Climate change: 'Hockey stick' holds up

ALiberalModerate · Sep 22, 2008

You guys do realize that you are sitting here arguing with someone that thinks that Evolution is a huge conspiracy.

jfuh · Sep 22, 2008

SouthernDemocrat said:
You guys do realize that you are sitting here arguing with someone that thinks that Evolution is a huge conspiracy.

Gill?:mrgreen:

Heretic · Sep 22, 2008

SouthernDemocrat said:
You guys do realize that you are sitting here arguing with someone that thinks that Evolution is a huge conspiracy.

Well, yeah! They're all just in it for the grant money too! :2funny:

Gill · Sep 23, 2008

SouthernDemocrat said:
You guys do realize that you are sitting here arguing with someone that thinks that Evolution is a huge conspiracy.

If you are referring to me, I dare you to find one shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.

Gill · Sep 23, 2008

Heretic said:
Can you? Really? A litany of legitimate peer reviewed articles that refute AGW? Interesting.

If your list is full of citations to nothing more than Nexus Magazine and Energy and Environment, I'll be greatly disappointed.

How many would you like??

By the way, I love it when alarmists claim there are no peer reviewed papers disputing their religion, then when some are produced, they claim, "Well, those aren't in the 'correct' peer reviewed scientific publications". A simple admission that some publications actively prohibit any papers that dispute their editorial policies would be acceptable.

I have plenty that were not published in E & E though, so don't worry about it. I just had to point out your hypocrisy.

Heretic · Sep 23, 2008

I love it when "skeptics" refer to established and well supported scientific theories as "religion".

Straight out of the creationist playbook. :2razz:

jfuh · Sep 23, 2008

Gill said:
How many would you like??

By the way, I love it when alarmists claim there are no peer reviewed papers disputing their religion, then when some are produced, they claim, "Well, those aren't in the 'correct' peer reviewed scientific publications". A simple admission that some publications actively prohibit any papers that dispute their editorial policies would be acceptable.

Didn't you say you were going to produce a list? Where's the list gill?
All you have to do is to produce a single peer reviewed scientific publication in a scientific journal that's it - just one.
:fyi science is not a religion no matter how much you wish to discredit it.

Gill said:
I have plenty that were not published in E & E though, so don't worry about it. I just had to point out your hypocrisy.

E&E??

Gill · Sep 24, 2008

Heretic said:
I love it when "skeptics" refer to established and well supported scientific theories as "religion".

Straight out of the creationist playbook. :2razz:

I'll repeat the challenge I made to SD, who I noticed ran and hid.

Gill said:
If you are referring to me, I dare you to find one shred of evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.

In other words, put up or shut up.

Heretic · Sep 24, 2008

I had just assumed it was a joke.

But regardless, you're still using arguments creationists have been using for decades... :screwy

BTW, I'm still waiting on that NASA article.

Gill · Sep 24, 2008

Heretic said:
I had just assumed it was a joke.

But regardless, you're still using arguments creationists have been using for decades... :screwy

BTW, I'm still waiting on that NASA article.

I didn't think it was funny.

Which argument is that? That science is sometimes wrong? That sometimes a "consensus" of scientists is wrong? A temperature rise of 3/4 of a degree over a century does not impress me. It certainly doesn't 'alarm' me.

I don't have blind faith in anyone, especially 'scientists' that are political and love the limelight as so many that hawk GW do. This is especially true after seeing convincing proof that they could be wrong and knowing the cost to society if they are wrong. Their secretive nature and unwillingness to share the data they use to make their pronouncements makes me less willing to believe them. If they are correct, what do they fear?

Damage from Hurricane Ike has me swamped these days. I'll post the link when I get time to find it.

Heretic · Sep 24, 2008

Gill said:
I didn't think it was funny.

You didn't have to.

Gill said:
Which argument is that?

You're referencing a well supported and established scientific theory as "religion". I stated that quite clearly in the post above; I even provided a link.

Gill said:
That science is sometimes wrong? That sometimes a "consensus" of scientists is wrong?

Not disagreeing with that. In fact, I had previously linked to this video explaining exactly that:
Great Teachers: Translation, Replication and Credibility of Research Findings

Gill said:
A temperature rise of 3/4 of a degree over a century does not impress me. It certainly doesn't 'alarm' me.

