Eat that GW believers!

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:19 am

flying_eagle wrote:Alexjrgreen,
You state the obvious about AGW and I agree.
Here is an example of scientists working with the arguments used by skeptics even in this forum of prior cold and warm periods of the last 1000 years. Scientists are just getting better at explaining and modeling the regional differences in weather. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8381317.stm
For me, it is a waste of time trying to convince skeptics. For me, I didn't study science to remain stupid and this idea of AGW is a no-brainer fact. Fact1, On earth, without GHG the average global temp would be down by at least 32C. Venus is hotter due GHG, just as we are. In fact, Venus is slightly hotter than Mercury which is even nearer the sun. Compared to Mercury, Venus is almost twice the distance and receives 1/4 the solar irradiance due to a famous equation. Fact2 we are adding to our level of GHG. Any argument denying these facts just shows being ill-informed. Regarding climate change:
As DOE Dr. Steven Chu said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."
Short summary by NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glo ... ng.html#q1

I have to ask myself what kind of person, after the events of the last week, would continue to believe in the HOCKEY STICK CHART. Have you been paying attention to whats been posted here? The data dump that proved beyond any shadow that what the IPCC crew was producing may have been fraud, but was never science. Hundred of emails outlining in great detail the fraud and deception behind the science. The one thing right you posted is that nobody has their own facts. But the hockey stick guys sure tried. They wanted to lock things up so they could have their own little Socialist paradise and did not care what happened to the rest of us. They went so far as to break the law to keep anybody else from getting a good look at what they were doing. After the data dump we now know why.
All the skeptics ever asked was to get the facts straight. But the AGW cabal could never deal with that. Medieval Warm period didn't fit the hockey stick, make it go away. Solar variation changing temperature, well just lie to the friendly media who didn't bother to question anything the cabal said. Attack the skeptics because they can't get published while making sure the journals are under you thumb. An inconvenient paper gets published make sure that horrible editor gets sacked and make sure that paper never gets used for the all important IPCC report.
This isn't science. It's a mockery of science. If you had truly studied science you would know that. Otherwise, for you, AGW is a religion, not a science. In a real science you welcome questions not attempt to suppress questions as this bunch did. The mere fact that these people acted the way they did should have told you that what they were doing was anything but science. Read all the links I posted and ask yourself if you can still believe in AGW based on a fraud.

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:33 am

More on the web of deception surrounding AGW:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wh ... alarmism-s
I find who is funding realclimate very interesting. The Tides Foundation, which is connected to George Soros. It's amazing to me how quickly we get there.

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:37 am

Jccarlton wrote:More on the web of deception surrounding AGW:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wh ... alarmism-s
I find who is funding realclimate very interesting. The Tides Foundation, which is connected to George Soros. It's amazing to me how quickly we get there.

And still more:
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/mo ... -conflicts

If this were a movie script it would be turned down as too unbelievable.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:47 am

As DOE Dr. Steven Chu said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

Michael Mann would dispute that. If you can make up your own facts (called secret adjustments), keep alternative explanations out of the peer reviewed literature, avoid publishing data sets and methods, and get Journal editors fired it seems like Climate Science is entitled to its own facts.

The whole AGW scam will be unraveling over time. Why? Because of made up data? No. Because nature is not cooperating.

Not one single model predicted that temps would be flat or slightly declining for 10 or 11 years. After all CO2 drives climate and CO2 has been going up.

If the models were designed to predict global warming and not nature there will of course be a divergence.

Hide the decline.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:15 am

And yes Green House gases help keep the Earth warm. And the gas responsible for that? Water vapor. Which is also the #1 atmospheric heat transfer gas. And is also responsible for clouds.

And even the climate scientists admit that water vapor in all its myriad interactions with weather and climate is not well understood.

Suppose the cloud factors are off by 2%. That would make a roughly 1% difference in albedo (say from 42% cloud cover to 43%) which throws the whole rest of the ensemble off.

So the whole prediction of future warming could just be an error.

And if cloud feedback is wrong then it is possible that the whole CO2 furor is due to an error in the amplification factor of the system.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:37 am

MSimon wrote:And if cloud feedback is wrong then it is possible that the whole CO2 furor is due to an error in the amplification factor of the system.

That

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:01 am

flying_eagle wrote:Fact1, On earth, without GHG the average global temp would be down by at least 32C.
Fact2 we are adding to our level of GHG.

Why do AGW supporters keep repeating stuff that is not in dispute as a form of argument.

flying_eagle wrote:Any argument denying these facts just shows being ill-informed.

Well then thank God skeptics aren't denying these facts.

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:53 am

seedload wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:Fact1, On earth, without GHG the average global temp would be down by at least 32C.
Fact2 we are adding to our level of GHG.
Why do AGW supporters keep repeating stuff that is not in dispute as a form of argument.
flying_eagle wrote:Any argument denying these facts just shows being ill-informed.
Well then thank God skeptics aren't denying these facts.

I believe that at the heart of problem why AGW theory is so much denied in technical circles the fact that it expects positive feedback from climate system.

That is something that sounds way too unlikely for anybody who ever studied feedback systems in general... and feedback is something that engineers have to deal with often.

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:21 am

Luzr wrote:
seedload wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:Fact1, On earth, without GHG the average global temp would be down by at least 32C.
Fact2 we are adding to our level of GHG.
Why do AGW supporters keep repeating stuff that is not in dispute as a form of argument.
flying_eagle wrote:Any argument denying these facts just shows being ill-informed.
Well then thank God skeptics aren't denying these facts.
I believe that at the heart of problem why AGW theory is so much denied in technical circles the fact that it expects positive feedback from climate system.

