Could this be history repeating itself, Stu? :? It now has an air of emotion creeping in about it where, well you know...2nd Reef wrote:Don't yell at me you dopey prick!still here wrote: OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ WHAT i ASKED PEOPLE TO CONSIDER .
http://www.geocraft/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
...
Quit while you are behind Still There...
Climate Change brings bigger waves!
Moderators: jimmy, collnarra, PeepeelaPew, Butts, beach_defender, Shari, Forum Moderators
but I am watching.-
still here
- charger
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:07 pm
Ok 2nd reef ..... calm down , .....ric_vidal wrote:Could this be history repeating itself, Stu? :? It now has an air of emotion creeping in about it where, well you know...2nd Reef wrote:Don't yell at me you dopey prick!still here wrote: OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ WHAT i ASKED PEOPLE TO CONSIDER .
http://www.geocraft/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
...
Quit while you are behind Still There...
Crikey , I didn't mean to upset you , its just that your debate on the matter didn't indicate you'd read ..... or understood the article . (perhaps you haven't)
Anyway , the link is there if anyone else is interested in reading the other side of the argument presented in an equally impressive and easy to follow way .
And remember , ..... the so called "world experts" aren't always right , neither is "conventional wisdom " or the "accepted view" . (think only of WMD and Iraq ) .
PS : I suppose you buy biofuel too , 2nd reef ?
Tell me to calm down you f*ckwit!still here wrote:Ok 2nd reef ..... calm down , .....
He he...
I read the link straight away Still Here. Dismissed it just as quick. Utterly transparent in it's attempt to persuade people with subjective propaganda. I am more than happy to read anything people recommend to me on the subject; I read wide and far on it anyway. But to pin an entire argument on that one cheap and poorly researched web page is really a step too far.
It's true that I've read scientific papers that make GG sound like a plausible hoax. I've read many others that argue the phenomenen - AGW that is - is now beyond doubt. Those papers are written by people that are smarter than I. But I have the faculty of critical thinking and I exercise it.
PS: Why do you keep asking me about biofuels and recycling? They aren't the topic of this thread. Be clear in your intentions.
-
Realbooger
- regular
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:55 am
- Location: Here
Still here, before you mentioned that 95% of the greenhouse effect is umm due to water vapour? And that the other 5% is "green house gases". The greenhouse effect is the only thing keeping us from freezing(I.e the atmosphere keeping in the heat). So 100% of this effect is keeping us at an average of 20degrees C? Well ousite space is over -200 degrees and I crunched some numbers and I found that even so we, humans, are still raising the average temperature of the earth by about 1.25 degrees. Wouldn't that be enough to, parond my french, F.uck S.hit up?
P.s. I know your not denying global warming and just pointing out that some people are hyping it.
P.s. I know your not denying global warming and just pointing out that some people are hyping it.
"What ever you can do I can do better."
That website you put the link up to numerous times now StillHere is very poor. For one it isnt a recognised peer reviewed site or journal.
No uni lecturer would accept it as an acceptable reference, anyone could have written that and put it on the net. You cant believe everything you read and then make up your mind from just one poor reference.
2nd Reef is right, quit while your behind Stillhere
No uni lecturer would accept it as an acceptable reference, anyone could have written that and put it on the net. You cant believe everything you read and then make up your mind from just one poor reference.
2nd Reef is right, quit while your behind Stillhere
An interesting paper by Christopher Monckton on the American Physical Society's website raises some issues that might surprise people who believe there is substantial scientific evidence to support the IPCC's position on AGW.
Monckton's paper was submitted in response to an invitation by Jeffrey Marque, editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics, for AGW believers and sceptics to submit articles. Marque says:
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion."
Monckton's paper is here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... nckton.cfm
The following is from the discussion section:
"The IPCC’s methodology relies unduly – indeed, almost exclusively – upon numerical analysis, even where the outputs of the models upon which it so heavily relies are manifestly and significantly at variance with theory or observation or both. Modeled projections such as those upon which the IPCC’s entire case rests have long been proven impossible when applied to mathematically-chaotic objects, such as the climate, whose initial state can never be determined to a sufficient precision. For a similar reason, those of the IPCC’s conclusions that are founded on probability distributions in the chaotic climate object are unsafe.
Not one of the key variables necessary to any reliable evaluation of climate sensitivity can be measured empirically. The IPCC’s presentation of its principal conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC’s reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in its evaluation of climate sensitivity.
The IPCC overstates the radiative forcing caused by increased CO2 concentration at least threefold because the models upon which it relies have been programmed fundamentally to misunderstand the difference between tropical and extra-tropical climates, and to apply global averages that lead to error.
The IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, yielding the impossible result that at every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence of any temperature feedbacks.
The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today’s, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today’s.
The Bode equation, furthermore, is of questionable utility because it was not designed to model feedbacks in non-linear objects such as the climate. The IPCC’s quantification of temperature feedbacks is, accordingly, inherently unreliable. It may even be that, as Lindzen (2001) and Spencer (2007) have argued, feedbacks are net-negative, though a more cautious assumption has been made in this paper.
It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.
The IPCC has not drawn on thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers to support its central estimates for the variables from which climate sensitivity is calculated, but on a handful."
Monckton's paper was submitted in response to an invitation by Jeffrey Marque, editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics, for AGW believers and sceptics to submit articles. Marque says:
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion."
Monckton's paper is here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... nckton.cfm
The following is from the discussion section:
"The IPCC’s methodology relies unduly – indeed, almost exclusively – upon numerical analysis, even where the outputs of the models upon which it so heavily relies are manifestly and significantly at variance with theory or observation or both. Modeled projections such as those upon which the IPCC’s entire case rests have long been proven impossible when applied to mathematically-chaotic objects, such as the climate, whose initial state can never be determined to a sufficient precision. For a similar reason, those of the IPCC’s conclusions that are founded on probability distributions in the chaotic climate object are unsafe.
Not one of the key variables necessary to any reliable evaluation of climate sensitivity can be measured empirically. The IPCC’s presentation of its principal conclusions as though they were near-certain is accordingly unjustifiable. We cannot even measure mean global surface temperature anomalies to within a factor of 2; and the IPCC’s reliance upon mean global temperatures, even if they could be correctly evaluated, itself introduces substantial errors in its evaluation of climate sensitivity.
The IPCC overstates the radiative forcing caused by increased CO2 concentration at least threefold because the models upon which it relies have been programmed fundamentally to misunderstand the difference between tropical and extra-tropical climates, and to apply global averages that lead to error.
The IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, yielding the impossible result that at every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence of any temperature feedbacks.
The IPCC overstates temperature feedbacks to such an extent that the sum of the high-end values that it has now, for the first time, quantified would cross the instability threshold in the Bode feedback equation and induce a runaway greenhouse effect that has not occurred even in geological times despite CO2 concentrations almost 20 times today’s, and temperatures up to 7 ºC higher than today’s.
The Bode equation, furthermore, is of questionable utility because it was not designed to model feedbacks in non-linear objects such as the climate. The IPCC’s quantification of temperature feedbacks is, accordingly, inherently unreliable. It may even be that, as Lindzen (2001) and Spencer (2007) have argued, feedbacks are net-negative, though a more cautious assumption has been made in this paper.
It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.
The IPCC has not drawn on thousands of published, peer-reviewed papers to support its central estimates for the variables from which climate sensitivity is calculated, but on a handful."
how many of you hypocrites have white roofs?
Boogaloo - more dodgy science: Monckton is an ex advisor to Thatcher and a 'notorious' climate-change sceptic. He was also in The Great Global Warming Swindle - an utter load of shite. Monckton intended to fund the distribution of Great Global Warming Conspiracy DVDs to schools to 'equal' viewing of An Inconvenient Truth.
Did you follow the Swindle? What a pathetic pseudo doco.
I've seen come of those 'alternative' graphs before: check the timelines - very selective spans in order to highlight anomolies. There will always be anomolies in CC graphs - but the steady increase in Co2 since industrialisation is undoubted. And it does not matter that it is such a small proportion of the overall atmosphere; what matters is the effect.
Still Here's argument to turn away from the carbon-reduction path is surely not enough on its own. 10 billion humans by 2050; say 15 billion by 2080 - whatever: as more and more live according to our western, fossil-fuel using, coal-burning manner - something will have to give bigtime - or we will have acid oceans, no arctic (read about the permafrost melting?), billions of refugees etc.
There is no choice - either sooner or later, humans will HAVE to reduce CO2 emissions. The present exponential growth is not sustainable.
Did you follow the Swindle? What a pathetic pseudo doco.
I've seen come of those 'alternative' graphs before: check the timelines - very selective spans in order to highlight anomolies. There will always be anomolies in CC graphs - but the steady increase in Co2 since industrialisation is undoubted. And it does not matter that it is such a small proportion of the overall atmosphere; what matters is the effect.
Still Here's argument to turn away from the carbon-reduction path is surely not enough on its own. 10 billion humans by 2050; say 15 billion by 2080 - whatever: as more and more live according to our western, fossil-fuel using, coal-burning manner - something will have to give bigtime - or we will have acid oceans, no arctic (read about the permafrost melting?), billions of refugees etc.
There is no choice - either sooner or later, humans will HAVE to reduce CO2 emissions. The present exponential growth is not sustainable.
Shutdown.AlbyAl wrote:Boogaloo - more dodgy science: Monckton is an ex advisor to Thatcher and a 'notorious' climate-change sceptic. He was also in The Great Global Warming Swindle - an utter load of shite. Monckton intended to fund the distribution of Great Global Warming Conspiracy DVDs to schools to 'equal' viewing of An Inconvenient Truth.
Did you follow the Swindle? What a pathetic pseudo doco.
I've seen come of those 'alternative' graphs before: check the timelines - very selective spans in order to highlight anomolies. There will always be anomolies in CC graphs - but the steady increase in Co2 since industrialisation is undoubted. And it does not matter that it is such a small proportion of the overall atmosphere; what matters is the effect.
Still Here's argument to turn away from the carbon-reduction path is surely not enough on its own. 10 billion humans by 2050; say 15 billion by 2080 - whatever: as more and more live according to our western, fossil-fuel using, coal-burning manner - something will have to give bigtime - or we will have acid oceans, no arctic (read about the permafrost melting?), billions of refugees etc.
There is no choice - either sooner or later, humans will HAVE to reduce CO2 emissions. The present exponential growth is not sustainable.
Well done.You guys read a Tim Flannery article and think you are god on the topic of climate change. You read the SMH and think you are untouchable, no one that has an opinion or different analysis of the facts should be viewed as sane in your eyes.
Well here is news, the main cause of melting ice caps is not the sun, it is the change in ocean currents due to changing climatic patterns, not dramatically altered by 'global warming' (cold winter we just had, yet once a hot day comes along, "bloody global warming" becomes a common phrase"). Think about it laterally, increase of 1.5 degrees in an area that averages deeply chilling temperatures (far below zero), does not equal square kilometres of melted ice...all this said, yes industrialisation has dramatically altered the world, Darwinian research was done outside London during their revolution and a moth had adapted (through natural selection) so that only the dark moths survived because everything was darker from smog. If that can happen outside the city, no doubt it has an effect, but just as some 'skeptics' have sensationalised their results, the pro warming band wagon has played with the hype and done just the same, only, you want to hear it.
And AlbyAl you call Thatcher a notorious skeptic and victimise him like a criminal, come on, if it wasn't for sensational writing from the media, you would have just called him Thatcher.
In essence, read the stuff, but dont victimise people once they taint or oppose your view that the world is going to end.
Well here is news, the main cause of melting ice caps is not the sun, it is the change in ocean currents due to changing climatic patterns, not dramatically altered by 'global warming' (cold winter we just had, yet once a hot day comes along, "bloody global warming" becomes a common phrase"). Think about it laterally, increase of 1.5 degrees in an area that averages deeply chilling temperatures (far below zero), does not equal square kilometres of melted ice...all this said, yes industrialisation has dramatically altered the world, Darwinian research was done outside London during their revolution and a moth had adapted (through natural selection) so that only the dark moths survived because everything was darker from smog. If that can happen outside the city, no doubt it has an effect, but just as some 'skeptics' have sensationalised their results, the pro warming band wagon has played with the hype and done just the same, only, you want to hear it.
And AlbyAl you call Thatcher a notorious skeptic and victimise him like a criminal, come on, if it wasn't for sensational writing from the media, you would have just called him Thatcher.
In essence, read the stuff, but dont victimise people once they taint or oppose your view that the world is going to end.
Speaking of Artic Sea ice, this is yesterday's coverage compared to a year ago. Looks to me like there might be more this year than last year.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 14&sy=2008
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 14&sy=2008
Boogaloo,
Are you trying to draw conclusions from a 1 year pattern?
I really hope you wouldn't think that anyone on here is naive enough to believe in that sort of science. So what I've done is use the same charts that you used except over a 30 year period. Still only a miniscule timeframe but enough to see that the Arctic sea ice has retreated a substantial amount in that time.
The arguments that yourself and Still Here put forth would make great case studies for first year communications students.
Are you trying to draw conclusions from a 1 year pattern?
I really hope you wouldn't think that anyone on here is naive enough to believe in that sort of science. So what I've done is use the same charts that you used except over a 30 year period. Still only a miniscule timeframe but enough to see that the Arctic sea ice has retreated a substantial amount in that time.
The arguments that yourself and Still Here put forth would make great case studies for first year communications students.
Last edited by 2nd Reef on Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests