Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[Wangler]

The issue is that you are making very strong assertions based on dubious information. First of all you were using the figure of 5% of atmospheric CO2 being human-caused. Where did that come from? We know that levels have increased from 280 to 385, we know that the extra is of fossil origin because of carbon isotope analysis, and we know how many tons of hydrocarbons we have been burning.

I'm not calling you a shill but you really need to explain why your figures are right when they are so different to ones generally accepted and easily supported.

Speaking of explaining numbers:

280 to 385....umm.......parts per billion? parts per million? moles per teraliter?

 

[Wangler]

Let's not forget that not everybody's experience will be the same. Not even every Bangladeshi's experience.

The overall prospect is looking increasingly dismal.

This is really depressing..................................................

 

[TrueSceptic]

Speaking of explaining numbers:

280 to 385....umm.......parts per billion? parts per million? moles per teraliter?

In this case, I deliberately omitted the units because they aren't relevant; what matters is the difference as a ratio or percentage. 385/280 is +37.5%, or you can say the increase is 105/385 = 27.2% of the current total.

But as you must know, the units are ppmv (parts per million by volume).

 

[a_unique_person]

I also like this one:

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

You have to love the dissenting voices.

2008 looks set to be the coldest year this century ...continue »

At least they have a sense of humour.









It is a joke, isn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

I also like this one:

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

Yes, they are just pulling your leg. They've still got this story up there.

Arctic ice has made a nice recovery this summer. NASA data show 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. So why does a NSIDC graph show a severe decline? ...continue »
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

 

[Spud1k]

I also like this one:

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

You have to love the dissenting voices.

At least they have a sense of humour.

The top one is one of my favourites:

An inconvenient truth about the latest generation of very large wind turbines: bats that fly into the low-pressure zone behind their blades die from internal haemorrhaging

So bats being hurt by wind turbines disproves AGW now? This site doesn't present a scientific debate; it's more like a glorified nut-kicking competition between the opposing punditry sources.

 

[mhaze]

Quote:

2008 looks set to be the coldest year this century ...continue »


At least they have a sense of humou
​

It is a joke, isn't it?

The article by Richard Black, radical left wing "environmental reporter" for the BBC??

Yes, they are just pulling your leg. They've still got this story up there.

Quote:
Arctic ice has made a nice recovery this summer. NASA data show 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. So why does a NSIDC graph show a severe decline? ...continue »
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/
​

Because the full story is well explained in the link, including how the skeptic withdraws his claim after some interchanges.

Quite unlike the cognitive dissonance exhibited by Warmers, who when faced with a cooling planet, jack their claims of a (already ridiculous) 20 foot sea level rise to 80 and start calling for criminal prosecutions of the skeptics of the Church of Warmology (Hansen).

(best estimate of sea level rise 21st century is about the same as last century, half a foot or so - IPCC).

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Let's not forget that not everybody's experience will be the same. Not even every Bangladeshi's experience.

The overall prospect is looking increasingly dismal.

This is really depressing........................................ ..........

Yes, attempting rational discussion with those who hold to dark apocalypic fearmongering is depressing.

By the way...Bangaladash is gaining, not losing, land.

 

[Piggy]

Oh yeah. You know mhaze is all over that site!

It could keep him busy for weeks.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The article by Richard Black, radical left wing "environmental reporter" for the BBC??

So you use an ad hom cop-out instead of addressing the point.

Perhaps you could send him evidence of bias? Well?

 

[TrueSceptic]

By the way...Bangaladash is gaining, not losing, land.

Do we really have to explain what is actually happening there?

 

[BenBurch]

Do we really have to explain what is actually happening there?

For him, yes. He never studied Geography.

Or anything else, it seems.

And so he does not know how coastal lands are formed, or understand how this relates to how mountain ranges slowly disappear...

 

[Wangler]

And so he does not know how coastal lands are formed, or understand how this relates to how mountain ranges slowly disappear...

Ben,

For me to understand: you are talking about the fact that the rivers deposit material into the coastal regions, and the deposits eventually make for more costal "dry" land?

 

[Wangler]

It's hard to tell whether people are kidding or not.............

do people really have a poor opinion of the climatedebatedaily website?


I think that it has a great link list, at the very least.

 

[mhaze]

It's hard to tell whether people are kidding or not.............do people really have a poor opinion of the climatedebatedaily website? I think that it has a great link list, at the very least.

Hello, by the way.

It's not that the local warmers have a poor opinion of climatedebatedaily, it is just that they are deathly afraid and frightened of anything that might reek of an attack on their belief set.

There is a group of tactics the warmers use, ridicule, insult, muddy the discussion, derail, smear the article/scientist/writer, denigrate the journal or source, accuse of being in bed with Big Oil, etc. They have stupid little websites funded by left wing sources where they actually go and look up smeardata on any scientist you might bring into the discussion. That's more typical when the little scripts they read off the internet on "How to talk to a climate denial" break down. This is their concept of "science".

