Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
the facts about global warming
#61
Jason_85,

Quote:RE: the facts about global warming
I'm sorry I've been a bit dismissing, but the reason I asked you to go back and read the thread was because you were asking questions that had already been answered.

Thank you for the apology, however, kindly note that I did not ask any questions in that post.

Quote:Basically I would say that a global runaway did occur, hence the increases in temperature inexplicable by changes in the milankovich cycle/ice coverage alone.

No, global thermal runaway did not occur. However, let us assume it did; what stopped the world burning up?
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#62
who knows, it's still an open discussions. It could be any to all of the following:

Changes in ocean currents
Tectonic movements
the Milankovich cycle
Sunspots
etc.

I'm a believer of the sunspot/milankovich angle but I don't really have a strong opinion on this.
Reply
#63
New research may require Al Gore to apologize to all of the livestock around the world!

From AOL News: "Hidden Gas Source Could Speed up Global Warming" :

Scientists have uncovered a powerful source of a leading greenhouse gas that is venting into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates. The permafrost beneath the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a relatively shallow section of the Arctic Ocean, has been pumping 7.7 million tons of methane into the air each year -- roughly the amount released into the atmosphere by the rest of the world's oceans combined.

The researchers, who report their work in the March 5 issue of Science, caution that their findings in this previously unstudied region raise more questions than answers. The amount of methane released, though higher than expected, represents only a fraction of total global methane emissions.

The complete atrticle is at:

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/h...g/19383307
Reply
#64
From post # 59 Jason_85 wrote:

Quote:So here's the answer off the top of my head because I don't feel like looking it up right now: firstly, CO2 levels have rarely been as high as they are today, and times when they were higher than today were so long ago that we don't really have any reliable information, so any answer i or anyone else gives to that question is more or less open to debate anyway. Basically I would say that a global runaway did occur, hence the increases in temperature inexplicable by changes in the milankovich cycle/ice coverage alone.

WHAT!

Come on Jason,you saw this chart already earlier in the thread:

From post # 10,

[Image: image277.gif]

How can you make the claim:

Quote:firstly, CO2 levels have rarely been as high as they are today, and times when they were higher than today were so long ago that we don't really have any reliable information, so any answer i or anyone else gives to that question is more or less open to debate anyway.

When it is obviously incorrect.

You were also shown more than once,that in past climate epochs,CO2 FOLLOWS temperature changes to the range of 800 years or so.Meaning that for at least that long SOMETHING was causing the warming and it certainly was not CO2!

I even showed you the charts based on EPICA dome ice core data,and there it showed that when CO2 finally goes up there was never any acceleration of warming at all.

You need to back off on the overrated CO2 effect belief since you are now making ad hoc replies.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#65
Richard S. Courtney writes:

Quote:The basic assumption used in the numerical climate models is that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognize that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this possibility as follows.

The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium.

The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). The Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans and, therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour and it does: the mean global temperature increases by 3.8K from July to January and falls by the same amount from January to July each year.

Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.

Thinking about this makes me wonder about the many cycles known and probably more cycles yet to discover,that shows the oscillating nature of the climate.

We know the sun has several different cycles that show the oscillating nature of energy transfer from the radiating body into the solar system.I would think that Earth is at least partly caught up in such a cycling behavior in reaction to what the sun is doing.

That is why I see Earth reacting in part OUT OF PHASE with the suns own oscillating cycles since it is not easy to directly blame the sun for many of the planets climatic changes.

I think we need to learn more about such cycles and how to determine the level of influence they have and to quantify it to the level that allows us to develop possible cycling patterns that overlap each other.

I think the Sun has more influence on the planets climate changes than we presently know.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#66
To Jason_85:

You may believe in AGW but the fundamental hypotheses upon which AGW is based have yet to proven:

Sunsettommy:

The link you posted does not work anymore.I have changed it to the one that links to a thread Derek started right here in this forum a while ago that contains the full PDF.

According to Derek Alker and Luther Haave, who wrote an excellent article on the application of the scientific method to this issue in 2009 (LINK), they state that the primary hypotheses of AGW are:

Hypothesis 1:
Increases in the total amount of “human-caused” CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere are
the primary cause of the measured increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis 2:
The increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary cause of an increase in average global temperatures.

These hypotheses have yet to be established as a basis for drawing any other conclusions as is attested to by many of the posts in this forum. I will add a third un-established hypothesis:

3. That average global temperatures are increasing at a rate in excess of the .7 degree per century that has00) been ocurring since the end of the Little Ice Age ( about the year 16).

In addition, projections of catastrophe come from climate models that are the attempt to translate into complex mathematical equations the relationships between the myriad of climate variables. Out of necessity and lack of knowledge, and mathematical and computer limitations, many of the variables are excluded (for example, the sun, Milankovitch cycles, etc.) ,many of the equations are simplifications or approximations, and many of the relationships among the variables are not well known. Dr. Peter Landesman, a mathematician, has stated that the models are incapable of predicting anything because the mathematics is is not yet robust enough to deal with the solutions to these equations ( his full article is at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/t..._warm.html).

