Need some help with my arguments

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:Wow as you guys said before he didn't responde to any of my questions, rather he said the links were biased and never argued anything surrounding my questions.

Then he is a dishonest person,who dodges YOUR questions,belittle your links and then has the gall to expect you to read HIS links and answer his post based on them.

Pathetic!

Quote:OK heres the real stuff.

:-X

Quote:1st is florida..what they have to do well first u need to know the population so here
http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/Des...x?tabid=95

Not worth a reply.

Quote:2nd the temperature increase in the next 100 years
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...c.html#ref
Look at the graph towards the bottom and see the change.

First this link:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-...ageb01.pdf

He is agog over something that is garbage and already wrong and out of date!

Go get a straight edge and line up the yellow line at year 2000 to the temperature numbers (keep it level) and then go to year 2010.According to the chart the temperature should have gone up........... ONE DEGREE! When actually based on real data the decade is cooling.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now to his main link,where he drools over a range of PROJECTED temperature increases based on a number of climate modeling scenarios.

Sarcasm alert!

I am really impressed that he is going to fall for a bunch of UNVERIFIED projections,that does not demonstrate any forecasting skills.

:laugh:

This is really amazing that the IPCC brand of science research is now into the realm of science fiction,where anything can be made up and does not have to be verified.

Quote:3rd flooding and disaters
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html
here are hurricane increases. They have almost doubled in the lst years
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

This is really bad since the actual number of hurricanes in the atlantic has been declining since the high in 2005.Not only that,the amount of tropical storm energy has dropped to a 30 year low as of 2008 in this link:

Global hurricane activity has decreased to the lowest level in 30 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/gl...-30-years/

and this year is even lower:

Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Quote:4th heres a site yo NEED TO WATCH THE VIDEO
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/fla...card=42247
and tell me an ice age, flooding, hurricanes, and many other problems arent a global disaster

Quote:If the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea levels may rise enough to submerge coastal cities from New York to Shanghai. (Excerpt, "Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World" MSNBC)

Yeah IF the Greenland ice sheet melts,which at THEIR guessed rate would take around 7,000 years to melt away.A figure that was made calculating the melting rate as per what alarmists believe against the existing volume of of the glacial field.

Here is a link with many actual data to consider:

Greenland / Iceland

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Greenland.htm

There you will find that there is nothing alarming going on at Greenland.

[Mike Davis]

Jordanfan20:
There is nothing happening in nature that has not happened before except that humans have distorted the records of the past and are now trying to convince you that the future will be horrible. There are many stories about false predictions of disaster that did not occur. There is more danger from earthquakes of volcanoes than a minor climate change over the next however many years. We have been somewhat lucky to live in the time period we live in. There is evidence that weather events with disastrous results have happened in the past and there is no doubt that disasters will happen in the future. Any attempt to control what we do not understand can only lead to more problems than if no attempt were made to control something like the weather.
If this person brings up climate model results the answer is GIGO! Garbage In Garbage Out. The models are based on corrupted data and theories so the output can be no better than what is used to verify what is input.
If they attempt to use recent temperature data then using the pictures from Surface stations org should destroy those claims. The historic records from before the satellites is based on guess work and the is much regarding this at Climate Audit dot com.
Ask your opponent if they are using the Edgar Cayce or the Jean Dixon method of projecting future events. You can advise them that Madame Sophie has a better track record than the climate models! They could be using the Nostradamus method!
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nostradamus.htm
http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgar-cayce1.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Famous-Psychic...&id=121473
If you are interested I could locate Cayce's projection of dramatic earth changes in this century.
I actually forgot to bring up Meteors and asteroids which could give any one a bad day if one hit near where that person lives. I believe one the size of a semi truck would probably wipe out a small town if not a larger area.

The claim that sites are biased is true because some people are biased towards attempting to find the truth while others are biased towards advancing an agenda which the AGW alarmists are guilty of.

[Goose52]

Jordan I would recommend that you forget about those other knuckleheads.  Just hang out here.  I guarantee you will learn much more engaging the great minds here.  Trust me I have not learned one thing from time spent with any of the true believers.   

[Mike Davis]

Goose5:
:'( I thought we were the "True Believers" and they were the ones that denied natures part in the climate. The ones who believe in the fairy tales meant to scare children into thinking humanity is out to destroy humanity when in reality it is nature that is doing its best to present us as a species with "Challenges" so we can learn to be resilient.

[Richard111]

Thought this picture was interesting. Founf it over at ICECAP It celebrates 20 years of Hansen's predictions.

[jordanfan20]

Well lol, he apparently read some of my responses yesterday and has yet to respond to any of them. I told him if he wanted me to read his stuff he would have to read mine and refute mine as I did to his.


Funny thing is yesterday at school before he had ever read my response he acted like he had won the debate. He was like " So did you read those links and watch the videos I sent you?" but he had a tone of a sure victory, he thought those videos and links would leave me stumped.