Well of course not. You have the research skills and scientific understanding of a creationist. You're not going to be impressed by any evidence and research presented.

Gill said:
I don't have blind faith in anyone, especially 'scientists' that are political and love the limelight as so many that hawk GW do.

Faith isn't necessary when you have evidence to back your claims.

Gill said:
This is especially true after seeing convincing proof that they could be wrong...

Really? What proof?

Gill said:
...and knowing the cost to society if they are wrong.

And you accuse scientists of being alarmists?

Gill said:
Their secretive nature and unwillingness to share the data they use to make their pronouncements makes me less willing to believe them. If they are correct, what do they fear?

Secretive nature and unwillingness to share data? :lol: Be honest. You've never done any actual research on the subject... at all, have you?

JayDickB · Sep 24, 2008

jfuh said:
I'm saying they don't have crap. 30 years and not a SINGLE scientific publication - not one - even challenges AGW.

You're right, there is no debate in the scientific community whatsoever.

Actually since the matter is now political, the scientists have even more say than anyone else because the scientists understand the problem more than anyone else and unlike the wannabe intellectuals who pretend they know a thing or two actually do know and have the scientific proofs to back up their claims.

Show me a single scientific challenge to AGW - a single one - and by a single scientific challenge I am specifying it to be one of a scientific publication in a sceintific journal.
You can add all the hoopla and hyperbole you want to the matter to dilute the notion so as it seems "mythological". Doesn't change the facts one bit though.

See CO2 Science

This originally appeard in "Nature". Basically it says the increases in CO2 result from warming rather than cause it.

Gill · Sep 24, 2008

Well of course not. You have the research skills and scientific understanding of a creationist. You're not going to be impressed by any evidence and research presented

Are you 'alarmed' by a temperature rise of .07 degrees per decade??

Secretive nature and unwillingness to share data? Be honest. You've never done any actual research on the subject... at all, have you?

This statement proves that YOU have done no honest research on the subject.

JayDickB · Sep 24, 2008

Researchers now get paid based on getting the "right" conclusions. Nevertheless, there is substantial debate on the most important question: to what extent, if any, do human activities affect global temperatures.

There is also debate on the accruacy of surface temperature readings. Some monitoring stations are located and configured in unacceptable ways.

There is also a school of thought (small, so far) that humans can't change the climate, so we should focus our resources on dealing with whatever changes are likely to occur. Problem is, we can't tell what's going to occur. We can't accurately predict the weather next week; how can we predict climate 10 to 50 years from now?

justone · Sep 24, 2008

Heretic said:
Oh, so you think they're crank denialists too, eh? Cool. We're on the same page. Glad that's settled.
If I state that apples are not oranges, an alarmist makes the conclusion: ‘’Oh, so you think apples are crank denialists too, eh? Cool. We're on the same page. Glad that's settled.’’ Glad to see you demonstrating the way you mind works.

Heretic said:
Interesting, 'cause I stated specifically that skeptics are scientists:.

I did quote YOU.

Heretic said:
I then went on to explain why AGW don't fit into that category. It's just a few posts up... Feel free to reread it.
As a rule I do quote YOU before my reply..

Heretic said:
Well, if you keep breezing through my posts like you are, you're going to miss the relevant points and rebuttals. I've already had to repeat a couple to you. You're probably not reading my links either... No wonder you're confused. .

When your premises are incorrect, I am obligated to stop any further reading.

Heretic said:
Really? You're citing the industry funded NRSP? Headed by known skeptic and liar, Timothy Ball? Yeah... They're far less agenda driven and greedy than NASA or the NOAA.
Try harder. Try again..

