Global warming!! - Page 5

[GrimJack]

Two things.

The Al Gore CO2 alarmists don't know everything. Consider this report on unexpected carbon uptake in desert areas

The article was published June 13, 2008; no one but you would expect Al Gore to know something that hadn't been discovered yet. And, it sure does not even come close to balancing the effect of ocean warming on the amount of CO2 in solution (nota bene, the warmer the water, the less CO2 the oceans will hold). For the science oriented in the group, open 2 bottles of cold Coke and put one in the fridge and leave one in the sun - test hourly.

Will we run out of fossil fuels, in our lifetimes or our children's? The amount of oil discussed is generally in terms of "proven reserves", which means that which has been found and somehow measured.

The oil companies keep getting their heinnies spanked for overestimating their 'proven' reserves, often by 50%.

What about that which hasn't been discovered or exploited yet? And further, there are theories that contradict the standard origin of oil as remnants of the dinosaurs (which would be a finite resource) - that hydrocarbon fuels are originating from deep in the earth - so how much might there be over time?

I am surprised that someone else has heard about the 'oil is produced by pressure, water and limestone' theory. I actually like that theory but that is beside the point because the theory does not explain why oil is found where it is and "We can't drill our way to energy independence"

[GrimJack]

I'm not sarcastic. What I am is better informed than you (and everyone else who gets their data only from Greenpeace and Al Gore).

JW- you got a cite for the 'ice packs at the poles are growing' theory? You make these really inane statements about how much you know but you haven't shown us where you get your information. You heard about the North West Passage? Note the disappearance of sea ice

[GrimJack]

Computer models cannot predict what going to happen this afternoon, how can they predict what going to happen in 100 years.
zeroth

I don't know where you got this idea but it is bull pucky. The current weather models can arrive at today's weather given data from the past - this is how the models are tested. Take a look here for a little more info on weather modeling.

[GrimJack]

Every year the sun burns up 360 million tons of its mass to keep us globally warm.

The amount of energy earth receives from the sun is equivalent to 1.96 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1366 watts per square meter (W/m²). I could actually translate this into pounds per square inch but every one laughs when I do (e=mcc).

[scru]

You know what disturbs me as I watch this argument unfold? The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.

[zeroth]

Here we go again!!

You know what disturbs me as I watch this argument unfold? The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.

scru, in your self-admitted "disturbed" state, you've got your "emotional" argument aimed at the wrong group. I'm not emotionally involved with your movement to convince everyone that "global warming" exists. In fact, I'm saying there ARE NO FACTS backing up the claim. Your "evidence" isn't "accepted" by the majority of scientists. The "global warming" folks are emotionally scarred by anyone that would dare to blaspheme against their sacred (religions rely on faith rather than facts as well) beliefs that such a phenomenon does exist, which again, has not be proven.

So far, I have yet to see any study that concludes, with a doubt, that there is any global climate change going on. Until then, you should be citing your ideas as part of the THEORY of Global Warming. And that's where your emotions come from...you can't prove it! It's a theory.

Here's another emotional proponent telling JWenting, whom I KNOW isn't emotional about scientific arguments, as he researches thoroughly his facts before he shares them, that he's inane:

JW- you got a cite for the 'ice packs at the poles are growing' theory? You make these really inane statements about how much you know but you haven't shown us where you get your information. You heard about the North West Passage? Note the disappearance of sea ice.

So he quotes a "fact", here's somebody else that actually sees something different.

From the Globe and Mail article:

I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.

The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther.

The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: “Now, only nature can help this ship.” We are doomed to drift.

What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us.

Just shows that you can't make an argument out of a few years of data...which is how long humans have been collecting data. Real evidence in the real world keeps contradicting the Theory of Global Warming so proponents keep coming up with more and more parts to the theory.

Here's another, stating obviously flawed conclusions:

current weather models can arrive at today's weather given data from the past - this is how the models are tested.

Where did this come from? I hope you guys don't plan your life around the local weather report - I can get more accurate info looking out the back door!! Seriously, look back at the NOAA graphs posted just a few days ago in this thread. Can you read the data? Where in there does it say temperatures are increasing day to day? Can you see from the DATA that the temps are in a cooling trend in the recent past? Can you not see that we're in an interglacial where the temperatues are climbing and that this has been going on for 18,000 years? Let's see, data from the past: 18,000 years ago, if man was even able to build fires, that would have been his total contribution to turning the global climate around. Your targets in your last post, those who either don't know the facts or are emotionally involves, are yourselves. The data, the evidence don't support the Theory so far.

