Global Warming:The Politics and Science of Fear

>> everyone is on your case

pathetic, not one of you has anything meaningful to add to the debate, just all personal insults and threats. Par for the course children, great show of infantile behaviour.

Meanwhile there has been a direct correlation of increased sunshine to increased air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in spring and autumn. It is in these seasons that show the max rises in temperature and throws out the averages. There is no real warming as projected by "scientists"... lackies of Big Oil... oh I forgot I am not allowed to say Big Oil!!!

Rainfall is patchy, some increase, some decrease; certainly no records broken, however water vapour is up and correlated with increased air temperature.

Do you see, this totally negates CO2 as a forcer.

If it was CO2, then
(a) temperature records would be broken in summer.. and other seasons
(b) rainfall records would be broken
(c) sunshine would be lower.

There are too many reasons why CO2 is not THE climate change forcer... and I will not bother debating them with y'all.

Learn some physical chemistry and then y'all may be able to debate like adults.

"The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not one single bit of that rant is even close to being related to the post it's in response to. Not once did I mention CO2 or any other possible/suspected cause of climate change. That post was simply an attempt to show why extreme examples mean absoultely nothing when instead one should be looking at overall averages.

So save your "Par for the course children, great show of infantile behaviour." comments for someone else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whats this got to do with Global Warming?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was a response to madanthony's comment about infectious disease. If you read the thread, you'd know that.

What I find hysterical is that madanthony started this thread about

"Global Warming: the Politics and Science of Fear."

I post a few comments about the record cold/snow which experts say is proof against global warming, and I get infractions. What a crock.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which experts?

 

Once Believers, Now Skeptics:
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, Israel
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, Australia
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty,Canada
Dr. David Bellamy, UK
Climate scientist Dr. Chris N.Z.
There are thousands more...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

 

You are arguing against the existence of global warming using evidence that has nothing to do with global warming. That is why you received an infraction. No credible expert would use freak weather incidents are proof against global warming. What experts are you talking about?

Please read what you post before you use it as evidence of your claims. None of these cited experts use freak incidents of weather to argue against global warming. None of these experts even argue against global warming. It is kind of difficult to argue against an indisputable fact: that the average annual temperature of the Earth has recently risen is undeniably true.

Your cited experts do make several credible arguments. These arguments include questioning whether the observed warming is natural or man-made, whether it is a sustained rise or just a blip in the climate, and whether or not it is inherently bad. These are valid grounds for debating global warming. Freak weather is not.

 

to D H and others critical of Sandy:

Back off a little - think how much less fun the world would be if all young, politically incorrect, hot, dumb blonds were educated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

None of those are diagnostic features of greenhouse gas warming, or even standard predictions necessarily.

You taking his word for his hair color and age?

 

>>> None of those are diagnostic features of greenhouse gas warming

No, indeed not, but they together disprove global warming via greenhouse gases.

Simple, but of course the scientific implications of the above list of greenhouse anomalies is incomprehensible !
learn some physical chemistry.

 

Erm, posted buy URI, not Oli.
Thanks...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dumb

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And 'blond' is a male. 'Blonde' is a female. Duh.
So much for "educated."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I abase myself in shame and apology. And I edit.

They are individually either false or irrelevant, and collectively incoherent. The predictions of greenhouse gas explanation are quite different, and neither supported nor contradicted by either the truth or the falsity of those assertions.

 

Interesting, my posts are being removed.

BigOil really is pushing

I have a copy, no doubt this will be removed as well

Best just visit omegafour.com

Response to
>>> None of those are diagnostic features of greenhouse gas warming >>

The listed diagnostic features DISPROVE CO2 emission forcing of the climate

copy
<<< Established explanations are mere fabrications, computer generations to agree with observations, where the underlying principles of such propaganda are totally contrary to science. Y'all got BigOil in your eyes and you now believe anything at all except the truth.

If greenhouse gases were responsible then
Point 1
(a) temperature records would be broken in summer.. and other seasons

If greenhouse gases were drastically increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere (as claimed), the air temperature in summer would be dramatically advancing.... instead it is remaining relatively normal, the advance in temperature is in autumn and spring.... mainly due to increased sunshine = less cloud density or no cloud at all = more heat to ground level = heating of the air.