They are only being nice to you right now because they think you're a naive newby and can be converted.

 

[Spud1k]

do people really have a poor opinion of the climatedebatedaily website?

I have a very dim opinion of sensationalist material from both sides. As far as I can tell, this site just skims off the juiciest headlines, spins them and starts playing Pong over a supposed dichotomy between the 'warmers' and 'deniailists'. This is a very far cry from the actual science.

ETA: For more fostering of this supposed dichotomy, see mhaze's post above.

 

[mhaze]

And apparently I am the demonstrably clueless one !

I produce a bunch of statements and facts which seem “demonstrably” viable and ask politely for them to be refuted.

You produce a completely inane piece of blather.

Now back to the “facts”

Please read this (or at least some of it)

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Carbon is NOT the big culprit as previously believed.. carbon release FOLLOWS Global Warming.. it does NOT precede it.

Lollimer and true sceptic.

Lets even accept ALL the unproven effect of carbon on Global Warming.

Lets accept that man causes 30 % of carbon in the atmosphere (also disputable)

Lets accept that Carbon has a 9-26 % effect of the total GW affect. (also disputable)

This would still mean man has a minimum effect of (.3 x .09) and a maximum of (.3 x .26). This is a range of 2.6 % to 7.8 % affect on overall Global Warming.

At a pure temperatures increase this would mean an average summer increase of .5 – 1.5 of a degree (now I admit this does sound a LOT more significant)

BUT..This is the absolute maximum using VERY disputable affects and amounts and completely negating the science and physics shown in the above article.

I don’t think I am being unreasonable saying that AGW is VERY disputable and its affect may be very small.


1. I am not a “shill” for big oil.. I believe we need to wean ourselves off our current energy sources for many reasons BETTER than AGW.. if AGW paranoia accelerates this then in may be a good thing
2. GW may be VERY real and if it is going to dramatically affect us negatively then we should do all we can to fight it (even if pisspot changes to carbon help)
3. Pascals wager.. even if AGW is crap fighting it may still be helpful.

My only point here is IF AGW is crap should we seriously affect economies and our lifestyles fighting it.

Secondly I think I have made it very clear in various equations what COULD be the effect on temperature caused by MAN.. they range from Nuthin to about 1.5 degrees.

I would like the alarmists to show as simply why I am wrong ! AND if I am how it will affect the Earth !

Do not insult other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

Looks like in local Warmopia, no one bothered to read your reference document -- there is no need to read if scorn and ridicule is the end goal anyway and the means do not matter. Cuddles, a moderator of the JREF forum, would like to see that you don't insult the flock as they pass their koolaid around.

Now let us consider your assertion and the basis for it, which the Warmers of course will not.

CO2 lags temperature. Yes, the first Vostok ice cores were done at 800 year measurement intervals. From that, an incorrect conclusion was made by scientists that temperature increased, then CO2. Later cores at shorter time intervals showed this was actually reversed.

 

[Spud1k]

Now let us consider your assertion and the basis for it, which the Warmers of course will not.

Ermm... Both me and lomiller posted replies to that specific point...

CO2 lags temperature. Yes, the first Vostok ice cores were done at 800 year measurement intervals. From that, an incorrect conclusion was made by scientists that temperature increased, then CO2. Later cores at shorter time intervals showed this was actually reversed.

So what? The CO2 definitely came first this time around.

It's not like global warming theory is based on or is even vindicated by the CO2 trends during the interglacial periods (Al Gore has a lot to answer for in presenting those the way he did). What they do do is point to possible positive feedbacks, which we should maybe be concerned about.

 

[varwoche]

They have stupid little websites funded by left wing sources

(<< 1st time use, saved for special occasion)

Are you able to point to even one instance where a "warmer" participating in this thread has cited agenda driven non-scientists concerning scientific matters as is your* common practice to the point of self-parody and beyond?

Your truthfullness concerning the metafacts is on par with your truthfullness concerning the facts.

* In fairness, mhaze is not reponsible for the entire list. Most of it though.

 

[BenBurch]

varwoche, I think our leg is being pulled. mhaze is some other member of this board with a sock puppet and he has been playing a little game with us all these months. He isn't a real denier; He is a stick-figure parody of a denier created with google to turn up text to lightly re-write and post here chosen from the myriad of little privately-funded right-wing kook sites.

 

[Spud1k]

varwoche, I think our leg is being pulled. mhaze is some other member of this board with a sock puppet and he has been playing a little game with us all these months. He isn't a real denier; He is a stick-figure parody of a denier created with google to turn up text to lightly re-write and post here chosen from the myriad of little privately-funded right-wing kook sites.

I'd love to believe you, but folks who share mhaze's sentiment and persistence are two a penny. Try taking a look at the pro-motoring lobby groups in the UK.