• 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.

"Skeptical Science" Website on Global Warming

How so? Is it a tax thing?

Mix of concerns about burden to all taxpayers, and reduced profitability to shareowners in businesses whose operations may be changed or reduced by new regulations. ie: fossil fuel extraction, transportation, refinement, and retail, and their support industries.

James Lippard has produced an exceptional summary of energy industry investment to invent and propate FUD: [Who are the climate change skeptics?]
 
Maximus



It is NOTHING like talk origins.

The evolution debate is easy to follow and except for a very few fringe issues totally solved by science.

EVERY argument for AGW boils down to this…

We don’t know why the planet is warming
CO2 causes warming
CO2 (therefore man) is the culprit.

This in spite of the FACT that NEVER at any level can CO2 be shown to cause the warming that is attributed to it.

It's not my fault if you won't read the evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

understanding and attributing climate change.
 
Wait, MHaze is reduced to arguing science based on blog awards?

I've seen low, but this is the end of the line.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

Check the OP. THE SUBJECT IS BLOGS!

BLOGS!

BLOGS!

Oh, wait....This is GreyICE, reframing the argument, misrepresenting the oppositions' statements, yet again.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure you tried to argue that your favorite denier blogs were more correct because the Ron Paul 'reality is garbage' crowd has time to spend whipping up scripts to break public voting polls, while real scientists have work to do.

But hey, call that misrepresentation if you want. I call it 'repeating your argument.' Admittedly, simply repeating most of the things you write is pretty damning.

But hey, cry if you want to.
 
If it was a matter of scepticism, you would be examining the physical basis of AGW. You have repeatedly refused to do so.

On the contrary, I have repeatedly explained my position. You don't like it, so seem not to acknowledge it.
And before you ask, I have no intention of explaining it to you (again) for the umpteenth time.
 
I click on it from time to time. It is worth clicking on if you want to destroy your faith in humanity, but otherwise a waste of time. There is no conspiracy theory or climate theory too wacky for Anthony.

God's teeth, you people need to lighten up a bit.
 
Unique Person

It's not my fault if you won't read the evidence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf

understanding and attributing climate change.

Unique, why would you assume I haven’t read that.

Now I’d like you to read it !

Especially 9.7 on page 727.

At NO stage does it explain how CO2 causes the level of Global warming we are having. There’s NO science for it.. please direct me to the pages that show it !

It explains that we know of NO natural cause (that has been ascertained yet) but IF we attribute CO2 with certain UNPROVEN forcing qualities and put this into models .. we DO get the observed changes.

That is the same as coming to a “strong” conclusion that contrails causes child asthma as it has increased since jets have been flying.. and we can’t find any other known cause !

I urge you to please read as much as you can about CO2, please tell me the magical forcing properties that have NEVER been observed, cannot be replicated and have no basis in current or historical evidence….
 
Maximus



It is NOTHING like talk origins.

The evolution debate is easy to follow and except for a very few fringe issues totally solved by science.

EVERY argument for AGW boils down to this…

We don’t know why the planet is warming
CO2 causes warming
CO2 (therefore man) is the culprit.

This in spite of the FACT that NEVER at any level can CO2 be shown to cause the warming that is attributed to it.

Now I admit to a horrible feeling that I am being a creationist over this issue.. but why is it SOOO easy for me to see how evolution works.. so easy for me to debunk all other conspiracies.. so easy to cut through other woo and superstition.. yet this one leaves me stumped.

I am NOT religious
I am NOT a republican
I have NO vested interest in whether AGW is true or not.

I have never seen anything that would convince and honest analytical person that AGW is real !

Have you studied physics? Have a general level of knowledge regarding chemistry and how light interacts with Carbon?

If you do then I cannot answer your question, if you do not then you need to study a bit, (college introductory physics will do)

I simply have no problem understanding the basic principles; reading recent research only gives me pause in the rate and degree of change that is presented.
Unique Person



Unique, why would you assume I haven’t read that.