This link is out of date,can you post the actual title of that article?

So even if it could be established somehow that AGW is real, there is no way to project what this means for the future.
Reply
#67
Angel Thank you ajmplanner. Blush

I would like to add for jason_85s benefit, and that is meant non sarcastically, this is intended to hopefully expand your knowledge,
maybe you would also find useful my piece regarding the one assumption of AGW we should ALL understand,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-309.html
including a bit about it's history, and the people involved.
1999, was a heck of a year wasn't it.......
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#68
(02-22-2010, 08:48 AM)HarpoSpoke Wrote: Given the claims and demands for lifestyle changes, we need more than that. The theory appears to be based on what you said there. "We can't explain it, so CO2 must be the answer". That's not compelling proof.
I personally think that the Left is interested in making "demands for lifestyle changes" and climate change is secondary.
Reply
#69
Well it appears that Jason_85 has backed off answering questions and statements that we have made here with credible counterpoints.It has been one week and past his exams as well.

I find it amusing that he STILL persist with the belief that CO2 is the main driver of warming trend,despite that he has yet to post evidence of it happening beyond that he "believes" that it is CO2 doing it.

While we pointed out several science presentations,that clearly shows that CO2 changes LAGS temperature changes on all time scales,whether it be 5-8 months as shown today and up to 1,000 years on published science papers.

Yet STILL thinks that CO2 (lagging behind for centuries) after a while (centuries later) suddenly can warm up the world.Then when the world is now back into a cooling run for a long while,CO2 is still going up and allegedly heating it up,for centuries afterword's.It is a contradiction that never seems to be noticed by AGW believers.

Such muddled thinking in my opinion is a good example of stubborn AGW beliefs,that goes against empirical reality,that are right in from of their faces.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#70
Jason_85 if you are still interested in reading official temperature data,that clearly shows no warming trend in the south polar region:

[Image: 70-90S%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1957.gif]
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#71
How about a game? Spot the Global Warming in the UK:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Ques...mdm2_1.htm

Smile
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#72
(02-21-2010, 07:36 PM)jason_85 Wrote: Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback Smile

There's not near enough credible data to make a clear decision one way or another. We know that F and C temps are recorded in all the large cities all over the world, but I found no documentation on how data was processed or when. The words of scientists, with no credible proof, isn't nearly enough to base our hopes or fears on.

ricksfolly
Reply
#73
(04-02-2010, 01:13 PM)ricksfolly Wrote:
(02-21-2010, 07:36 PM)jason_85 Wrote: Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, and love a good debate. Basically I'm here because I want to test an article I wrote, on why i believe AGW is a reality. I've started a discussion on it here:

discussion: http://www.warmdebate.com/forum/facts-ab...discussion
article: http://www.warmdebate.com/blog/facts-abo...al-warming

Looking forward to your feedback Smile

There's not near enough credible data to make a clear decision one way or another. We know that F and C temps are recorded in all the large cities all over the world, but I found no documentation on how data was processed or when. The words of scientists, with no credible proof, isn't nearly enough to base our hopes or fears on.

ricksfolly

He must have noticed since he stopped coming here a while ago.

LOL.

I personally think that the surface temperature data is very poor because it does not tell us when it reached 60 then 70 and so on up to the days high,during the day.

Suppose the days high was 91 at 5:30 pm,but how LONG was it at 91 degrees that day?

It could have been raining at 79 degrees when it stopped,and cleared up rapidly starting at 4:00 pm,then the temperature goes up when a lot more sun reaches the surface.

82 at 4:30
86 4:45
88 5:00
89 at 5:15
88 at 5:45

Then it starts dropping faster as the sun is setting at 6:00.

The next day the high is 92 degrees at 5:00 pm.

85 at 1:30
87 at 2:30
90 at 4:00
91 at 4:45
90 at 6:00

Much warmer day but the high is only a degree higher,because it was warmer much earlier in the day than the day before and warmer later in the day as well.

That is why the lack of changing data documentation,poor station siting locations,killed the reliability of the records as being anything more than a crude base of temperature trends.

Why do they ignore the Heating degree days data?
Why do they ignore the Cooling degree days data?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#74
Temperature! There is always talk of temperature. Averaging of max and mins etc. How long did the max last over the 24 hour period? How long did the min last? Using air temperature to define a global average temperature is meaningless. If sea temperatures are not included, when the oceans have nearly a thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, then this is simply an exercise in futility.

AGW is driven by politics not science.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#75
I just made two posting at Jason's forum,pointing out what they are missing about the shoddy IPCC science reporting.They seem to think the IPPC have been unfairly criticized.

