Yet Another Study Debunks "Global Warming"!!!
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find
out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric
circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month,
show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate
models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2
world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the
researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University
of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three
major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of
increased circulation going back to 1871."
In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme
weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict.
"There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human
activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another
University of Colorado climate researcher.
We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate
heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases
since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how
sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other
possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating
and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations,
and so on.
Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of
dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut
carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue
to change—as it always has.
azjim
leaked. Just accept it's happening because Gore says so! So either
change how you live or keep living like Gore but buy carbon credits,
because those credits will of course fix everything.
Polarhound
>> and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations,
>> and so on.
>>
>> Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of
>> dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut
>> carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue
> It's called climate change now that the global warming emails were
> leaked. Just accept it's happening because Gore says so! So either
> change how you live or keep living like Gore but buy carbon credits,
> because those credits will of course fix everything.
Actually, they renamed it again to Global Weirding.
cloud dreamer
Another idiotic "study" that makes it plain that climate change is
occurring and simply harps on the one variable - what the precise effect
will be.
A wait and see attitude is utter insanity.
And the climate is not changing as it has always changed. Of course,
people without the intellectual ability to reason will cling to such
foolish notions without having a clue as to what it means.
The climate has changed in the past. It's always changing. But not at
the current rate. It doesn't raise the global average temp by almost a
degree a century. It takes 10,000 years to do that.
Not that I expect deniers to accept it. They're lazy, selfish people who
think only of themselves.
But hey, if you think you know it all, go challenge the scientists
themselves at realclimate.org. They await your mind-blowing revelation.
Go ahead. Challenge THEM.
Of course, that only results in <crickets>.
<plonk>
..
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
I agree! The Bigfoot deniers refuse to accept Bigfoot! They're lazy,
selfish people who think only of themselves.
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> But hey, if you think you know it all, go challenge the scientists
> themselves at realclimate.org. They await your mind-blowing revelation.
Moderated website full of left wing kooks!!!
Post there and you will get a virus.
mr dude (probably AIDS)
Husky
> >>> and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations,
> >>> and so on.
>
> >>> Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of
> >>> dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut
> >>> carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue
> >> It's called climate change now that the global warming emails were
> >> leaked. Just accept it's happening because Gore says so! So either
> >> change how you live or keep living like Gore but buy carbon credits,
> >> because those credits will of course fix everything.
>
> > Actually, they renamed it again to Global Weirding.
>
> Another idiotic "study" that makes it plain that climate change is
> occurring and simply harps on the one variable - what the precise effect
> will be.
>
> A wait and see attitude is utter insanity.
>
> And the climate is not changing as it has always changed. Of course,
> people without the intellectual ability to reason will cling to such
> foolish notions without having a clue as to what it means.
>
> The climate has changed in the past. It's always changing. But not at
> the current rate. It doesn't raise the global average temp by almost a
> degree a century. It takes 10,000 years to do that.
>
> Not that I expect deniers to accept it. They're lazy, selfish people who
> think only of themselves.
>
> But hey, if you think you know it all, go challenge the scientists
> themselves at realclimate.org. They await your mind-blowing revelation.
> Go ahead. Challenge THEM.
>
> Of course, that only results in <crickets>.
>
> <plonk>
>
> ..
The Queen of Plonk has spoken. (It was somewhat muffled, though) The
current rate, over the past 15 years shows no increase. What's that
about, Queenie?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnpb3pYhR8R-F3lqtQzeNdV6qiKvLLawHW4unRvSAvL4HV33qLig
Mattu
> >>> and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations,
> >>> and so on.
>
> >>> Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of
> >>> dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut
> >>> carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue
> >> It's called climate change now that the global warming emails were
> >> leaked. Just accept it's happening because Gore says so! So either
> >> change how you live or keep living like Gore but buy carbon credits,
> >> because those credits will of course fix everything.
>
> > Actually, they renamed it again to Global Weirding.
>
> Another idiotic "study" that makes it plain that climate change is
> occurring and simply harps on the one variable - what the precise effect
> will be.
>
> A wait and see attitude is utter insanity.
>
> And the climate is not changing as it has always changed. Of course,
> people without the intellectual ability to reason will cling to such
> foolish notions without having a clue as to what it means.
>
> The climate has changed in the past. It's always changing. But not at
> the current rate. It doesn't raise the global average temp by almost a
> degree a century. It takes 10,000 years to do that.
>
> Not that I expect deniers to accept it. They're lazy, selfish people who
> think only of themselves.
>
> But hey, if you think you know it all, go challenge the scientists
> themselves at realclimate.org. They await your mind-blowing revelation.
> Go ahead. Challenge THEM.
>
> Of course, that only results in <crickets>.
>
> <plonk>
>
> ..
Since there is no clear consensus by experts in their respected fields
concerning climate change/global warming then it is foolish to jump on
the bandwagon and blame humans for whatever's going on not only on a
global scale but a solar system scale as well. FYI the reason why
astronomers call it a solar system, the first word, solar means sun.
Hmm, perhaps that bright yellow fusion reactor 90M miles away and is
larger than 330330 Earths has something to do with an increase in temp
in the ENTIRE INNER SOLAR SYSTEM. Just a thought.
Husky
You'd have an easier time finding and getting Osama Bin Laden to eat a
BLT sandwich than convincing Queen Plonk there are facts that refute
her position.
Kurgan Gringioni
"mr du...@harvarduniversity.edu" <fost...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4295a06-25f3-4f56...@k7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
This one from the "right wing" Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html
<snip>
Do you really believe than human released CO2 has no effect?
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613030099212...
> Do you really believe than human released CO2 has no effect?
Like breathing you mean???
It is insignificant. Water vapor has a bigger impact.
mr dude (however if we can get all the climate change loons to stop
breathing at least we could get rid of all the Libs!)
Kurgan Gringioni
On Feb 13, 9:05 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613030099212...
> Do you really believe than human released CO2 has no effect?
:: Like breathing you mean???
::
:: It is insignificant.
The basic physics disagrees with your statement. Since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has raised the CO2 in the
atmosphere from 260-280ppm to 380ppm in 2010.
That doesn't sound like much, but the extra CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
The energy from the 100 ppm equates to 1.66 watts per square meter.
1.66 watts doesn't sound like much, but remember, interstellar space has a
temperature close to absolute zero, -459 degrees fahrenheit.
Mercury orbits the sun at at radius of 28 million miles. It is tidally
locked so one side is very hot (800 degrees) whille the other is very cold
(minus 350 degrees) - the average temperature is 275 degrees fahrenheit.
Venus orbits the sun at 66 million miles, and while very little sunlight
reaches the surface of Venus due to clouds of sulfuric acid which reflect it
back out to space, Venus has an average temperature of 850 degrees
fahrenheit despite getting one fifth the amount of solar energy per square
meter that Mercury does even if ignores the cloud reflection. Why is Venus
hotter? Its atmosphere is 96% CO2.
cloud dreamer
Careful. Dude is allergic to facts.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
cloud dreamer
Isn't it funny how no one disputed that CFCs were damaging the
atmosphere, but have trouble believing CO2 does...even though the amount
of CFCs emitted was minuscule compared to CO2.
Well, actually, it has to do with the fact that CFCs had a ready made
replacement, so the industry had no reason to fight back.
What a difference when an industry is threatened.
Not that Dude can comprehend that.
eric
>
> The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find
> out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric
> circulation from 1871 to the present.
>
> As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month,
> show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate
> models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2
> world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the
> researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University
> of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three
> major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of
> increased circulation going back to 1871."
This study looks at circulation patterns only. It is an interesting
piece of data, but other studies have found increased extreme weather
conditions using other measures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205083526.htm
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1199
http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2011/01/24/is-the-u-s-climate-getting-more-extreme/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2010/13
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/science/earth/15climate.html
Debunking global warming? Hardly.
Husky
> On Feb 11, 10:25 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
>
>
>
> <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This one from the "right wing" Wall Street Journal:
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613030099212...