Again, there's no such thing as a catastrophy-causing human contribution to a warming of the globe, it's a theory with few facts to support it...so much for a claim there's anything humans can do to reverse a natural, catastrophic warming trend, which has not even been proven to exist?

zeroth

[jwenting]

And some more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What the green fraudsters do is give you winter ice data from one year, and summer data from the next.
They'll use that as "proof" that the pole is melting, when of course it's warmer there in summer than it is in winter and thus in summer there's less ice than there is in winter.

In reality the ice coverage is pretty constant when taking yearly averages.

[scru]

Here we go again!!

scru, in your self-admitted "disturbed" state, you've got your "emotional" argument aimed at the wrong group. I'm not emotionally involved with your movement to convince everyone that "global warming" exists. In fact, I'm saying there ARE NO FACTS backing up the claim. Your "evidence" isn't "accepted" by the majority of scientists. The "global warming" folks are emotionally scarred by anyone that would dare to blaspheme against their sacred (religions rely on faith rather than facts as well) beliefs that such a phenomenon does exist, which again, has not be proven.

So far, I have yet to see any study that concludes, with a doubt, that there is any global climate change going on. Until then, you should be citing your ideas as part of the THEORY of Global Warming. And that's where your emotions come from...you can't prove it! It's a theory.

Here's another emotional proponent telling JWenting, whom I KNOW isn't emotional about scientific arguments, as he researches thoroughly his facts before he shares them, that he's inane:

So he quotes a "fact", here's somebody else that actually sees something different.

From the Globe and Mail article:

I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.

The ice master studies the mountains of white packed around the ship while the 24,000-horsepower diesel engines work at full throttle to open a path. The ship rises slowly onto the barrier of ice, crushes it and tosses aside blocks the size of small cars as if they were ice cubes in a glass. It creeps ahead a few metres, then comes to a halt, its bow firmly wedged in the ice. After doing this for two days, the ship can go no farther.

The ice master confers with the captain, who makes a call to the engine room. The engines are shut down. He turns to those of us watching the drama unfold, and we are shocked by his words: “Now, only nature can help this ship.” We are doomed to drift.

What irony. I am a passenger on one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world, travelling through the Northwest Passage - which is supposed to become almost ice-free in a time of global warming, the next shipping route across the top of the world - and here we are, stuck in the ice, engines shut down, bridge deserted. Only time and tide can free us.

Just shows that you can't make an argument out of a few years of data...which is how long humans have been collecting data. Real evidence in the real world keeps contradicting the Theory of Global Warming so proponents keep coming up with more and more parts to the theory.

Here's another, stating obviously flawed conclusions:

Where did this come from? I hope you guys don't plan your life around the local weather report - I can get more accurate info looking out the back door!! Seriously, look back at the NOAA graphs posted just a few days ago in this thread. Can you read the data? Where in there does it say temperatures are increasing day to day? Can you see from the DATA that the temps are in a cooling trend in the recent past? Can you not see that we're in an interglacial where the temperatues are climbing and that this has been going on for 18,000 years? Let's see, data from the past: 18,000 years ago, if man was even able to build fires, that would have been his total contribution to turning the global climate around. Your targets in your last post, those who either don't know the facts or are emotionally involves, are yourselves. The data, the evidence don't support the Theory so far.

Again, there's no such thing as a catastrophy-causing human contribution to a warming of the globe, it's a theory with few facts to support it...so much for a claim there's anything humans can do to reverse a natural, catastrophic warming trend, which has not even been proven to exist?

zeroth

Huh? No need to lash out at me. What movement are you talking about? I am member of no movement. I haven't even said that I support the idea of global warming!

You keep lashing out: you...YOUR claims...your emotions...your THEORY.... Dude? What theory? What theory have I professed to on this thread? And you say I'm the one who is emotionally attached.

Seek help.

[zeroth]

There's no lashing going on here...just reacting to the point YOU made. You must be on one side or the other of the debate, otherwise why join the thread? You definitely have a strong opinion...why did you leave out your quote from the last post?

The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.

My response is that the FACTS don't support any global warming theory. That's all. As long as you're in the debate, why don't you tell us which side you're on? You said you were disturbed about those who argue against global warming after all...

