|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 14:04:29 GMT
PERSONAL ABUSE DELETED, you have proved yourself to be way out of your depth here and stick to your conspiracy theories. The entire scientific body have been falsifying evidence for the last two hundred years, just to tax people out of their cars? Yes that is plausible. No RV you are a wind-up merchant, that much is clear. For example Even after Big lin asked "Please, everyone, try and attack the POST and NOT the poster." You couldn't stop yourself. I try to avoid the ad-hominems, but as RV insists on using them, I thought I'd make the one I used count. RV had every opportunity to refute the failings of the IPCC and chose to keep it personal. So, for the last time can you refute what I have put forward without resorting to ad-hominems? Go on, surprise us.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 14:37:53 GMT
So, for the last time can you refute what I have put forward without resorting to ad-hominems? Go on, surprise us. IPCC, faqHere, read this everything you are looking for is in here. Try 2.1 figure 2 for a start off (page 101). What you have still to do is now explain why you think flaws in the IPCC reporting disproves the science behind global warming. You have made a pretty silly statement regarding the theory of AGW as being 'sunk', you have so far been unable to come up with a single piece of evidence to back up that claim. If you actually believe that a few e mails between a couple of mates somehow invalidates decades of research then you are seriously deluded.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 16:03:48 GMT
So, for the last time can you refute what I have put forward without resorting to ad-hominems? Go on, surprise us. IPCC, faqHere, read this everything you are looking for is in here. Try 2.1 figure 2 for a start off (page 101). What you have still to do is now explain why you think flaws in the IPCC reporting disproves the science behind global warming. You have made a pretty silly statement regarding the theory of AGW as being 'sunk', you have so far been unable to come up with a single piece of evidence to back up that claim. If you actually believe that a few e mails between a couple of mates somehow invalidates decades of research then you are seriously deluded. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdfAre you serious? Does the phrase, er, "they would say, wouldn't they" that not ring any bells? just to recapitulate...... AGW is an hypothesis and it is far from proven, ergo it is not a fact. Scientists are human beings. They react to pressure to "clean up" their graphs and data for publication, and they gang up on other people who they dislike. Thanks to the UEA the charge that climate skeptics "are not published in peer reviewed journals" just lost most of its power as an argument against the skeptics. Only this morning senior scientists were on the record speaking out about the grave failings in peer review, this time it was stem cell research. It happens whether we like it or not; papers are blocked by bitter rivalries. The IPCC's leader Perchauri is not the worlds leading climate scientist as they claimed, he is in fact a railway engineer with a Phd in economics and no formal climate science qualifications. Fundamentally the major problem with the IPCC is that it does not function as a truth seeker; instead it functions as a true believer focused upon anthropogenic CO2. Quoting IPCC FAQs doesn't change that one iota. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.
The IPCC was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 (New Scientist) magazine article. Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. Last year the Indian government issued its own scientific research rejecting the notion that glaciers were melting so rapidly. Before the weakness in the IPCC’s research was exposed, Pachauri dismissed the Indian government report as “voodoo science”. It then emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible. You are unmoved by the the deliberate fraud and doctoring of data By Jones et al. Does that not go against the very principles laid down by Boyle, I'd say it does. Pachauri, is under attack over the 2007 report, he says the mistake was "unfortunate". "I have no intention of resigning from my position. I have a task. I am going to complete the Fifth Assessment Report,". He is nothing more than the political choice for the job, and a disastrous one at that. You avoid the fact that the IPCC’s 2007 report on “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” contains claims about the projected impacts of climate change that are completely unfounded, based upon non-scientific (let alone peer reviewed) sources, and misrepresent the underlying scientific literature. The Hockey Stick As anyone knows, 100 years is not enough for a good ice core sample. There is a failure to disclose data and methods that would allow results to be replicated. As a result, arresting but subsequently discredited findings - such as the notorious "hockey stick" chart showing the 1990s as the northern hemisphere's hottest decade of the millennium - are left to be challenged by troublesome outsiders. So why do you ask for data on this when you know it cannot be provided? Speaking of the panel's Fourth Assessment Report, Pachauri said: "I hope this will shock people and governments into taking more serious action.", given the amount of money he makes from IPCC policies that comes as no surprise, even though the report was flawed - to say the least. You adhere to this hypothesis, I do not. That doesn't make ANYBODY right. If governments are to get the best advice, they need information and analysis from an open and disinterested source - or else from multiple dissenting sources. If you cannot see the sense in that, well I guess thats tough on you.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 16:38:17 GMT
You are unmoved by the the deliberate fraud and doctoring of data By Jones et al. Does that not go against the very principles laid down by Boyle, I'd say it does. You still have failed to provide any evidence of deliberate or widespread fraud. All you have are the ‘usual suspects’ Brooker and the industry shills jumping up and down at a few leaked e-mails. None of the deniers’ claims have been able to stand up to scrutiny. A PR disaster? Undoubtedly, but not exactly a fatal blow to the scientific community. You avoid the fact that the IPCC’s 2007 report on “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” contains claims about the projected impacts of climate change that are completely unfounded, based upon non-scientific (let alone peer reviewed) sources, and misrepresent the underlying scientific literature. I am quite happy to accept that some any of the claims made that have not been put through the required vigorous scientific scrutiny should be withdrawn. I am quite willing to accept that unsubstantiated claims will be proved to be inaccurate. In some cases those claims will be far too pessimistic. However, I cannot see how inclusion of such claims can somehow be used to rubbish the entire AGW theory. If you want a debate on the flaws within the IPCC peer review process, then that is fine, but it is patently false to use that to dispute the scientific basis for Global Warming. As a result, arresting but subsequently discredited findings - such as the notorious "hockey stick" chart showing the 1990s as the northern hemisphere's hottest decade of the millennium - are left to be challenged by troublesome outsiders. So why do you ask for data on this when you know it cannot be provided? Again another straightforward myth promulgated by the deniers. In fact the ‘hockey stick graph’ is never been discredited by objective scientists. www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646 You adhere to this hypothesis, The entire credible scientific community adheres to this hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Feb 2, 2010 16:40:35 GMT
I am becoming rather tired of this silliness. Presumably some members have forgotten how and why one of them is serving out a two-months suspension from the board.
Now I shall lay down a couple of ground rules.
This is a debate board and not a boxing match. Anyone who imagines that personal abuse is gaining them any advantage in the discussion is deluding themself.
Perhaps we should begin - it is often a good idea - by defining our terms.
What precisely DO we mean by global warming?
What precisely DO we mean by climate change?
Perhaps if we could begin by at least agreeing upon what it is that we are disagreeing about it might be possible to make progress rather than simply running around in a circle.
I'd also like to make a general point. 99% of the members here are NOT scientists but lay people. Simply because they do not have specialist scientific knowledge does NOT make their opinion worthless nor is it realistic to indulge in fantasy conspiracy theories about the putative motivations of people who are not yet persuaded of the truth-claim of the global warming/climate change hypothesis.
I might also remark that it is an elementary point in logic that NO truth claim CAN entail a value judgement so all the pejorative and vituperative language is irrelevant as well as profoundly disruptive to the board.
The staff will have to begin editing or deleting posts if this kind of nonsense does not stop immediately!
In the meantime, RV, are you willing to respond to my request and define your terms?
That surely has to be the MINIMUM basis for a genuine debate.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Feb 2, 2010 16:46:33 GMT
I hate to disillusion you, RV, but the hockey stick projection has in fact been discredited by a large number of scientists.