I gave them this:

The Great Peer-Review Fairy Tale

and this:

A Summary of Richard Tol's Look at IPCC AR4 WG111

It will be interesting what reply will come of it.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#76
This is what I was replying to.I thought he is being silly in his feeble defense of the IPCC.

Quote:What about absurd expectations and invalid criticism?

Jason, you suggest that the events of the past few months may have been a combination of "isolated sloppy science and bad luck".

Have you considered also a role for unreasonable expectations and invalid criticism?

I've never regarded the IPCC as perfect or as the ultimate reference. But as a scientifically sound guide it would be hard to beat... specially the WG1 on "scientific basis". The beat up about "errors" has been rather incredible. I can't actually think of a comparably sized comprehensive review that is less subject to errors.

My own use of the IPCC reports is mainly as a kind of large review article, that summarizes the state of play and gives useful pointers the primary literature. The downside, from my perspective, is that the long lead time and extensive review processes means that the reports are always a few years out of date from the latest developments of the field. But that's a matter of picking the right resource for the right use. For comprehensive coverage and referencing, the IPCC reports are an essential resource. Their easy availability and wide recognition is a big bonus as well.

As for "errors"... the only real error of which I am aware is the matter of 2035 for Himalayan galaxies in the work of WG2, which is buried inside the report, absent from the summaries, and handled correctly anyway in the primary science reports of WG1. The article you cite suggests there are others. Can you identify one on your own behalf? Something actually "unsettling"?

Is there anything else that would correspond to "sloppy science", in your view? The great irony is that the quality of IPCC reports is far better than the articles from associated press that comment on the IPCC! Nor should that be a surprise; they aren't intended for the same job and it would be unreasonable to hold them to the same standards. But to appeal to the press for consideration of IPCC errors or sloppyness is.... ironic.

It's entirely appropriate for errors and defects in the IPCC to be reported and discussed in the press. But the sources used in your article are rather ludicrous. Senator Inhofe in particular is completely incompetent; you'd be hard pressed to find anyone more prone to errors and distortions on the subject.

Bear in mind -- there just may be more errors and defects in the reporting than in the IPCC reports being reported on. I certainly think so.

Felicitations -- sylas

He seems to be aware of ONLY ONE ERROR!

bwahahahahahahaha!!!

He has not been paying much attention.I hope my small contribution will wake him up.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#77
He seems to be aware of ONLY ONE ERROR!

But no mention whatever of failure of global temperatures to match steadily rising CO2 levels.
And never mind a complete lack of scientific proof that CO2 can trigger runaway global warming with "positive feedback" from water vapour. All we seem to have is output from one group of computer models providing the input for another group of models whose ouputs are adjusted anyway.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#78
I have posted several times at Jasons forum.He has not replied and it appears that he has stopped doing anything there.

His last blog post was over a month ago and his last forum post was April 6 and before that March 3.

I wonder if he is realizing that being a typical AGW believer is not good for his mental health?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#79
If he was expecting to just expose those silly skeptics,
then maybe he is having problems because of posting here.

He'll have to reply in one way or another.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#80
Here is an interesting comment from Climate Audit.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/scien...ent-229382

Quote:Bill MacLean Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:53 AM

My problem with the purely irradiative model is that it doesn’t explain the actual heat transfer from the surface into the atmosphere. The overwhelming mechanism for this is the evaporation of water and its condensation at altitude. Because of the hydrogen bonding in water in all 3 main phases it is capable of transferring enormous amounts of energy. The latent heat of vaporization is approximately 600 calories per gram. This energy is transported aloft in the form of fast moving water molecules mixed among the air molecules. The concentration of water can be as high as 4 percent. CO2 molecules carry less than 1 calorie per gram aloft. Their concentration is 0.038 percent.

The heat transfer effect of water is thus 10,000′s of times greater than that of CO2.

Pat Tyson does not seem to agree with the above, see:

http://www.climates.com/KA/ATMOSPHERIC%2...allacy.pdf

Anyone know of other explanations suitable for the layman?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  UN Global Warming Fraud Exposed by Detailed New Study Sunsettommy 0 5,592 05-27-2013, 08:17 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, and Anthropogenic Global Warming Sunsettommy 0 3,666 04-13-2013, 06:43 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite water vapor observations Sunsettommy 0 4,370 03-23-2013, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,378 03-23-2013, 07:45 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming Sunsettommy 1 4,035 10-10-2012, 12:29 PM
Last Post: Earthling
  Turkish Scientists Confirm UHI Effect Is Overstating Global Warming - 4 Degree UHI Im Sunsettommy 0 5,383 09-13-2012, 06:02 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct Sunsettommy 0 3,110 09-09-2012, 06:52 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Thermodynamice Of Global Warming ajmplanner 5 7,200 06-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Last Post: Questioning_Climate
  Why the theory of man-made global warming is incorrect Sunsettommy 2 4,989 05-19-2012, 09:03 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Global Warming - A Coolist's View Sunsettommy 0 3,477 01-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)