Point 2
(b) rainfall records would be broken

No clouds no rain, thus it is observed. An increased heat capacity of the atmosphere as per CO2 emission theory, should increase water vapour over and above mere thermal heat from the increased sunshine, thus more rainfall.

Not seen, rainfall records are not broken anywhere in the world.

Point 3
(c) sunshine would be lower.

Of course if increased rainfall was/is not observed to date, then at least the water vapour content of the atmosphere should be enhanced, yielding more cloud, and less sunshine.

In fact cloud formation is at a minimum and recorded sunshine duration is markedly increasing.

Note: The Northern Hemisphere and the Souther Hemisphere are decoupled in world climate.

The North is comsuming its cold stores of ice, and the sea/land is receiving ice melt, fresh water, which is confusing the humidity monitered. This introduced fresh water will be locked under the oil layer soon.

The South has no such complications, it is just drying and dying.

North's turn very shortly.

novel "The Death of Clouds", gives the prognosis, and what is coming to a place near you, SOON. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

response to post back forum
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66568&page=10 >>>>

 

That is false. Preferential warming of summer days, setting summer daytime heat records etc, is not a necessary prediction of greenhouse gas warming - winter nights are where the greatest effects are predicted. And observed.

False again. The greater heat content of the atmosphere is just as likely to hold the water vapor, rather than allowing it to fall as rain, depending on circumstance. And there is no standard prediction about clouds - this is an area of great uncertainty, and great importance. Increased sunshine is, of course, not a greenhouse prediction at all.

Increased water vapor does not mean more clouds. Again, greenhouse effects make no reliable cloud predictions one way or the other. None. Cloud predictions are a large uncertainty in all climate models to date.

There is quite a bit of ice to melt in the Southern Hemisphere. Ice melt has nothing to do with "confusing the humidity monitored", whatever that means. There is no sign of any "oil layer". There are several couplings of the Northern and Southern hemispheric weather patterns, by ocean currents and such well-known events as "El Nino". The Southern hemisphere acts differently because its polar region is a high continent and most of the rest of it is ocean.

And so forth.

 

>> There is no sign of any "oil layer".

Do some basic research of the published peer reviewed literature before you show just how biased you are.

I oft wonder where some people get the audacity to pass judgment on things they know nothing about.

It is obvious you even have no idea of greenhouse theory.

But rave on lad.... I am outa here.

omegafour.com

 

? Judgment?

Whatever. But if you wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to educate us ignorant folk, I promise to read any relevant link you provide - that I haven't already.

edit in: that means, in the case of an "oil layer", a link to evidence that the petroleaum-derived oil now found everywhere in the ocean is forming a ubiquitous layer at the surface, that this layer is interfering with evaporation or latent heat transfer in some manner that accounts for the measured temperature behaviors (warmer winter nights over the midcontinental US, say), and that therefore this oil should replace greenhouse gas heat trapping as the favored explanation for the observed changes in the temperature regime.

 

What do you think of this story?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2007/06/25/hooey_denier_deniers

 

It's hackwork from a shill.

I think it confuses the existence of global warming with the explanations of it (it presents no clear view of its own), confuses the opinions of columnists such as Ellen Goodman with the opinions of scientific types, lacks any data whatsoever about anything - inclucing the number or percentage of climatologists that agree with its views, whatever they are, the largeness of which which is its only clear claim - and consists mostly of unsupported accusations of bias and academic conspiracy.

It is what it accuses others of being.

There are lots of climate researchers with tenure at major research universities who are in a position to open their mouths, including Reid Bryson's former grad students (he's an old man) and Legate's associates. The article would have been much more impressive had it quoted some of them, in support - but almost all of them think CO2 accumulation is probably driving most of the recent temperature spike, and that legitimate contrary evidence (such as the cosmic ray cloud formation possibility) is and has been treated with respect, funded by grants, etc.

Well duh. Does any scientist anywhere claim there are no natural causes involved, no uncertainty about the size and rate of the spike, etc? The IPCC report put the odds at "90%" for CO2 accumulation being the main cause - that is not enough confidence for a normal scientific conclusion, in a formal paper. Clearly few knowledgeable people are completely certain, here. So ? They're all scientists. They deal in reality, which is never certain.

At least we have another clear statement of the following: essentially no one who knows anything is denying that "the planet" (lower atmosphere) is getting warmer. It's taken years to cut through the propaganda fog of people like Ms Saunders and establish that particualar fact.