Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
If you add to the above statement the Huge amounts of money involved in the 'aGW' movement then it becomes a little easier to 'imagine' a Huge conspiracy and I think it involves more than just 'climate scientist'.This might seem cynical but sometimes its hard for us that populate the real world to see it any other way.
Are you alleging fraud and conspiracy on a massive scale in the scientific community? If so, you had better come up with some evidence. Your claim that you "populate the real world" is equally offensive. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by warlow:
NO! That is a completely false and thoroughly misleading accusation. Those who doubt the AGW hypothesis are genuine scientists with open minds. If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence.
Show us who they are and their papers showing this. quote:
If you want to find belief and religion, the place to look is in the AGW camp. It is there that you will find a strong smell of fundamentalist religious beliefs. It is the IPCC, and its associates, which presupposes the AGW agenda. It is there that you find suppression of dissenting views. It is there that you find FALSE claims of "consensus".
Again, show us. Show us that anything other than the scientific method is operating. quote:
A biblical fundamentalist believes that God set up the world - this Garden of Eden - then gave Adam and Eve stewardship thereof. We, the descendants of Adam and Eve, have inherited that stewardship. If something is perceived or imagined to be be going wrong, the failure must lie with the stewards. God cannot be blamed. Ergo, one cannot blame the Sun, which is under God's control. Look carefully and you will find the IPCC's AGW agenda strongly echoing that reasoning. Think on.
[/quote] Show us one example where the Sun has arbitrarily been excluded from any possible influence on the Earth's climate. You really need to do some basic homework. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
This is obvious nonsense. Some scientists already do so. They are normally unable to get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals because of flawed methodology or (let's be honest) rank incompetence (or dishonesty!). Any scientist making a convincing anti-AGW case would be assured of fame and continued support for many years to come. We know that there are many vested interests who would support such a breakthrough, but so far they seem able to find only shills who sold their reputations meny years ago. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
1. That CO2 absorbs infrared is evidence that CO2 produces warming.
2. Science is never totally settled. But there comes a point when what is known is sufficient evidence to take action.
3. Whether recent warming is unprecedented is not the main issue. The real issue is that recent warming has no decent explanation other than increased CO2 (with smaller contributions from other sources including the sun). If that is the case, further CO2 will cause further warming that will be unprecedented (in the history of human civilisation).
4. All the criticisms of Mann's (and many other people's) work is that the evidence is not strong enough to disprove that the Medieval Warming Period was not as warm as now. But the evidence to prove that the MWP was warmer is even weaker. I've had this discussion with Steve McIntyre - he does not assert that the MWP was warmer than now.
Nice to see your rational, considered, well-supported posts again, Steve. Nice holiday? |
| |
|
|
quote: Nice holiday?
Yes. Stomped my carbon footprint to the Pyrenees then walked 180km of the GR10 which included 11000m up (in total), and 9000m down. I've now got legs like tree trunks. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: quote: Nice holiday?
Yes. Stomped my carbon footprint to the Pyrenees then walked 180km of the GR10 which included 11000m up (in total), and 9000m down. I've now got legs like tree trunks.
At least your legs will offset the carbon !! |
| |
|
|
quote: Are you alleging fraud and conspiracy on a massive scale in the scientific community? If so, you had better come up with some evidence.
Your claim that you "populate the real world" is equally offensive.
TS. Firstly, if I offended anyone I apologize, I certainly didn't mean to cause any offense.('cept for government which I don't mind offending) I don't think I accused any one of fraud though,the science could just be simply wrong. Any possible conspiracy wouldn't even have to have the support of the scientific community they could be quite simply making hay while the sun shines.But even you must see how happy government must have been when aGW dropped into their collective laps.A chance to keep finite fuel sources for the rich,raise taxes and get the greens to buy Nuclear energy(finally) I bet there was a collective pleasure overload on that day in their respective palaces  Or maybe I'm just truly cynical I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: TS. Firstly, if I offended anyone I apologize, I certainly didn't mean to cause any offense.('cept for government which I don't mind offending) I don't think I accused any one of fraud though,the science could just be simply wrong. Any possible conspiracy wouldn't even have to have the support of the scientific community they could be quite simply making hay while the sun shines.But even you must see how happy government must have been when aGW dropped into their collective laps.A chance to keep finite fuel sources for the rich,raise taxes and get the greens to buy Nuclear energy(finally) I bet there was a collective pleasure overload on that day in their respective palaces Or maybe I'm just truly cynical
Sorry if I was unduly aggressive but I don't see how you can square your belief with anything other than the assumption of fraud and conspiracy on the part of climate scientists, and of the whole scientific community in supporting them. How else would "wrong" science survive for so long? I doubt that any govt welcomes this at all. They already have the continual contradictory demands of minimising taxes while maintaining or increasing services. Having to deal with reducing fossil fuel consumption in the long term, due to both reducing reserves and the need to reduce CO2 emissions, is the last thing they want. In any case, we will have to go NP eventually or dramatically change our energy usage. Even if we ignore GW or it doesn't happen for some unforeseen reason, oil will run out just when India and China are rapidly increasing their demand. Do you know of the Olduvai Theory? |
| |
|
|
thanks for that link TS. that is a subject that I do happen to have a lot of interest in and has been the subject of many a good conversation over the years but I wasn't aware that there was actually a theory relevant to it, you've opened up a whole new avenue to me. Cheers mate By the way, I have tried to address the 'curtness' of my posts and I dont know if anyone else has noticed this but sometimes the manner in which you mean something and the way it appears on screen can be a world apart, or maybe I'm just a 'brupt northerner, Either way works lol I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
Seskinreay. Quote. Suricat started well but then seems only able to welcome Steve_M back on Steve's response. Frustrating or what? EOQ. Sorry, I've just been informed that I leave the UK for two weeks tomorrow evening (life has overtaken me yet again). I've been busy organising things. I find myself agreeing with most of the points made by 'warlow' and 'Steve_M'. It's just a small matter of degree. Theoretically CO2 does cause warming by blocking IR radiation, but in the troposphere there is so much WV (water vapour) that the IR 'window' obscured by CO2 is already 'almost completely' obscured by that WV. Heat transport from the boundary layer is achieved, for the most part, by latent heat and thermals. Because of the 'refrigerant' effect invoked by latent heat, the global average temperature at boundary level shows 'less' sign of temperature change than one would expect for a given increase of insolation. That makes it difficult to register any meaningful temperature flux there. However, this does show as an increase in hydrosphere activity. We can see an increase of 'total WV content' in the troposphere as the result of an increase in 'ground insolation', or in other words, added heat at the Earth's surface. The more I look, the more I'm persuaded, that the 'ozone hole' is a major factor for GW (it's AGW too, but the IPCC and the UN just want measures that get rid of it). I've 'surfed' for deep ice temperature data, but so far I've not come up with anything usable. I'd love to discuss this more, but I've got to go. If I can get online while away I shall. Otherwise, see ya in a couple o' weeks! Best regards, suricat. |
| |
|
|
See ya Suricat Remember, play more music! I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by suricat: Seskinreay. Quote. Suricat started well but then seems only able to welcome Steve_M back on Steve's response. Frustrating or what? EOQ. Sorry, I've just been informed that I leave the UK for two weeks tomorrow evening (life has overtaken me yet again). I've been busy organising things. I find myself agreeing with most of the points made by 'warlow' and 'Steve_M'. It's just a small matter of degree. Theoretically CO2 does cause warming by blocking IR radiation, but in the troposphere there is so much WV (water vapour) that the IR 'window' obscured by CO2 is already 'almost completely' obscured by that WV. Heat transport from the boundary layer is achieved, for the most part, by latent heat and thermals. Because of the 'refrigerant' effect invoked by latent heat, the global average temperature at boundary level shows 'less' sign of temperature change than one would expect for a given increase of insolation. That makes it difficult to register any meaningful temperature flux there. However, this does show as an increase in hydrosphere activity. We can see an increase of 'total WV content' in the troposphere as the result of an increase in 'ground insolation', or in other words, added heat at the Earth's surface. The more I look, the more I'm persuaded, that the 'ozone hole' is a major factor for GW (it's AGW too, but the IPCC and the UN just want measures that get rid of it). I've 'surfed' for deep ice temperature data, but so far I've not come up with anything usable. I'd love to discuss this more, but I've got to go. If I can get online while away I shall. Otherwise, see ya in a couple o' weeks! Best regards, suricat.
Steve_M, I tink I'm being blinded with science here. Can you translate please and comment on the above. I thought Suricat wrote: I have found NO evidence to support the claim that an increase of carbon dioxide produces any warming, or that a decrease produces any cooling. Is that consistent with the above? |
| |
|
|
Apologies to Suricat for jumping in when he's away: Translation and (inexpert) comment: quote: Theoretically CO2 does cause warming by blocking IR radiation, but in the troposphere there is so much WV (water vapour) that the IR 'window' obscured by CO2 is already 'almost completely' obscured by that WV.
The earth loses much of its heat from the upper troposphere. If you measured the "temperature" of the earth from space by looking at its IR output, you find that it is about 250 Kelvin which equates to the radiation coming from a characteristic level a few kilometres up. At this height the air is drier so the contribution of CO2 relative to water vapour is more significant. (obviously not all the radiation comes from the same level - but it's the "average") Regardless of the above, the physical properties of CO2 and water vapour with regard to their interaction with infrared radiation are well known, and therefore their impact on radiation can be accurately calculated. quote: Heat transport from the boundary layer is achieved, for the most part, by latent heat and thermals. Because of the 'refrigerant' effect invoked by latent heat, the global average temperature at boundary level shows 'less' sign of temperature change than one would expect for a given increase of insolation. That makes it difficult to register any meaningful temperature flux there. However, this does show as an increase in hydrosphere activity. We can see an increase of 'total WV content' in the troposphere as the result of an increase in 'ground insolation', or in other words, added heat at the Earth's surface.
The boundary layer is just a term for the layer of the atmosphere that interacts closely with the earth's surface - eg. if wind encouters buildings, trees or mountains, it causes turbulence. The height to which the turbulence reaches characterises the boundary layer. Here, what suricat is getting at is the effects of evaporation, condensation, and possibly plant transpiration moderates temperature changes at the lowest levels. But it's not going to completely stabilise temperatures otherwise the temperature everywhere on the planet would be similar. By "hydrosphere" he is referring to the evaporation, convection, clouds, rain cycle. Warming does cause more evaporation (leading to higher water vapour content - which adds to the greenhouse effect). It is true that lots of heat is transported upwards by thermals and by water being evaporated down below (which uses energy) and condensing as rain above (which releases energy - this is suricat's reference to "refrigerant"). And most models do show that when the climate warms, the upper troposphere warms a bit more than the surface (but the surface still warms). I'm definitely not an expert on the ozone hole. I believe that suricat is saying that the hole means that more UV is reaching earth's surface and causing warming. I guess this must be true but I assume, based on my confidence in the ability to model radiation through the atmosphere, that the change is relatively small (remember the ozone hole is at polar-ish latitudes and is a winter phenomenon, so much of the time there isn't much extra sunlight to let in). |
| |
|
|
Steve_M quote: I'm definitely not an expert on the ozone hole. I believe that suricat is saying that the hole means that more UV is reaching earth's surface and causing warming. I guess this must be true but I assume, based on my confidence in the ability to model radiation through the atmosphere, that the change is relatively small (remember the ozone hole is at polar-ish latitudes and is a winter phenomenon, so much of the time there isn't much extra sunlight to let in).
The Ozone is mainly formed over the tropics but moved polewards by the Brewer Dobson circulation. It would be interesting to know if more UV is getting through over the globe than in earlier times as that would also contribute to stratospheric cooling as we've discussed in earlier days on this site. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by warlow:
NO! That is a completely false and thoroughly misleading accusation. Those who doubt the AGW hypothesis are genuine scientists with open minds. If they found evidence to support the hypothesis they would not reject it - but they cannot find such evidence.
Show us who they are and their papers showing this. quote:
If you want to find belief and religion, the place to look is in the AGW camp. It is there that you will find a strong smell of fundamentalist religious beliefs. It is the IPCC, and its associates, which presupposes the AGW agenda. It is there that you find suppression of dissenting views. It is there that you find FALSE claims of "consensus".
Again, show us. Show us that anything other than the scientific method is operating. quote:
A biblical fundamentalist believes that God set up the world - this Garden of Eden - then gave Adam and Eve stewardship thereof. We, the descendants of Adam and Eve, have inherited that stewardship. If something is perceived or imagined to be be going wrong, the failure must lie with the stewards. God cannot be blamed. Ergo, one cannot blame the Sun, which is under God's control. Look carefully and you will find the IPCC's AGW agenda strongly echoing that reasoning. Think on.
Show us one example where the Sun has arbitrarily been excluded from any possible influence on the Earth's climate. You really need to do some basic homework.[/QUOTE] A recent survey found more than 500 scientists who had published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. All of these were peer reviewed publications in reputable journals (eg. Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters). More than 300 of the scientists found that a natural 1500-year cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the present one since the last Ice Age. They also found that the modern warming is linked strongly to variations in the Sun's radiance. The Hudson Institute's Senior Fellow Dennis Avery said:-"This data and the list of scientists makes a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850." Other researchers found evidence that sea levels are failing to rise importantly: that storms and droughts are becoming fewer as they did in previous warmings: that human deaths will be reduced in warming, because cold kills more people that does heat, and that corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies are adapting well to the routine of changing climate. (Information from a PR Newswire bulletin.) As to the religious connection, while YOU are doing YOUR homework, TrueSceptic, you might like to check out the website of The John Ray Initiative (JRI)- a biblical fundamentalist organisation concerning itself with the stewardship of the planet, and chaired by the man said to be Britain's leading climatologist and a former director of the Met Office and chairman or co-chairman of the IPCC's science group. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
This is obvious nonsense. Some scientists already do so. They are normally unable to get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals because of flawed methodology or (let's be honest) rank incompetence (or dishonesty!). Any scientist making a convincing anti-AGW case would be assured of fame and continued support for many years to come. We know that there are many vested interests who would support such a breakthrough, but so far they seem able to find only shills who sold their reputations meny years ago.
Sadly, TrueSceptic my friend, the real world is far from perfect. Any scientist making a convincing case against AGW would be vilified, not praised. You, yourself, use the phrase "shills who sold their reputations..". Perhaps you do not recognise that you are simply repeating false propaganda that bears an unfortunate likeness to the Nazi propaganda denigrating the Jews, likening them to rats - vermin to be exterminated. The German nation - with honourable exceptions - fell for this propaganda. The whole world is currently, and equally blindly, falling for the AGW brigade's propaganda. The consequences for the German nation, and much of the rest of the world, were catastrophic. The world is again in danger of a catastrophic outcome if it continues to acquiesce to the AGW propaganda. That, and not global warming, is what we should really be worried about. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: Apologies to Suricat for jumping in when he's away: Translation and (inexpert) comment: quote: Theoretically CO2 does cause warming by blocking IR radiation, but in the troposphere there is so much WV (water vapour) that the IR 'window' obscured by CO2 is already 'almost completely' obscured by that WV.
The earth loses much of its heat from the upper troposphere. If you measured the "temperature" of the earth from space by looking at its IR output, you find that it is about 250 Kelvin which equates to the radiation coming from a characteristic level a few kilometres up. At this height the air is drier so the contribution of CO2 relative to water vapour is more significant. (obviously not all the radiation comes from the same level - but it's the "average") Regardless of the above, the physical properties of CO2 and water vapour with regard to their interaction with infrared radiation are well known, and therefore their impact on radiation can be accurately calculated. quote: Heat transport from the boundary layer is achieved, for the most part, by latent heat and thermals. Because of the 'refrigerant' effect invoked by latent heat, the global average temperature at boundary level shows 'less' sign of temperature change than one would expect for a given increase of insolation. That makes it difficult to register any meaningful temperature flux there. However, this does show as an increase in hydrosphere activity. We can see an increase of 'total WV content' in the troposphere as the result of an increase in 'ground insolation', or in other words, added heat at the Earth's surface.
The boundary layer is just a term for the layer of the atmosphere that interacts closely with the earth's surface - eg. if wind encouters buildings, trees or mountains, it causes turbulence. The height to which the turbulence reaches characterises the boundary layer. Here, what suricat is getting at is the effects of evaporation, condensation, and possibly plant transpiration moderates temperature changes at the lowest levels. But it's not going to completely stabilise temperatures otherwise the temperature everywhere on the planet would be similar. By "hydrosphere" he is referring to the evaporation, convection, clouds, rain cycle. Warming does cause more evaporation (leading to higher water vapour content - which adds to the greenhouse effect). It is true that lots of heat is transported upwards by thermals and by water being evaporated down below (which uses energy) and condensing as rain above (which releases energy - this is suricat's reference to "refrigerant"). And most models do show that when the climate warms, the upper troposphere warms a bit more than the surface (but the surface still warms). I'm definitely not an expert on the ozone hole. I believe that suricat is saying that the hole means that more UV is reaching earth's surface and causing warming. I guess this must be true but I assume, based on my confidence in the ability to model radiation through the atmosphere, that the change is relatively small (remember the ozone hole is at polar-ish latitudes and is a winter phenomenon, so much of the time there isn't much extra sunlight to let in).
Many thanks for this Steve. So as far as your concerned, Suricat assertion that "Insolation Bias" is able to explain current warming is a weak argument and CO2 remains the most likely (albeit not conclusive). I understood the Ozone hole to be found over the polar lattitudes also and so find it hard to believe that increased UV infiltration there can explain GLOBAL warming. Although it does explain the significantly higher incidence of skin cancers in the Southern lattitudes of Chile and Argentina. BTW, This is a much better debate than the mudslinging variety. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by warlow: quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
This is obvious nonsense. Some scientists already do so. They are normally unable to get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals because of flawed methodology or (let's be honest) rank incompetence (or dishonesty!). Any scientist making a convincing anti-AGW case would be assured of fame and continued support for many years to come. We know that there are many vested interests who would support such a breakthrough, but so far they seem able to find only shills who sold their reputations meny years ago.
Sadly, TrueSceptic my friend, the real world is far from perfect. Any scientist making a convincing case against AGW would be vilified, not praised. You, yourself, use the phrase "shills who sold their reputations..". Perhaps you do not recognise that you are simply repeating false propaganda that bears an unfortunate likeness to the Nazi propaganda denigrating the Jews, likening them to rats - vermin to be exterminated. The German nation - with honourable exceptions - fell for this propaganda. The whole world is currently, and equally blindly, falling for the AGW brigade's propaganda. The consequences for the German nation, and much of the rest of the world, were catastrophic. The world is again in danger of a catastrophic outcome if it continues to acquiesce to the AGW propaganda. That, and not global warming, is what we should really be worried about.
I don't have time to reply properly because of the curfew, so I simply refer you to Godwin's Law. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by warlow: quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
This seems to be a pretty naive rebuttal Seskinreay knowing as I think you know that any scientist who would dare to go against aGW would be committing professional suicide.
This is obvious nonsense. Some scientists already do so. They are normally unable to get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals because of flawed methodology or (let's be honest) rank incompetence (or dishonesty!). Any scientist making a convincing anti-AGW case would be assured of fame and continued support for many years to come. We know that there are many vested interests who would support such a breakthrough, but so far they seem able to find only shills who sold their reputations meny years ago.
Sadly, TrueSceptic my friend, the real world is far from perfect. Any scientist making a convincing case against AGW would be vilified, not praised. You, yourself, use the phrase "shills who sold their reputations..". Perhaps you do not recognise that you are simply repeating false propaganda that bears an unfortunate likeness to the Nazi propaganda denigrating the Jews, likening them to rats - vermin to be exterminated. The German nation - with honourable exceptions - fell for this propaganda. The whole world is currently, and equally blindly, falling for the AGW brigade's propaganda. The consequences for the German nation, and much of the rest of the world, were catastrophic. The world is again in danger of a catastrophic outcome if it continues to acquiesce to the AGW propaganda. That, and not global warming, is what we should really be worried about.
I don't have time to reply properly because of the curfew, so I simply refer you to Godwin's Law.
Fell for the the old one two there Warlow. Any chance you could argue the science (perhaps substituting for Suricat in his absence) re the sun vs CO2 debate. I'd really like to be assured that I need not worry about (A)GW. |
| |
|
|
