What percentage of climate change do you believe or know is man made?

If its possible that warming can occur without humans and its possible that it can occur because of humans then how do you differentiate the two?

It seems to me the credibility of climate scientists took a serious hit when their models failed to predict that there hasn't been warming over the last several years. I think 14. If they were able to tie warming with CO2 or other human activity then why didn't their model work?

If the prescription for GW can't measure the impact on GW then why would we do anything? Plus, why would the US do anything when its India and China causing all the warming scientists say is occurring?

Too many questions, not enough answers. We shouldn't take action simply because it makes us feel better or we can tell our friends that we support the earth or whatever.

falcata said:

All of that data is from the early 2000's and late 1990's. I don't even think that research was peer-reviewed, considering it came from a stone-age website devoted to "West Virginia Plan Fossils"

Click to expand...

So you didn't check the references. NOAA, NASA, etc. Critical thinking is GOOD thing, blind acceptance without reason is a BAD thing. What's presented here is the foundational science that should be behind every bit of research being done. If it doesn't line up with these numbers, then the research should be considered to be flawed. It's like if you did study on the speed of falling objects in a vacuum and the results didn't line up with the basic formula for calculating acceleration. If you saw a study like, the critical thinker would question the study, not the universal constant. But with climate research, it's the foundational science that's getting ignored and people are simply accepting it blindly with no critical thinking, no objective analysis and no willingness to tell people that in spite of their degrees, they are wrong.

faithful_servant said:

So you didn't check the references. NOAA, NASA, etc. Critical thinking is GOOD thing, blind acceptance without reason is a BAD thing. What's presented here is the foundational science that should be behind every bit of research being done. If it doesn't line up with these numbers, then the research should be considered to be flawed. It's like if you did study on the speed of falling objects in a vacuum and the results didn't line up with the basic formula for calculating acceleration. If you saw a study like, the critical thinker would question the study, not the universal constant. But with climate research, it's the foundational science that's getting ignored and people are simply accepting it blindly with no critical thinking, no objective analysis and no willingness to tell people that in spite of their degrees, they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Yet the people who are telling them they are wrong are.... people without degrees.

You really dont think that the scientists in this area are quite familiar with the foundational science? You think you have some brilliant insight into this that the guys with PhDs in Physics just happened to overlook? You think not one scientist who sees this 'wrong' foundational science doesnt know he can get an endowed professorship with unlimited funding by proving the entire theory of AGW wrong (but they just havent gotten around to it because... what? )

Critical thinking IS a good thing. Try it sometime.

longview said:

I voted for the 40-60%, Based on the assumption that most of the increase in CO2
is likely ether Human added or not subtracted due to deforestation.
The direct response of CO2 appears to account for most of the observed temperature increase,
so I would put Human activity at about half.

Click to expand...

I almost picked that one, but selected the 20-40% instead. I'd say between land use, soot on ice, and CO2, it's about 40% give or take a little.

faithful_servant said:

So you didn't check the references. NOAA, NASA, etc. Critical thinking is GOOD thing, blind acceptance without reason is a BAD thing. What's presented here is the foundational science that should be behind every bit of research being done. If it doesn't line up with these numbers, then the research should be considered to be flawed. It's like if you did study on the speed of falling objects in a vacuum and the results didn't line up with the basic formula for calculating acceleration. If you saw a study like, the critical thinker would question the study, not the universal constant. But with climate research, it's the foundational science that's getting ignored and people are simply accepting it blindly with no critical thinking, no objective analysis and no willingness to tell people that in spite of their degrees, they are wrong.

Click to expand...

References don't mean a thing if it's not peer reviewed. Countless other recent studies coming from those organizations are contradictory to your research. Those studies are also peer-reviewed.

Threegoofs said:

Yet the people who are telling them they are wrong are.... people without degrees.

You really dont think that the scientists in this area are quite familiar with the foundational science? You think you have some brilliant insight into this that the guys with PhDs in Physics just happened to overlook? You think not one scientist who sees this 'wrong' foundational science doesnt know he can get an endowed professorship with unlimited funding by proving the entire theory of AGW wrong (but they just havent gotten around to it because... what? )

Critical thinking IS a good thing. Try it sometime.

Click to expand...

I don't need a degree to know when someone with a doctorate in mathematics makes an addition error, I just need to understand the fundamentals of math.

falcata said:

References don't mean a thing if it's not peer reviewed. Countless other recent studies coming from those organizations are contradictory to your research. Those studies are also peer-reviewed.

Click to expand...

Peer review doesn't mean anything either when it's the closed pal review process.

falcata said:

References don't mean a thing if it's not peer reviewed. Countless other recent studies coming from those organizations are contradictory to your research. Those studies are also peer-reviewed.

Click to expand...

So can you show me study that shows the total greenhouse effect of all anthropogenic GGs? No projections or computer models, just a simple analysis of the total impact of all anthropogenic GGs - INCLUDING H2O!!

faithful_servant said:

I don't need a degree to know when someone with a doctorate in mathematics makes an addition error, I just need to understand the fundamentals of math.

Click to expand...

Ah. So you thnk you found the error, eh?

Would you find it extraordinarily odd that you would see the addition error by a PhD in Mathematics, and every single other PhD in Math not only does not correct the error, but uses that error in their own research? That would be so odd, in fact, that a rational person would reconsider his claim that it was an 'addition error' (especially if it was within a very complex paper) and would, quite likely, be able to make a stunning career for himself by pointing out that obvious addition error to all the other scientists, who would obviously recongnize the error.

But thats not being done in climate science. What you find is guys on blogs whining about addition errors and getting creationist type scientists to agree with them, but never actually entering into the public scientific discourse. And some people just eat it up and pretend that its a real critique... such as yourself.

Lord of Planar said:

Peer review doesn't mean anything either when it's the closed pal review process.

Click to expand...

Still better than a random study done on the internet.

falcata said:

Still better than a random study done on the internet.

Click to expand...

So show us where it's wrong, instead of just spitballing...

faithful_servant said:

So can you show me study that shows the total greenhouse effect of all anthropogenic GGs? No projections or computer models, just a simple analysis of the total impact of all anthropogenic GGs - INCLUDING H2O!!

Click to expand...

This is the best I could find for what you wanted on short notice.

http://http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/energy-and-environment/climate-change---the-science/

Although water vapour has a major influence on absorbing long-wave thermal radiation, its GWP is not calculated since its concentration in the atmosphere varies widely and mainly depends on air temperature. Also its residence time is only about nine days, compared with years for CO2 and methane. It is classed a positive feedback, not a forcing agent for the troposphere. In the stratosphere, water vapour from methane oxidation and possibly from aircraft may be a forcing agent, but the former is included in methane’s GWP.

Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:

So show us where it's wrong, instead of just spitballing...

Click to expand...

That's all these warmers have other than quoting scripture.

faithful_servant said:

So you didn't check the references. NOAA, NASA, etc. Critical thinking is GOOD thing, blind acceptance without reason is a BAD thing. What's presented here is the foundational science that should be behind every bit of research being done. If it doesn't line up with these numbers, then the research should be considered to be flawed. It's like if you did study on the speed of falling objects in a vacuum and the results didn't line up with the basic formula for calculating acceleration. If you saw a study like, the critical thinker would question the study, not the universal constant. But with climate research, it's the foundational science that's getting ignored and people are simply accepting it blindly with no critical thinking, no objective analysis and no willingness to tell people that in spite of their degrees, they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Conservatism and critical thinking mix about as well as hyenas and lions.

falcata said:

This is the best I could find for what you wanted on short notice.

http://http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/energy-and-environment/climate-change---the-science/

Click to expand...

"Major influence?" That's like saying that salt has a major influence on the saltiness of food. Water vapor is the biggest GG there is by orders of magnitude. Put it on a Pareto chart and every other GG falls into the "insignificant" category. ANY study which exclude water vapor for ANY reason should be questioned strongly as to it's objectivity and accuracy.

The source you provided excludes H2O, uses projections and computer modeling and is NOT what I asked for. Just show me a study that shows the impact of all anthropogenic GGs (INCLUDING H2O). Shouldn't this be the starting point of EVERY study?? If a study doesn't have references to this information and use them frequently, it should be questioned strongly. This is where ALL GG research should be starting, shouldn't it??


BTW - Your link = "Page cannot be found." It's got an extra "http//" in it.

faithful_servant said:

"Major influence?" That's like saying that salt has a major influence on the saltiness of food. Water vapor is the biggest GG there is by orders of magnitude. Put it on a Pareto chart and every other GG falls into the "insignificant" category. ANY study which exclude water vapor for ANY reason should be questioned strongly as to it's objectivity and accuracy.

The source you provided excludes H2O, uses projections and computer modeling and is NOT what I asked for. Just show me a study that shows the impact of all anthropogenic GGs (INCLUDING H2O). Shouldn't this be the starting point of EVERY study?? If a study doesn't have references to this information and use them frequently, it should be questioned strongly. This is where ALL GG research should be starting, shouldn't it??


BTW - Your link = "Page cannot be found." It's got an extra "http//" in it.

Click to expand...

In other words, the science that is pretty much accepted by all the scientists in the field, isnt good enough for you, a total amateur, with virtually no experience in the study of climate science (I'm guessing here, but I think we all can see its a pretty educated guess).

That says a whole lot more about you then it does about them.

Threegoofs said:

In other words, the science that is pretty much accepted by all the scientists in the field, isnt good enough for you, a total amateur, with virtually no experience in the study of climate science (I'm guessing here, but I think we all can see its a pretty educated guess).

That says a whole lot more about you then it does about them.

Click to expand...

Lets see what we can agree on:

Should the percentage of impact that anthropogenic GGs have be the starting point of this research??
Can we agree on that?? It's pretty basic stuff. The kind of thing that every climate researcher on the planet should be able to give us from memory. How about it? Can we agree that this should be the foundation that all research into manmade CC should based on?

falcata said:

All of that data is from the early 2000's and late 1990's. I don't even think that research was peer-reviewed, considering it came from a stone-age website devoted to "West Virginia Plan Fossils"

Click to expand...

The calculations are complete horse**** because the site totally ignores natural absorption of CO2 when it comes up with the "natural emissions" numbers.

faithful_servant said:

I don't need a degree to know when someone with a doctorate in mathematics makes an addition error, I just need to understand the fundamentals of math.

Click to expand...

You weren't able to spot the massive error in the link you provided.

Deuce said:

You weren't able to spot the massive error in the link you provided.

Click to expand...

Would you please so kind as to point it out???

faithful_servant said:

So show us where it's wrong, instead of just spitballing...

Click to expand...

I'm not a climate scientist, but I'll try my best.

The worst part about refuting that research is that the references are more up to date than the research itself is. That's pretty bad.

I'm going to address it's reference 5) first since that is the most prominent basis to the study.

2nd: http://http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf

5th: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

6th: ecoEnquirer: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

The first source required me to be a registered user to view.

The second source was published in 1998 by Washington university's center for the study of American Business. I could not find any other instance in which this piece was cited. The piece doesn't so much debunk humanity's contribution to global warming as much as criticize the Kyoto Protocol.

The third source I couldn't find whatever information they referenced for H20

The fourth source I couldn't locate for public viewing

The fifth did not infer that water vapor whether or not is largely or entirely natural.

The sixth was just a random article online that itself didn't have any sources.

The seventh supports his claim but again is just a random study online

I'm honestly just going to stop here because this study cites basically zero primary documents in the most important part of its research.

Deuce said:

The calculations are complete horse**** because the site totally ignores natural absorption of CO2 when it comes up with the "natural emissions" numbers.

Click to expand...

You could throw out CO2 completely and you'd never notice any difference, since the amount of impact that CO2 has is less than the annual statistical variation in the GG effect.

I don't suppose that you could provide us with a study that shows the total impact of anthropogenic GGs that includes H2O. No one else seems to be able to do so (actually I should be more patient, such an esoteric piece of information may be very hard to come by), so maybe you're the one who can provide us with this information.

faithful_servant said:

Lets see what we can agree on:

Should the percentage of impact that anthropogenic GGs have be the starting point of this research??
Can we agree on that?? It's pretty basic stuff. The kind of thing that every climate researcher on the planet should be able to give us from memory. How about it? Can we agree that this should be the foundation that all research into manmade CC should based on?

Click to expand...

I suppose so... but whats the point? You think the proof that no one can find this on a simple internet search totally dismisses the massive amount of scientiific research that has gone on in this area?

And I beleive the info you are looking for is in the IPCC. I'd find it, but I dont really feel like doing your homework.

Climate change is real, some of it is down to cyclic climate issues but I think a large part is down to the changes we have been causing.

falcata said:

I'm not a climate scientist, but I'll try my best.

The worst part about refuting that research is that the references are more up to date than the research itself is. That's pretty bad.

I'm going to address it's reference 5) first since that is the most prominent basis to the study.

2nd: http://http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf

5th: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf

6th: ecoEnquirer: EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

The first source required me to be a registered user to view.

The second source was published in 1998 by Washington university's center for the study of American Business. I could not find any other instance in which this piece was cited. The piece doesn't so much debunk humanity's contribution to global warming as much as criticize the Kyoto Protocol.

The third source I couldn't find whatever information they referenced for H20

The fourth source I couldn't locate for public viewing

The fifth did not infer that water vapor whether or not is largely or entirely natural.

The sixth was just a random article online that itself didn't have any sources.

The seventh supports his claim but again is just a random study online

I'm honestly just going to stop here because this study cites basically zero primary documents in the most important part of its research.

Click to expand...

The first reference (which you skipped for some reason) is a link to CDIAC, one of the best resources available for GG concentrations and even it leaves out H2O.

The second link does spend a lot of time debunking Kyoto, but it also uses a LOT fo solid science (well referenced) to back up it's critiques.

The third link takes us back to CDIAC.

The fourth link takes us to a chart showing the warming potentials of various Halocarbons and GGs

The fifth link takes us to a article critical of Anthropogenic Climate Change and shows numerous well referenced charts that show the impact of anthropogenic GGs.

I've gone through EVERY one of these links and taken the time to read them. It's why I no longer believe in anthropogenic climate change. Because I got educated using a lot of primary source material which is used in both the article I linked to and in the articles referenced in it). I used to think that we were causing climate change and one day a friend of mine pointed me to this site and I then spent every lunch hour for over six months going through this stuff, looking for the holes in it and I honestly could not do it. I'll freely admit that some of the articles cited have an ax to grind, but they do so with good science. It's one of the things that impressed me about them - they use hard science and not projections or models. You spent a good solid three minutes scanning a couple of sites and came to a conclusion without making any effort to look at the information objectively. Try it again, this time putting in the effort and keeping an open mind.