Now I’d like you to read it !

Especially 9.7 on page 727.

At NO stage does it explain how CO2 causes the level of Global warming we are having. There’s NO science for it.. please direct me to the pages that show it !

It explains that we know of NO natural cause (that has been ascertained yet) but IF we attribute CO2 with certain UNPROVEN forcing qualities and put this into models .. we DO get the observed changes.

That is the same as coming to a “strong” conclusion that contrails causes child asthma as it has increased since jets have been flying.. and we can’t find any other known cause !

I urge you to please read as much as you can about CO2, please tell me the magical forcing properties that have NEVER been observed, cannot be replicated and have no basis in current or historical evidence….

There is plenty of evidence to show its happening(Warming), plenty to show that previous epochs with natural occurrences of Co2 emissions caused significant warming( Simple physics makes sense of this effect), and plenty of evidence to show man is putting equivalent quantities into the atmosphere, the big thing is its happening, working out the proper models is truly secondary, needed but secondary to the conclusion its happening, we are exacerbating the problem and need to form proper modeling to know how best to alter the course.

This all the real experts seem to agree, and is not too challenging to follow for a lay person with the proper training in physics.
 
Last edited:
Unique Person



Unique, why would you assume I haven’t read that.

Now I’d like you to read it !

Especially 9.7 on page 727.

At NO stage does it explain how CO2 causes the level of Global warming we are having. There’s NO science for it.. please direct me to the pages that show it !….

Well, to be fair, Lord Monkton did find the equations that the IPCC used somewhere in a footnote or two. I don't know quite how, because there are basically no equations hardly anyway in that sciency and truthy tome.

After finding those equations, he pretty severely critiqued them.
 
Unique Person

Unique, why would you assume I haven’t read that.

Now I’d like you to read it !

Especially 9.7 on page 727.

At NO stage does it explain how CO2 causes the level of Global warming we are having. There’s NO science for it.. please direct me to the pages that show it !

It explains that we know of NO natural cause (that has been ascertained yet) but IF we attribute CO2 with certain UNPROVEN forcing qualities and put this into models .. we DO get the observed changes.

That is the same as coming to a “strong” conclusion that contrails causes child asthma as it has increased since jets have been flying.. and we can’t find any other known cause !

I urge you to please read as much as you can about CO2, please tell me the magical forcing properties that have NEVER been observed, cannot be replicated and have no basis in current or historical evidence….

I directed you to the work of Arrhenius already. How about John Tyndal's measurements? Data from the IRIS, AIRS and AURA Satellites (since 1970) and surface measurements of downward longwave radiation (since 1973) also verify quite well the distinctive effect of CO2 absorption bands.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
 
Carefulplease
Now let me post in its entirety what your link said.
In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward longwave radiation (L d ) under both clear and cloudy conditions, using meteorological observations from 1996 to 2007 at 36 globally distributed sites, operated by the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), AmeriFlux, and AsiaFlux Projects. The breakdown of locations is North America (20 sites), Asia (12 sites), Australia (2 sites), Africa (1 site), and Europe (1 site). Latitudes for these sites range from 0° at the equator to ±50°; elevation ranges from 98 to 4700 m, and six different land cover types are represented (deserts, semideserts, croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands). The evaluation shows that the instantaneous L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with an average bias of 2 W m−2 (0.6%), an average standard deviation (SD) of 20 W m−2 (6%), and an average correlation coefficient (R) of 0.86. Daily L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with a SD of 12 W m−2 (3.7%) and an average R of 0.93. These results suggest that these two methods could be applied to most of the Earth's land surfaces. Accordingly, we applied them to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in L d . The decadal variations in global L d under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily L d increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.
There is NO article unless I subscribe.
What on Earth is there in that to convince me.
BTW this is about the 50th time I have been linked to VERY convincing arguments that say NOTHING !
Let me repeat the last line
The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.
 