[scru]

You said you were disturbed about those who argue against global warming after all...

You sound like a reporter, twisting what I said out of context. What I did was make an observation, that people on *this* thread against global warming (including you) seem more concerned about arguing against a certain group of people than the actual issue, which I obviously would find disturbing in any argument. I could be sorely wrong, but what do you do to disprove me? Well, you immediately assume that I belong to that group of people I spoke about and started attacking. See now why I was disturbed?

Which "side" I am on isn't relevant. As I said before, you should all just stop your quarreling, wait and see who is right, and then brag since this seems to that type of argument. I simply made an observation which apparently sent you aps.

[zeroth]

You sound like a reporter, twisting what I said out of context. What I did was make an observation, that people on *this* thread against global warming (including you) seem more concerned about arguing against a certain group of people than the actual issue, which I obviously would find disturbing in any argument. I could be sorely wrong, but what do you do to disprove me? Well, you immediately assume that I belong to that group of people I spoke about and started attacking. See now why I was disturbed?

Which "side" I am on isn't relevant. As I said before, you should all just stop your quarreling, wait and see who is right, and then brag since this seems to that type of argument. I simply made an observation which apparently sent you aps.

First, I'm not attacking you, second I don't spin and, third, your observation is incorrect. Plus I don't assume you belong on one side or the other but when someone says that I don't have the facts (again, what facts?) and that I'm emotionally attacking those that hold the opposite view, those words place them in opposition to my views, so what is your place in the discussion? That I'm in the discussion at all is because the proponents of global warming want to spend lots of my tax money to "fix" something which they have no control over and which, according to the evidence presented, in my opinion doesn't exist.

I don't remember anyone asking for a moderator for the discussion so, if you don't like the way it's going and you really aren't taking a side, why are you making judgemental comments about the participants in the first place? And what is the "certain group of people" you cite that I'm taking sides against (in your words, 'emotionally opossed to"?) Those who want to spend my money on their pet projects? If you're putting a lot of emotion into my words here, you've got me completely wrong. I'm entirely dispassionate on the subject, as I believe we're discussing a vacuous subject.

[GrimJack]

And some more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

What the green fraudsters do is give you winter ice data from one year, and summer data from the next.
They'll use that as "proof" that the pole is melting, when of course it's warmer there in summer than it is in winter and thus in summer there's less ice than there is in winter.

In reality the ice coverage is pretty constant when taking yearly averages.

I am going to guess that you did not even look at the pictures I linked to.

I looked at your link and it was to some some quotes and links that did not actually prove anything or look at any data; just points to some articles.

[GrimJack]

Here we go again!!

only too true!

scru, in your self-admitted "disturbed" state, you've got your "emotional" argument aimed at the wrong group. I'm not emotionally involved with your movement to convince everyone that "global warming" exists. In fact, I'm saying there ARE NO FACTS backing up the claim. Your "evidence" isn't "accepted" by the majority of scientists. The "global warming" folks are emotionally scarred by anyone that would dare to blaspheme against their sacred (religions rely on faith rather than facts as well) beliefs that such a phenomenon does exist, which again, has not be proven.

So far, I have yet to see any study that concludes, with a doubt<<heh,heh>>, that there is any global climate change going on. Until then, you should be citing your ideas as part of the THEORY of Global Warming. And that's where your emotions come from...you can't prove it! It's a theory.

It is a theory! Yes it is - do you have a problem with theories? Have you heard of the theories of General and Special Relativity? Do you understand the theory of Gravity? How about the theory of Evolution? Somehow you don't appear to understand what the word theory means. Your particular vitriol against Climate Change/Global Warming seems pretty emotional. I note that you use certain 'emotionally loaded' words that have no place in an intellectual discussion. You don't seem to have anything to add to the discussion but your own rant.

Here's another emotional proponent telling JWenting, whom I KNOW isn't emotional about scientific arguments, as he researches thoroughly his facts before he shares them, that he's inane:
Originally Posted by GrimJack

JW- you got a cite for the 'ice packs at the poles are growing' theory? You make these really inane statements about how much you know but you haven't shown us where you get your information. You heard about the North West Passage? Note the disappearance of sea ice.
So he quotes a "fact", here's somebody else that actually sees something different.