One described it satirically as being the type of work that a boy at secondary school might have come up with.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 17:21:38 GMT
In the meantime, RV, are you willing to respond to my request and define your terms? Well Mike. I am sure we can all find links to the settled scientific terms to define global Warming. You can pick any recognised scientific body, and I would be happy to accept it. In broad terms, let us assume that we are talking about the theory that Carbon Dioxide generated from human industrial/economic activity is trapping the sun’s infra-red energy (obviously in the form of heat) within its molecules. In other words human produced CO2 is enhancing the ‘greenhouse effect’. It is my assertion that the theory of ‘Global Warming’ is not under serious scientific dispute from credible scientists. Those scientists that do actively dispute the basic premise are unable to get such work through any vigorous peer review process. Their works is often seriously flawed and contain glaring errors, which are pointed out by serious scientists within the field. There are a number of economic/political groups who oppose the theory of Global Warming, because of the implications that addressing the issues would mean. Many of these groups publish papers with deliberately misleading facts that have been either misrepresented, skewed of simply made up. There are a number of people who cite such debunked information as proof of the non existence of GW. Often such people cite such ‘evidence’ without even fully understanding the implications of what that the consequences of such things being true. For example, I have read people who submit that Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, without explaining the mechanism that would replace those properties with a plausible alternative and consistent with the known facts. Mike, I have to be blunt. When I see such fundamental misunderstanding of the science, I call it for what I see it, i.e. stupidity. When someone attempts to disprove the scientific consensus via a totally unproven or credible theory I feel justified in describing them in the most objectionable terms available. I am not one who is an adherent to political Correctness, anyone who makes idiotic statements can expect to be called an idiot. Anyone who thinks 'snow' disproves global warming or thinks global warming means more sunshine, can count themselves an idiot in my book.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 17:28:17 GMT
I hate to disillusion you, RV, but the hockey stick projection has in fact been discredited by a large number of scientists. One described it satirically as being the type of work that a boy at secondary school might have come up with. I am not sure where you get that information frm Mike, but the only people who have called Mann into question are those on the denier's side. Any mistakes found have been well within the error margin news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109188.stm
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 18:23:13 GMT
You are unmoved by the the deliberate fraud and doctoring of data By Jones et al. Does that not go against the very principles laid down by Boyle, I'd say it does. You still have failed to provide any evidence of deliberate or widespread fraud. All you have are the ‘usual suspects’ Brooker and the industry shills jumping up and down at a few leaked e-mails. None of the deniers’ claims have been able to stand up to scrutiny. A PR disaster? Undoubtedly, but not exactly a fatal blow to the scientific community. I am quite happy to accept that some any of the claims made that have not been put through the required vigorous scientific scrutiny should be withdrawn. I am quite willing to accept that unsubstantiated claims will be proved to be inaccurate. In some cases those claims will be far too pessimistic. However, I cannot see how inclusion of such claims can somehow be used to rubbish the entire AGW theory. If you want a debate on the flaws within the IPCC peer review process, then that is fine, but it is patently false to use that to dispute the scientific basis for Global Warming. Again another straightforward myth promulgated by the deniers. In fact the ‘hockey stick graph’ is never been discredited by objective scientists. www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646 You adhere to this hypothesis, The entire credible scientific community adheres to this hypothesis. Fraud.... www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chineseYou still refer to me as a 'denier' when nothing has been proven, hardly an objective stance. The IPCC is discredited for all the reasons I gave and its chairman benefits handsomely directly from its policies AGW is only a theory "Again another straightforward myth promulgated by the deniers. In fact the ‘hockey stick graph’ is never been discredited by objective scientists." As for the hockey stick, only you still seem to believe it. I hate to disillusion you, RV, but the hockey stick projection has in fact been discredited by a large number of scientists. One described it satirically as being the type of work that a boy at secondary school might have come up with. "The entire credible scientific community adheres to this hypothesis." Why are scientists who disagree with your faith in the AGW theory not credible? Why do proponents of AGW go to great lengths to prop up their case and hide the data? You are quite entitled to place your faith in AGW, it doesn't mean you are right. And you know it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 2, 2010 19:02:44 GMT
...nor is it realistic to indulge in fantasy conspiracy theories about the putative motivations of people who are not yet persuaded of the truth-claim of the global warming/climate change hypothesis. Why yes - any more than it is realistic to indulge in fantasy conspiracy theories about the putative motivations of scientists who are persuaded by the arguments in favour of AGW: But then, as William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said: "So many people have a vested interest in climate change—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 2, 2010 19:07:55 GMT
lol fretty dont ask awkward questions.....
You and the other anti science people always ignore the answer. ......
while scienctific adherents like your self prove their wonderful thinking process by sugesting that torys eat babies and hate children........lol......random voice its a message board not a phd course at cambridge......
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 2, 2010 19:09:32 GMT
I'd also like to make a general point. 99% of the members here are NOT scientists but lay people. Simply because they do not have specialist scientific knowledge does NOT make their opinion worthless nor is it realistic to indulge in fantasy conspiracy theories about the putative motivations of people who are not yet persuaded of the truth-claim of the global warming/climate change hypothesis.,,
well said...
