Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

[Ivan Seeking]

"Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed. [continued]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html

 

[Andre]

There are a couple of inconsistencies here (or plain lies if you prefer that)

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Check here for the reality. See that the corrected low troposphere temperatures (black) only differ marginally to give a new trend of about 0,123 degrees per decade (old 0,115). Radiosondes are on 0,114, the surface trend in the same period (1979-2005) at around 0,172.

So the accurate situation is that the previous slight warming trend of the lower trophosphere has been corrected to be marginally more, but still less than the surface trend. See this

The correction pertained an artificiality in the tropics when the satelites pass the equator. This also means that the larger local difference on the northern hemisphere is not changed.

So the suggestion of erroneous cooling in the article is a plain wrong strawman. This is how the public is misinformed continuously.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So the suggestion of erroneous cooling in the article is a plain wrong strawman. This is how the public is misinformed continuously.

Strawman: A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

These published reports are intended to be easily refuted? Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why do you mask your links?

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

But we all know that global warming causes global cooling! http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html

It's too bad you're into harassing and insulting members rather than in having serious discussions. It could be fun and even illuminating. Oh, well. Good luck.

 

[Andre]

Ivan,

I'm not aware that "look here" is masking links, I still think it's a error not to allow for the feature, otherwise the graphs would have stared directly in your face, like here:

unmasked link: [PLAIN]http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23074&start=1

where you can follow the discussion about this in detail. With this information it may be clear that ...

While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

...is a straw man (masked link).

Nobody has ever suggested that the lower trophosphere is cooling, although before the big 1998 El Nino the lower troposphere (MSU2 LT) was just about trendless.

BTW The lower stratosphere (MSU-4) is indeed cooling, which is undisputed by any party, whilst the global warmers love to explain this as caused by enhanced radiation due to more greenhouse gasses. So the reporter is mixing things up to serve his case. Needless to say that the slighter lower warming trend of the lower troposphere still refutes the enhanced greenhouse gas forcing hypothesis.

 

[iansmith]

Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming

The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century.

Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere

The month-to-month variability of tropical temperatures is larger in the troposphere than at the Earth's surface. This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations, and is consistent with basic theory. On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset. Other observations show weak or even negative amplification. These results suggest that either different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal timescales, and models fail to capture such behavior, or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational datasets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to the surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with to that found in surface temperature and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

these are the abstract of the article in question. These have been publish in the Science Express of August 11 2005.
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciencexpress/recent.shtml

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,

I'm not aware that "look here" is masking links,

It helps everyone to see where the information is coming from. To me it seems misleading considering that the source is everything. When I see a page full of links like this, here, and, as opposed to ****.edu, ***.noaa, ***.gov, etc, it makes me wonder. Frankly, this alone makes me suspicious of the credibility of the links. I would think that you would prefer to be up front with your sources.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,

But we all know that global warming causes global cooling! http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041217_sealevel_rise.html

It's too bad you're into harassing and insulting members rather than in having serious discussions. It could be fun and even illuminating. Oh, well. Good luck.

Could you be more specific? I wasn't aware that I had insulted anyone.

I also see the word "strawman" used improperly as the norm here now.

 

[Tide]

Gladly - since you asked!

You: "Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?"

That's rude. Posturing yourself in a discussion or debate evades the issues and isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism in science.

You: "Why do you mask your links?"

In addition to being unwarranted and off-topic it implies deceit on the part of the poster and appears intended to call into question the veracity of the member without addressing the technical issues at hand. Besides, any regular user of the web knows she can plainly see the URL by passing the mouse pointer over the link and does so routinely.

If you are still unable to discern the offense in your comments then I advise some serious reflection and introspection.

In my experience, people tend to choose the path of ridicule, ad hominem attack and insult when they have run out of valid and legitimate debating points. Of course, I assume it's simply a momentary lapse in judgment in your case.

By the way, your lapse caught my attention because of your Oppenheimer quote: "There is no place for dogma in science"

Robert would have been the last person to stifle debate and adopt a dogmatic posture. This is particularly important with regard to climate change and one should recognize the importance of questioning the validity of the data, models and theory behind it.

 

[Andre]

Anyway look at the bottom of the graph.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/jonesmsu52.gif

Perhaps notice the sources of the data. Unfortunately the predecessor of MSU-2LT, the dataset tltglhmam_5.1 is no longer on the net but I'm sure that Spencer and Christy (S&C) will make it available. You can have my set.

Unlike the global warmers like Mann and Jones having a hard time to reveal data, methods and dealing with critique, it may be noted that S&C have always given full access to all data, models and algoritms, and upon critique, acknowlegded the error, credited the discoverers and published prompt corrections.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gladly - since you asked!

I did.

You: "Have you considered reading them before dismissing them?"

That's rude. Posturing yourself in a discussion or debate evades the issues and isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism in science.

It seemed relevant to me. And I'm not debating anything.

You: "Why do you mask your links?"