Now I see why you are so cycled on the idea of conspiracy. You have just linked me to conspiracy theory sites. We don’t really have skeptics developing conspiracy theories, but we have AWGists who are full of them. You perceive that if you see skeptics as conspirators, then skeptics must see alarmists as conspirators. You are pretty much screwed up.
Let’s say they are funded by the industry. So, we have scientists including IPCC reviewers with PhDs, articles and discoveries who sold themselves and entered in conspiracy of lies?
You are full of.
I would certainly trust rather scientists employed by industries, than scientists employed by politicians.
Industries are out to make a buck. I would like to make a buck on cooling or warming too. I need a correct assessment of the situation. I need to asses if AWG is just a bubble for a short time risky, hit and run investment or I should look at it as a long time investment. Of course, I can’t spend millions pumping into advertisement of AWG, but I at least I can rearrange my portfolio. It is not like they can stop AWG if it is occurring, but they can make a buck selling warming to satan and cooling to santa. The main business of a business is business. I have positioned my business so that I welcome any price increase on oil, the higher the better for me, the only thing I like to see is my competitors not to be bailed out with help of my taxes.
It is easier to lie about AWG and demand hugely expensive and meaningless measures to be taken, and then if AWG does not occur – to say ‘you see it is because of the measures taken.’ It is difficult to lie that AWG does not occur, because then, if it occurs you have nothing to say. It is also clear that no reasonable measures can be taken short of periodical extermination of a large percent of the human population. Your scream have no reason behind them.

Heretic said:
But please... I can get a bigger list of scientists that don't believe in evolution. It's still not peer review, and more importantly, their thesis is still not supported by any.

So if evolution is correct it proves that AWG is correct. With the same rational you can say that if your car is red it proves AWG. BTW the scientific method does not give any value to evidence.

Heretic said:
Posting and comments?.

1. No.

Heretic said:
By that loose definition, this forum is peer reviewed..

If 1. then your point is mute.

Heretic said:
We're talking about article published in peer reviewed scientific journals. .

2.we are talking about scientific research papers conformed to academic standards and published as widely as possible to be available immediately and reviewed by peers in the most vigorous way. Articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals are below such requirements.

Heretic said:
Since your having so much difficult figuring out what that is on your own, there's a master list for you to choose from located here. .

If 2. then your point is mute.

Heretic said:
Ok. I'll make it real easy for you:

An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics
Access : : Nature.

You have already posted 2 pages and I did review them meeting all requirements. You can dig out endless pages of crap, but the requirements of a valid review prevent me from giving them any consideration. But since you have no clue about rules of an intelligent conversation I will do you a favor.

The article above excepts AWG as a given truth. It does not prove AWG in any way.

Heretic said:
or

Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate
Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate.

The article does not make any claims about AWG

Heretic said:
Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades
Revelle, R., and H. Suess, Tellus 9: 18-27.

No link.

Heretic said:
And go!.

You go, I stop, enough is enough.

Heretic said:
You're right. Such a think would be absurd. But did you even read your article before posting it here or did you merely see the link on some "I skoold Al Gore with l337 sciense skillz!!" blog... 'Cause they mention exactly that in the abstract and then have a whole chapter dedicated to it later on. In their discussion of thermodynamics, they discuss a model that would violate the second law, the same model that is, according to them, "found in many modern pseudoexplanations of the CO2-greenhouse effect."

How embarrassing that must be for you..

This proves that you cannot read a basic text. They do not say so [greenhouse gases are not thermodynamically possible], they wouldn’t even think about saying so. What a joke.

Heretic said:
But that's ok. AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, just like evolution!! .

Sure, evolution proves AWG does not violate thermodynamics. Your car is red, thus AWG is correct.

Heretic said:
Honestly, aren't you guys at all embarrassed that despite all your hard work and skepticism, you can't come up with an argument creationists haven't used decades ago?.

Creationism is rather a religion. You demonstrate that AWG is your religion, because you can perceive it only in a religious context.

justone · Sep 24, 2008

jfuh said:
Because it's rational is bogus. You know it's bogus as well.

Again, - because you say so. Circular logic in the second power.

jfuh said:
Great do I need another definition of what an e-print is? This is not a peer reviewed scientific publication. This is an electronic printing service offered through Cornell but is NOT a publication. This is simply a space where you can get prints of various articles through cornell library system or of submissions of manuscripts of people that wish to publish in scientific journals - this does not equate to anything being on there being a scientific publication - so sorry you've failed quite miserably in even a rebuttal.

You are in the state of total denial. I have quoted not my opinion but opinions of the scientific community. Also one can make a conclusion from the link posted. Let the public decide. (I will give you a tip. An e-print publication is not a journal publication.).

jfuh said:
Why every single major scientific organization world accept the validity of AGW?