He did not quote a 'fact', he made a statement with nothing to back it up. I made no 'emotional' comment; I asked for some place to look for the data he used to back his statement. Just saying something w/o offering some support is inane. He does no research other than looking at websites that hold the same beliefs that he holds. Did you look at the pictures at the link I provided? Why did you not comment on the information in the pictures.

From the Globe and Mail article:

I am on the bridge of the massive Russian icebreaker Kapitan Khlebnikov, and the tension is palpable. We have hit ice - thick ice.
<<snip>>
Only time and tide can free us.

pointless story with no dateline or relevance to the discussion at hand snipped

Just shows that you can't make an argument out of a few years of data...which is how long humans have been collecting data. Real evidence in the real world keeps contradicting the Theory of Global Warming so proponents keep coming up with more and more parts to the theory.

this statement makes no sense and/or implies that you do not understand how science works.

Here's another, stating obviously flawed conclusions:
Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post

current weather models can arrive at today's weather given data from the past - this is how the models are tested.

Where did this come from? I hope you guys don't plan your life around the local weather report - I can get more accurate info looking out the back door!!

This came from reality. The old joke about weathermen being wrong is selective attention, wherein all the contrary information is forgotten and only info that supports your bias is noted. Did you bother to look at the link I supplied?

Seriously, look back at the NOAA graphs posted just a few days ago in this thread. Can you read the data? Where in there does it say temperatures are increasing day to day? Can you see from the DATA that the temps are in a cooling trend in the recent past? Can you not see that we're in an interglacial where the temperatues are climbing and that this has been going on for 18,000 years? Let's see, data from the past: 18,000 years ago, if man was even able to build fires, that would have been his total contribution to turning the global climate around. Your targets in your last post, those who either don't know the facts or are emotionally involves, are yourselves. The data, the evidence don't support the Theory so far.

I am not sure what this is in reference to - I don't want to argue someone elses position. When you quote me, please stick to what I say; make a break of some sort, to change targets.

Again, there's no such thing as a catastrophy-causing human contribution to a warming of the globe, it's a theory with few facts to support it...so much for a claim there's anything humans can do to reverse a natural, catastrophic warming trend, which has not even been proven to exist?
zeroth

It is a theory with plenty of data to support it; there is also some data that does not support the theory - this is how science works. Make observations, form a hypothesis, make predictions based on the hypothesis, make more observations, modify the hypothesis and formulate a theory to take into account of data. You got a problem with science?

[R0bb0b]

You know what disturbs me as I watch this argument unfold? The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.

You're right, maybe I don't have my facts right, could you point me in the right direction to get those facts that say that humans are causing the globe to warm. Show me where I can find a real science experiment that proves this and maybe I just might change my view.

I don't know which group I fall under, don't think it is number one since I have yet to see any facts. I must fall under number 2 and the only group that I have a problem with is the government.

I have been force fed this trash since I was a little kid and yet in all that time I still have yet to see any evidence. I will say that if there were, people would change. If you remember the discovery that chlorofluorocarbon was destroying the ozone, since then several laws have been passed regulating this chemical. I'm pretty sure that the same thing would happen if there was real proof about what humans were doing to cause global warming.

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by scru View Post

You know what disturbs me as I watch this argument unfold? The people who argue against global warming seem to fall in 1 of these 2 categories:

1. People who don't have their facts right.
2. People who seem to be emotionally opposed not to global warming per se, but a certain group of people who argue for it.You're right, maybe I don't have my facts right, could you point me in the right direction to get those facts that say that humans are causing the globe to warm. Show me where I can find a real science experiment that proves this and maybe I just might change my view.

I don't know which group I fall under, don't think it is number one since I have yet to see any facts. I must fall under number 2 and the only group that I have a problem with is the government.

I have been force fed this trash since I was a little kid and yet in all that time I still have yet to see any evidence. I will say that if there were, people would change. If you remember the discovery that chlorofluorocarbon was destroying the ozone, since then several laws have been passed regulating this chemical. I'm pretty sure that the same thing would happen if there was real proof about what humans were doing to cause global warming.

I thank you for bringing up CFCs - that argument went on for years, was fought tooth and nail, ridiculed as bad science. Proponents of the theory that CFCs were responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer were called religious fanatics, emotionally bonded with their false science. The US was the first country to ban CFCs - finally, the world followed suit.

I note that the only group you have a problem with is the government but you then follow up with how successfully the government was at reducing CFCs in the environment.