In addition to being unwarranted and off-topic it implies deceit on the part of the poster and appears intended to call into question the veracity of the member without addressing the technical issues at hand. Besides, any regular user of the web knows she can plainly see the URL by passing the mouse pointer over the link and does so routinely.

Well, I see this tactic used by people who are giving misleading information or trying to hide the source, so this always sets off an alarm for me.

If you are still unable to discern the offense in your comments then I advise some serious reflection and introspection.

In my experience, people tend to choose the path of ridicule, ad hominem attack and insult when they have run out of valid and legitimate debating points. Of course, I assume it's simply a momentary lapse in judgment in your case.

When people who in all likelihood are good and honest scientist are called liars due to their published reports and most likely, highly qualified interpretation of those reports, I consider this a huge lapse in judgement. To call them strawmen is flat out laughable.

By the way, your lapse caught my attention because of your Oppenheimer quote: "There is no place for dogma in science"

Robert would have been the last person to stifle debate and adopt a dogmatic posture. This is particularly important with regard to climate change and one should recognize the importance of questioning the validity of the data, models and theory behind it.

I think the word "lies" pretty much set the tone for dogma.

 

[Andre]

Well, this:

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

Previous data (MSU 2LT version 5.1) showed warming as well, only a little less. So introducing a wrong statement is an essential first part of the strawman. And what is the difference between a wrong statement and a lie?

 

[Andre]

Anyway, for all those who think that global warming is merely a mild dispute, the real war is imminent:

Newspeak versus science.

http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/blog/?p=30

 

[Tide]

Ivan,

Well, I see this tactic used ...

Well, then let's all stoop to their level! ;)

 

[deckart]

So, this Global Warming "problem" is really just bolangne? Most people you ask believe it's significant reality.

 

[scrappychic]

I don't think that it is bologna. Are we allowed to quote published journal articles on this website? Or is that a copyright violation? I would be happy to comment on some studies.

 

[Tide]

scrappy,

Please do! :)

 

[Andre]

Here we go again. The world is warming so we have to cut our greenhouse emissions

Remember there are several questions.

Is the world warming up?

Is this warming unusual and unprecedent?

To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?

Can we do anything?

Must we do anything?

 

[deckart]

It's interesting. We simply live as humans and therefore (so many suggest) the world has become "off balance", and somehow we are altering nature... as if we aren't "natural" just being human beings. We are not so significant that we can change the Earth beyond it's ability to do what it has done for eons!

I'm not condoning irresponsiblity here, but come on, people!

Andre, you are a breath of reality concerning this subject. You have demonstrated extreme patience in this forum.

I'm just floored by some of the things people are convinced of here.

 

[PaulD]

Here we go again. The world is warming so we have to cut our greenhouse emissions

Remember there are several questions.

Is the world warming up?

Is this warming unusual and unprecedent?

To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?

Can we do anything?

Must we do anything?

Hi Andre,
I quite agree with your analysis of the situation,however "to answer a question one has to first know the question" which too often is not addressed.
"Is the world warming up"? relative to what time scale? If the period referred to is the past 10 years then the answer is probably yes.

"Is this warming unusual and unprecedent"? Compared to what? I feel there may well have been periods in the Earth's history when warming has been more "unuaual", however if you look at the last century, it probably is unusual.

"To what extend can that warming be attributed to which causes?"( you yourself have answered the first question here) If anyone can answer this at this moment in time then they deserve a nobel prize !

"Can we do anything?" Similar to the previous answer, however,IF AGW is present and IF carbon emissions etc are to blame we are taking a huge gamble by doing nothing. Once upon a time it was considered quite normal to dump effluent into rivers, canals and lakes (and the sea) until it was noted that the environment was becoming polluted almost beyond repair. Once again a big IF but can we really afford to take this chance of gambling with natural cycles.

"Must we do anything?" The big question, "must" sounds as if we are assuming that we are culpable. Had you said "should" i would say yes.

Nearly all the posts I read re GW, people are too quick too use the very limited, short term data we have to swing either on the pro or anti GW side. I was in the middle, now erring on the GW side. As for AGW, I think it is possible and cannot be ignored, purely from the point that if it is true it will actually be too late by the time it can be confirmed.

From a factual point of view I share your views, but wether I would share them in 5 or 55 years time remain to be seen.

Regards,
Paul D...Guernsey

 

[Andre]

Is this warming unusual and unprecedent"? Compared to what?

That's the key question. Is it unusual? To know that you have to study paleo climate, which I have been doing for several years. In there is the key answer.

Now take for instance the current minimum Arctic Sea Ice. Is global warming on a http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece ?

A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years. ... cont'd

Now what would you think if fed continously with this type of red alert messages? Is this really a fact? There seems to be no trace of doubt that we are on the brink of disaster. However, let's have a closer look into the recent history. Somebody found this old letter:

It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past inclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated.

Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vesell from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues (a league is 3 miles) of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The same person who has never been before able to penetrate to the westward of the Meridian of Greenwich in these latitudes was this year able to proceed to 10°, 30'W where he saw the coast of East Greenland and entertained no doubt of being able to reach the land had not his duty to his employers made it necessary for him to abandon the undertaking.

This, with information of a similar nature derived from other sources; the unusual abundance of ice islands that have during the last two summers been brought by currents from Davies Streights (sic) into the Atlantic. The ice which has this year surrounded the northern coast of Ireland in unusual quantity and remained there unthawed till the middle of August, with the floods which have during the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also tot he future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817..

Confirmed here:

...Whilst on this voyage in 1817, Scoresby visited Jan Meyen island, surveying the land, geology and wildlife and he found that the longitude and latitude were incorrect, naming the spot where they had landed, "Jameson Bay". He also noted a remarkable diminution of the polar ice, allowing penetration to within sight of Greenland's East coast.

So I don't even have to point at similar situations around 900 AD at the hight of the Medieval Warming Period or the early Holocene thermal maximum, when the trees grew at the beaches of the Arctic ocean, high in northern Siberia.

This makes you wonder why this unprecedent scaremongering is so necesary. Journalists wanting firm catchy head lines? Scientists who want to secure their fundings for further studies? If they only would have known about the recent past, they would not even bother to worry. Yet with this kind of approach climate science is in a slippery slope upwards in a continuous circle until disaster seems imminent. However, with this kind of unfounded activism the world is heading for a completely different antropogenic disaster, spending googillions for nothing and be totally unprepared for the real problems that we're facing.

 

[PaulD]

Thank you for that Andre, a fascinating excerpt from the RS you have found there.
After agreeing with just about all you say I have to be a little contentious with "what if the natural cycle is positively affected by human intervention?"
There are so many "ifs" that one can only make best judgements I know. Would you say that the recent (last 3 years) darmatically increased trend in global warming is similar to previous warmings, just a blip, unreliable in source or what ??
Regards
Paul D...Guernsey

 

[Andre]

Sorry Paul, for overlooking your question.

If you look at the last years, we actually see more or less a level off after the warmest year 1998. So the real warming happened in the last decade as of about 1990.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/aug/global.html#Temp

If 1998 was indeed the warmest or if 2003 had the warmest summer in Europe is unsure . There is a good case for 1540. Advise to have a good look at http://members.lycos.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsluterbacher.htm

There seems to be no indication that anything unusual is happening. The panic for a sudden dramatic climate change is largely based on http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html . It was a completely different story.

 

[Mk]

Three papers published in the Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics’ argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth’s surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (the original estimate was 0.35, may I not that is a 50% error, there's a big difference from a fight on a test and a one hundred) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics’ argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth’s surface, similar warming isn’t happening in the trophosphere. This unsimilarity is caused by the urban heat island effect.

It is well known that changes in land use will cause changes in average ground temperature. Cities are hotter than the surroundign countryside - the urban heat island effect. Croplands are warmer than forested lands, and so on. A high percentage of weather stations that were out in the countryside forty years ago are now surrounded by concrete and skyscrapers and asphalt and so on. Which makes them register warmer. These facts are very well known within the field, of course. There is no controversy.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/HighTemps/UrbanProfile.gif
What is controversial about these heat islands is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends in [global] temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature trend is small to negligible—see below. So researchers take the raw temperature data from stations near cities and reduce them by some amount to compensate for the urban heat island effect. This reduction is calculated in different ways, depending on who does it. Most algorithms are based on population size. Population is proportional to the amount subtracted.

Sounds good but it isn't. R. Bohm studied Vienna in 1998. Vienna has had no increase in population since 1950, but it has more than doubled its energy use, and increased living and commercial space substantially. The urban heat island effect is much stronger, but calculated reduction is unchanged, because it only looks at population change.

It used to be assumed that urban heating was unimportant because the effect was only a fraction of total warming. The planet warmed about .3 degrees C in the last thirty years. Citites are typically assumed to have heated around .1 degrees C. The Chinese report that Shanghai has warmed 1 degrees C in the last twenty years. That's more than the entire global warming of the planet in the last hundred years. "Between 1987 and 1999, the mean nighttime surface temperature heat island of Houston increased 0.82 ± 0.10 degrees C." says D. R. Steutker, in Remote Sensing of Environment. Manchester, England, is now 8 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside.*

The average temperature of Pasadena, Calafornia, went from 62 degrees F in 1930, to 65.5 F in 2000. LA has about 14,531,000 people. The average temperature of Berkeley, CA, with only 6,250,000 people, from 1930 to 2000 has increased .5 degrees F. Death Valley, CA, with no urbanization, from 1932-2000 has increased .15 degrees F. In smalltown McGill, NV, from 1930 to 2000, it went from average 48 to 47. Guthrie, OK went from 60.5 to 59.9. Boulder, where NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research, where a lot of global warming research is done), has gone down half a degree. Turman, MO went down two and a quarter! Charleston, South Carolina went up over half a degree, and New York City went up 1 degree. Cities in New York with less urbanization such as Syracuse, Albany, Oswego and Westpoint, went down 1.5, 1.2, 1, and .35 degrees. And if you go back allllll the wayyyy from 1826, to 2000, then you will find the line actually rises steadily... about 0 degrees F. Its a horizontal line. New York went up 5.2 degrees F, and Albany went down half a degree in 180 years.