It has no relation and your argument has no value. every single major scientific organization is not every scientist of that organization, and is not even majority of scientists; acceptance is NOT indorsed by all scientists of an organization, even if to imagine that your statement is true. The idea that every scientist accepts, and thus has spent a very significant amount of time to look at AWG is ridiculous. It can come only from my friend jfuh.

Bray and von Storch, 2003The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."

Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change[60]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made.

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years. I will save space: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DemandDebate.com, a project of former tobacco lobbyist Steven J. Milloy. conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
.

There is not too much of stats about opinions of scientists, but the available contradicts your view.

If asked individualy, secientists rather desagree than agre, or agree no more than disargee.. So let me ask you your qusestion: Why the majority of scientists disagree with AWG ? Would yo ever understand that scientists think, organizations do not?

As soon as you delegate your thinking to an organization you turn into jfuh.

jfuh said:
If the "skeptics" are indeed scientists why have they not produced a single publication that refutes AGW?

In your view scientists are those who produce publications that refute AGW. I like when you go into the state of total denial. You produce such cute statements. You have failed to produce publications that are supposed to be refuted.

jfuh said:
It's pointless to be a scientist and then speak without any credible evidence to support your claims.

All they have to point is that you don’t have any credible evidence. Who is making the AWG claim?

jfuh said:
In over 30 years not a single original research or review article that refutes AGW has ever been published.
source

You have failed to bring articles claiming. AWG. Prove that not a single. I have been proving you are wrong:
“Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions.
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Abstract : Nature “

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
UAHuntsville News

Well jfuh, thanks, you have made me learn something about AGW, because you know I had not been paying too much of attention. I just was trusting my 6th sense. Now I discover astonishing things.
‘’Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds’’. DOH? Takes much and so long – that would be the 1st Q anybody from thermodynamics would ask. It is clear, Co2 ‘’layer’’ is the same, as heated – should rise, thin and have holes bringing higher conventional heat exchange rate. If you wish to use your greenohouse – poke holes on the top and all heat would be rapidly escaping; plus as your greenhouse expands it cools down. DOH? I wonder how many years would take to figure that out? On ipcc pages we see such a bogus drawing without any understanding of thermodynamics, - it is thermo- DYNAMICS. It is all about motion, constant change. You see sometimes the 6th sense can be totally wrong. I assumed that scientists took a look at very basic things, now I see they did not.

jfuh said:
The consensus position being that, global warming is man made.

There is no such objection in any scientific literature.
1. Let’s say so, and? How does it argue against my statement?
2. There is no such thing as a consensus position in scientific literature. No objection can be made to something that does not exist.

jfuh said:
after the nearly hundreds of publications already provided to you here by Heretic both recent and old and your making this claim?

My claim is based on the consideration of the provided papers as they have been provided. You are in the state of total denial; the papers do not prove or even address AWG.

jfuh;1057739156 You obviously did not even bother to read over his post which is why you are here making such a non-sense lying claim. [/QUOTE said:
jfuh said:

You're quite the dishonest poster here.

Click to expand...

Firstly you have been dishonest a minute ago claiming that I did not read, no you are discussing the details of my reading.

jfuh said:

None (but the last one which has already been addressed as a bull**** paper)

Click to expand...

Heretic posted a BSpaper for me? It is his style. Thank fro pointing I did not notice how he was cheating in this moment.

jfuh said:

None of these mentioned AGW,

Click to expand...

Hello, Heretic and you have been lying that they are claiming AWG, now ‘’None of these mentioned AGW.’’ Thanks, my point is proven. This is exactly what I have been proving: ‘’None of these mentioned AGW’’

jfuh said:

but then none of them refuted AGW either.

Click to expand...

Hey, did you read the ones marked “’you are shooting yourself in the foot’’? If none of then mention AWG, it means for you that they prove AWG? You start making such cute statements when you are at the wall.

jfuh said:

I asked you very specifically, a single article that directly calls AGW bull****. Not a single one of these articles challenge AGW. And yet your assertion is now that because not a single one of these articles addresses AGW hence they refute AGW?

Click to expand...

It is not my assertion. My only assertion is exactly the same as yours, -that not a single one of these articles addresses AGW; when I have told you that before asking me for articles disproving AGW you must point me to articles proving AGW. How can one disprove something that has not been proven or addressed? Tell me. jfuh in the state of total denial.

jfuh said:

Now you claim this list was given by heretic, intersting how I don't find that first link you posted as what Heretic posted in his first source, and that last source, not surprisingly I don't find in his list at all. Why are you trying to make such a claim that is obviously a lie?

Click to expand...

Hey, did Heretic make any attempt for an honest debate by providing any links? What can I do then?
Go and google: Abbot, C.G., 1910: The solar constant of radiation. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, p. 319, - and whatever, - and you will see that I have done more than I have been required. Thanks for pointing out to Heretic’s falsifications. I did not notice how he was cheating.

jfuh said:

Un huh - again, Venus

Click to expand...

Venus what? Cooling, warming, some MAN MADE GW on Venus? Makes ends to connect in your statement?

jfuh said:

Nothing but a dishonest attempt at turning the attention away from the fact that the article is a bitch slap in the face for your deniar crowd.

Click to expand...

I did not read, but I believe you as to a friend. As the T goes up, volume, pressure, density, humidity – rains and hails, turbulence -hurricanes and other things change, the system will be seeking balance, the T will go down, as long as the heat source and surroundings stay the same. It is not like you are adding an additional source of heat. Everything like for every time.

jfuh · Sep 24, 2008

JayDickB said:
See CO2 Science

This originally appeard in "Nature". Basically it says the increases in CO2 result from warming rather than cause it.

The question you need to be asking as to CO2 being fed back upon and then resulting in further incriments of the greenhouse gas is - when did this happen? THat was the result of Malokovich cycles - aka orbital wobble.
WHat we see today is not a result of that by any means.
The temperatures are following the CO2 increase.

jfuh · Sep 24, 2008

justone said:
I did not read, but I believe you as to a friend. As the T goes up, volume, pressure, density, humidity – rains and hails, turbulence -hurricanes and other things change, the system will be seeking balance, the T will go down, as long as the heat source and surroundings stay the same. It is not like you are adding an additional source of heat. Everything like for every time.

Earth is a closed system? The solar energy being trapped is from outside the system and because something warms doesn't mean that something else will decrease that temp. Venus is a perfect example of how the balance is unfavorable for life and has resulted in a planet that has essentially "melted itself" specifically because of greenhouse gases gone amock.
Another one of those trying to sound intelligent arguments.

justone · Sep 24, 2008

jfuh said:
Another one of those trying to sound intelligent arguments.

justone said:
jfuh, you know that I cannot be pretending with you for too long. I just tried to pull it for Heretic who did not know me well. Big of a deal between such old friends like you and me? Did you really have to point?.

Why do you have to repeat the same argument, I am tired and almost falling asleep, I cannot make anything better than just to re-quote my previous answer.

Btw I am retracting my answer to you statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh
Because it's rational is bogus. You know it's bogus as well.
I answered:
‘’Again, - because you say so. Circular logic in the second power.’’
Now I would answer – you have tried to pull one of those justone’s tricks. I encourage you to keep on exercising.

1.

jfuh said:
Earth is a closed system? .

Are you asking or you are making it to be a closed system?

All systems are open. It depends on the process you are considering. You can close it, if it is practical.

2.

jfuh said:
The solar energy being trapped is from outside the system .

When you consider the solar energy you have to include the Sun in the system. Either you are talking about heat exchange between the Sun and the Earth, or you disregard it.

3.

jfuh said:
And because something warms doesn't mean that something else will decrease that temp. .

It is wrong. If something is warming it exactly means that something is decreasing in temperature. You can experiment – take a hot object and put it in a bucket with cold water.

4.

jfuh said:
Venus is a perfect example of how the balance is unfavorable for life and has resulted in a planet that has essentially "melted itself" specifically because of greenhouse gases gone amock. .

Did you see that? There is no amock in thermodynamics. It does not look at the universe with your eyes. In eyes of thermodynamics there are no favors. In its eyes it would be rather the Earth which run amock. How in the world 1., 2. and 3. ever related to 4? Venus what? Cooling, warming, some MAN MADE GW on Venus? Makes ends to connect in your statement?