>
> > The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find
> > out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric
> > circulation from 1871 to the present.
>
> > As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month,
> > show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate
> > models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2
> > world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the
> > researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University
> > of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three
> > major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of
> > increased circulation going back to 1871."
>
> This study looks at circulation patterns only. It is an interesting
> piece of data, but other studies have found increased extreme weather
> conditions using other measures.
>
>
> Debunking global warming? Hardly.
As the trend is now one of cooling, haven't they changed the
nomenclature to "climate change."
http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm
Mattu
There are several other reasons besides CO2 and its location (closer
to the sun) on why Venus is so much hotter. For instance 1 day = 243
days on earth. The atmosphere moves faster than the rotation.
Lastly, the volcanism on Venus adds to the temperature.
It just goes to show you that just one factor on a planetary scale in
a system that is not closed (outer space) doesn't determine the
potential outcome claimed by the climate change people.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> The basic physics disagrees with your statement. Since the start of the
> Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has raised the CO2 in the
> atmosphere from 260-280ppm to 380ppm in 2010.
>
Did you even read the article?????
"In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into
a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert
Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office
at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that
none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used
show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."
mr dude (you CO2 has not changed the climate deniers make me laugh!!!!
Batshit crazy every one of you!!!)
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> potential outcome claimed by the climate change people.
They have just changed the nomenclature.
From now on the "climate change" people have become the "weather
inequality dispersion activists" (or WIDA).
Any time it rains, snows, becomes hot or cold, hails, sleets or a
heavy wind occurs, they will say "See we told you so!".
mr dude
cloud dreamer
Closer than Mercury???
Mattu
Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth. Mercury has no atmosphere nor
volcano's. Volcanos spew out the equivalent of a years worth of "man
made" CO2 in seconds. That's it! We need to cap and trade volcanos!
The atmospheric density of Venus creates such pressures at the surface
that it crushes any probes that reach the surface. With the added
pressure comes an increase in temperature.
So, to compare Venus to Earth in reference to CO2 is like comparing
apples to battleships. If layman proponents of man's role in climate
change are just as ignorant, it's no surprise they've been duped.
Husky
There you go, mucking up the whole conversation with facts ;-).
Conveniently, the fact that Venus has a surface pressure more than 90
times that of earth seems to be of no factor to the AGW crowd.
One has to wonder if all that CO2 was the product of Venusians.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> Closer than Mercury???
>
Once again the "CO2 does not affect global environmental situational
weather analysis" deniers are wrong.
Mountains on Earth are "closer to the sun" but yet they are snow
covered!
It is due to the relative exposure of direct sunlight (not that the GW
nutjobs could comprehend these facts).
You see, these Libtards can only grasp basic words and phrases like
"No War For Oil"", "Bush lied People Died", and "Hell No We Won't
Go" (Vietnam).
These moronic robotic sheep have nothing else to believe in.
They are simpletons that hide behind scientific phrases that they copy
and paste from the interweb!
They use phrases like anthropomorphic climate change but they have no
fucking clue what that means! They are just looking for their next bag
of weed!
There's a reason why the biggest global warming fraudster has the nick
"cloud dreamer". The lesbo bitch just smoked another bowl!!
mr dude (a harsh voice of reality in a drugster world)
cloud dreamer
Yet one of the denier's favorite arguments against climate change is
that other planets are warming too (which is BS) as if the climate
systems on other planets had any correlation at all.
Make up your minds.
D/
"cloud dreamer" <Sa...@Resources.now> wrote in message
news:mPydnUx0bdGEKcbQ...@supernews.com...
Once again, the cloudster makes up her own facts. Consider just a few of
the many articles on warming taking place on other planets in our solar
system:
:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
Now, consider what might be the common link between the planets that could
cause such a correlation. Perhaps because they share the same Sun?
Nah, couldn't be! They didn't say this on realclimate.com!
Husky
Don't go blaming anything on Pot. "Queenie" is a very special brand
of nut, who needs no outside physical stimulus to make her Bat Shit
crazy. She's as much a nut job as the crazies who strap explosives on
themselves. It's a religion to her. She is a pawn for Gore, Maher and
their ilk.
Mattu
Are you really that fanatical? If that giant ball of fire in the sky
changes it effects the entire SOLAR system. Earth is a mere 90M miles
away, the other planets in the other solar system have had increases
in temperature. Geological evidence suggests this type of pattern for
millions of years. Now you're going to tell me that the pattern is
happening way faster than in the past. For crying out loud what do
you think the margin of error is when you're talking patterns that
last millions of years?
One volcano spews out more CO2 in seconds than man does in one year.
What do you think had more of an effect on CO2 levels last year, man
made CO2 or the volcano in Iceland? Do the math!
Okay here's the deal. To you, when legitimate scientists question
man's role in climate change they work for the oil companies, but when
legitimate scientists show evidence that supports man's role in
climate change their word is never questioned because they don't have
a possible hidden agenda? Do you see how monumentally naive that is?
You're going on blind faith, cherry picking facts while discrediting
others when they don't fit. Neither side of the debate has proven or
disproven to the degree needed in legitimate science man's role in
climate change. It's scary how much it looks like religion.
HVAC
>>
>> --
>> We must change the way we live
>> Or the climate will do it for us
>
> Are you really that fanatical? If that giant ball of fire in the sky
> changes it effects the entire SOLAR system. Earth is a mere 90M miles
> away, the other planets in the other solar system have had increases
> in temperature. Geological evidence suggests this type of pattern for
> millions of years. Now you're going to tell me that the pattern is
> happening way faster than in the past. For crying out loud what do
> you think the margin of error is when you're talking patterns that
> last millions of years?
>
> One volcano spews out more CO2 in seconds than man does in one year.
> What do you think had more of an effect on CO2 levels last year, man
> made CO2 or the volcano in Iceland? Do the math!
>
> Okay here's the deal. To you, when legitimate scientists question
> man's role in climate change they work for the oil companies, but when
> legitimate scientists show evidence that supports man's role in
> climate change their word is never questioned because they don't have
> a possible hidden agenda? Do you see how monumentally naive that is?
>
> You're going on blind faith, cherry picking facts while discrediting
> others when they don't fit. Neither side of the debate has proven or
> disproven to the degree needed in legitimate science man's role in
> climate change. It's scary how much it looks like religion.
Allow me to interject a bit of reason here....
First off, no reasonable person would deny the fact that
the Earth is warming. What is causing it? I don't know.
Second, no one would deny that we are dumping a SHITLOAD of
crap into our air...The same air that we breathe.
Third, no one would deny that polluting the only planet we
have is a bad idea.
The bottom line is we should clean up our act, simply because
it's the right thing to do.
Mattu
Granted. However, when you have to make up stories to force people to
do "what's right" smacks of a giant invisible man in the sky that
watches everything you do. If you don't you're going to hell. A
debate based on facts w/o end of the world consequences, would go a
lot further than scare tactics with cherry picked, contradictory facts.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> Second, no one would deny that we are dumping a SHITLOAD of
> crap into our air...The same air that we breathe.
But the climate changes over time - always has and always will -
deniers are saying that CO2 (you know that stuff that we breath out
after we breath in) is the culprit. That and Bigfoot farting.
mr dude
HVAC
No doubt CO2 is part of the problem.
CO2 that is spewed into the atmosphere from our coal,
oil and gas fired power plants.
The problem is that what we need is a massive project
to build on the order of 50 new nuclear power plants
over the next 20 years.
When a liberal hears the words 'nuclear power' they
about shit their pants with fear, even tho no one in
the USA has ever died due to an accident at a nuke plant.
The trillion + dollars that we spent on a bogus 'stimulus'
could have gone into beginning this project of 50 new stations.
This would have led to real jobs in construction,engineering, etc
and would have, at the end of the day, gotten us off the oil tit.