You asked for some links to some data so that you can decide for yourself:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#mo
Just for general looking around
I can't help myself
Please, help me
Okay, this is the last one
Okay this is the last one

Let me know what you think.

[jwenting]

The alarmists all rely on the same few computer models.
Computer models that have been shown conclusively to yield catastrophic warming no matter what the input data is (in other words, they've been deliberately programmed to show that specific output).
Computer models that can't predict historical weather even if given the exact weather conditions for the time they are told to yield output.

Alarmists also tell deliberate lies, on the presumption that that's what is needed to get people to give in to their demands of economic suicide and human extinction (which is what their ideology would inevitably lead to).

They're a religious movement, their ideology based on how evil humans are and that they need to be punished for the sin of simply living.
Of course by paying massive amounts of money to the priests in the form of "carbon credits" you can buy salvation.

Sounds pretty much like medieval priests travelling the land selling pieces of paper to people telling them their sins had been forgiven by God.

[GrimJack]

JW - same old rant - you ignore anything anyone says, don't look at any of the links posted, rant about their religious point of view, you repeat the same rant time after time as if repeating it will make it so. I have posted numerous links wrt the science/art of weather modeling and how they proof their models but you ignore that also.

I wish you would actually respond in an articulate, rational manner rather than rely on a few rather shallow logical fallacies, including but not limited to:
ad hominem attacks
appeal to ridicule
begging the question
strawman (just a little)
If you need help with your fallacies look here.

The alarmists all rely on the same few computer models.
Computer models that have been shown conclusively to yield catastrophic warming no matter what the input data is (in other words, they've been deliberately programmed to show that specific output).
Computer models that can't predict historical weather even if given the exact weather conditions for the time they are told to yield output.

Alarmists also tell deliberate lies, on the presumption that that's what is needed to get people to give in to their demands of economic suicide and human extinction (which is what their ideology would inevitably lead to).

They're a religious movement, their ideology based on how evil humans are and that they need to be punished for the sin of simply living.
Of course by paying massive amounts of money to the priests in the form of "carbon credits" you can buy salvation.

Sounds pretty much like medieval priests travelling the land selling pieces of paper to people telling them their sins had been forgiven by God.

[zeroth]

You asked for some links to some data so that you can decide for yourself:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.htmlLet me know what you think.

OK, let's just take one of your references. I've attached the temperature graph from my post plus a temperature graph from your post. Now, here's two different paragraphs from your reference:

The lower stratosphere appears to be cooling by about 0.5°C per decade. This cooling trend is interrupted by large volcanic eruptions which lead to a temporary warming of the stratosphere and last for one to two years. Calculations from many research institutes generally estimate the cooling trend for the last two decades (1979-2000) to be greater than for the previous period (1958-1978).

Conclusion: We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done. We do, however, already know that observed and predicted cooling in the stratosphere makes the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely.

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

It's obvious, at least from this example, that no matter what data global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions always come out in their favor...

Computer models can't predict future climate because we don't yet understand enough about certain processes in the atmosphere. Look closely and you'll see that most of the studies done by proper scientists offer a disclaimer somewhere in their paper stating clearly that some climactic processes are not fully understood. Can you at least agree with that statement? And if that statement is true, then a model is only predicting part of the story?

Just because there are lots of scientists saying global warming is real does not make it so. Science does not work by consensus - that's called politics. Reproducible results are the fodder for truth. I've just shown you how greenhouse scientists have concluded that the earth is warming when accepted scientific data show both the atmosphere and ice packs exhibit cooling trends. That's science?

Where's the rant?

zeroth

[jwenting]

We do NOT KNOW that CO2 plays any role whatsoever.
The ONLY data that show any relation at all clearly shows that CO2 concentrations lag behind temperature changes, they never ever lead.

The only thing we do KNOW is that longterm temperature fluctuations are related to cycles in solar activity, something conveniently ignored by the alarmists because it clearly shows there's precious little we can do to influence temperature.

[R0bb0b]

We do NOT KNOW that CO2 plays any role whatsoever.
The ONLY data that show any relation at all clearly shows that CO2 concentrations lag behind temperature changes, they never ever lead.

The only thing we do KNOW is that longterm temperature fluctuations are related to cycles in solar activity, something conveniently ignored by the alarmists because it clearly shows there's precious little we can do to influence temperature.

That's just it, I have yet to see any real work being done to prove that CO2 is causing global warming. I generally see two things, one is for global warming and they do refer to several graphs pertaining to the most recent thousand or so years of temperature changes and refer to CO2 as an assumed cause.

GrimJack, I have read your references and the first is exactly that (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html). It goes through some temperature statistics and some graphs and at the end assumes that you assume that CO2 is the main cause when I don't see any references to any experiment isolating CO2 as the true cause.

When I mentioned chlorofluorocarbon it was to show a comparison of the scientific work done with it compared to the scientific work done with CO2. I can reference several articles talking about experiments that have been done with chlorofluorocarbon to prove that the ozone hole is a direct effect. I cannot find the same thing with CO2 causing global warming.

I also read another of your articles tearing apart years of a scientist's work with a couple of graphs. (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#mo) This is the example that I keep referencing to, hard work on one side of the argument and some graphs on the other.

I have not seen enough proof to convince me that the world should go into a global "Project Destroy Economy" because of this. The evidence is way to premature and the cost of doing so outweighs it by several fold.

[R0bb0b]

Also, I am no science expert and I certainly don't claim to be, but I know enough about it to know that if CO2 was proven to be the cause in a true experiment, then it could be reproduced and easily referenced. If the proof is there, where is it?

[jwenting]

It can be relatively easily shown (and has been, repeatedly) that the effect of CO2 on the surface temperature of the planet is miniscule, as well as that in the past temperatures were a lot higher with lower CO2 levels and at other times far lower with higher CO2 levels.

Like the entire "the earth is heating up" farce, so the "it's all because of human released CO2" claim is a farce.

The earth at the moment (and for the last decade) has been getting slowly colder, despite rising atmospheric CO2.
And that atmospheric CO2 is rising far slower than the rise in output from human activity, indicating that there are potent natural processes at work to counteract an increase in atmospheric CO2.
That process is of course increased plant growth. In a high CO2 environment, plants grow more lushly and quickly, trapping CO2 in their tissue.
And that's very good news for a planet where there are ever more mouths to feed, as those plants can help feed those people with increased yield from farms. It's not for nothing that operators of greenhouses pump CO2 into their buildings. This is not to increase the temperature (heaters are very good at that, as are glass roofs) but to act as fertiliser to the plants. And it works.

[GrimJack]

This "scientific" article is an example of the "proof" of the Theory that we are arguing against? It's conclusion, as you can plainly read in the last entry, here, I'll repeat it:

"stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected"

doesn't make sense. What tropospheric warming??

Do you know what the troposphere is? I hope you know what the stratosphere is. If you do not know what the troposphere is I don't think you will be able to follow the argument very well.

It's obvious, at least from this example, that no matter what data global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions always come out in their favor...

Wow, we look at the same data and see different things - no matter what data anti-global warming folks consider, they are so biased that the conclusions come out in their favor.

Computer models can't predict future climate because we don't yet understand enough about certain processes in the atmosphere. Look closely and you'll see that most of the studies done by proper scientists offer a disclaimer somewhere in their paper stating clearly that some climactic processes are not fully understood. Can you at least agree with that statement? And if that statement is true, then a model is only predicting part of the story?

I am not sure what to do with this paragraph. It implies that only perfect knowledge is acceptable for scientific research. What I have pointed out and referenced before in this thread, current computer climate models can start with recorded data from the past and arrive at the current climate patterns I will link to some intermediate info about climate modeling.

Just because there are lots of scientists saying global warming is real does not make it so. Science does not work by consensus - that's called politics. Reproducible results are the fodder for truth. I've just shown you how greenhouse scientists have concluded that the earth is warming when accepted scientific data show both the atmosphere and ice packs exhibit cooling trends. That's science?
Where's the rant?
zeroth

This is the rant; you disputed the data at the links I provided w/o actually providing any data of your own. You called the science I link to 'politics'. You seem to think that there is no such thing as scientific consensus. You do not offer any scientific data to buttress your side of the argument. I am honestly beginning to think that you are a troll and are only interested in tweaking the thread.

I looked at the graphs that you posted; here is the same data mapped onto one grid with the timeline reversed along with some explanation of what you are looking at. Your picture does not prove or disprove anything unless you can place it in context.