It melted itself and it lives happily and in a balance with its surroundings and the Sun since then, unless you want to tell me that Venus men made it melt.

jfuh · Sep 25, 2008

justone said:
Why do you have to repeat the same argument, I am tired and almost falling asleep, I cannot make anything better than just to re-quote my previous answer.

Btw I am retracting my answer to you statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh
Because it's rational is bogus. You know it's bogus as well.
I answered:
‘’Again, - because you say so. Circular logic in the second power.’’
Now I would answer – you have tried to pull one of those justone’s tricks. I encourage you to keep on exercising.

1.
Are you asking or you are making it to be a closed system?

All systems are open. It depends on the process you are considering. You can close it, if it is practical.

2.
When you consider the solar energy you have to include the Sun in the system. Either you are talking about heat exchange between the Sun and the Earth, or you disregard it.

3.
It is wrong. If something is warming it exactly means that something is decreasing in temperature. You can experiment – take a hot object and put it in a bucket with cold water.

:lamo So is a flame getting colder as it heats water? Is the sun getting colder as it radiates the earth? :lamo

justone said:
4.

Did you see that? There is no amock in thermodynamics. It does not look at the universe with your eyes. In eyes of thermodynamics there are no favors. In its eyes it would be rather the Earth which run amock. How in the world 1., 2. and 3. ever related to 4? Venus what? Cooling, warming, some MAN MADE GW on Venus? Makes ends to connect in your statement?

It melted itself and it lives happily and in a balance with its surroundings and the Sun since then, unless you want to tell me that Venus men made it melt.

IN this continuous attempt of sounding intelligent I doubt you know what you're talking about right now.

justone · Sep 25, 2008

jfuh said:
:lamo So is a flame getting colder as it heats water? Is the sun getting colder as it radiates the earth? :lamo

:lamo

Absolutely.

You can do it by yourself. Take some wood, mount a kettle with water over it, and set the wood on fire. As the water would be warming, flame would be cooling down. It will not take you an hour. If you want to see it immediately – light up a match and put it on the ground, - you will see flame getting colder in a matter of seconds.

Absolutely.

The sun as it radiates energy is getting colder. No even a nanosecond of a doubt

jfuh, it is basics, did you ever take basic physics?

And then what does it have to do?

jfuh said:
:lamo IN this continuous attempt of sounding intelligent I doubt you know what you're talking about right now. :lamo

Did not I quote your words? If you don’t know what you're talking about, then you are right, - I cannot know what you're talking.

And then what does it have to do?

For quite a while you have been posting so far away from the subject I tried to address.

I think we are done here, aren’t we? Unless you wish to make another joke about warming and energy. As a friend I would advise you not to.

Bodi · Sep 27, 2008

justone said:
Why do you have to repeat the same argument, I am tired and almost falling asleep,

Thinking can do that to some people... sorry that you appear to be one of them.

Heretic · Sep 28, 2008

JayDickB said:
See CO2 Science

This originally appeard in "Nature". Basically it says the increases in CO2 result from warming rather than cause it.

True, the study did appear in Nature, but that is not what it said. The industry funded denialist group predictably got it wrong. They're simply trotting out the same old "CO2 follows warming" argument, which ignores the fact that CO2 is a both a feedback and forcing:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

. . .

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
Initial warming

This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.

JayDickB said:
There is also debate on the accruacy of surface temperature readings. Some monitoring stations are located and configured in unacceptable ways.

Not much of one at all, actually. It's all known and accounted for.

JayDickB said:
There is also a school of thought (small, so far) that humans can't change the climate, so we should focus our resources on dealing with whatever changes are likely to occur.

A very small school of thought. Localized climate change has been responsible for the collapse of quite a few civilizations. It's simply a matter of history. As a matter of fact, there's new evidence to suggest that we had an effect on climate far earlier than thought.

JayDickB said:
Problem is, we can't tell what's going to occur. We can't accurately predict the weather next week; how can we predict climate 10 to 50 years from now?

'Cause seriously, climate is just too hard to understand. I mean anyone who says it gets cold in the winter obviously has an agenda...

*sigh*

That line of BS just never seems to die the death its worthy...

Climate myths: Chaotic systems are not predictable

You cannot predict the exact path a ball will take as it bounces through a pinball machine. But you can predict that the average score will change if the entire machine is tilted.

Similarly, while we cannot predict the weather in a particular place and on a particular day in 100 years time, we can be sure that on average it will be far warmer if greenhouse gases continue to rise.

While weather and to some extent climate are chaotic systems, that does not mean that either are entirely unpredictable, as this demonstration neatly illustrates. (Global Warming in a Chaotic Climate A Simple Conceptual Model)

The unpredictable character of chaotic systems arises from their sensitivity to any change in the conditions that control their development. What we call the weather is a highly detailed mix of events that happen in a particular locality on any particular day – rainfall, temperature, humidity and so on – and its development can vary wildly with small changes in a few of these variables.

Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition), of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.

Or for those severely impaired:

Climate and Weather

Weather
Weather describes whatever is happening outdoors in a given place at a given time. Weather is what happens from minute to minute. The weather can change a lot within a very short time. For example, it may rain for an hour and then become sunny and clear. Weather is what we hear about on the television news every night. Weather includes daily changes in precipitation, barometric pressure, temperature, and wind conditions in a given location. What is your weather like today?

Climate
Climate describes the total of all weather occurring over a period of years in a given place. This includes average weather conditions, regular weather sequences (like winter, spring, summer, and fall), and special weather events (like tornadoes and floods). Climate tells us what it's usually like in the place where you live. San Diego is known as having a mild climate, New Orleans a humid climate, Buffalo a snowy climate, and Seattle a rainy climate. How would you describe the climate where you live?

Heretic · Sep 28, 2008

Gill said:
Are you 'alarmed' by a temperature rise of .07 degrees per decade??

Our military seems to be concerned. I see no reason to doubt their assessment. You've certainly offered none, or are they fishing for cash too?

Gill said:
This statement proves that YOU have done no honest research on the subject.

Really? Interesting. Well, I haven't had any trouble finding information on AGW at all. There's a staggering amount of information available online, from official sources within your own government to independent researchers, as well as decades of printed studies and journal articles that are freely available in any library. If you have been having limited access to the data, I can only assume you've been looking in the wrong place.

Heretic · Sep 28, 2008

justone said:
When your premises are incorrect, I am obligated to stop any further reading.

Which must mean I'm right, since you continue to quote me.

justone said:
Now I see why you are so cycled on the idea of conspiracy. You have just linked me to conspiracy theory sites. We don’t really have skeptics developing conspiracy theories, but we have AWGists who are full of them. You perceive that if you see skeptics as conspirators, then skeptics must see alarmists as conspirators. You are pretty much screwed up.

I wouldn't say skeptics "develop" conspiracy theories, since they're usually never coherent, fully explained theories, and lack any and all evidence that they exist. Skeptics just maintain that they're there, or "automatic" as you put it, in order to dismiss any evidence that may contradict their theory. AGW skeptics are simply doing what they're paid to do - present to the public the false idea that there is a debate to be had. It's a brilliant PR tactic, one that was specifically patterned after the one the tobacco industry used when they were fighting the science on the dangers of smoking. It's terribly effective.

justone said:
Let’s say they are funded by the industry. So, we have scientists including IPCC reviewers with PhDs, articles and discoveries who sold themselves and entered in conspiracy of lies?
You are full of.

I simply think it's far more likely that you're wrong than the hundreds of thousands of publishing scientists across the globe, the smartest people we have on the planet, are knowingly or unknowingly pushing false research. Or to be more precise, that you've blown the lid off it.

justone said:
I would certainly trust rather scientists employed by industries, than scientists employed by politicians.
Industries are out to make a buck. I would like to make a buck on cooling or warming too. I need a correct assessment of the situation. I need to asses if AWG is just a bubble for a short time risky, hit and run investment or I should look at it as a long time investment. Of course, I can’t spend millions pumping into advertisement of AWG, but I at least I can rearrange my portfolio. It is not like they can stop AWG if it is occurring, but they can make a buck selling warming to satan and cooling to santa. The main business of a business is business. I have positioned my business so that I welcome any price increase on oil, the higher the better for me, the only thing I like to see is my competitors not to be bailed out with help of my taxes.
It is easier to lie about AWG and demand hugely expensive and meaningless measures to be taken, and then if AWG does not occur – to say ‘you see it is because of the measures taken.’ It is difficult to lie that AWG does not occur, because then, if it occurs you have nothing to say. It is also clear that no reasonable measures can be taken short of periodical extermination of a large percent of the human population. Your scream have no reason behind them.

The existence of global warming and what to do about it are two distinct and separate discussions. My interest is only on the former; I'm terrible with national policy. I am sure, however, that any proposed solutions will be meaningless if we cannot fully acknowledge the reality of our situation.

justone said:
The article does not make any claims about AWG

What?!? “Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate” has nothing to do with AGW? No wonder you're so confused. You don't even know what AGW is! :doh

justone said:
You go, I stop, enough is enough.

Promise?

justone said:
So if evolution is correct it proves that AWG is correct. With the same rational you can say that if your car is red it proves AWG. BTW the scientific method does not give any value to evidence.

You misunderstood my point. I was merely pointing out that a list of skeptic scientists doesn't disprove AGW anymore than a similar list did of evolution.

justone said:
This proves that you cannot read a basic text. They do not say so [greenhouse gases are not thermodynamically possible], they wouldn’t even think about saying so. What a joke.

No, the didn't say that exact phrase. But if you're honestly trying to convince us that they weren't arguing that AGW was thermodynamically impossible then I can only assume you're hoping no one here can actually read. :doh

justone said:
Bray and von Storch, 2003The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries.

Setting your standards pretty low, aren't you? :2razz: Wikipedia continues:

The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.

justone said:
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy...

The same Citizens for a Sound Economy that worked with Philip Morris in their tobacco campaign. Obviously the paragon of scientific integrity. Though citing a 10 yr old survey isn't making your case...

justone said:
DemandDebate.com, a project of former tobacco lobbyist Steven J. Milloy. conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

Steve Milloy, yet another shill left over from the tobacco wars. His survey was absolutely laughable, with predictably bogus results. Again, you're setting your standards really low...

But honestly, is that all you have? Surveys? I thought this was far more telling:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

Good try, though. Points for effort.

justone said:
“Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions.
Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Abstract : Nature “

Whoops. Looks like you misunderstood that one like every other denialist out there:

Nature article on ‘cooling’ confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming

The Nature article that has caused so much angst about the possibility we are entering a decade of cooling — “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector” (subs req’d) — has, in fact, been widely misreported. I base this in part on direct communication with the lead author.

In fact, with the general caveat from the authors that the study as a whole should be viewed in a very preliminary fashion, and should not be used for year-by-year predictions, it is more accurate to say the Nature study is consistent with the following statements:

* The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
* The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
* The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade — similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot — and then Very Hot“).
* The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015 is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of the decade from 1993 to 2003.

justone said:
"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
UAHuntsville News

Definitely not the death knell it was claimed to be. The phenomenon hasn't been demonstrated outside of the tropics, as well as anywhere near on the level Spencer or Lindzen claim.

justone said:
It is clear, Co2 ‘’layer’’ is the same, as heated – should rise, thin and have holes bringing higher conventional heat exchange rate. If you wish to use your greenohouse – poke holes on the top and all heat would be rapidly escaping; plus as your greenhouse expands it cools down. DOH? I wonder how many years would take to figure that out?

Interestingly enough greenhouse gases do not work quite like greenhouses. Greenhouses prevent heat loss by preventing convection. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, prevent heat loss by preventing radiation loss. That should clear up a lot of your confusion.

justone said:
Hey, did Heretic make any attempt for an honest debate by providing any links? What can I do then?
Go and google: Abbot, C.G., 1910: The solar constant of radiation. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, p. 319, - and whatever, - and you will see that I have done more than I have been required. Thanks for pointing out to Heretic’s falsifications. I did not notice how he was cheating.

I didn't provide a link because there wasn't one to provide. Instead I provided the citation to a real book, made of real paper! I can tell you're confused by them, but trust me, they're awesome!

Climate change: 'Hockey stick' holds up

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

jfuh

Heretic

Member

Gill

Gill

Heretic

Member

jfuh

Gill

Heretic

Member

Gill

Heretic

Member

JayDickB

New member

Gill

JayDickB

New member

justone

justone

jfuh

jfuh

justone

jfuh

justone

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Heretic

Member

Heretic

Member

Heretic

Member