We know CO2, the gas everyone is worrying about, has increased the same amount everywhere in the world. And its effect is presumably pretty much the same everywhere in the world. That's where the term "global" warming comes from. But New York and Albany are only one hundred and forty miles apart, you can drive from New York to Albany in three hours. Their carbon dioxide levels are identical. But somehow New York's temperature went up 5 degrees, a temperature increase that would kill many species, while across the street it got colder a little bit. In the last 180 years, New York has grown to seismic proportions, about 8 million people, whereas Albany has grown to quite less.

The urban heat island effect makes cities hotter than the surrounding countryside; and this is a local effect, completely unrelated to global warming. In this case, we used all raw temperature data, and it is tainted by the very scientists who claim global warming is a worldwide crisis. It is adjusted downward, but the question is: Is it adjusted down enough? It is never a good policy for the fox to guard the henhouse. Such procedures are never allowed in medicine, where double-blind experimental designs are required.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth’s surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrenhce Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies’ authors, told USA Today that, “Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models.”

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists?

University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade - higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are “not a big deal.”

“Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend - and it isn’t,” says Singer. “Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values - and they clearly don’t... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling,” adds Singer.

 

[Andre]

Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth’s surface.

Have a look here

See the dark blue line? That was the sceptics weapon. Now look at the light blue line. That's the correction made. Several of those corrections have been made like that, which never got any press.

What is going on?

More discussions http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23074&start=1

 

[Blahness]

How long would it be until the Ice caps "Melted", if ever?

Teacher says 100 years, and I know for a fact he's wrong.

 

[pattylou]

Hello again Andre. I am told that insulted you in another thread, just so you know. It wasn't intended in an insulting way, I was attacking the content of your posts, not you as a person. Thus, I haven't edited the content. But apparently it reads as an insult.

At present I take issue with this:

Well, this:

Quote:
The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

Previous data (MSU 2LT version 5.1) showed warming as well, only a little less. So introducing a wrong statement is an essential first part of the strawman. And what is the difference between a wrong statement and a lie?

Your position on this leads me to ask: Have you read the articles that were cited from Science?

This is not intended as posturing on my part, it just seems from your comment that you haven't, as the thrust of the third abstract from Ian's post (and initially mentioned in Ivans link and titled "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature" ) is precisely that the troposphere is warming in the tropics.

The entire basis for this paper is that corrections that should have been made, were not (as far as I understand the paper.) When the corrections are made, warming is demonstrated, and it is considerable. Get your hands on a copy of Science (September 2 issue), and look at figure one on page 1549.

Have you read the paper?

 

[pattylou]

How long would it be until the Ice caps "Melted", if ever?

Teacher says 100 years, and I know for a fact he's wrong.

How do you know this?

Try it this way: How much ice have we lost on our ice caps in the last 20 years?

 

[pattylou]

This makes you wonder why this unprecedent scaremongering is so necesary. Journalists wanting firm catchy head lines? Scientists who want to secure their fundings for further studies? If they only would have known about the recent past, they would not even bother to worry. Yet with this kind of approach climate science is in a slippery slope upwards in a continuous circle until disaster seems imminent. However, with this kind of unfounded activism the world is heading for a completely different antropogenic disaster, spending googillions for nothing and be totally unprepared for the real problems that we're facing.

Who is scaremongering now?

Show me where *any* head of *any* country is talking about spending googillions to address climate change.

The recommendations from the concerned scientists and other groups are:

(1) Develop alternative energies (create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil)

(2) Reduce emissions at a steady pace (through hybrid technologies, hydrogen cells, in other words see #1)

(3) Sustain habitat (maintain biodiversity, which has benefits for health and tourism and other industries ... here's an abstract on how an unusual frog may help in the fight against AIDS:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050829204919data_trunc_sys.shtml . Also, this maintains the carbon sink a little better.)

... How are these sorts of things "bad?" Or scaremongering?

Please find me a reference that demonstrates scaremongering coming from the "green" side of this debate. Not the news, or from politicians...

Find me an environmentalist who is scaremongering.

I guarantee you I can find scaremongering from the oil industry, designed to make it look like the greens are demanding outrageous changes.. Want me to?

 

[Andre]

A lot of questions, enough for a week worth of work and I also need time for family and the job

You wonder about my productivity. That's easy, I live in http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm and what I post is not my single spin but copy pasting the result of a several dozens of meteorologic and climate specialists.

If you wonder why (since you seem to be convinced that I'm worlds nr one public enemy), I only wanted to solve the riddle of the mammoth extinction after the discovery of the Jarkov Mammoth in 1999. And I think we might have.

I got this mail from one of my mammoth friends today:

Dear Andre,

I just returned from the USA and Mexico. I just want to let you know that the presentation of Ballard & Bijkerk at the World of Elephants congress, held in Hot Springs, S.D., was GREAT. Joanne did a wonderful job and I enjoyed the presentation (very professional) very much, as did other people to whom I have spoken. My congratulations!

However, the investigation process brought me quickly into the climate hype and I could easy see that the assertion from paleoclimate that triggered the global warming hype, (the discovery of the Younger Dryas) was plainly and utterly wrong. The shear ignorance respectively vigorous denial of the existence of the Mammoth steppe was symbolic for that.

Nevertheless the misperception of the Younger Dryas is the sole and only cause of the runaway catastrophic climate change hype preached by Alley, Overpeck, Hansen, et al. but it never did. Read the mammoth thread.

yes I have read the three papers and can see exactly how those are misquoted by sensation press. Perhaps open a link or so and see the real scope of those corrections.

note that I may have not been clear enough here:

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

The previous data (UAH5.1) did NOT show cooling. Please click a link every now and then:

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/UAH5152RSSFU.gif

It's merely the difference between UAH5.1 and UAH5.2 A few hundreds of a degree on global scale, barely noticable but in the press it's all over, we finally know that we're encountering catastrophic warming. Doom to the sceptics, long live the victory of the climate scaremongers.

This is what makes me sooooooo sad.

Anyway, since reason has lost the battle for climate and we have to operate underground in the resistance I merely try to expose how the climate alarmistDemagogy works. Ad honimem your opponents and appeal to nobel human "I-m-a-good-person-and-I-want-to-help-saving-the-world-from-our-scandalous-behavour" characteristics.

We have been talking scientific methods. Please use them to analyse the real methods of the global warmers.

A bit help for that here:

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php

Of course we must stop using depleting fossil fuels. No doubt about that, but a right cause shall not be based on a lie or it will backfire.

 

[pattylou]

(since you seem to be convinced that I'm worlds nr one public enemy).

Again, let's be clear. I am not attacking you. I am disagreeing with the content of your posts. Comments such as the quote above do not serve this type of discussion. Let's try to stay focused and data-based.

 

[pattylou]

Anyway, since reason has lost the battle for climate and we have to operate underground in the resistance I merely try to expose how the climate alarmistDemagogy works. Ad honimem your opponents and appeal to nobel human "I-m-a-good-person-and-I-want-to-help-saving-the-world-from-our-scandalous-behavour" characteristics.

(1)Please show me an environmentalist who is using these tactics. I can certainly find the oil industry as part and parcel of your 'home' (one link I clicked.)

(I hope you aren't claiming that I am attacking you with ad hominen!)

Part 2 is actually the meat of my response. I am going to set it off in a new post so as to emphasize it.

 

[pattylou]

(2)Thank you for telling me that you have read the articles.

yes I have read the three papers and can see exactly how those are misquoted by sensation press. Perhaps open a link or so and see the real scope of those corrections.

Please provide the relevant link.

Note here, that I am not discussing the "sensation press." I am discussing the abstract of the paper. The paper claims quite clearly:

we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite derived of middle-upper tropospheric temperature

Which stands in stark contrast to your statement:

The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

... boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

(Thanks for addressing this in your recent post.)

*Nowhere* am I introducing the press into this discussion. Instead of telling me how the paper was "misquoted by the press," please explain to me why the claim:

we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite derived of middle-upper tropospheric temperature

does not hold up. That's all. Why is the new analysis wrong? (Not"Why is the press sensationalistic.")

(3)

quoted by Andre: It's merely the difference between UAH5.1 and UAH5.2 A few hundreds of a degree on global scale, barely noticable but in the press it's all over, we finally know that we're encountering catastrophic warming. Doom to the sceptics, long live the victory of the climate scaremongers.

I'm pretty green (wouldn't you agree?), a staunch environmentalist, and the first I saw of this was in our Science magazine yesterday morning. I haven't seen it in the press, at all. My personal experience in no way matches your claim. You're crying "foul" in order to... appeal to emotions of people? I just - don't understand it.

Still, "A few hundreds of a degree on global scale"It is good to see you acknowledge the warming.


See, now, I've spent a good twenty minutes on this post alone and I have to be getting the kids ready for school. I hope you're well, Andre.

 

[Andre]

Please show me an environmentalist who is using these tactics

two seconds:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee (Environment and Public Works), on science facts--in this case, the facts behind climate change. The author in question? None other than our old friend, Michael Crichton whom we've had reason to mention before (see here and here).

"He is jerk so he is wrong."

 

[pattylou]

Thank you... 2 seconds back -

two seconds:

http://www.realclimate.org/

I clicked on the link ... who is the environmentalist in this picture? (Inhofe? Crichton?) In what way did he use the scaremongering tactics that prompted my question in the first place? No *transcript* is provided from Crichton's appearance. I have no idea what he said!