Husky
The "Green Earthers" are like the proverbial "Want their cake, and eat
it too." folk. They don't want nuclear power but they only offer
unviable alternatives to fossil fuels. These same Alarmists have done
everything in their power to stifle the only viable adjunct to fossil
fuels. UNTIL we develop an affordable and prolific renewable
alternative to fossil fuels we only have one choice in regard to
making a noticeable reduction in it's use and that's nuclear. The
United States Navy
The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-
free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.[5]
eric
> "cloud dreamer" <S...@Resources.now> wrote in message
>
> Now, consider what might be the common link between the planets that could
> cause such a correlation. Perhaps because they share the same Sun?
>
> Nah, couldn't be! They didn't say this on realclimate.com!
Yes, lets look at these articles.
They all refer to the same group of scientists.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St.
Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System
Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and
Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics
Some of these scientists are recognized AGW (not GW!) skeptics, and
legitimately so. Some however are not at all.
Example: Sami Solanki.
In the following press release issued by the Max Planck Institute
(http://www.mpg.de/496690/pressRelease20040802) he states regarding
solar radiation:
"Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since,
according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar
magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature
since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by
carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and
director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
So what the heck is going on here? Could it be that AGW skeptics are
misquoting or distorting the scientific positions of many of the
people they are referring to?
The fact is that there really are very few legitimate experts in the
field world-wide that have taken the position that AGW is not
occurring. Wikipedia has been able to document ONLY 16 such people
despite an open invitation to all and sundry to supply examples.
The claims that there is no consensus on this topic are complete
baloney.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> The fact is that there really are very few legitimate experts in the
> field world-wide that have taken the position that AGW is not
> occurring. Wikipedia has been able to document ONLY 16 such people
> despite an open invitation to all and sundry to supply examples.
I found about 16 in just ONE foundation: The Global Warming Policy
Foundation
In November 2009, the GWPF listed Benny Peiser, a social
anthropologist, as the director,[2] and a board of trustees consisting
of Lord Lawson (Chairman), Lord Barnett, Peter R. Forster (the Bishop
of Chester), Lord Donoughue, Lord Fellowes, Martin Jacomb, Henri
Lepage, Baroness Nicholson, and Lord Turnbull.[12] The academic
advisory council included Samuel Brittan, Ian Byatt, Freeman Dyson,
Christian Gerondeau, David Henderson, Terence Kealey, Anthony Kelly,
Richard Lindzen, Alan Peacock, Ian Plimer, Gwyn Prins, Paul Reiter,
Philip Stott, Richard Tol, and David Whitehouse.[13][14]
Andrew William Montford has been appointed to run an inquiry into the
three British Climategate-inquiries for the Global Warming Policy
Foundation.[15] His report The Climategate Inquiries was published in
September 2010, and is sharply critical of the previous inquiries.[16]
[17]
mr dude
eric
LOL. A social anthropologist HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The Bishop of Chester?
I'm rolling on the floor here. You consider that to be a legitimate
expert? I snorted coffee out my nose when I read that.
Some of the other names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford - A writer and blogger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Peacock - Professional Soccer
Player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jacomb - Lawyer
You are so funny.
eric
A coupleof the people on your list are mentioned in the Wikipedia
article I referred to. The vast majority however are not at all
experts in the field as two minutes spent with Google will show:
Andrew William Montford - Lawyer
Martin Jacob - Lawyer
David Henderson - Journalist
Alan Peacock - Economist
Terence Kealey - Physician
Baroness Nicholson - Politician
etc. etc. etc.
So get real and post something that isn't a lie.
D/
"eric" <wart...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ca2ee21-0358-44d6...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
etc. etc. etc.
-----------------------------
I'm so very impressed that you use Wikipedia as a definitive reference. As
you have set this standard, I feel free to match your scientific rigor with
the following reference:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
30,000+ signed the petition that states:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement
that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar
proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many
beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the
Earth. "
For these individuals, credentials include:
"1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists
trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the
Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment."
I acknowledge that you did include the weasel words, "The fact is that there
really are very few legitimate experts in the field world-wide that have
taken the position that AGW is not occurring." Of course, you get to define
what "in the field" means - sort of like "what the meaning of is is" eh?
