More evidences about Al Gore!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

OK.

"Climate change" not global warming == Anything that happens proves you're right (and should rule).

Because the climate never ever ever changed before.

I guess that settles it.

I need moar strawmen!!!11

 

[Safe-Keeper]

A pack of off-topic hit-and-run strawmen, to be more precise - four in two sentences.

Imagine a whole four-paragraph post with such a sentence-to-strawman ratio.

 

[Cicero]

Ferenc M. Miskolczi peer reviewed article:

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.


"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

How does this square with the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere?

 

[Towlie]

Aren't you the same guy who argued back in post #5 that there was no global warming at all? You told us that in the 1970's, scientists claimed the Earth was cooling. Now it seems you're abandoning that angle, accepting global warming, and haggling about the cause instead.

 

[Cicero]

Aren't you the same guy who argued back in post #5 that there was no global warming at all? You told us that in the 1970's, scientists claimed the Earth was cooling. Now it seems you're abandoning that angle, accepting global warming, and haggling about the cause instead.

I believe that was TIME and NEWSWEEK in the 1970's that reported in their science section the Earth was cooling.

I believe it is the mathematician and ex NASA employee Miskolczi who is a burr under the saddle of the AGW set.

What I concluded is that MMGWers and religious zealots both prognosticate that the human race is headed for the day of reckoning. The only difference between these fanatics is their time table.

 

[Robster FCD]

snip - Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, - snip

How does this square with the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere?

Sounds... prestigious...

Its too far outside of my field to critique, but if it was the kind of paper that could have upset an entire field, it should have been put in a higher impact journal, unless it failed peer review in those due to exceptional errors. realclimate referred to one paper by the same author (perhaps even this paper) as nonsense, so I'd say it is probably not the groundbreaker you seem to think it is.

 

[Robster FCD]

I believe that was TIME and NEWSWEEK in the 1970's that reported in their science section the Earth was cooling.

I believe it is the mathematician and ex NASA employee Miskolczi who is a burr under the saddle of the AGW set.

What I concluded is that MMGWers and religious zealots both prognosticate that the human race is headed for the day of reckoning. The only difference between these fanatics is their time table.

Never mind the actual evidence or scientific method, right? Let's just cite a weekly news and human interest magazine that presented a minority scientific opinion from over two decades ago that is now fully understood and explained with modern science, thats the same thing, right?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Ferenc M. Miskolczi peer reviewed article:

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.


"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

How does this square with the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere?

Linky.

You could, if you were a masochist, follow the tracks at Niche Modeling or at Climate Audit, and a very long trail it is, but the current state of play was pretty well put by Alex Harvey

Alright, you’ve been absent from this debate because, as you stated publicly months ago, you lost interest in it. That’s fine, welcome back. But since then, it has been made quite clear that Miskolczi’s theory was, in the first instance, an empirical discovery. The mathematical theory of M2007 that you are objecting to here was adduced “after the fact” to explain a series of well-documented empirical observations, as Ferenc has made quite clear earlier in this thread.​

All praise to Nick Stokes and Pat Classen who put considerable work into tearing the Miskolczi hocus mathepocus apart (look into their comments on the various threads). So now this waste of electrons is reduced to the claim that the optical depth of the atmosphere is held constant at 1.87 by compensating variations in the water vapor column density in the atmosphere. Well, at least for the Earth's atmosphere right now that is the value, but is it fixed and if it is what is the mechanism?

A complimentary paper published by Soden, Jackson, Ramaswamy, Schwarzkopf, and Huang in 2005 (sorry, it's behind a paywall) covers the same ground, showing that the column water vapor has been increasing and, as importantly showing that a GCM can match the observations. That alone is enough to cocked hat Miskolczi but as importantly Soden, et al., provide a concise and clear explanation of what the actual issues involved in studying water vapor concentrations are. In particular, while the increase of vapor pressure with temperature drives the water vapor pressure low in the atmosphere, and this dominates, the middle and upper troposphere are different cases

 

[a_unique_person]

Ferenc M. Miskolczi peer reviewed article:

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.


"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

How does this square with the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere?

Your problem is you are parroting a phrase you have absolutely no understanding of. Miskolczi is irrelevant, empty nonsense.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I need moar strawmen!!!11

You say strawman, but tell me.

What exactly would be hypothetical de-confirming evidence of the kind of "climate change" which justifies massive public policy intervention?

I seems to me you've framed the argument so such a thing cannot exist.


As for the checklist, I've got #1 through #4. I haven't noticed a #5 yet.

 

[Robster FCD]

You say strawman, but tell me.

What exactly would be hypothetical de-confirming evidence of the kind of "climate change" which justifies massive public policy intervention?

I seems to me you've framed the argument so such a thing cannot exist.


As for the checklist, I've got #1 through #4. I haven't noticed a #5 yet.

It would need to be a seriously big piece of exceptional evidence, considering the level of support. A new law of physics would be useful. CO2 has to quit being a greenhouse gas, for example. Something big needs to be discovered about how the sun's energy has an effect on the earth. It would need to be something massive and new, but not obvious.

 

[GreyICE]

You say strawman, but tell me.

What exactly would be hypothetical de-confirming evidence of the kind of "climate change" which justifies massive public policy intervention?

I seems to me you've framed the argument so such a thing cannot exist.


As for the checklist, I've got #1 through #4. I haven't noticed a #5 yet.

You can't even stop. You've conflated about 3 issues here.

1) The scientific evidence for the process and mechanisms that drive global warming

2) The evidence that said mechanisms are in fact influencing the climate as predicted.

3) Proposed policy changes to counteract global warming.

This sort of sloppy thinking is extremely poor.

Now your hypothetical de-confirming evidence would be on number 2, I assume. Point number 1 is absolutely unassailable, unless you want to suggest that every experiment done on radiation, from high school students to advanced heat-transfer mechanics was perverted by a giant conspiracy (mhaze goes there sometimes, but I'll grant you slightly more sense than that. Feel free to prove me wrong, you probably will given past history).

Taking #1 as a given, you want evidence that the mechanisms of radiation don't work on the earth the way they do everywhere else. Very well. Evidence that would support this:

• Evidence of prolonged reduction or constant levels of global heat not tracked to a seperate cause.
• Evidence that the atmosphere contains magical particles unlike those found in labs
• Evidence that shows that mechanisms exist that counteract forcings entirely
• Evidence that scientists worldwide have acted to promote the false theory of evolution (thus providing precedent for your absurd hypothesis)
• Evidence that we live in a computerized reality called the 'Matrix'
• ... No, you know what, this is ridiculous. Take a basic course on energy mechanics, heat in, heat out, where CO2 and greenhouse gasses are on the earth's emmission spectra, the rate we're releasing them, and then tell me what'll happen.

Seriously, I consider global warming deniers about on level with creationists, the major difference being they've chained themselves to a totally different religion.

You want to discuss emission spectra, black-body radiation, and energy balances? I can. Oh wait, it's too complicated. Bad news. Science is occasionally both inconvenient and complicated. I wish I could summarize the entire world using algebra and middle school physics, but I can't.

 

[Cicero]

You want to discuss emission spectra, black-body radiation, and energy balances? I can. Oh wait, it's too complicated. Bad news. Science is occasionally both inconvenient and complicated. I wish I could summarize the entire world using algebra and middle school physics, but I can't.

Remeber this exchange?

11th September 2008, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

The great thing about science is that it takes a lot of the guesswork out of predictions. As you say, in seven years (or sooner) I'll be proven right or wrong. Will you still be calling the prediction hysteria when I'm proven right? Because there's a definitive prediction that you've made - that such predictions are hysterical.

See you in 2015 (or before). Same place, same time of year. I look forward to it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...33#post4028933

11th September 2008, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Now that I know the exact time for this deluge, I have already made a reservation for a spot at the rail on top of the Empire State Building so I will be able to cast my line into the waters a few feet below the 100th floor.

While we are at it, who do you like in the Super Bowl?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...03#post4029203


12th September 2008, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Using Cicero logic? The Arizona Cardinals

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...81#post4030081

By my logical conclusions MMGW judgement day is just around the corner.

 

[GreyICE]

Hahah, oh wow. I'd forgotten that. Fortunately I'm much better at science than I am at predicting football teams.

 

[gtc]

So AGW is actually all about Al Gore? I thought it was about science.

I thought this thread was about Al Gore.

I was also certain that I have made it abundantly clear that I do not think that AGW is all about Al Gore.

Perhaps you would like to start reading the thread again from page 1?

 

[gtc]

I did. Nowhere did it say Towlie, nor the rest of us, have a hatred of profit, progress or welfare, or whatever else you accused us of harbouring.

Obviously you didn't read it again.

I will even highlight the most egregiously stupid part of his post:

Many conservatives are still hung up on the obsolete term "global warming", but that has been replaced with "climate change" because of the complexities involved, which can actually cause cooling in some areas of the world. The wackos who persist in denying the phenomenon are either motivated by, or being deliberately manipulated by those who are motivated by, the mindless quest for profit. They aren't doing the human race any favors by spreading their misinformation.

Does that make it clear enough for you?

 

[Towlie]

I stand behind that without hesitation.

Conservatives consist of two groups that I think of as the sheep and the sheepherders. The sheepherders are the rich, privileged, and powerful who care more about the preservation and enhancement of their own lifestyles than the future of our planet. They are the "haves and the have-mores" that George W. Bush infamously embraced as his base. They grant rights to corporations and even attempt to elevate those rights above the rights of the people. They undermine science and advocate fundamentalist religion, even to the absurd extent of denying evolution, not because of honest, rational belief but as a way of appealing to their sheep and building their political power. They are driven by the mindless quest for profit.

The sheep are the naive and weak-minded who can easily be manipulated into voting against their own best interests by those dishonest enough to tell them whatever they want to hear. They can be cheaply bought and the sheepherders will not hesitate to buy them with empty promises and borrowed money that they know they'll never have to pay back. The sheep are those people who lack to ability or will to think for themselves. Together, the sheep and the sheepherders make up the conservative base that constantly battle liberals in everything they try to do to save this world and make it a better place for everyone.

You may call that "egregiously stupid", but it would be more honest of you to say instead that you find it offensive, and even more honest still to ask yourself it that really is a valid summary of conservatism.

 

[pchams]

OK, I've been following these discussions on the JREF forum for a few years, but there is one thing which always puzzles me.
Given that there is climate change (why wouldn't there be, it not a static world we live on), and we've known about several warming/cooling periods in the past, we can look at some data and say that we are are on a warming trend.
What I want to know, is where the "A" comes from in AGW.
Where is the evidence that we have caused this warming?
GW proponents on this board seem to use the anthropogenic bit as if it were a given.
I used to let this bit go hoping that the AlGores of the world might just persuade some fence sitters to stop polluting as much, because that really is a current health issue for us. However, this is a skeptics board, and I'd like to see some evidence of this AGW.

 

[varwoche]

However, this is a skeptics board, and I'd like to see some evidence of this AGW.

Enjoy.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm supposed to have abandoned this thread-the Al Gore bashing was a breath of fresh air of sorts, but now that it's gone over to denial bots mindlessly spamming arguments that are not only devoid of any kind of logic, but also years old and shot down millions of times... I quit.

I just had to put this to rest, though:

Many conservatives are still hung up on the obsolete term "global warming", but that has been replaced with "climate change" because of the complexities involved, which can actually cause cooling in some areas of the world. The wackos who persist in denying the phenomenon are either motivated by, or being deliberately manipulated by those who are motivated by, the mindless quest for profit. They aren't doing the human race any favors by spreading their misinformation.

Does that make it clear enough for you?

No. Why? Because you still haven't pointed out where towlie stated he hated profit.

Here, let me help you. "Mindless pursuit of profit" and "profit" are two different things. If I said I was against an obese person mindlessly pursuing food, would you take that to mean I was against all consumption of sustenance? Wait... please don't answer that...

Either way, your strawman remains just that, a strawman.