• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

a_unique_person said:
They might be losing, he still gets paid. I don't make accusations of people doing it for funding often, but for Singer I'll make an exception.
Click to expand...

You could say there's a definite trend, wouldn't you?

Of course, the SEPP would publish a report "showing" how the trend doesn't really exist, and if it existed it would be caused by something else...
 
BobK said:
From the tone of your post I take it you don't intend to bother reading it. How open-minded of you. Evidently you feel the perspective of other educated people cannot possibly inhance your knowledge of the subject or change your perspective in any manner. Hey. It's your brain, fill it with whatever you want.

When I'm interested in a subject I find that getting the perspective of others educated in the subject to be better than thinking I know all there is worth knowing about subject. It may lead to a re-evaluation of my perspective, or it may not.
Click to expand...
Ideally we would all have the ability to read everything about everything on a continuing basis and continually reassess our views from first principles.

In practice, we do not. We quickly learn what is worth our time and what is not. We learn that, no matter how often we examine the goods being displayed by certain merchants, they are always shoddy and unconvincing fakes. After several visits, we stop wasting our limited time and go elsewhere.
 
Megalodon said:
From the tone of your post I take it you suck at guessing. I've seen the document, and it didn't take me that long either... most of the graphs and arguments have been posted and debunked here before.

They mix and match disciplines, cherrypick data and, when nothing else works, lie. All, I admit under language that makes them look very scientific to the layperson.



The document is a pile of garbage. Deal with it. Only the preface is so full of bare-faced lies that it's hard to not close the pdf there... It's a hit-piece, made with the sole purpose of casting a doubt on the work of scientists around the world.

You call the SEPP a different perspective, but they are also a different perspective on the CFC-ozone, secondhand smoking-cancer and air pollution-acid rain "debates". Always backing corporate interests against mainstream science...
Click to expand...

I take it Megalodon you don't keep tabs on what's been discovered concerning atmospheric ozone? Apparently not :)

What's going to be the next world catastrophe after global warming fades away?
 
David Rodale said:
I take it Megalodon you don't keep tabs on what's been discovered concerning atmospheric ozone? Apparently not :)

What's going to be the next world catastrophe after global warming fades away?
Click to expand...

Oh, you're a woo there also?

It figures, really...
 
bobdroege7 said:
Actually its not that song ...
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was but it just sprang up from some dusty room.

ah wait google is your friend
the late great Rory Gallagher

All around man

"I ain't no doctor
I ain't no doctor's son
but I'll fill your prescription
till the real doctor come"
Click to expand...

"I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's son,
I'm only plucking pheasants,
'Til the pheasant plucker comes."

Chorus For A Drinking Song, Anon
 
mhaze said:
You mean my view of the greenhouse effect, which is defined as requiring a mid level atmospheric temperatures hotter than surface temperatures?
Click to expand...

I rather think TrueSceptic means your position on the greenhouse effect. Are you convinced it exists, or not? It's a simple question.
 
CapelDodger said:
I rather think TrueSceptic means your position on the greenhouse effect. Are you convinced it exists, or not? It's a simple question.
Click to expand...

The right hand is "what we got".

left hand is "AGW mid level warming."



 
Round Robin said:
I need to remember that turn of phrase the next time I passionately argue forth, then realize I made a mistake. I hope I'll have the courage to do so though and admit my mistake and apologize, as you have. Your integrity and honesty is appreciated.
Click to expand...

Slimething is known for this ability, which puts him a cut above many others. In that particular regard. Or "metric", which seems to be a current fad. I weep for the language I love so much.

If history is any judge, though, I'll have an opportunity to test my courage very soon. :)
Click to expand...

You can test your weapons, your armour, and your tactics but at some point you have to get into the arena to prove yourself :).
 
CapelDodger said:
I'll take that as a "No, you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect". You present a picture that gives you cause to doubt it.

Feel free to contest this interpretation.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with Dr. Roy Spencer's evaluation?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps

What will you say when his new peer reviewed paper is released which reveals yet another error in climate models?
December, 2007 RESEARCH UPDATE: We have received back from peer review our article showing how natural climate variability has probably been misinterpreted, at least partially, by researchers who claim to see evidence of positive feedback (which would make global warming worse) in the climate system. Our article was carefully reviewed by two of the world's leading climate model experts who both agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue that has been previously ignored. Those reviewers even developed their own simple climate models to demonstrate the effect to themselves. It is still not known how much of an effect this is, but accounting for it would logically reduce estimates of how much global warming can be blamed on mankind.
Click to expand...

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Recent-Evidence-Reduced-Sensitivity-NYC-3-4-08.pps
 
CapelDodger said:
I'll take that as a "No, you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect". You present a picture that gives you cause to doubt it.

Feel free to contest this interpretation.
Click to expand...

Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder why you would post the "Falsification of CO2", since it denies any greenhouse effect from CO2.
 
mhaze said:
Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things
Click to expand...

I only care (in this case) about one meaning, which is that you're not convinced of the greenhouse effect. Which you clearly aren't. Question answered, let's all move on.
 
mhaze said:
You mean my view of the greenhouse effect, which is defined as requiring a mid level atmospheric temperatures hotter than surface temperatures?
Click to expand...

Surely you mean a mid level atmospheric temperature anomaly greater than the surface temperature anomoly?

Just keeping you straight
 
CapelDodger said:
I didn't think it was but it just sprang up from some dusty room.



"I'm not a pheasant plucker,
I'm a pheasant plucker's son,
I'm only plucking pheasants,
'Til the pheasant plucker comes."

Chorus For A Drinking Song, Anon
Click to expand...

Well, I can guess where that song devolves to when well into the cups, you pleasant...

So I was knicking a knicker, knicking an old knicking ditty.
 
mhaze said:
Sure, you see "What we got" isn't acceptable with greenhouse theory as modeled, but that could mean numerous things. For example, water vapor is credited with 80-97% of the greenhouse effect, depending on who one listens to. But that occurs down lower in the atmosphere, often very close to the ground, and might well block ground emissions that would otherwise get to the higher layers when the CO2 effect is imagined.

Here, though, we are discussing the CO2 greenhouse effect, and whether it is a large or a small effect. From the "modeled hotspot" vs "actual no hotspot", we have to pretty much conclude that CO2 has a low effect. So I'm not saying there is no CO2 greenhouse effect, but just to peg a number on it, let's say 2xCO2 for climate sensitivity of 0.5C increase. I can reconcile this type of CO2 climate sensitivity with the "What we got" image.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

Yeah, except for the following:

CO2 and Water absorb infared at differing wavelegths, so CO2 is transparent at the wavelength water absobs at and vice versa, although there is some overlap.

I think we can already see a 0.5 C increase due to CO2 and we have not doubled yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom