also noticed how you agree with Melatonin, and sorry to say that tells us of your opinion quite a bit.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

I was typing up a response when I found this...:

And BTW, yeah calling kids those members who keep insulting me like they are high school children is really bad....

Yes, because I insult you all the time.

My posts in this thread.

Bit of a double standard?

[edit on 1/2/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


First of all did i say you in specific?.....

Second of all i showed you that the two scientists are making a statement of what they say is a fictitious system.... They are not claiming there is any balance...

You are doing the same thing that the other member did by CLAIMING the scientists stated that "the Earth is a closed system"... when they were talking about "ANY CLOSED SYSTEM" they weren't talking about the Earth being a closed system....

You guys twist the things being said because of your preconceived ideas, and then when you people don't have an argument you start with the insults...

I am talking about ALL of the AGW proponents.....

If you are going to discuss the topic READ what is being said instead of trying to twist what is being said so you can keep believing in a LIE....

[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Out of interest, EU (and drawing on one of Byrd's comments about finding out people's views from them rather than jumping to assumptions about what they believe), what do you mean by AGW and AGW proponent?

AGW is often used to refer to just carbon emission derived global warming, but obviously can refer to all aspects of anthropogenic warming - such as the effects of black carbon, contrails and land use change.

An AGW proponent may thus be someone who believes carbon emissions are causing global warming (ala the IPCC) - or someone like prominent sceptic Roger Pielke Sr who believes the effects of landuse change are a more significant and important factor, and questions much of what the IPCC etal say.

Obviously, one can also be an AGW proponent and not believe in any significant - let alone catastrophic - temp rise

reply to post by C0bzz


BTW Cobzz, your want to compare "Global Warming Swindle which was a TV PRODUCTION in which scientists were asked questions, whose opinions were valid but it was just a TV PRODUCTION to the IPCC reports which they just had to admit they used false information to try to push for their agenda?....

And to continue to try to push for your claim you just put in "evidence Anthropogenic Global Warming into a search engine and you want to claim that corroborates your claims?....

Just to show how absurb your argument is many of the links from your search give links such as "

the global rise of asthma an early impact of anthropogenic climate change …scielosp.org

".....

Sorry to tell you those sort of links, and research does not prove AGW....

Many others just mention AGW in passing, and others are based on GCMs, which again are flawed to a fault...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Essan
Out of interest, EU (and drawing on one of Byrd's comments about finding out people's views from them rather than jumping to assumptions about what they believe), what do you mean by AGW and AGW proponent?

The name says it itself, Anthropogenic Global Warming is the BELIEF that mankind's activities have caused global warming when there is no real evidence for this except GCMs, which again are flawed computer models.

Hence AGW proponents are those people who keep claiming that "mankind's activity have caused Global Warming".

We even know that during this time, that some want to claim mankind caused Global Warming, the activities of the Sun were at the highest it has been for over 1,000 years.

Not only that but the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1840, and the magnetic field of Earth is so weak right now that it's fluctuations are causing large breaches in the atmosphere which scientists "THOUGHT" was not possible....yet they occurred, and keep occurring....

Then there is the fact, as some of us including myself have been telling you and showing you for years that the Solar System has moved into a new region of space that we just found out is more magnetized, and this cloud causes changes in the Solar System, and of course the Earth is in the Solar System...

I even showed research from 1978 in which scientists already knew the Solar System was moving into a new region of space where there is an interstellar cloud, and even back then the research stated that there would be dramatic Climate Changes in the "near future" because of this interstellar cloud...

Then there is the fact that ESA, and NASA observed that the amount of interstellar dust has been increasing exponentially, because the Solar System was moving into this new region of space, and because of what happened to the Sun, when it didn't flip completely(magnetic flip).

I concluded a few years back that the Solar System, and that more radiation, more charged particles, plasma etc would find it's way into the Solar System and this would cause even more Climate Changes on Earth and other planets with an atmosphere.

Of course you guys didn't want to believe this yet recently NASA had to admit that the amount of radiation from outside the Solar System has increased more than 19% thatn at any time at least since we started observing space weather.

Then there is the fact that scientists observed that the Earth's atmosphere is warming because more charged particles are sailing into the Earth's atmosphere from outside the Solar System brought by the weakened Solar Wind.

Now there are scientists saying that they can observe that this exponential increase in radiation will most likely continue to increase and could be as high as 30%.

NO ONE knows for certain what could happen, it depends on how the Earth, and the Sun react to this new region of space we have entered.

There is more REAL evidence in favor of Climate Change, than there is for AGW.

Tell me, if there was any REAL evidence to corroborate AGW why do the cream of the crop of the AGW proponents had to rig their data, use legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark and not to release their original programs, and data, they even joked about not telling people there is a FOIA in the UK, and the other underhanded tactics that they had to use to keep AGW alive?...

Why did the IPCC use FALSE information to "try to push for their agenda?.....

If there is ANY REAL evidence that would PROVE AGW there wouldn't be a need for any of the above sorry to say.

Originally posted by Essan
AGW is often used to refer to just carbon emission derived global warming, but obviously can refer to all aspects of anthropogenic warming - such as the effects of black carbon, contrails and land use change.

An AGW proponent may thus be someone who believes carbon emissions are causing global warming (ala the IPCC) - or someone like prominent sceptic Roger Pielke Sr who believes the effects of landuse change are a more significant and important factor, and questions much of what the IPCC etal say

Obviously, one can also be an AGW proponent and not believe in any significant - let alone catastrophic - temp rise

Pielke has many different opinions to the claims made by other AGW proponents but at the end he "believes" in AGW.

Land use changes the temperatures "locally" but do not seem to have any effect "globally". Note that most of the warming has occurred in regions which are "far away" from any human land use, any cities, and far away from pollution.

This fact was even noted by NASA.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...


So tell me this, why is your need to keep believing these people, Jones, Mann, the IPCC policy makers, Al Gore etc, when they have lied to you, tried to keep you in the dark, used false information, they have gone after anyone who dared to publish any papers refuting AGW, and they even spoke of changing the "peer-review process' if necessary to keep scientists from publishing any research that refutes AGW?....

Why is your need to keep believing a bunch of liars who are worse than politicians?

You even got politicians makins millions from you believing in their lies....

More so, why is your need to go after atmospheric CO2 when it is KNOWN that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present are beneficial?...





[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by C0bzz



BTW, let me just show you how absurb your argument is when you made a search with the words "evidence anthropogenic global Warming"....to claim that proves your argument...

Let me do a search of the words "natural Climate Change" and let's see how many more come up.....

scholar.google.co.uk...

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,740,000.

Ooops, I win.... i hope you do know that 1,740,000 results are more than 58,000+.......

I guess to you that must be more than enough evidence that NATURAL Climate Change wins over AGW......right?.....



[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Essan
Out of interest, EU (and drawing on one of Byrd's comments about finding out people's views from them rather than jumping to assumptions about what they believe), what do you mean by AGW and AGW proponent?

The name says it itself, Anthropogenic Global Warming is the BELIEF that mankind's activities have caused global warming when there is no real evidence for this except GCMs, which again are flawed computer models.

I would argue that Anthropogenic global warming is the observation that human activities can cause global warming - but that such warming does not necessarily need to be greater than natural (and anthropogenic) cooling. Nonetheless there is an underlying warming - such that any cooling is less than would otherwise have occurred. Any warming from natural reasons is, likewise, increased slightly.

There is no question that human activity affects climate on a local and regional level. IMO if we can affect lots of regional climates, then the net result is a global climate change.

Sorry but the AGW argument has always been that "CO2 is the main reason for Climate Change" and you even got scientists claiming "CO2 is more important than any natural factor including the Sun"....

But if any of that were true we would only be seeing warming, when we see dramatic natural Climate Changes both warming, and cooling.

Your argument would be then that the urban heat island effect would affect global temperatures, but this is not true. If you move away from a city, or from an urban area the temperatures change.

BTW did you decide to ignore the fact that most of the warming has occurred away from mayor cities and away from civilization?.... That alone shows your argument, and that of Pielke in this area to be incorrect.

And once again, you have the UN, politicans, environmentalists, and other groups and elitists wanting to put taxes on a perfectly good gas, which is needed by all life, and you even have the AGW proponents wanting to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere when this will cause the worse environmental impact mankind has ever caused..

Billions of people more will starve, and that's what you, the AGW proponents, are agreeing with, and what your demands are bringing.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

You see, AGW proponents like yourself are pretty much proponents of the chaos theory. You think that if a butterfly farts the consequences of it's farting will bring a chain reaction that would cause the end of the world.




[edit on 1-2-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

One other point I would make. According to current very long term changes in Earth's orbit, we should - naturally and all else being equal - be seeing an increase in ice cover in the Arctic as the N Hemisphere experiences cooler summers and milder winter. This is not expected to be sufficent to lead to a new ice age. Nonetheless, we should see some increase in ice cover measured over a multi centennial period. Most paleoclimate data indicates that this has been the case for the past 4,000 years (see, for example, Greenland ice core temp reconstructions).

However, at present Arctic regions have less ice cover than at any time since at least before the MWP (see, for example, some of the links I've compiled here). This may just be a natural blip, but in my mind it raises questions as to whether something else is affecting Arctic temps. And given that most industrial actvity, air travel, etc is over such areas I do wonder whether we may be having an effect? Can you honestly ignore the possiblity?

Nowt to do with the IPCC or Al Gore, just an inquiring mind looking at science and asking questions.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan



Essan....the Earth, and the Solar System do not follow an schedule made up by men....

There have been, and there will be Climate Changes which are outside of the norm because anything that happens to the Sun, and any new region of space in which the Solar System moves into will have consequences on Earth's climate.