Again, please show me an environmentalist who uses scaremongering. This will require (1) that the person you cite is indeed an environmentalist (Is Crichton? I have no idea) and (2) demonstration of the scaremongering (like a transcript saying the sorts of things you implied the greens promoting, earlier in the thread.) I maintain that the disinformation (and the planted idea that greens are promoting panic) is coming from the oil lobby, not the environmentalists.

"He is jerk so he is wrong."

It appeared to me, that the problem ... is with calling a science fiction author to discuss climate change (with the senate, no less.). I don't think Crichton's a jerk or not a jerk. I have enjoyed his books, as fiction, but that is hardly reason to have any idea as to his leaning wrt environmental issues, or whether he scaremongers or not. Thanks again, I'm off for a few hours now.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Where did I go?

LD
Hey! who stole my post?? WHO STOLE MY POST Rotten sodder I'll get 'em, or turtle will, when he gets back, anyway, here it is as it was[/color]


It would appear to me that the tendency of recent Accountings of the Increase in the number of Catagorey Four and Five storms/hurricanes is indicative of the planetary atmosphere attempting to cool by the driving of the Warmer sea surface temperatures upward to the Higher altitudes, there to cool by radience of the stored heat, so it indicative of an increase in the Blending rates.

The Idea though must contain the Atmospheric pollutants that are accumulated, as, even if there isn't a Greater danger now then ever before in History, the changes we have undertaken in emplacement of Housing and Cities-Towns exposes much greater numbers to effects of more active climate situations, and the Smog, as evidenced by Horizon line coverage indicates that 'affectations' are taking on greater spatial occupations then perhaps had been previously thought, not just heat sinks in the cities, but out 'into the reaches' as well.

Good thread though.

LD
Ou Sont Les[/color] Lapine[/color]? "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" Il pleurer[/color]

 

[Andre]

Smart tactics PattyLou and a well known red herring, the fallacy of the restricted choice. You used it earlier asking me to find a political leader who would say anything about economic things. I have a few dozen economists available, but you would immediately reply that I did not comply with your restricted choice.

Therefore let's see what main world leader battling global warming T Blair has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796800,00.html

Tony Blair has hinted Britain may pull out of attempts to draw up a successor to the Kyoto climate treaty because the economic price of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is too high.

Now, back to realclimate, those writers Mann and Schmidt are climate scientists, the first one is nominated for the Guiness Book of World Records for his record number of ad hominems, And indeed they are not environmentalists so if they use an ad hominem ad circumstance, it doesn't count and I have failed to comply. Hence I'm wrong

Chrichton BTW holds degrees. He is medical doctor so he knows about scientific methods and he also knows very well what is going on in the scientific word of climate science.

So the abundance of fallacies supports the general understanding that there is no scientific basis for any theory of AGW (other than marginal which I agree to) but there is no supporting proof as well. So all what the global warmers can do is revert to red herrings and models, that play no role in the scientific method. Which also gives the impression winning discussions with fallacy tricks is much more important than finding the truth.

For instance:

we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite derived of middle-upper tropospheric temperature

Which stands in stark contrast to your statement:

Quote:
The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

... boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

The fallacy here is strawman. My quote is a repetition of the opening post, which is intended to support the title of the thread “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates", but you make it sound that it is used against the abstract of one the articles and then slam me for it. A perfect strawman.

Now if we study the numbers in detail we only find that it is all about minor adjustments, which need to be sensationalized to "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates" because that is what this thread is all about. Not about the content of those articles but about “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates” So the trick is to stretch the truth abit: “….not cooling as the data previously showed” and produce a lie in the process. I’m only exposing liers. Since for the third time: the previous data ALSO showed warming. Nobody is claiming that previous data showed cooling. I do wonder what is Chinese about that

But then again in only twenty minutes it must be quite hard to comprehend what a non native tongue intends to say.

So why is the reporter using that line? To initiate another strawman. Make believe that previous data showed something completely different to try and substantiate his overstatement: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

I can certainly find the oil industry as part and parcel of your 'home'

Now why would that be so interesting? I’m really looking forward discussing oil companies

Now finally, my return restricted choice question is please find me a baker (knows all about warming) who proofs that global warming is mainly caused by human activities (but any climatologist is okay too).

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Don't know about the argument evaporating, but the sheer volume of people using energy sources daily outstrips anything in Historical record for (natural) additions of, or to, Heat, or heating values.

!% added to what the Sun gives us, that is in addition to the Suns' donation, and it is perpetuated every single day, that 'adding' is telling, over time, no doubt.

Conservation of energy, or heat, rules.

 

[Andre]

C’est vrai Lapin, However I’ve seen calculations somewhere that the anthropogenic energy to atrophy conversion is some hundreds or so orders of magnitude lower than the solar energy.

Anyway, I found a Swedish article in my house:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/debatt/story/0,2789,705588,00.html

author: http://www.gvc.gu.se/geovetarcentrum/PERSONAL/WallinGosta.htm

So what does the header say?

