Global Warming - don't wait up!

perseus said:
Would you believe that the Oil industries own scientists told them AGW was genuine back in the 90s. It's like the Vatican telling the Pope there is no God! So they ditched the science and tried another tack. What more proof do you need?
Click to expand...
To tell the pope "there is no god" is one thing, but to tell him that "he is the reason there is no god" is quite another, not that either of these ideas are more than theories.

Even your analogies are presented in such a way as to give those reading them a completely false impression. It seems you have found your niche in life.

Global Warming Zealot.
 
Last edited:
Here you are Seno

iceage.jpg
 
At the same time, we must not allow the democratic principle of open discussion to be buried or hidden.


http://desoggybog.com/an-all-kidding-aside-critique.php

Just a reminder of why people wish to question . MontyB is convinced; great. My pace, as a non-expert, unlike the rest of you, is somewhat different. The debating and to and fro-ing of the scientists I am fine with, I am happy to wait until they have finished banging their heads together . Meanwhile I remain EXTREMELY suspicious of parasitical political agenda and dogma.

This is precisely what my link expresses in response to Perseus' latest blog links.

Thank you- exit stage left.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
At the same time, we must not allow the democratic principle of open discussion to be buried or hidden.


http://desoggybog.com/an-all-kidding-aside-critique.php

Just a reminder of why people wish to question . MontyB is convinced; great. My pace, as a non-expert, unlike the rest of you, is somewhat different. The debating and to and fro-ing of the scientists I am fine with, I am happy to wait until they have finished banging their heads together . Meanwhile I remain EXTREMELY suspicious of parasitical political agenda and dogma.

This is precisely what my link expresses in response to Perseus' latest blog links.

Thank you- exit stage left.:smile:
Click to expand...

I am not convinced of anything other than that I believe it is unlikely given the development of mankind and its destructive nature we are not influencing our environment and as such our climate, so yes I believe man is having an effect on the process I just don't know how much of an effect.

I am however convinced that dismissing everything the other side says as "WRONG" is not the sign of an open mind, there are several aspects of the climate change argument I find confusing (for example given the global destructive nature and industrial expansion of the WW1/2 period I would have expected to see a rapid jump in CO2 yet we had some of the coldest and longest winters on record) but I will do my own research and figure it out I am sure.

Incidentally my initial thought is that the increased particulate matter from these conflicts may have played a part in the cooling process but I may be entirely wrong.
 
ok, here in wisconsin, weve been having very cold winters, and cold summer, we had the coldest summer on record this year, we been a couple of degrees of normal everyday. This is only the last ten years and only in wisconsin, but still its getting colder here.
 
perseus said:
Here you are Seno
Click to expand...
Tell it it your mate from the Leibnitz Institute who presented his case for the next 30 years of global cooling.

Your backing is without peer,.... or it seems, brains, they cant even agree whether it's getting hotter or colder. Maybe that should be hotter AND colder.

"Experts",...
 
MontyB said:
there are several aspects of the climate change argument I find confusing (for example given the global destructive nature and industrial expansion of the WW1/2 period I would have expected to see a rapid jump in CO2 yet we had some of the coldest and longest winters on record) but I will do my own research and figure it out I am sure.

Incidentally my initial thought is that the increased particulate matter from these conflicts may have played a part in the cooling process but I may be entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

I thought of this as well, however black carbon warms not cools. Although we think of WW1/2 as throwing up a lot of dust most of this was insignificant in relation to the sulphates/nitrates released during the industrial expansion of the 50s and 60s which reflect solar radiation, and neutralised the CO2. You can also see the same effect when a major volcanic eruption goes off (nothing to do with CO2 BTW)

RadF.gif


During the 70s and 80s we started to clean up our act in terms of nitrates and sulphates, eventually this flatlined (see blue and dotted purple lines) and the CO2 component of power plants increased faster than the aerosols, this is why we think the continued clean up of power plants in SE asia will cause a double whammy!

Combine this altogether add a damping for the volcanoes and the temperature anomoly isn't too far off.


forcing_v_temp.gif


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm


I think AGW is conclusive, however the precise proportions of each factor is not, for example if stratospheric water vapour from jets were causing a larger portion this would explain the sudden rise in temperatures from the 70s. This is very speculative though and they would have to be way off.

Bear in mind ocean currents, such as El Nino/La Nina have a significant effect over the short term which isn't shown on here, so don't expect it all to conform neatly.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I am not convinced of anything other than that I believe it is unlikely given the development of mankind and its destructive nature we are not influencing our environment and as such our climate, so yes I believe man is having an effect on the process I just don't know how much of an effect.

I am however convinced that dismissing everything the other side says as "WRONG" is not the sign of an open mind, there are several aspects of the climate change argument I find confusing (for example given the global destructive nature and industrial expansion of the WW1/2 period I would have expected to see a rapid jump in CO2 yet we had some of the coldest and longest winters on record) but I will do my own research and figure it out I am sure.
Click to expand...
Incidentally my initial thought is that the increased particulate matter from these conflicts may have played a part in the cooling process but I may be entirely wrong.[/QUOTE]

P.S.
I accept these sentiments for consideration, even to the extent that "dismissing everything the other side as "wrong" is not the sign of an open mind" is precisely what I have taken a stand against, as my last link expressed; the sceptic view should not be abusively swept aside as unworthy of consideration at every turn, as one amongst us, who shall be nameless, would have it.

Democratic principle, that's all, no hostility involved from my corner.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=30
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
I thought of this as well, however black carbon warms not cools. Although we think of WW1/2 as throwing up a lot of dust most of this was insignificant in relation to the sulphates/nitrates released during the industrial expansion of the 50s and 60s which reflect solar radiation, and neutralised the CO2. You can also see the same effect when a major volcanic eruption goes off (nothing to do with CO2 BTW)

RadF.gif
Click to expand...

Yes this is precisely what I have problems with (find hard to understand) looking at that graph the period between 1910 and 1950 is probably the least anomalous period in the last 120 years yet we were doing our best to destroy everything between London and Tokyo while building industry as fast as we could with little regard to the consequences.

I have no doubt there is a logical answer but if I was going to get into resisting the man made climate change argument as a layman it is where I would start.
 
Another classic from Peter Sinclair. This is the sort of stuff Del and Seno needs to watch, but will they?

It's Cold, so there is no Global Warming

We've heard a lot of talk lately from deniers that cold temperatures are proof that there is no such thing as global warming.
It looks like it will be an annual event for me to remind people that winter still follows summer. Since deniers seem to want to believe the warming thing is all a lie, perhaps a little review is in order.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/yDTUuckNHgc

PS interesting update

Satellite data says Jan 13th 2009 is warmest January day on record.

GISS record now says 2009 second hottest year on record!
 
Second hottest year on record, since when? So obviously there has been a hotter year?

I guess that some year has to come second, but the fact that this last year was only the second hottest I suppose that next you'll be telling us that this is scientific evidence of a cooling trend?

Let go of yourself for just a minute and open your eyes, you might even learn something that wasn't written by some clown battling for a research grant.
 
QUOTE: PERSEUS:-

"Another classic from Peter Sinclair. This is the sort of stuff Del and Seno needs to watch, but will they? " Unquote.

........................................................


Ahh. You want me back again eh? Need someone to argue with? OK, just to humour you.


PETER SINCLAIR?? YOU HAVE REGURGITATED HIM?? This is Peter Sinclair:-


http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/08/11/peter-sinclair-global-warming-charlatan/



Well, I have already dealt with your anti-democratic blog sites.


I will repeat the link here again so that folk know who they are dealing with:-

http://desoggybog.com/an-all-kidding-aside-critique.php


OOh, and here's another. Scientists? -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...d-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html

Those should keep you busy for a while Perseus - make sure to read them carefully.
 
Last edited:
This one is only for grown ups

Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.

Nature has singled out four areas — regional climate forecasts, precipitation forecasts, aerosols and palaeoclimate data — that some say deserve greater open discussion, both within scientific circles and in the public sphere.

Personally I think this just feeds the Deniers who will just reward this honesty with more misrepresentation and lies for political gains, but we will see.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html

Note there is nothing new in this since the latest 2007 IPCC report highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate climate science, many of which can be categorised into these fields. None of this alters the basis that AGW is almost certainly happening.

Writing 'more research is needed to address the uncertainties' in a report often attracts accusations of wanting more money which is interesting in itself, since Deniers can't have it both ways!
 
Last edited:
ahh this is still going,
i go away for a month and i am lost
:?
i must re-read...

when they claim it is second hottest year ever, they cant.
because it will almost certainly be the hottest year since date x but the world has been around for a hell of alot longer than that.

and why is every one freaking out when our climate does what it always has done, it changes always has always will...

what i would love to see is research that actually includes other factors which effect our climate rather than studies that only compare climate to our co2 levels in isolation from everything else or graphs that fudge figures.and i would just like to piont out with graphs just becuase you see corralation of data it does not prove causation(ignoring the dubios manner that said graphs a concocted).
 
Last edited:
captiva I said this was for grown ups!

what i would love to see is research that actually includes other factors which effect our climate rather than studies that only compare climate to our co2 levels in isolation from everything else
Click to expand...

look at the graph at the top of the page!
 
Last edited:
well i should of added that the evidence should be scaled over a relevant time period...

i have seen the graph but it would only act as evidence if the earth got an atmosphere in 1880...

when you say grown up do you mean over 40 or people that agree with your point of view?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top