Xulld

Have you studied physics? Have a general level of knowledge regarding chemistry and how light interacts with Carbon?

If you do then I cannot answer your question, if you do not then you need to study a bit, (college introductory physics will do)

I simply have no problem understanding the basic principles; reading recent research only gives me pause in the rate and degree of change that is presented.

Ok you got me there.. its obviously beyond me.. but why is evolution so easy to understand.. Im not a biologist or a anthropologist etc ?

There is plenty of evidence to show its happening(Warming),

Yep ok its warming !

plenty to show that previous epochs with natural occurrences of Co2 emissions caused significant warming

No almost none.. CO2 followed warming, except for perhaps the Permian Extinction episode which involved massive releases of CO2 from the Siberian traps (I think on the order of 10 to 20 times what it is today)

( Simple physics makes sense of this effect),

Simple but hard to explain simply ?

and plenty of evidence to show man is putting equivalent quantities into the atmosphere, the big thing is its happening, working out the proper models is truly secondary, needed but secondary to the conclusion its happening, we are exacerbating the problem and need to form proper modeling to know how best to alter the course.

The trouble is the models are the only things that show CO2 is to blame and the models are created around the premise that CO2 is to blame.. circular reasoning or what !

This all the real experts seem to agree, and is not too challenging to follow for a lay person with the proper training in physics.

If you really delve into what the experts agree on it is this..

We cannot find a natural cause for the warming that is happening

The next bit (man made) is pure extrapolation (which Im not knocking.. that’s what good scientist should do)… but they haven’t shown to me how yet.
 
Well, to be fair, Lord Monkton did find the equations that the IPCC used somewhere in a footnote or two. I don't know quite how, because there are basically no equations hardly anyway in that sciency and truthy tome.

After finding those equations, he pretty severely critiqued them.

What Monkton claimed was this: "The IPCC's bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them."

So, he didn't find any equation to critique. He claimed that there was none be found (although the equation actually appears in the second note figuring immediately below AR4 figure 3.38) and thus he derived his own.

While the IPCC estimates climate sensitivity (per doubling of CO2) to be in the 2C to 4.5C range, Monkton estimates it to be (3.26 +- ln(2))C, that is, 2.26C to 4.26C. That's not much of a disagreement about CO2's potency as a greenhouse gas!

Or, are you not talking about his letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/08/warm-rudd1.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter3.pdf
 
Last edited:
Carefulplease
Now let me post in its entirety what your link said.

There is NO article unless I subscribe.
What on Earth is there in that to convince me.
BTW this is about the 50th time I have been linked to VERY convincing arguments that say NOTHING !
Let me repeat the last line
The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.

That's the abstract from the article. You complained about CO2's "magical forcing properties that have NEVER been observed". I point you to some empirical observations. If you can use Google, you can also find out about satellite measurements of CO2 absorbtion bands (that do not entirely overlap H2O!).

W.F.J. Evans performs a detailed breakdown of various greenhouse gasses from spectral analysis of surface measurements.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

This might also interest you:
(It is relevant for the analysis of various causal contributions, because of the complex issue of the overlapping of the absorption bands; you can't simply assign percentage contributions to the distinct greenhouse gasses.)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

On edit: Note that Evans even quantifies the forcing radiative fluxes.
 
Last edited:
That's the abstract from the article. You complained about CO2's "magical forcing properties that have NEVER been observed". I point you to some empirical observations. If you can use Google, you can also find out about satellite measurements of CO2 absorbtion bands (that do not entirely overlap H2O!).

http://www.arm.gov/instruments/skyrad

A history of the discovery of CO2 as a ghg. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The ipcc scientists assumed that something that has been known for over century did not have to be explained. You can even buy your own pyrgeometer.

http://www.omniinstruments.co.uk/products/product/solar.id78.html

You can go out at night time and measure the infra red radiation coming down from the sky.
 

Back
Top Bottom