However, the 31,480 individuals who signed this petition will take you a
while to assemble your ad hominem rebuttal to their position against AGW.
I'm sure you can just generalize to say that none of them reach the stature
of those _real_ scientists like Mann, Hanson, and Jones.
It would be nice to get beyond the naive arguments about who has what
political connections or alphabet soup after their names and discuss the
science of AGW. For a start, I can recommend that you consider the climate
over the last 10,000 years. A very good source of data is available at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt .
It is instructive to copy the data for the last 10,000 years into a
spreadsheet and see the climate trends over those years. See if you can
figure out how many of those years represent a temperature greater than
today's. Note that this is representative of GW, not necessarily AGW.
For AGW, please identify the contribution of A to GW. It is evident from
the climate record that climate is not a constant. The question that must
be addressed is the contribution of A to the GW record. (Suggestion - stay
away from the CO2 argument - or be prepared to explain the climate with
regard to CO2 concentrations over the past 1,000,000 years or so. Of
course, that takes away the pseudo-science of AGW computer modeling as
practiced by the AGW acolytes.)
A final exercise is to predict the outcomes if the climate actually warms by
temperature increases as predicted by the AGW scientists. Here, the
predictions will require a reasonable explanation based on scientific
principles. Simple models may not be adequate. For example, "Global
warming combined with increased CO2 levels will support longer growing
seasons with enhanced food production as higher CO2 levels result in
increased plant growth." Simple, logical, and concise. However, I suspect
this model doesn't fit your AGW world-view. Please feel free to refute and
provide your alternative theory.
Best regards,
D/
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> So get real and post something that isn't a lie.
I have irrefutable PROOF that global warming is caused by the
population of pirates!!!!
Irrefutable!!!!!!
The inclusion of pirates in Pastafarianism was part of Henderson's
original letter to the Kansas State Board of Education.[31] Henderson
presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes,
and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking
numbers of pirates since the 1800s."[7] A chart accompanying the
letter (with numbers on the x-axis) shows that as the number of
pirates decreased, global temperatures increased. . In 2008, Henderson
interpreted the growing pirate activities at the Gulf of Aden as
additional support, pointing out that Somalia has "the highest number
of Pirates AND the lowest Carbon emissions of any country.
mr dude (you can't avoid FACTS loser!!!)
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
For example, "Global
> warming combined with increased CO2 levels will support longer growing
> seasons with enhanced food production as higher CO2 levels result in
> increased plant growth." Simple, logical, and concise. However, I suspect
> this model doesn't fit your AGW world-view. Please feel free to refute and
> provide your alternative theory.
Moreover, CO2 SAVED the Earth!!!!
The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the
last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the
Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which
glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[32] possibly being ended by
the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by
volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the
oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis,
which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[33] It has been
suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the
subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion.
mr dude (thank you CO2)
Mattu
> "eric" <warth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> It is instructive to copy the data for the last 10,000 years into a
> spreadsheet and see the climate trends over those years. See if you can
> figure out how many of those years represent a temperature greater than
> today's. Note that this is representative of GW, not necessarily AGW.
>
> For AGW, please identify the contribution of A to GW. It is evident from
> the climate record that climate is not a constant. The question that must
> be addressed is the contribution of A to the GW record. (Suggestion - stay
> away from the CO2 argument - or be prepared to explain the climate with
> regard to CO2 concentrations over the past 1,000,000 years or so. Of
> course, that takes away the pseudo-science of AGW computer modeling as
> practiced by the AGW acolytes.)
>
> A final exercise is to predict the outcomes if the climate actually warms by
> temperature increases as predicted by the AGW scientists. Here, the
> predictions will require a reasonable explanation based on scientific
> principles. Simple models may not be adequate. For example, "Global
> warming combined with increased CO2 levels will support longer growing
> seasons with enhanced food production as higher CO2 levels result in
> increased plant growth." Simple, logical, and concise. However, I suspect
> this model doesn't fit your AGW world-view. Please feel free to refute and
> provide your alternative theory.
>
> Best regards,
> D/
A couple of things jumped out at me on your ncdc.noaa data.