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 19:34:05 GMT
Fraud? What fraud? This is not evidence of fraud, nor is it anywhere close. You still refer to me as a 'denier' when nothing has been proven, hardly an objective stance. Global Warming is a close to being proved as it is possible to get, given we do not have a spare planet Earth lying about. Evolution is ‘just a theory too’, but you try and disputing that and see how far you get. As for the hockey stick, only you still seem to believe it. Is that statement supposed to be taken seriously? If so, you really need to think about it a bit more, because you could do with some research as most of the scientific community believe in it as well. Then again, if you were capable of reading the research objectively, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Why are scientists who disagree with your faith in the AGW theory not credible? Normally because they miss or cherry pick huge pieces of data, or simply don’t understand the science are subject to peer review.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 19:44:01 GMT
I'd also like to make a general point. 99% of the members here are NOT scientists but lay people. Simply because they do not have specialist scientific knowledge does NOT make their opinion worthless nor is it realistic to indulge in fantasy conspiracy theories about the putative motivations of people who are not yet persuaded of the truth-claim of the global warming/climate change hypothesis. Sorry Mike, try as I might, I cannot let that comment go unchallenged. Surely if a lay person wants to comment on science they at least have to understand the basic concepts involved? You are not seriously suggesting that someone who says something like ‘volcanoes produce more CO2’ than man’ should be at least be able to back that up? You cannot be advocating that the findings of a scientific study can be challenged by someone in his or her front room without even the slightest piece of knowledge on the subject? If someone says extra heat from the sun is skewing the data, yet they cannot account why no observations of said heat can be found, you cannot give that the same weight as an observatory who have readings of the sun’s output showing no such upswing?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 20:08:46 GMT
There's none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
I'm going to assume you are familiar with Henry's law. it is well known that the oceans have warmed since 1960 and that since then the sun has been at a historic high in activity. It is also accepted that warmer oceans hold less CO2. Those three facts suggest that most if not all of the observed increase in CO2 is natural unless it can be shown that for some reason warming oceans can nevertheless act as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source. I know that attempts have been carried out, I believe your friends at realclimate had a go at it. Warmer oceans overall hold less CO2 overall and no mechanism has been found to falsify that proposition. Thus we really do not know what proportion of the CO2 increase is caused by human activity.
The entire biosphere is energised by extra warmth and the whole carbon cycle speeds up with extra warmth from sun or oceans without any need to invoke human involvement at all. Such increased biosphere activity mops up any increase in CO2 and might well be enough, over time, to absorb much if not all of our production of extra CO2. All we have seen from the AGW lobby on this issue is a denial that the sun had any effect during the past 50 years because its output was 'stable'. Stability is no indication of an absence of accumulating solar energy in the Earth's system if the sun was at a historically high level of activity as it then was. There is therefore substantial evidence that the CO2 increase observed has been mostly natural. That is supported by a very recent observation that the rate of rise in CO2 seems to have been affected by the recent cooling of the Pacific. It is too early to be sure but that needs watching because it may reveal a stronger than expected correlation with oceanic temperatures rather than human output of CO2.
Can the top millimetre of a vast ocean really have any effect on the overall net movement of heat energy from ocean to air to space? Your friends at realclimate theorise that it could affect the temperature gradient from the body of the ocean to the surface skin and thereby slow down heat loss from the oceans to build up more heat in the entire system but do we know that the effect is significant in the real world or is it just a desperate guess intended to try and prop up the AGW theory? The oceans are not motionless. They are in constant and often violent movement. Surely it is much more likely that any effect on the surface skin will be broken up by all that movement? Much more likely that the surface skin will be almost immediately incorporated into the main body of water and the ocean to atmosphere flow continues as if nothing had happened. The use of the word skin is misleading because that implies some sort of physical barrier whereas oceanic movement and mixing will ensure that there is none.
So, what if all that extra re-radiation warms up the surface skin of the ocean without immediate mixing but only to a depth of one millimetre. What really happens next? It seems obvious to me that one has also increased the temperature differential between ocean surface and the atmosphere. Such a change will accelerate the flow of heat energy from the ocean surface to the atmosphere and offset any warming of the skin from any extra CO2 caused by humans. Effectively, the water surface is sufficiently impermeable to infra red radiation to simply bounce or reflect it back up into the atmosphere again without any significant effect on the temperature of the water or the net natural flow of energy from ocean to air to space (and it is always in that one way direction only). Realclimate only mentions half the equation. They ignore the increased ocean/atmosphere differential.
