Jump to content
The Corroboree
Slybacon

The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

Recommended Posts

Even if it is not the only cause, Co2 & methane are greenhouse gases.

So in my uneducated opinion, if the are much higher in concentration in the atmosphere then the conclusion would be that it is part of the problem & the only part we can make any difference to by lowering emissions

Edited by mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't waste half an hour necessarily WD. Be scientific and collect data on how many people benefit from your posts!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutch.

I'm just pissed off that I wasted 4.3 mb downloading that shit of a pdf in the first place, and half an hour of my life, that I won't get back, on this post.

 

Thought so...can't give an explanation for the fraud that is being thrust upon the human race...we are just a waste of time if we can't understand why the fraud? Just ignore it and it goes away...sorry NOT!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stratospheric Water Vapor Is a Global Warming Wild Card

A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth's surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Edited by synchromesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the time and effort you continue to put into your posts WD. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoengineering, Aerosols and HAARP

hey is that ...oh yeah contrails hmm... cool man

don't wake up , be dumb but smart in an intelligent fashion , who needs kids , the fourth Reich is so trendy

164036_10150365792385436_765260435_16755595_3751248_n.jpg

Edited by blowng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacon.

Thanks for your reply – it's actually very interesting for me to see where people think the problems lie in the science, and I appreciate your effort to respond.

The climate sensitivity question is probably the one that is the most difficult to point down, although many independent techniques do so, and come up with similar figures. When you use the word "accurately", it actually depends on what sort of accuracy you’re expecting.

Have a read of this summary, and if you still doubt that science has no idea about sensitivity I'd be even more curious to know why.

The IPCC said in its last report that sensitivity is:

...likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.

This range is pretty much directly corroborated by short-term climate response to large volcanic eruptions, and independently by the current CO2 increase vs temperature rise. What's curious about this is that if paleoclimate data about carbon dioxide levels and temperatures extant in the past are used to calculate sensitivity, there's an indication that the IPCC's range is actually an underestimate.

Nevertheless, some people are put off by the 1.5°C to 4.5°C range, pointing out that the high end is three times larger than the small end. This is actually not unexpected, given that the only way to know for sure at the planetary scale under the current operative conditions is to wait and see.

However, in statistical terms it is regarded as a fairly tight range, and a bookie would love to see analyses such as these, because they do in fact provide a very strong way of assigning relative probabilities to different sensitivity values. Importantly, there is a very high likelihood, using any of the independent methodologies, that the actual value is about 3°C. Given that is it more likely than not that humans will not halt emissions before atmospheric CO2 reaches 500ppm or greater, this result scares the shit out of ecologists, who understand how ecosystems respond to alterations in climatic envelopes. Some of my colleagues are very pessimistic about things indeed if business as usual continues, and I can pretty much guarantee that at least two of the three endangered species that I studied for my PhD will become extinct if CO2 tops 450ppm. They won't be the only ones, by a long shot.

[Edit:

Lloyds of London and other big insurance companies, and the military branches of most countries including the US, take these estimates very seriously to heart. They have no day-to-day political reason to want an ideologically desired value over the truth, because their business is completely dependent upon the real truth, and they absolutely trust these numbers.]

If you really don't believe the results of the different methodologies, or if you do not reckon that a 3°C increase in average global temperature is a problem, I'd be interested if you could explain why. If there are holes in public understanding, or if there's a fallacious meme getting around that I don't know about, I'd like to know about it.

There are a few other pieces pertaining to CO2 sensitivity that are worth reading, here, here, here, and here.

There’s a bit of repetition amongst them, but they all help to give an overall picture. Some people doubt that the CO2 is emitted by humans, and I won’t go too much into this just now, but here’s one piece on it for anyone who might be interested.

Too many factors involved to accurately ascertain the evidence required to claim it is created mainly by humans.

Actually, most climatologists would vehemently disagree. Even the most niggly, conservative scientists who are neverthless using real physics would tell you that at least half of the observed warming is due to humans, and most would probably acknowledge that in addition, somewhere in the ballpark of half of the remaining increase is anthropogenic. If you haven’t read it yet, go to this link.

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoengineering, Aerosols and HAARP

If it comes to geo-engineering, we're fucked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought so...can't give an explanation for the fraud that is being thrust upon the human race...we are just a waste of time if we can't understand why the fraud? Just ignore it and it goes away...sorry NOT!

I gave you an explanation - Codling and Evans are full of pseudoscientific crap.