1. No mention of margin of error for measurements earlier than 11,500
years. Note a 1% error is 115 years.
2. The term "data is smoothed from original measurements."
Considering the calculations and the specific slice of time in Earth's
geological history I would guess the margins of error would be large
enough to drive a CO2 truck through.
As I said before, the vast complexity of the Earth's climate combined
with scientists on both sides personal bias leads me to conclude that
the current data concerning man's role in climate change is at best
inconclusive. Any scientist that jumps on either band wagon whole
heartedly haven't been to a critical thinking class recently.
D/
"Mattu" <goc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fb5349a8-f63a-4637...@8g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------
Earlier than 11,500 years was during the last ice age. That is evident in
the data set if you plot it back to -14,000 years or so. That is why the
10,000 years period is significant.
"Data is [sic] smoothed from original measurements" is not uncommon for data
sets. I agree that the method of smoothing and original raw data should be
available for independent analysis. Note that this is a serious shortcoming
of the AGW papers - search for Climategate for egregious omissions of this
nature.
As I am not a CO2 truck expert, I can only suggest that discounting this
data on the basis of "the specific slice of time in Earth's geological
history" would arguably discount all long-term data sets used by scientists.
Not exactly a good use of a perfectly good CO2 truck.
-------------------------
As I said before, the vast complexity of the Earth's climate combined
with scientists on both sides personal bias leads me to conclude that
the current data concerning man's role in climate change is at best
inconclusive. Any scientist that jumps on either band wagon whole
heartedly haven't been to a critical thinking class recently.
---------------------------
True. Scientists should not jump on bandwagons. Unfortunately, this is
not the way the AGW crowd conducts science. Their actions have spawned the
anti-AGW activists like Morano. They have themselves to blame. Meanwhile,
the mudslinging causes us to suffer from a waste of resources that could be
better applied elsewhere.
HVAC
>
> As I said before, the vast complexity of the Earth's climate combined
> with scientists on both sides personal bias leads me to conclude that
> the current data concerning man's role in climate change is at best
> inconclusive. Any scientist that jumps on either band wagon whole
> heartedly haven't been to a critical thinking class recently.
But I bet they would all agree...You don't shit where you eat.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> But I bet they would all agree...You don't shit where you eat.
Scenario one:
Government: Hi Mr. Scientist, how' sthe global warming study going?
Mr. Scientists: Great news. There is no man caused global warming.
G: Great! Good luck finding a new job.
Scenario two:
Government: Hi Mr. Scientist, how's the global warming study going?
Mr. Scientist: We have some confusing data. We need more studies. It
sure does look like global warming to me.
G: Here's another $3 million grant. Carry on.
mr dude
Mattu
You also don't throw the baby out with the bath water, cut off your
nose to spite your face etc. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to search
for cleaner energy resources. Renewable clean energy would be a
panacea to the world. I'm saying give the poor saps in 3rd world
countries a chance to pick up the pace before cutting their legs out
from under them with CO2 bogyman stories.
Here's an example I grew up with. Alarmist scientists predicted in
the 1970's that the world would be overpopulated causing mass
starvation pollution etc by the year 2000. They also said the the
world would be up to our elbows in garbage. Oh, here's the best one.
They also said they'd be a premature ice age because of what man was
tossing into the atmosphere.
All that yet here we are 11+ years after those dire predictions.
HVAC
>
> Here's an example I grew up with. Alarmist scientists predicted in
> the 1970's that the world would be overpopulated causing mass
> starvation pollution etc by the year 2000. They also said the the
> world would be up to our elbows in garbage. Oh, here's the best one.
> They also said they'd be a premature ice age because of what man was
> tossing into the atmosphere.
>
> All that yet here we are 11+ years after those dire predictions.
I remember the 70's quite well (most of em anyway)
Rivers so polluted they changed color, old storage
barrels out behind gas stations containing who the
fuck knows what, air sometimes difficult to breathe.
Then we added another 30% to our population.
All I'm saying is that we NEED to convert to nuclear
power, and we need to start NOW.
We should never have to turn out the lights.