The downward infrared flux from the atmosphere to land surface or ocean is primarily natural so that the near surface temperature already accommodates that natural component. The size of any extra human component is entirely speculative because we currently have no way of knowing what proportion of the CO2 increase is human as against natural. The figures you will hear depend entirely on the prejudice of the person supplying them. Furthermore natural global temperature swings alter the natural background greenhouse effect constantly as water vapour held in the atmosphere increases and decreases naturally with changing global temperatures. Those water vapour swings have changed the power of the greenhouse effect many times over the millennia, far more than CO2 is expected to, yet no tipping point has ever been crossed.
The recent La Nina episode combined with a quiet sun has almost wiped out the warming observed over the past 20 years in a period of less than 2 years. Admittedly we may bounce back but at this moment it is not looking likely. Various predictions have been made by AGW supporters that we will bounce back to warming in 2010, 2015 or 2020. The Realclimate theory is simply not sufficiently plausible and I see no credible means as to how AGW can warm up the oceans fast enough to be a threat in the foreseeable future. Given that human emissions of CO2 were not very substantial until after WW2 so how can human GHGs could have contributed quickly enough or significantly enough to the observed warming of the early and late 20th Century?
Evaporation and Condensation as a global heat energy removal system combined with planetary weather systems that involve convection, winds, clouds and precipitation. Those combined processes constitute the hole in the heart of all climate theory because thus far it has not been possible to collate the actual real world numbers for all those processes in order to make meaningful use of all of them in any models. Those processes must be critical but are not mentioned by Realclimate at all.
The average near surface temperature of Earth’s atmosphere is much the same as the average surface temperature of the oceans. That will always be so for as long as we have big enough oceans. Consequently to be able to affect us any extra atmospheric warming effect of CO2 would need to be able to warm up the oceans in order to make any difference to global atmospheric temperature. Due to the huge volume of sea water and the density differentials between air and ocean that would be impossible or would require such huge amounts of atmospheric heating and such huge lengths of time that for practical purposes it should be ignored. To be convinced of that one only needs to consider the impracticality of heating the air in a bathroom in order to raise cold tap water to the temperature of a warm bath. It just doesn’t happen.
I could go on , but you may just get the drift.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 20:28:23 GMT
Those three facts suggest that most if not all of the observed increase in CO 2 is natural unless it can be shown that for some reason warming oceans can nevertheless act as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source. You must be joking. Are you suggesting that we cannot quantify the amount of CO2 we are adding to the the atmosphere, or that CO2 is somehow insignificant? scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.phpThat is straw clutching at its best. Not only that you are now arguing two different sides of the debate. First you are attempting to argue the CO2 is not heating the Earth and now you are arguing that this CO2 is comming from a natural source! Make your mind up!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 21:24:23 GMT
I thought you'd say that, because in your own way you too are a denier, you deny that your pet theory has holes in it, and it does - lots of them. You still believe in the hockey stick for Christ's sake!
You wanted some shred and you got it.
If you read it again you might comprehend, but I'm beginning to wonder. If I state that CO2 is coming from natural sources - including volcanoes, incidentally - it does not follow that I am stating that CO2 is heating the air column. That's your assumption.
There are some very nasty holes in the theory as put forward by your chums at realclimate. I suggest you use your energy in trying to fill them in.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 21:32:45 GMT
you deny that your pet theory has holes in it, My pet theory? It is not my pet theory, it is the established theory of the climate scienists of the World. You still believe in the hockey stick for Christ's sake! Er, I think you will find that it is climate scientists that believe in the hockey stick, not 'just' me. There are some very nasty holes in the theory as put forward by your chums at realclimate. I suggest you use your energy in trying to fill them in. Then perhaps you should explain why the deniers are so far unable to expose these holes? Why is it that whenever a denier goes on and on, someone like me can find, without too much trouble the explaination to your quibbles? Yet someone will repeat the same quibbles and ignore the previous answer.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 2, 2010 22:30:19 GMT
Today at 9:24pm, fretslider wrote:
you deny that your pet theory has holes in it,
My pet theory? It is not my pet theory, it is the established theory of the climate scienists of the World.
ah BUT only some of them...not all of them.....not every scientist sings from the same hymn book....there is disent
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 22:48:17 GMT
ah BUT only some of them...not all of them.....not every scientist sings from the same hymn book....there is disent Every respected scientist accepts global warming.
|
|