[GrimJack]

GrimJack, I have read your references and the first is exactly that (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html). It goes through some temperature statistics and some graphs and at the end assumes that you assume that CO2 is the main cause when I don't see any references to any experiment isolating CO2 as the true cause.

I was trying to spare you but if you want more than pretty pictures, here it is. You will have to understand the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere - you might want to start at the top of the page.

When I mentioned chlorofluorocarbon it was to show a comparison of the scientific work done with it compared to the scientific work done with CO2. I can reference several articles talking about experiments that have been done with chlorofluorocarbon to prove that the ozone hole is a direct effect. I cannot find the same thing with CO2 causing global warming.

When I responded to your mention, it was to show that when you look back 30 years you will see that it was not just a couple of scientists wrote a couple of papers and the world was wowed and stopped producing the evil CFCs. It was a struggle from the day that a grad student noticed an odd cycle in the ozone data - it would drop down to '5' repeat there then climb back to a normal looking cycle. With a little digging, he discovered that the person who wrote the monitoring program did not expect ozone to drop to zero so whenever the data showed less than '5', the data was set to '5' (really lazy programming, but then...). There was a 20 year struggle to bring this to world attention then get something done about it. I am interested in the papers you are referencing so that I can see where in the process they were written. I worked at NOAA during the time the ozone discussion finally made it into the papers; I lived in Arizona during the phase out of the production of CFCs in the US and watched as black marketers would drive down to Mexico to smuggle CFCs back into the US.

I also read another of your articles tearing apart years of a scientist's work with a couple of graphs. (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php#mo) This is the example that I keep referencing to, hard work on one side of the argument and some graphs on the other.

I don't know what you are saying here. Did you read any of the supporting text? Did you follow any of the links?

I have not seen enough proof to convince me that the world should go into a global "Project Destroy Economy" because of this. The evidence is way to premature and the cost of doing so outweighs it by several fold.

This is the part of the discussion that I really do not understand. We have a chance to create an entirely new infrastructure based on R&D that we will be able to export the rest of the world. As it stands, we will sit on our thumbs, while some other country will develop the tech, build it and sell it to us.

[R0bb0b]

I am interested in the papers you are referencing so that I can see where in the process they were written.

I am referring specifically to NOZE I in Antarctica, 1986(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6856609), unfortunately the real documentation is not available but it is obvious that this expedition created an extreme turn of events. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't necessarily arguing back and forth that created this turn of events but old fashion hard work and until that same level of quality is put towards "Global Warming" all you have is the same colorful graphs that people have been desensitized to and continuous arguing back and forth.

[GrimJack]

I am referring specifically to NOZE I in Antarctica, 1986(http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6856609), unfortunately the real documentation is not available but it is obvious that this expedition created an extreme turn of events. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't necessarily arguing back and forth that created this turn of events but old fashion hard work and until that same level of quality is put towards "Global Warming" all you have is the same colorful graphs that people have been desensitized to and continuous arguing back and forth.

Did you look at any of my links?

[Dave Sinkula]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/researcher-prepare-for-little-ice-age.html :icon_razz:

[zeroth]

Do you know what the troposphere is?

and that's your idea of a fair dialog?

This is the rant; you disputed the data at the links I provided w/o actually providing any data of your own.

Guy, I've never disputed any data from a reputable source, just the interpretation of same. I contributed data in the form of temperature & CO2 history derived from the study of ice cores. In any case, no matter how you slice the numbers, temperature is on a cooling trend since the present interglacial began ~18K BP, according to any vetted data you choose.

zeroth

[joshSCH]

Global Warming is just a liberal propaganda tool aimed at the dumbasses who fall for that shit. Seriously.. Do some research yourself. Almost every scientist (not paid by the democrats) acknowledges the fact that the Earth natrually warms and cools itself, and that humans have had a negligible affect on this process. Why don't you find a graph of the average temperature on Earth for the past few hundred years... Al Gore is a moron.. Politicians are not scientists. Al gore knows jackshit about science, but he does know how to make an impact in Liberal America. Believe what you will.

[GrimJack]

Josh, heh,heh - what a gas! Your argument against defines any scientist who disagrees with you to be in the pay of Democrats; then you take a shot at Al Gore for not being a scientist (and call him a moron - not a particularly intellectual or apt description) - sigh!

I don't need to argue about Al Gore - he has a Nobel prize and I don't so let's stick with the topic.