I replied " As a matter in fact I did, and for the most part the graphs you presented to me are out of date or didn't have anything to do with man made global warming." the look of sure victory left his face. I'm positive he had thought he had stumped the skeptics, but clearly his little links did nothing. Later, when he realized I had debunked his links (Links he had complete faith in and drew his whole conclusion surrounding global warming from), he said he would send me more links, (This time links which he planned on using in his speech about why man made global warming is destroying the earth... A oral comm assignment) sounds like bs to me, I told him he can't send me any more until he responds to any of the arguments I have.

Another funny thing, he said he wouldn't respond to any of my original message because they were from biased links, therefore the graphs weren't real graphs. I provided him with links to government sites showing the accuracy of the graphs.......... So now he has no excuses.

Lol, his confidence in man made global warming seems to be diminishing. Or he has realized he can't win this debate.

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=jordanfan20 link=topic=268.msg1986#msg1986 date=1255718862]
Well lol, he apparently read some of my responses yesterday and has yet to respond to any of them. I told him if he wanted me to read his stuff he would have to read mine and refute mine as I did to his.


Funny thing is yesterday at school before he had ever read my response he acted like he had won the debate. He was like " So did you read those links and watch the videos I sent you?" but he had a tone of a sure victory, he thought those videos and links would leave me stumped.

I replied " As a matter in fact I did, and for the most part the graphs you presented to me are out of date or didn't have anything to do with man made global warming." the look of sure victory left his face. I'm positive he had thought he had stumped the skeptics, but clearly his little links did nothing. Later, when he realized I had debunked his links (Links he had complete faith in and drew his whole conclusion surrounding global warming from), he said he would send me more links, (This time links which he planned on using in his speech about why man made global warming is destroying the earth... A oral comm assignment) sounds like bs to me, I told him he can't send me any more until he responds to any of the arguments I have.

Another funny thing, he said he wouldn't respond to any of my original message because they were from biased links, therefore the graphs weren't real graphs. I provided him with links to government sites showing the accuracy of the graphs.......... So now he has no excuses.

Lol, his confidence in man made global warming seems to be diminishing. Or he has realized he can't win this debate.


[/quote]

It is clear that he has made up his mind,and that he thinks you are a moron.Why else does he insult you much?

Most data skeptics use to make a point,are from official sources,that alarmists also use,such as NASA,UAH satellite,Aqua satellite,Sea Surface Temperature (via satellite) and so on.He never has a valid excuse to dodge your sources anyway because he is supposed to make counterpoints to what you presented,and that means looking at the links you provide.

If he is so sure of himself,why is he avoiding my forum?

[Sunsettommy]

[quote author=Goose5 link=topic=268.msg1981#msg1981 date=1255649799]
Jordan I would recommend that you forget about those other knuckleheads.  Just hang out here.  I guarantee you will learn much more engaging the great minds here.  Trust me I have not learned one thing from time spent with any of the true believers.   
[/quote]

I generally agree with you,but before I drop anyone,I would try to get some information out in front of him and make him think about it.

I call it planting a seed,in case he realizes that what we tried to point out to him,might be valid after all.

In open forums such as this one,lurkers who are unsure/undecided might learn just from the way skeptics present a better counterpoint than that of an alarmist.

[Goose52]

I of all people understand the need to interact with these people.  Just do it quickly, and don't spend much time with them.  Also, Sunsettommy is a huge resource.  This is today's encounter.  Posted on another board.

Quote:Let's skip climate projections (for once) and look at heat in the ocean. Specifically, additional thermal energy which has already been dumped into the planet's oceans:



http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

The vertical axis is scaled in terms of units of 10 power 22 joules.

The absolute magnitude of heat energy this represents is stunning. Considering that the Hiroshima "Little Boy" device released 50 - 63 terajoules, a single hash unit on the chart represents an energy equivalent to 10 power 10 (ten billion) Little Boy Devices.

Thus the additional thermal energy added to the earth's heat budget (in the oceans alone) in the past thirty-five years is equivalent to roughly 150 billion Little Boy devices.

The graph provided was this one.



I can't speak to his numbers.  Someone else will have to break that down.  What stuck out was the length of time of the study he presented.  A very small period of time.  Relatively not even one millionth of one second in the history of the planet.  Look for this tactic.  They use it constantly. They will present data on the upswing of the cycle and for a short period of time.  Don't fall for it.  Always look for the bigger picture.  Now with graphs found on this site here was my response.  Forgive my first sentence.  I was being a bit of a smart*** because some on this site are very rude.  

Quote:Come on you guys. Do I have to do everything around here. The latest fear mongering tactics regarding the ocean is man made CO2 is changing the pH value of the oceans making them more acidic, therefore, we're all gonna die.

A couple of charts. As I am so fond of doing lets go back a little further and look at a bigger picture.

Quote:The OP graph looks really similar from 1965 to current. Looks much like the graph above. If you go back a few years what happened? Just as much cooling. The AMO and PDO and all other ocean currents turn positive and negative. They turn warmer and cooler, and clearly this affects surface temperatures.  Is there something going on in the system that indicates this cycle will not continue?

Now just for grins and giggles let's have a look at CO2.

Quote:This compares the USHCN temp stations data and compares it with CO2 levels. It seems temperatures follow the ocean cycles much more closely than CO2. And perfectly describes what I have said in other threads. Temperatures from 1940 to 1980 trended downward while CO2 was trending up. Isn't that interesting. One more.

Quote:My observation is if I were a scientist at NOAA or NASA and I wanted to support a warming outlook. I might just look at presenting data from only one part of a well established cycle

Now did I nuke their argument?  Yes, I did, and I only had to use 109 years worth of data to do it.  Will they admit it?  No, they won't.  They will follow up with all sorts of twists and turns that completely defy logic.  Jordan you are operating in a scientific mode.  They are operating in a political/religious mode.  The two points can never reconcile.  

[Sunsettommy]

Bob Tisdale explains it here at Watts Up With That?

ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content Data

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/05/en...tent-data/

Contrast with this next link:

Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? - A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio

http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-ch...-dipuccio/

In this link Dr. Willis,Dr. Loehle and DR. Pielke all state there is a cooling of the ocean since 2003,based on that far more accurate ARGO data.



Link to the ARGO website:

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

[Goose52]

As usual most of that stuff is over my head.  ;D

[Sunsettommy]

Maybe these links will help?

New Paper On Ocean Heat Content Changes By Craig Loehle

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/20...ig-loehle/


Or,

The Ocean Really is Cooling

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03...s-cooling/

In that link Craig Loehle commented and so have I.

;D

[Sunsettommy]

What about this one,where no increase of heat is detected since 1980 in the TROPICS.Where there should be obvious heat increase according to the AGW hypothesis,along with that unseen "hot" spot,also never seen.

Tropical troposphere: not warming

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/04/tropic...rming.html

:

[Mike Davis]

I have problems with the use of HADCRU data for SST or ocean heat content. I also have issues with NOAA SST estimates alomg with their so called ocean heat index. I read somewhere that they do not use satellite or the new buoy data because it is to new or untested. At least that is what I heard they claimed instead of the idea that those reading did not agree with the Party line.

[Richard111]

Ooops... Clicked on Last Post and ended up in Mike's profile page!!!!

Anyway, all the above is very nice but a bit daunting for newbies, so to lower the temperature slightly (  ) may I reccommend The Middlebury Community Network

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Nice easy ready for unconvinced new sceptics.

[ricksfolly]

I don't know about you, but I'm always skeptical when scientists say "Here's the facts. Take them or leave them," especially when what they say could impact their standing, credibility, and even their livelyhood. That's probably the reason why they all stick together.

If I were to face all the doomsayer scientists at one time, including Gore, I'd ask them...

Are the data sources used to establish your average world-wide high temperature today the same data sources used a hundred years ago? What is your baseline average high F or C temperature and when was it established?

Ricksfolly

[Derek]

How about just asking AGWers to justify why radiation budgets are always added together,
when they should be relative.

The basic misconception the IR budgets of AGW (and the greenhouse effect "theory") rely upon, goes something like this,
the sun inputs x amount, and greenhouses gases add a further y amount (back radiation),
so, earth's temperature is warmer than it would be by the sun alone (ie x amount + y amount).
BALONEY.
This is why.
Atmospheric back radiation is cooler than the earth's suface.
I have tried to illustrate this with the below example.

" object a) emitting at 50 w/m2
and,
object b) emitting at 100 w/m2

Object a) emits (minus) 50, and recieves (adds) 100 = net gain of +50.
ie, -50+100=+50

Object b) emits (minus) 100, and recieves (adds) 50 = net loss of -50
ie, -100+50=-50

IF there were a third object at absolute zero inbetween,
then it might just recieve,
object a) (adds) 50, and object b) (adds) 100 = net gain of +150.
ie, +50+100=+150
But there ain’t an “object c)”, so that is ridiculous.. "

It might help to imagine objects a) and b) in your mind as,
a) yourself, b) a gas fire on full
or,
a) atmosphere b) earths surface.

It should become immediately apparent there is no " object c) ".
Never the less the object c) figure is the figure used in all
IR budgets, G/house effect, and AGW modelling / unproven hypothesis "explanations".

1) Patently the emission figure should be taken off the figure (minus) NOT added (plus),
but that is what IR budgets do, they add the emission figure to the surface, AGAIN.
It is so obvious once you spot it.

and,
2) the input frequency / temperature figures should be worked out relatively in the first place (ie hotter or cooler),
as a plus or minus figure compared to the absorbers temperature / frequency of emission.
Again, so obvious once you spot it.

Please see,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-517.html

and,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-528.html

Cooler things can not warm warmer things - full stop.
(Conveniently this effect is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
We all know and see that every day.
The atmosphere is cooler than the earths surface.
QED. IR budgets should be worked out relatively,
therefore they are ALL wrong,
(as is the "greenhouse effect" "theory" and AGW)
quite simple to understand and explain really.