That is something that sounds way too unlikely for anybody who ever studied feedback systems in general... and feedback is something that engineers have to deal with often.

Feedbacks both postive and negative. Yes, it is the current thinking of what happened to Venus.
Please explain to me why the odd holocene stability which is lasting longer than other interglacials? Why are we not on the typical short duration and temperature decline of other past interglacials? Why instead are the glacials still retreating? Hmmm, humans causing some feedback in their activities? Humans have changed their environment, another fact. We are responsible for many species going extinct, again a fact. You can't deny this fact either about us or changing the environment. You don't deny the facts of GHG as you thanked God that skeptics aren't denying that fact. So, you can't deny we are the A part of AGW as well, an idea based on GHG and its level in the atmosphere which we are increasing. Just because the trend is small compared to the variance, doesn't disprove it. Besides that, we as a population are increasing in mass and need of resources. Even engineers know that you can't keep loading a device, at some point the system fails. Surely you are not in denial of these obvious points? We are increasing our change on the environment at an ever accelerating rate. Perhaps, some desire to claim no anthropogenic GW as a convenience for an unsustainable life style. But surely, you are not that person.
In fact, at about 19tons of CO2/per person in the USA, we are part of a top tier of countries, who have a large disparity with the rest of the world which if I remember correctly is globally around 1.3 tons/person. So we are living at a magnitude greater than that average.
Surely readers are not also suggesting we get to Qatar's level of 56 tons/person emission level. Either all must come up to these types of levels of pollution or we all get smart and change our energy system.
I do hope people here will not start also with supporting a non equitable world order. It would be a bit like complaining that you don't need the environment to survive. Instead, I'm hoping they have compassion for others including a desire to maintain a large biodiversity.
Besides AGW, Fossil fuel is like the stone age, something we must learn to do without and like the stones that didn't run out, why wait until the last bit of carbon is burned into the atmosphere before you decide to do something. We are burning it into our atmosphere and over consuming it and both are unsustainable. What is your solution to these problems? Some complain about energy prices if we try now. Surely, you can give more to solve a problem. I'm sure I can count on all of you as a most generous and chariable member of the human society to do your part. Remember you are at a level that is about 10 times that of others. Seems like opportunity abounds to help others. The denial argument is a waste of time for so many reasons.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:24 am

Please explain to me why the odd holocene stability which is lasting longer than other interglacials? Why are we not on the typical short duration and temperature decline of other past interglacials?

Chaos. Natural variation. Land use. Perturbation in the type and amount of solar output (there is no good handle on UV - climate scientists admit that - and UV which can change by quite a lot is not well modeled by climate models).

The whole game was set up to ascribe to CO2 any factor which was otherwise not explained. Not good science - but a working hypothesis. So when some one comes up with an alternative explanation nowadays it is kept out of the literature to the best of the Team's ability.

So you want an explanation? Maybe it was in one of the suppressed papers.

Science paid for out of the public purse should be open source. So it then becomes extremely difficult to Hide The Decline.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:12 pm

flying_eagle wrote:Please explain to me why the odd holocene stability which is lasting longer than other interglacials? Why are we not on the typical short duration and temperature decline of other past interglacials?

How the hell is man made CO2 responsible for the current length of the interglacial?

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:27 pm

seedload wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:Please explain to me why the odd holocene stability which is lasting longer than other interglacials? Why are we not on the typical short duration and temperature decline of other past interglacials?
How the hell is man made CO2 responsible for the current length of the interglacial?

Msimon pointed this out by not using CO2 per se. He indirectly demonstrated a feedback mechanism, Humans changing the environment.
The point is not to be narrow minded and think that CO2 is the entire problem. We are the problem and yes the climate is sensitive to the biosphere as a regulating organism including the regulation of GHG as well. It is well documented how we are changing the environment including GHG levels which now becoming a much larger problem due to the acceleration of it in the atmosphere and concerns for other feedbacks that can and probably will kick in. One must recognize their responsibility in any spaceship designed to carry our ethos.

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:46 pm

[quote=We are the problem and yes the climate is sensitive to the biosphere as a regulating organism including the regulation of GHG as well. It is well documented how we are changing the environment including GHG levels which now becoming a much larger problem due to the acceleration of it in the atmosphere and concerns for other feedbacks that can and probably will kick in. One must recognize their responsibility in any spaceship designed to carry our ethos.[/quote]

Please provide that documentation and references. Real science and not the hockey stick crap. I'm tired of having to do heavy lifting to prove my points while all you provide are airy moralizations. I've got the stuff to backup what I say. Do you?

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:54 pm

The top ten reasons to hate the AGW cabal
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my- ... ge-debate/

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:10 pm

Jccarlton wrote:
Please provide that documentation and references. Real science and not the hockey stick crap. I'm tired of having to do heavy lifting to prove my points while all you provide are airy moralizations. I've got the stuff to backup what I say. Do you?

Jccarlton wrote:The top ten reasons to hate the AGW cabal
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my- ... ge-debate/

Hmmm, Dr Roy Spencer. He believes in intelligent design instead of evolution. Yeah everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Humorous that you chose to use a airy moralists as your witness. Btw, I don't "hate" any who disagree with me.