• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?

  • Total voters
    115
ptif219 said:
Funny thing is you base GW on a 100 year old theory before all the industrialization of man? That tells me this is a flawed theory.

You use a blog? This is your source?
JC-hysterical.gif
JC-ROFL.gif
Click to expand...

A blog? no that is not a blog may I recommend Computer terminology 101 to clarify further mistakes there.

.I am sure you did not read the link I provided for content, but it is clearly peers who are quite scientifically literate, and versed in the topic material reviewing the paper.. even making mention of writing the author with valid questions they wanted clarified.

I have also been studying Miskolczi's paper, and have gotten through about to page 10 before being stopped by a series of problems and apparent non sequitors, some of which have been mentioned by others..

I have written this up and sent my comments to Dr. Miskolczi, who said he would be traveling until August and might be able to respond at that time.
Click to expand...

see this is how the peer review process works, experts (peers) study the paper, they write the author for clarifications, and dialogue with the author of the paper remains open so that his material can be subjected to scrutiny. my link is exactly what I claimed it to be, a glimpse into the peer review process.

But go ahead, keep thinking some blurb from any random "citizen journalist" with internet and a keyboard putting an article up at the examiner has more credibility, it is amusing.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine


Examiner.com: Has there been global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.

Examiner.com: According to the conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2 emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earth’s surface, resulting in global warming. Is that an accurate description of the prevailing theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.

Examiner.com: Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?
Dr. Miskolczi: Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.

Examiner.com: Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake?
Dr. Miskolczi: The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.

Examiner.com: Why has this error escaped notice until now?
Dr. Miskolczi: Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.

Examiner.com: According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium. Is that a fair assessment of your theory?
Dr. Miskolczi: Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

Examiner.com: You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done?
Dr. Miskolczi: The computations are relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations from around the globe and computed the global average infrared absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.

Examiner.com: Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved?
Dr. Miskolczi: No.
Click to expand...

You haven't read a single thing I've posted on this thread, have you?

I have pointed out more times then I can remember that it is not the direct effect of the CO2, but the indirect effect of the CO2. The CO2 increases the amount of evaporation, because it is paleo-carbon. This increased rate of evaporation leads to a positive feedback loop. Now stop wasting my time, and address the points I actually argue, rather then what you wish I argued.

Quite frankly, for any scientist to argue that paleo-carbon such as that released in fossil fuels does not increase/change the energy equilibrium of the environment to some extent is for that scientist to basically announce he is an idiot. The facts are irrefutable that CO2 does in fact increase temperature, the only reasonable question is how much.

The answer to that question can be normative rather then positive, such that, the temperature change caused by CO2 is enough to destabilize the environment.
 
marduc said:
A blog? no that is not a blog may I recommend Computer terminology 101 to clarify further mistakes there.

.I am sure you did not read the link I provided for content, but it is clearly peers who are quite scientifically literate, and versed in the topic material reviewing the paper.. even making mention of writing the author with valid questions they wanted clarified.



see this is how the peer review process works, experts (peers) study the paper, they write the author for clarifications, and dialogue with the author of the paper remains open so that his material can be subjected to scrutiny. my link is exactly what I claimed it to be, a glimpse into the peer review process.

But go ahead, keep thinking some blurb from any random "citizen journalist" with internet and a keyboard putting an article up at the examiner has more credibility, it is amusing.
Click to expand...

Your link goes to physics forum. That is a source?
 
repeter said:
You haven't read a single thing I've posted on this thread, have you?

I have pointed out more times then I can remember that it is not the direct effect of the CO2, but the indirect effect of the CO2. The CO2 increases the amount of evaporation, because it is paleo-carbon. This increased rate of evaporation leads to a positive feedback loop. Now stop wasting my time, and address the points I actually argue, rather then what you wish I argued.

Quite frankly, for any scientist to argue that paleo-carbon such as that released in fossil fuels does not increase/change the energy equilibrium of the environment to some extent is for that scientist to basically announce he is an idiot. The facts are irrefutable that CO2 does in fact increase temperature, the only reasonable question is how much.

The answer to that question can be normative rather then positive, such that, the temperature change caused by CO2 is enough to destabilize the environment.
Click to expand...

You are smarter than all scientist?
 
No, man made global warming does exist to a certain extent.

The debate should be over the extent of man-made global warming vs. natural global warming, and whether or not policies like "carbon taxes" are necessary. There's no real scientific debate that it's "all a hoax", so we need to move past that.
 
Toothpicvic said:
No, man made global warming does exist to a certain extent.

The debate should be over the extent of man-made global warming vs. natural global warming, and whether or not policies like "carbon taxes" are necessary. There's no real scientific debate that it's "all a hoax", so we need to move past that.
Click to expand...

The problem is now they have to figure out how to explain the cooling.

Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming


Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis.
 
ptif219 said:
The problem is now they have to figure out how to explain the cooling.

Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming


Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis.
Click to expand...

First off, the public is retarded. The proof in that is there are people in the public who think Stalin, Hitler, and all those other guys were amazing. There are people who think we should convert to anarchy. There are people who think we should be communist. Needless to say, people are remarkably stupid, and they can't decipher what's fact and whats fiction.

Another thing you need to understand, climate change and meteorology are different. Weather patterns and overall climate shifts are different.
 
repeter said:
First off, the public is retarded. The proof in that is there are people in the public who think Stalin, Hitler, and all those other guys were amazing. There are people who think we should convert to anarchy. There are people who think we should be communist. Needless to say, people are remarkably stupid, and they can't decipher what's fact and whats fiction.

Another thing you need to understand, climate change and meteorology are different. Weather patterns and overall climate shifts are different.
Click to expand...

No matter what happens GW is the reason for it. Do you know how unbelievable that is.
 
ptif219 said:
No matter what happens GW is the reason for it. Do you know how unbelievable that is.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No.

What I said was it depends on the situation and it depends on the circumstances. In my opinion, the recent snow storms on the east coast are the cause of overall climate change. The change which caused this storm was specifically increased amount of evaporation in the ITCZ, which directly leads to stronger winds, greater variability wind pressure, and therefore more powerful storms.

What isn't global warming is a the series of storms on the Western Coast of the US. This is caused by the ENSO event, which is a natural cycle repeated every few years. There have been no major events that could have reasonably caused the storm on the East Coast, however, therefore the only logical explanation left is increased water vapor over the equator, which means increased wind speed and variable pressure systems.

This is basic stuff, but admittedly there are a lot of tricks to it. One of those tricks is looking in the wrong place for an answer. Often, the answer starts thousands of miles away, such as in the case of both weather patterns/events.
 
repeter said:
Did I say that? No.

What I said was it depends on the situation and it depends on the circumstances. In my opinion, the recent snow storms on the east coast are the cause of overall climate change. The change which caused this storm was specifically increased amount of evaporation in the ITCZ, which directly leads to stronger winds, greater variability wind pressure, and therefore more powerful storms.

What isn't global warming is a the series of storms on the Western Coast of the US. This is caused by the ENSO event, which is a natural cycle repeated every few years. There have been no major events that could have reasonably caused the storm on the East Coast, however, therefore the only logical explanation left is increased water vapor over the equator, which means increased wind speed and variable pressure systems.

This is basic stuff, but admittedly there are a lot of tricks to it. One of those tricks is looking in the wrong place for an answer. Often, the answer starts thousands of miles away, such as in the case of both weather patterns/events.
Click to expand...

As always GW can explain it away no matter what the weather. It can be hot,cold, rain, snow, hurricanes you always have an out no proof but always an explanation.

That is why the article I posted shows GW scientist trying to explain away the cooling trend.
 
Toothpicvic said:
No, man made global warming does exist to a certain extent.

The debate should be over the extent of man-made global warming vs. natural global warming, and whether or not policies like "carbon taxes" are necessary. There's no real scientific debate that it's "all a hoax", so we need to move past that.
Click to expand...


Quite right, mainstream science concurred on man's contribution to global warming in 2007. The only debate that remains is a political one.
 
Catawba said:
Quite right, mainstream science concurred on man's contribution to global warming in 2007. The only debate that remains is a political one.
Click to expand...

I would like to see proof January was the warmest on record.
 
repeter said:
First off, the public is retarded. The proof in that is there are people in the public who think Stalin, Hitler, and all those other guys were amazing. There are people who think we should convert to anarchy. There are people who think we should be communist. Needless to say, people are remarkably stupid, and they can't decipher what's fact and whats fiction.

Another thing you need to understand, climate change and meteorology are different. Weather patterns and overall climate shifts are different.
Click to expand...

The people who are impressed with Stalin and Mao and Che and Obama are the same people worshipping before the altar of human induced global warming.
 
repeter said:
Explain how the science behind the greenhouse effect isn't sound. More specifically, explain how the logic train behind climate change is illogical.
Click to expand...

Because it's not consistent with facts.

That's usually the problem failed theories have.

Science isn't about logic. Logically, cats have eight tails.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Remember the e-mails. The AGW acolyte telling another that they have to "hide the decline".
Click to expand...

Here is what I am talking about. I want to know where it was warm?


Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Weather: Hottest January ever say climate experts




CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the *hottest January the world has ever seen.

The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.

At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.

“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran *climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find places that haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”

His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
 
The Worshippers of Gaia and Marx have heard the complaints that their concoctions don't fit satellite data. So now they're claiming their work is supported by satallite data.

NASA GISS if facing a lawsuit for refusing an FOIA request for their raw data.

However, if it it the hottest January on record down under, then some scientist is going to win a Nobel Prize if they can figure out how the lost heat from the Northern Hemisphere was magically transported to the South. I suspect the heat made a short-cut through Pellucidar.

I find it strange, also that the last decade, which showed significant cooling from the 1990's, was hottest ever.

I think maybe those Worshippers of Gaia and Marx use a different definition of "warmer" than the rest of us do. Considering that most of them who are old enough were big promoters of the Nex Ice Age hype of the 70's, maybe they're just managed to confuse themselves on "warm" and "cold"?

Remember when Al Bore told Congress that "everything that should be up is down, and everything that should be down, is up"? Maybe he wasn't talking about the healthy economy but his warped perceptions of Gaia?
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
As always GW can explain it away no matter what the weather. It can be hot,cold, rain, snow, hurricanes you always have an out no proof but always an explanation.

That is why the article I posted shows GW scientist trying to explain away the cooling trend.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the basis of science do you...

Gravity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. Black holes, plate tectonics, etc. Theories. A theory is as high as you can get in the scientific world.

Meteorlogical theories, as well as the greenhouse gas theory combined result in the theory of climate change. You following me?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because it's not consistent with facts.

That's usually the problem failed theories have.

Science isn't about logic. Logically, cats have eight tails.
Click to expand...

The facts necessary for the logic is 1) increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, 2) greenhouse effect in relation to CO2, 3) marginally hotter temperatures over equator increasing amount of evaporation, 4)water vapor being the most effective greenhouse gas, and 5) the ability of increased water evaporation to form a positive feedback loop in the environment.

These are all true, and unless you want to dispute one of them, the logic is also irrefutable.
 
repeter said:
The facts necessary for the logic is 1) increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, 2) greenhouse effect in relation to CO2, 3) marginally hotter temperatures over equator increasing amount of evaporation, 4)water vapor being the most effective greenhouse gas, and 5) the ability of increased water evaporation to form a positive feedback loop in the environment.

These are all true, and unless you want to dispute one of them, the logic is also irrefutable.
Click to expand...

Facts not considered to produce your logic, but which are facts nonetheless:

1) Warming trend started 150 years before 1800.

2) CO2 trends rise AFTER warming trend. Claiming CO2 rise causes warming trend violates fact and hence logic.

3) The creation of clouds from water vapor create negative feedback to cancel your alleged positive feedback.

4) Your "logic" can't account for the cooling experienced in the last decade. A positive control loop that increases temperature can't be used to explain decreases in temperature. Hence, your logic is half-assed.

5) Hotter water in the Atlantic means more rain, more hurricanes. The Southern states have suffered drought and that drought has been exacerbated by a notable shortage of hurricanes in the last half-decade.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Facts not considered to produce your logic, but which are facts nonetheless:

1) Warming trend started 150 years before 1800.

2) CO2 trends rise AFTER warming trend. Claiming CO2 rise causes warming trend violates fact and hence logic.

3) The creation of clouds from water vapor create negative feedback to cancel your alleged positive feedback.

4) Your "logic" can't account for the cooling experienced in the last decade. A positive control loop that increases temperature can't be used to explain decreases in temperature. Hence, your logic is half-assed.

5) Hotter water in the Atlantic means more rain, more hurricanes. The Southern states have suffered drought and that drought has been exacerbated by a notable shortage of hurricanes in the last half-decade.
Click to expand...

Once you cite all of that, I'll believe it, especially the part about the current warming trend starting in 1800.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
...
However, if it it the hottest January on record down under, then some scientist is going to win a Nobel Prize if they can figure out how the lost heat from the Northern Hemisphere was magically transported to the South. I suspect the heat made a short-cut through Pellucidar.
Click to expand...

Edited to remove errors and other strawmen for clarity. Please show where the rise in temperature observed was restricted to Australia, as you seem to suggest, or even the Southern hemisphere?
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Once you cite all of that, I'll believe it, especially the part about the current warming trend starting in 1800.
Click to expand...

I did cite it, didn't you read it?

That you won't understand that the warming trend began at the very coldest part of the Little Ice Age merely highlights your ignorance of the topic at hand, and further shows your grasp on logic is weak.


I did not say the current warming trend began ca. 1800. The Gaia Worshippers have. I said it began 150 years before that. The bottom of the Little Ice Age happened ca. 1650.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Edited to remove errors and other strawmen for clarity. Please show where the rise in temperature observed was restricted to Australia, as you seem to suggest, or even the Southern hemisphere?
Click to expand...

If some lying con man is claiming the month before last was the warmest ever for the Northern Hemisphere, and someone is stupid enough to believe him, I'm not going to waste time pointing at the snow outside his window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom