If you'd bother checking my join date to this forum you may withdraw that new audience bit. Why hide? Why not demonstrate why I'm wrong instead of reverting to ad hominem attacks? After all this forum is about discussing science. So don't hide and demostrate instead. And don't forget to take a look at the cherry orchard thread in MS if you go along. Check this to see that it's not me who is bringing all kind of conflicting facts. I'm merely highlighting what others have found and what has been buried because it conflicted with the holy -global warming bringing- ice cores. Rest assured the stuff is under peer review but since I'm only comparing publications there is not a lot of logic verification to do. Just too bad that the message is somewhat else than what is deemed political correct.
i do not follow exactly u conversation. and i have to excuise my self for my bad english. but i have to say about globalism...its all start from the beginning of mankind. america is one of the maincircle...and this is a point..... the u.s..this country is planed from a long time ago to be and to end in the way how it is. america was planed from a circle of ?humans?, to grow they citizens in kapitalism and in slavery for work, for making material life, industry, etc etc. us citizen are in the glassbox of consuming material stuff and to be dependet on this. this is an emotional need what got feedet from this ?human?-people if u like gouvernment - (but u are wrong to believe that) no the gouvernment are the circle in charge, but specific circles. they plan was simple. to born a new world with individual dreams, advertised worldwide, know'n as the american dream. as a total consumer u will get blindet from the reallity. u need and need things. one day your life will be fixed just to get them and u will need money to buy them. so u must work, and work and work. one day your life is owned by the system of capitalism and you will get an total individual person, brainwashed that this all is good for you. You get brainwashed that this hat u r think ist good, than all the other mankind around te world hat to be in the same way. In the same moment you lost you individuallity and your fredom because you are dependet in a system slavery, where you never get out. the system needs you for they profit. and they wanna make profit whatever its cost. in the end u are a slave of the sys. its a big theme.. its need detail discusion.......but for now only one thing more: the system works of a basis of 12. they command everything and ill be sure that u dont know them, or dont wanna know them, but u are dependet from them.
Not that it matters -since science is not about majority decisions - but it remains to be seen which group is largest. Of course on one side there is political correctness, political support, media screening, the urge to save the world, actually truthiness and at the other side there is the harsh scientific reality, disdaining any human emotion and the twain will likely never meet. The question if AGW is to be considered pseudo science is complex. First you'd like to test if AGW is science. Is some form of scientific method used in the AGW theory? Observations have been done about greenhouse effect. There are hypotheses about, but how about testing of that hypothesis. You can test if reality is consistent with the AGW hypotheses and some of the reality is. But other apparant consistencies crumble when under scrutiny, like the ice core interpretations and those become refutations instead. Now if these refutations are accepted as fact of life then, sure AGW remains science, a phase in finding the real truth in science with the conclusion that anthropogenic factors are not prevailing in climate forcing. However if exposing those effects leads to witch hunts, character murder and collective world wide scale group hypnosis like this and hence making AGW non refutable (like religion, astrology, etc), it is automatically removed from the realm of science.
Nice try but no dice, first suggesting that I seed confusion and then continuing to show that you knew exactly what I meant to say namely that the sum of all feedbacks in the atmosphere behaves as negative, refuting the essential requirement of positive feedback to generate catastrophic global warming. By all means go ahead and do proof your insinuation. But for the more reasonable under us, remember it is not investating a trend but a principle, a physical law. How many times would it be required to test if water boils at 100C or 212F. If I repeat it only on 24 European and Asian locations and find the same everewhere, would that be data mining? Nice try again, it is not changing reality wether or not there is a reason identified for the negative feedback. It is just shown to be there and no magic wand waving is going to change that. but I already gave a reason for negative feedback, lesson one for meteorologists, the energy required for generating more water vapor which progresses exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius Clapeyron relationship which causes the required energy to keep up water vapor feedback to raise exponentially as well. However the increase in avaible energy for evaporation is only logaritmic with increase in greenhouse gas concentration. This ensures and guarantees that the water vapor feedback effect is dying out quickly.
I guess no one takes shame in lying to people when it comes to these subjects. And the arguments still carry the same intellectual bankruptcy as creationists saying evolution violates thermodynamics. Sorry, I stopped getting into that; I assure you that you know you are wrong, but cannot admit that, so are bringing a new set of arguments to a new audience where you hope it will be better received. I hope it is not.
Chris, you are so incredibly unbelievably wrong. It's beyond words and you will have to live with that a lot longer that me, where I am merely showing what others have to say about the subject.. And remember, the only reason why I'm doing this because I wanted to find the truth behind the mega fauna extinction. That's all and merely to find that paleo climate is all about politics and nothing whatsoever about what really happened.
The studies you linked (even accepting its solidity, which I don't) did not show that the sum of all "atmospheric" feedbacks (nice little weaseling qualification there) would be negative in the circumstance of the rapid and large boost in CO2 concentrations we are seeing. For that, you need mechanism - a specification of the feedbacks - not handwaving at "sums". btw: just a side note - global warming predictions only need positive feedback at long time scales for the most alarming and least likely effects. For everything else, negative feedback effects at all but fairly short time scales are assumed. So your entire argument here is BS. If you care. And I filed it right next to an earlier such piece of nonsense you posted in response to me, in which you "proved" that CO2 doesn't actually trap heat in the lower atmosphere (if you recall, the argument began with the observation that the CO2 molecule usually reradiates the absorbed infrared photon, and somehow concluded that therefore no heat would be trapped. You had all kinds of links to little diagrams and shit, and some names of theories then too)
Yeah, that's called science, you know, a most disturbing counteracting of wannabee. But it might be interesting ot note that the unbiased bystanders may notice that everything I say is substantiated with external objective sources, while you continue to wave the magic wand and declare thing void because you want it to be void.
You posting a link is not you "substantiating" your arguments. As above here, where I accepted your link as given (despite serious doubts about its methods and conslusions) and simply pointed out that your arguments - not "science", your own little arguments right here -aren't supported by it.
But how much substantiation have you given to all those magic runaway climate things? Where are the observation, what is the hypothesis and what is the test the evidemce plan?
iceaura, you'll just waste your time. It is like talking to a creationist, trust me. andre is fairly sure he'll collect his nobel prize tomorrow by proving the ice cores don't show temperature, he is going to turn paleoclimatology on its head, feedbacks are not positive, positive feedbacks necessitate runaway effects, he is going to turn the clausius-clapeyron and evaporation relationships on their head, how latent heat works, and a whole bunch of other interesting things. Probably be good if you get a few drinks in you, but otherwise...
But meanwhile, Chris, you have not exposed misinterpretation of any of the links I gave, Chris, wouldn't it be appropriate first to expose my scam before talking creationism? Please don't disappoint the bystanders. First beat me before claiming victory.
Egging me on is not going to work, and if they remain disappointed, oh well. Or they can PM me, but I'll not create an impression that your arguments are worth a tenth, eleventh...hundreth round.
I wonder what you do with "rebels" like Thomas Ager. See that be puts question marks at the cooler Younger Dryas? The "hoodlum" elaborates in the study: You may also check this thread to see how this creationistic denier crackpot is trashed around.
Now, Chris, if you go here, checking the last post, you may understand why it is possible to have heated debates about the Younger Dryas, both sides having a point, if you start from the wrong premisses. Again, notice that all we do is comparing peer reviewed publications with hard data. No chance for sneaky oil funded denier spin because everybody can duplicate the same results and I'm more than happy to send the original sources for checking to anybody who is interested.