Their stuff is refuted time and again: that you do not know this simply shows that you're not very widely read in climate discussion. I'n sorry, but I don't have the time to write a book's worth to explain it to you, and I doubt that you'd actually read it anyway, but I will say again what I've recommended before - go away, UTFSE, read, read, and read some more - and not just conspiracy sites, but real science - and stop listening to shock jocks and propagandists.

If you can actually demonstrate clearly in a paragraph what the fraud is, how it has been perpetrated, how it is coordinated, and who is involved, I'd be most interested. Please, go ahead.

And seriously, do yourself a favour and learn a little about the history of the climate change argument. I know - it's about three quarters of an hour of listening,which is probably way past your attention span, but try it nevertheless.

To others with a more open mind, please do follow that last link. It'll put a lot of the claims of denialists in context, although you'll still need to go to scientific sources to understand why any particular example of their crap, is crap.

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madhouse, Botanika, Nabraxas and a few other PMers (you know who you are).

Thanks for your comments, guys - they mean a lot to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synchro.

That stratospheric water vapour paper is quite interesting, and it causes a bit of a stir when it was published. Keeping with Skeptical Science (John Cook is a physicist, and does a brilliant job with his summaries), there's a discussion here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Botankia:

You didn't waste half an hour necessarily WD. Be scientific and collect data on how many people benefit from your posts!

Heh, now there's an idea.

Not sure I'd want to know the answer though! :wink:

[Edit:

Seriously, do peeps think that I should poll on this?!]

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you an explanation - Codling and Evans are full of pseudoscientific crap.

Their stuff is refuted time and again: that you do not know this simply shows that you're not very widely read in climate discussion. I'n sorry, but I don't have the time to write a book's worth to explain it to you, and I doubt that you'd actually read it anyway, but I will say again what I've recommended before - go away, UTFSE, read, read, and read some more - and not just conspiracy sites, but real science - and stop listening to shock jocks and propagandists.

If you can actually demonstrate clearly in a paragraph what the fraud is, how it has been perpetrated, how it is coordinated, and who is involved, I'd be most interested. Please, go ahead.

And seriously, do yourself a favour and learn a little about the history of the climate change argument. I know - it's about three quarters of an hour of listening,which is probably way past your attention span, but try it nevertheless.

To others with a more open mind, please do follow that last link. It'll put a lot of the claims of denialists in context, although you'll still need to go to scientific sources to understand why any particular example of their crap, is crap.

 

I'm sorry pal but I think you are full of pseudoscientific crap! You didn't even look at the pdf file did you? You disagree so you just ignore it and treat the authors and anyone else with the same disdain. I love your holier than thou attitude but I will play your little game a bit longer! You have been trained in the "climate school of insults" and that is what you do if anyone dare offer a different perspective.

EXAMPLE

"If you can actually demonstrate clearly in a paragraph what the fraud is, how it has been perpetrated, how it is coordinated, and who is involved, I'd be most interested. Please, go ahead."

"I know - it's about three quarters of an hour of listening,which is probably way past your attention span, but try it nevertheless."

And who the fuck do you think you are smart arse? Are you one of those looney greenies?

OK

Why are the official thermometers overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt?

Don't want to answer that one? Because it stacks the data their way but that's not fraud is it? Of the 1,221 land-based thermometers overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the USA. Of the 860 thermometers inspected by early 2009, 89% fail to meet the official siting requirements because they are too close to an artificial source of heat (including artificial sources of reflected or radiated heat)

There were nearly 6,000 thermometers in the official global network in the 1980s, but there are now just 1,079...Why? because they took away the ones that didn't show the warming.....

Why would the climate establishment play these tricks, if their case and data were strong? Don't these tricks strongly imply that their case is weak or wrong, and that they know it?

Scientists Caught Cheating: The official temperature record for New Zealand shows warming of 0.92°C (1.66°F) in the 147 years since records began. This 0.92°C warming played a central role in forming New Zealand's (and Australia's) climate policies. However the raw temperature data for New Zealand shows no warming. The New Zealand skeptics took the matter to court,28 whereupon the NZ climate establishment, in its legal defense, formally denied any responsibility for its temperature record, even saying there was no such thing as an official NZ temperature record. Well i'll be buggered...

The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links:

1. We humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by our emissions.

2. Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the "direct" warming effect of the extra CO2.

3. The Earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, called "feedbacks". The feedbacks warm the earth further, amplifying the direct warming about threefold.

There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed. The third link is where the dispute lies. In the establishment's climate models, this amplifying feedback provides about two-thirds of the projected warming—without it there is only mild warming due to human emissions and no cause for climate alarm. There is no evidence for this amplifying feedback, but it is built into the climate models.

Then, also in 2008, after nine years and with no new data, they claimed to have found the hotspot! Steven Sherwood adjusted the data in accordance with various theories and wind data from the radiosondes, and processed it on his computer to arrive at a new view of the data. All he did was fuck with the color scale so at first look you would think the hot spot has been found but he was just tricking...Why do they have to deceive if their case was so strong.

I could just go on and on and on as I am sure you could. You seem to be a smart bloke but I believe this bloke to be way smarter than you. He is Harold Lewis, who is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. I will cut and paste his resignation letter....He saw the light but you are so blinkered in your new found admiration society (kiddies will believe anything) but I'm sorry pal your just full of it.

"Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years

ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the

money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a

half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was

then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War

II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few

physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the

first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor

Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there

was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were

therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest

appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by

the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky,

Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond

reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the

end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted

the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that

the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute

could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the

money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the

vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold

numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear

my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned

into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my

resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally)

trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many

scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the

greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my

long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this

is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which

lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't

believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff

without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of

the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this

challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along

with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a

fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then

President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got

the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage

discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that

as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in

the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was

apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is

certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have

long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider

it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement

was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in

physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret

committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet

endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone

was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible

to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end,

the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a

far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were

uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the

original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS

position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to

all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It

is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is.

This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast

fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society

as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the

machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It

was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to

describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all.

This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after

all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the

necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a

Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the

scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be

beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note

that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us

the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the

requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail

what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept

our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to

run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the

Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to

form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition,

and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you

would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course

no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment

part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you

cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in

whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid

your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the

Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked

committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful

petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress

serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do

you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it

is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at

APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it.

Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they

used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the

money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There

are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame

and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a

member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are

chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble

burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the

University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot

have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the

old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way

the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to

explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line

into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases

makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer

represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of

California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense

Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear

Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former

member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS

study on Nuclear Reactor Safety

Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman

of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US

Navy in WW II; books: Technological"

Couldn't have said it any better myself.......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately WoodDragon , sensible people and sensible scientists are not running the show ...

Global climate science is impossible to predict with certainty, there may actually be a global climate crisis .

It is also easy for some to assume it's just another money making scam on carbon trade , with the added benefit of further restriction of the population, taxing them harshly while the corporations are left to continue polluting us, our air, water, soil and food.... If theye so serious about helping , let them ''the global elite'',do something about it not just dump the blame on ordinary people just trying to survive.

 

Well said....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that's not really true.

On the matter of money, sure - there are a lot of people looking to make a buck or a million from climate change. That's human nature, and it's why we have lawyers who chase ambulances and used car salesmen who sell lemons. I am not one to condone scams, and there are scams in the climate area just as there are elsewhere (don't start me on them!), but if a price is put on the true cost to the planet of carbon pollution, well, I for one am quite happy to pay it. Why wouldn't I be? If I break a vase in a shop I have to pay for it, and if I let my bonfire escape and burn my neighbour's orchard, I'd have to pay for that too. If my activities are damaging the environment, I'm happy to pay my share of the damage, even if it is miniscule at a personal level, and as long as it is commensurate with my share of the damage.

User pays. What's wrong with that?

And as far as the "ordinary people" go, we in the West are not "ordinary". We are members of the wealthiest 20% of the planet, and we are putting far more than our fair share of carbon into the atmosphere. If someone can justify why we should have this privilege without paying for it, then I'm all ears. Of course, I firmly believe that the wealthiest of us should be at the front of the queue to fork out, instead of hiding from their responsibility as they so often do... :angry:

 

Straight out of the Green handbook... The Greens agenda in their own words...

.There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey's own description of “ecological Marxism.” This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter : “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection....For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated that in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [iPCC]. It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture. To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith....For the Greens, “economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to , ecological sustainability Consistent with this principle, the Greens advocate high levels of state ownership in the economy and an expanded role for the bureaucracy, including an extensive international regulatory bureaucracy. They advocate government ownership of natural monopolies, and government investment in strategic assets The Greens Agenda, in Their Own Words , Quadrant Online “..... The Greens support a moratorium on all new fossil fuel exploration and development . They are opposed to building any more coal-fired power stations and would pressure existing ones by prohibiting any public funding of refurbishments ] They would also prohibit then opening of new mines or expansion of any existing mines , hence phasing out coal exports, ending one of Australia's largest export industries, and forcing other nations to use dirtier sources of coal....The private ownership of property and resources, which have underpinned democratic capitalism, is questioned by the Greens. In their Global Charter, they propose to “review the relationship between the exclusive ownership of property and exclusive use of its resources, with a view to curbing environmental abuse and extending access for basic livelihood to all, especially indigenous communities This smacks of collectivism under a different name.... the Greens believe that human (and non-human) relations that are based simply on consensual activity. Hence marriage can be between any two persons, regardless of gender... The Greens propose an open door policy for asylum seekers. They would increase the number of places, remove mandatory detention laws, abolish the rule against refugees gaining permanent protection if they had spent time in a third country, restore the migration zone to include places like Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef, provide immediate legal assistance to all claimants, and allow free movement around the nation with access to services... The Greens documents speak on “participatory democracy” as one of their foundation principles but they favour global and central decision-making: Hence the creation and expansion of international bodies, including the United Nations and new world environmental courts ... .. What is at stake in the Greens ‘revolution' is the heart and soul of western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual –with obligations and responsibilities to others, but ultimately judged on his or her own conscience and actions – as the possessor of an inherent dignity and inalienable rights. What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.....”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you Turbo charged your fingers WD.... F'n hell mate you can type!

More input on topic later.....................

 

Shhh...its called cut and paste....and those who keep banging the "world is ending" drum are all over the net ripping into any one who dares question there self importance.

Edited by hutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof of global warmingbiggrin.gif

222008366.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1294714269&Signature=%2F7aKhsDNzeRgo5R%2BYP9UYx%2BC67w%3D

Edited by hutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madhouse, Botanika, Nabraxas and a few other PMers (you know who you are).

Thanks for your comments, guys - they mean a lot to me.

 

It actually worries me that you publicly posted that these people privately messaged you. Why did you want us to know they support you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually worries me that you publicly posted that these people privately messaged you. Why did you want us to know they support you?

 

Sickly isn't ittongue.gif I would actually be pissed off if I was one of them. Thats why it's called PERSONAL MESSAGE

It usually takes a bit to piss me off but this guys arrogant tone and insistence that he alone knows best was enough to tip meana.gif....How come these guys need to ridicule anyone who doesn't believe in their religion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the time and effort you continue to put into your posts WD. :)

 

Post #55 in this thread is not a personal message.

Peace.

Edited by madhouses visites
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not pissed off. As that would be counter productive. I dont feel threatened either, still I was intrigued......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't even look at the pdf file did you? You disagree so you just ignore it and treat the authors and anyone else with the same disdain.

Idiot. I downloaded it and saved it. That's why I know that it was 4.3 megabytes in size, as I observed yesterday.

I read through it too, which is why I know that it is crap. It's also why I know that it referred to Watts' SurfaceStations project, amongst all of the other crap. And I actually explained to you why it is crap.

So no, I did not ignore your lame link.

Why are the official thermometers overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt? (Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...)

Heh, you obviously didn't read Menne et al 2010. You needn't have copied and pasted paragraph after paragraph of crap if you had. But if technical stuff is beyond you, go back to the Skeptical Science link and follow the links there - all of the answers to your silly claims are addressed amongst the explanations and links there.

You are also patently oblivious to the fact that there have always been correction made for the urban heat island effect, that has occurred as previously isolated areas have been subsumed by development. You are similarly patently oblivious to the fact that there are many, many temperature stations that have always been isolated from the urban heat island effect, that still demonstrate the same pattern of warming over the last 100 years, and that the oceans are warming (no "air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt" there, huh?), and that there is an enormous body of phenological, ecological, and glaciological evidence to corroborate the fact of warming.

Massive fail, Hutch.

3. The Earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, called "feedbacks". The feedbacks warm the earth further, amplifying the direct warming about threefold.

There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed. The third link is where the dispute lies. In the establishment's climate models, this amplifying feedback provides about two-thirds of the projected warming—without it there is only mild warming due to human emissions and no cause for climate alarm. There is no evidence for this amplifying feedback, but it is built into the climate models.

Feedbacks? You need to start reading about feedbacks.

Then, also in 2008, after nine years and with no new data, they claimed to have found the hotspot! Steven Sherwood adjusted the data in accordance with various theories and wind data from the radiosondes, and processed it on his computer to arrive at a new view of the data. All he did was fuck with the color scale so at first look you would think the hot spot has been found but he was just tricking...Why do they have to deceive if their case was so strong.

There's no "tricking" or "deceiving". This is just denialist spin. There have been short-term observations of the tropical tropospheric hotspot. And yes, there are freely-acknowledged issues with long term observations, but this does not challenge the proposition of global warming.

You see, the tropical tropospheric hotspot should occur no matter the cause of global warming; that is, it should occur if it's human-caused or if it's natural. If a tropical tropospheric hotspot does not occur when the planet is warming, then this means that all understanding of basic physics is wrong, and not that there is no human-caused warming. We know that our physics understanding is not wrong, because it's been tested time and again in all of our technology that actually works. And we know unequivocably that the planet has warmed, and we know that there are short-term hotspots, so the longer-term uncertainty is most likely a problem with the way that the troposphere is measured by satellites. And it wouldn't be the first time that satellite measurements were wrong... Roy Spencer, a denialist at UAH and who used satellite measurements to try to prove that there was no warming, was caught out when it showed that he had problems in his data, that when corrected showed that yes, actually, the planet is warming just as the surface station data had said.

On the matter of Hal Lewis, it's quaint that you think that his resignation actually meant anything, but if you had bothered to do some background reading, you'd have discovered that it was a great exercise in huffing and puffing from someone who knows much less about climatology than he pretends. Read this link, it's actually a devastating dismissal of Lewis's drama-queen dummy-spit.

Slybacon, on 09 January 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

Have you Turbo charged your fingers WD.... F'n hell mate you can type!

Shhh...its called cut and paste....and those who keep banging the "world is ending" drum are all over the net ripping into any one who dares question there [<i>sic</i>] self importance.

Hutch, the only stuff that I cut and paste is explicitly included in quote boxes, or in quotation marks. All of the rest is my own typing.

Get over it.

Unfortunately, it is the denials who are all over the internet spreading their shit. Folk like myself are simply trying to straighten out the record with reference to the actual science. Read this thread, or any thread discussing warming - your lot are there just dropping claims without any reference to primary literature, or without any provision of detailed explanation for their claims. It's all heresay. On the other hand, people like me try to straighten out the record, and in return we get dissemblance, changings of the subject, and shiftings of the goal posts. That's one reason why denialists can't even decide amongst themselves why it is that they think that humans are not warming the planet.

If you don't believe that your lot are spamming the internet with unsubstantiated crap, you only need to study how G00gle searches on climate warming subjects frequently return a plethora of denialist sites before there's much sign of actual expert material appearing.

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It actually worries me that you publicly posted that these people privately messaged you. Why did you want us to know they support you?

Bacon.

The ones that I named posted stuff on this thread, here, here, and here.

Anyone who only contacted me privately was not mentioned.

[Edit:

I actually don't "want" anyone to know that they supported me, and it's partly the reason why I have not followed up on Botanika's idea. I just wanted to thank them for their comments, as they were confident enough to say stuff in public, and instead of typing a heap of PMs, I thought that it was OK to respond in public.]

[Edit #2:

Sickly isn't itPosted Image I would actually be pissed off if I was one of them. Thats why it's called PERSONAL MESSAGE

It usually takes a bit to piss me off but this guys arrogant tone and insistence that he alone knows best was enough to tip mePosted Image....How come these guys need to ridicule anyone who doesn't believe in their religion.

Read the above stuff, you idiot. I DID NOT USE THE NAMES OF ANYONE WHO ONLY PMed ME!

I only find the need to ridicule when I encounter people who can't get any facts right...

:BANGHEAD2: :BANGHEAD2: :BANGHEAD2: :BANGHEAD2: :BANGHEAD2: ]

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
User pays. What's wrong with that?

And as far as the "ordinary people" go, we in the West are not "ordinary". We are members of the wealthiest 20% of the planet, and we are putting far more than our fair share of carbon into the atmosphere. If someone can justify why we should have this privilege without paying for it, then I'm all ears. Of course, I firmly believe that the wealthiest of us should be at the front of the queue to fork out, instead of hiding from their responsibility as they so often do... :angry:

Straight out of the Green handbook... The Greens agenda in their own words.

Spare me your rabid right-wing diatribe against greens, and tell me if you think that users should pay for their use and their pollution?

And tell me if it's fair that the richest 20% of people on the planet (including us) co-opt 80% of the planet's wealth.

Stop trying to tell me and others what my "agenda" is. You have no clue, but like svarg26 you have no qualms at all putting words into my mouth.

That's not a very nice thing to do.

Edited by WoodDragon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiot. I downloaded it and saved it. That's why I know that it was 4.3 megabytes in size, as I observed yesterday.

I read through it too, which is why I know that it is crap. It's also why I know that it referred to Watts' SurfaceStations project, amongst all of the other crap. And I actually explained to you why it is crap.

So no, I did not ignore your lame link.

Heh, you obviously didn't read Menne et al 2010. You needn't have copied and pasted paragraph after paragraph of crap if you had. But if technical stuff is beyond you, go back to the Skeptical Science link and follow the links there - all of the answers to your silly claims are addressed amongst the explanations and links there.

You are also patently oblivious to the fact that there have always been correction made for the urban heat island effect, that has occurred as previously isolated areas have been subsumed by development. You are similarly patently oblivious to the fact that there are many, many temperature stations that have always been isolated from the urban heat island effect, that still demonstrate the same pattern of warming over the last 100 years, and that the oceans are warming (no "air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt" there, huh?), and that there is an enormous body of phenological, ecological, and glaciological evidence to corroborate the fact of warming.

Massive fail, Hutch.

Feedbacks? You need to start reading about feedbacks.

There's no "tricking" or "deceiving". This is just denialist spin. There have been short-term observations of the tropical tropospheric hotspot. And yes, there are freely-acknowledged issues with long term observations, but this does not challenge the proposition of global warming.

You see, the tropical tropospheric hotspot should occur no matter the cause of global warming; that is, it should occur if it's human-caused or if it's natural. If a tropical tropospheric hotspot does not occur when the planet is warming, then this means that all understanding of basic physics is wrong, and not that there is no human-caused warming. We know that our physics understanding is not wrong, because it's been tested time and again in all of our technology that actually works. And we know unequivocably that the planet has warmed, and we know that there are short-term hotspots, so the longer-term uncertainty is most likely a problem with the way that the troposphere is measured by satellites. And it wouldn't be the first time that satellite measurements were wrong... Roy Spencer, a denialist at UAH and who used satellite measurements to try to prove that there was no warming, was caught out when it showed that he had problems in his data, that when corrected showed that yes, actually, the planet is warming just as the surface station data had said.

On the matter of Hal Lewis, it's quaint that you think that his resignation actually meant anything, but if you had bothered to do some background reading, you'd have discovered that it was a great exercise in huffing and puffing from someone who knows much less about climatology than he pretends. Read this link, it's actually a devastating dismissal of Lewis's drama-queen dummy-spit.

Hutch, the only stuff that I cut and paste is explicitly included in quote boxes, or in quotation marks. All of the rest is my own typing.

Get over it.

Unfortunately, it is the denials who are all over the internet spreading their shit. Folk like myself are simply trying to straighten out the record with reference to the actual science. Read this thread, or any thread discussing warming - your lot are there just dropping claims without any reference to primary literature, or without any provision of detailed explanation for their claims. It's all heresay. On the other hand, people like me try to straighten out the record, and in return we get dissemblance, changings of the subject, and shiftings of the goal posts. That's one reason why denialists can't even decide amongst themselves why it is that they think that humans are not warming the planet.

If you don't believe that your lot are spamming the internet with unsubstantiated crap, you only need to study how G00gle searches on climate warming subjects frequently return a plethora of denialist sites before there's much sign of actual expert material appearing.

 

Well well well, why doesn't that surprise me...I'ts us naughty little deniers running around the internet destroying your dreams and it's your duty to set us right...Maybe what is concerning us idiots is the validity of those "actual science" links that you have lined up on your desk top.

Idiot. I downloaded it and saved it. That's why I know that it was 4.3 megabytes in size, as I observed yesterday.

You don't need to down load something to know what size it is dickwad! From the time I posted it you took 1hr and 1 minute to download it and read the whole document. You even had plenty of time to get back on the forum and insult me. You really are as good as you think hey? I made the mistake of questioning the integrity of the science. Oh deary me...sorry about that...If you tell us it's so then who are we to question.

I note you fail to mention anything in regards to Harold Lewis......A good scientist who clearly believes corruption on a grand scale has taken place...Is he just an idiot like me?

As I said before and you continually fail to answer is why did they need to deceive in the first place? Oh...I'm sorry..I forgot...this is all above board ridgy didge stuff because YOU told us all so....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×