Do not blame on carbon dioxide
Gösta Walin: Those the violence suckling hurricanes as ravaged is horrible but can meagreliest to be related to the increased greenhouse effect

I think the gist is clear, albeit that “meagreliest” appears to be the result of a rather liberal interpretation of the English idiom.

How about this:

Hotelser om fler och starkare stormar, översvämmningar på grund av mer koldioxid som vi dagligen serveras är tagna ur luften. Tvärtom så bör den förväntade något jämnare temperaturen minska risken för busväder. Hotelser om fler och starkare stormar, översvämmningar på grund av mer koldioxid som vi dagligen serveras är tagna ur luften. Tvärtom så bör den förväntade något jämnare temperaturen minska risken för busväder.

becomes:

Threats about more and stronger blows a gale, översvämmningar because of more carbon dioxide that we daily to be waited on is taken from the air. However so, some the expected more even temperature should decrease the risk for mischief weathers.

”översvämmningar” is anybodies guess, personally I would go for inundations, whilst ”taken from the air” does not seem to indicate a strong relationship. Apparently the more equal temperatures should reduce those perils.

Now the start of the next paragraph:

Which is then the alarmistiska the arguments? With gigantic computer models, one tries to pretend the climate's development. The result farms to show on hotter future, sometime high-temperature. The results are called projections (projektioner) or scenarios (scenarier), which means that the forecast value is “obefintligt” (lacking?). I see the most as a rash of quantity habit mind to believe that the climate can be projected in a computer.

The last sentence puzzles me, perhaps something like: “I consider
it a substantial carelessness to believe that climate can be properly imaged by a computer” ?

So what is his conclusion?

Culture area delivers a hypothesis that to be caught up of ideologiska forces, the in front environmentalism that carries out effective lobbyism. The mass mediums follow up and since is the only for the politicians to correct in itself in the stage. The truth is thereby conclusive. The that balances object becomes idiot explained or scolded in order to be bought.

Ways halts for that life hostile bill corporal punishment breath, you that has power to influence. Experiments see the positive with more carbon dioxide and calm down your, the climate can nevertheless not to be governed.

Dear me. Babel fishes are not the answer. The first word “Vetenskapare” sounds more like “wetenschap” in Dutch, which is “science”, not culture. So what does he mean? The gist of the article and some free interpretations could get us something like:

Science produces a hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warning) which is grasped by ideological movements, headed by the environmentalists lead
who are highly skilled in lobbying. Media follow suit and politicians have no choice to adapt to the wishes of the people. Thus, truth is established
and those who dare to oppose objectively are declared either idiots or greedy traitors with special interests.

whoever has the power to influence, stop the crime (?) propaganda(?) against life. Try to see the positive side of carbon dioxide and calm down. There is no way that mankind could ever control climate.

I see now that he is retired (professor emeritus). Is that the reason that he jumped off the bandwagon? No more risk of loosing his position/budgets/ etc when really speaking up and giving a honest opinion?

I expect him in our house soon. But the members should express themselves more in the open, get rid of the World War II- like illegal underground status. Good job Gösta Walin!

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Forgive me but it sounds a little bit like the scientists who insisted that we could never damage the oceans as they were simply Too Vast, he was clearly very wrong.

As for the heat values I had heard that adding 1% of the Solar input to the planets heating would make a difference, then again just look at all of the bleached and bleaching corrals around the Center, the equator and the rest of the Worlds Oceans Thousands of years old, and now? Heat death?

Sorry but I prefer to realize that all of the heating that six Billion people can accoplish on a regular, and daily, basis doesn't just 'vanish into thin air' slower when it is thicker air I might add.

Nice reading you though, good sources, good sense, sort of just that we apparently differ as I seem to see that the situation is different that ever before, in History, due to the Sheer Number of People living today, so the effects can have much larger consequences.

6 Billion people, everyday, making at least One fire, can you see the smoke, or the horizon? for that matter?

 

[Mk]

MOOOO

*I'm a cow whose destroying the Earth with farts. *

(nice post #40 Andre!) :!)

 

[Lapin Dormant]

LD
Once again someone stole my post, who keeps stealing these posts?[/color]

Look a Condescending Derision! the last intellectual argument of an intellectual who has no arguement.

*I'm a cow...

At Least your an Honest Condescending Derisionist

LD
Seen leaving the scene, in a Hurry « (≈ Zooooooooom » but Please let it stand this time. otherwise your demonstrating yourselves as Prejudice and Intolerant[/color]

 

[pattylou]

Smart tactics PattyLou and a well known red herring, the fallacy of the restricted choice. You used it earlier asking me to find a political leader who would say anything about economic things. I have a few dozen economists available, but you would immediately reply that I did not comply with your restricted choice.

Therefore let's see what main world leader battling global warming T Blair has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796800,00.html



Now, back to realclimate, those writers Mann and Schmidt are climate scientists, the first one is nominated for the Guiness Book of World Records for his record number of ad hominems, And indeed they are not environmentalists so if they use an ad hominem ad circumstance, it doesn't count and I have failed to comply. Hence I'm wrong

Chrichton BTW holds degrees. He is medical doctor so he knows about scientific methods and he also knows very well what is going on in the scientific word of climate science.

So the abundance of fallacies supports the general understanding that there is no scientific basis for any theory of AGW (other than marginal which I agree to) but there is no supporting proof as well. So all what the global warmers can do is revert to red herrings and models, that play no role in the scientific method. Which also gives the impression winning discussions with fallacy tricks is much more important than finding the truth.

For instance:



The fallacy here is strawman. My quote is a repetition of the opening post, which is intended to support the title of the thread “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates", but you make it sound that it is used against the abstract of one the articles and then slam me for it. A perfect strawman.

Now if we study the numbers in detail we only find that it is all about minor adjustments, which need to be sensationalized to "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates" because that is what this thread is all about. Not about the content of those articles but about “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates” So the trick is to stretch the truth abit: “….not cooling as the data previously showed” and produce a lie in the process. I’m only exposing liers. Since for the third time: the previous data ALSO showed warming. Nobody is claiming that previous data showed cooling. I do wonder what is Chinese about that

But then again in only twenty minutes it must be quite hard to comprehend what a non native tongue intends to say.

So why is the reporter using that line? To initiate another strawman. Make believe that previous data showed something completely different to try and substantiate his overstatement: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"



Now why would that be so interesting? I’m really looking forward discussing oil companies

Now finally, my return restricted choice question is please find me a baker (knows all about warming) who proofs that global warming is mainly caused by human activities (but any climatologist is okay too).

This isn't how the sequence in this thread reads to me at all Andre.

Here is how the sequence reads to me. You make claims without backing them up. I ask you to back them up. You don't. You may provide something that doesn't address my question at all (the crichton reference, for example), and so I point out that you are not understanding the sequence I am enumerating ... and can you please try to address the question. At this point you start pointing fingers at me and saying "well known fallacy, red herring, etc etc" and you *still* don't answer the question.

I re-entered this particular conversation because somebody appeared to think that you represent some sort of largely held view, and they seemed impressed with your quantities of acronyms and references. There seemed to be a sense (to me) that this was seen as authority on the topic. By your own admission, you get it from "Climateskeptic.org," a bit of an information clearinghouse for those who *want* to see the skeptical viewpoint. In other words, there *may* be a bit of bias there!

If what you say truly "makes sense" to others, (and I trust those individuals to decide for themselves if your posts are truly sensible or not) then I am happy for you and for them.

But if your posts merely make them feel good about things, ("oh good, all the warming reports are just sensationalism, because Andre 'obviously knows what he's talking about'" ... which I take to mean that you put up something that looks informed --- but as soon as I start to visit your links ... it's like wading into a morasse of nonsequiturs to the discussion at hand.) then I would like to point out to those readers that they should apply their own reasoning skills and perhaps do their own research into the literature.

Frankly, your posts don't sound to me like you 'know what you are talking about.' No offense, I am the first to admit I could be wrong. But they have never sounded to me like you know what youare talking about. I simply can't follow your chain of comments, not at all. I have found the links of yours that I have followed, to be incomplete and unsatisfactory. I have a good amount of education, (PhD), and read Science regularly, and I have only a little trouble following the Science articles that deal with climate change. This leaves me with the rather uncomfortable conclusion that I *should* be able to follow your discussion... and yet, I can't! Either the entire scientific community has dumbed down their publications, or you are not presenting a coherent picture, or I simply have some mental block against you.

It bears pointing out that when I try to dissect through your posts with you, in order to understand them, you point and call "Fallacy! Fallacy!" This leads me to conclude that options 2 or 3 above, are most likely.

Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide which side "makes sense" to them. Perhaps the failing is mine, and perhaps your take really "rings true" to some people here. I trust the individual readers to reach their own considered opinion on the matter, and one that they can live with, with integrity.

I hope you are well, Andre. You may see me again, but probably not for a few days at the least. You wear me out.

 

[Mk]

By your own admission, you get it from "Climateskeptic.org," a bit of an information clearinghouse for those who *want* to see the skeptical viewpoint. In other words, there *may* be a bit of bias there!

I got to thinking why we can't use "biased" material, but we can use material biased against us? Does it matter they are all valid studies that we are speaking of right? I would more than frown upon anyone who invented a reference.

And like there's no bias among environmentalists? Greenpeace or PETA, or even LiveScience or Scientific American who routinely make fun of Global Warming skeptics. What is ironic here is that skepticism is the very foundation of science.

Science articles that deal with climate change. This leaves me with the rather uncomfortable conclusion that I *should* be able to follow your discussion... and yet, I can't! Either the entire scientific community has dumbed down their publications, or you are not presenting a coherent picture, or I simply have some mental block against you.

I seem to have much less education than you with an almighty PhD, and understand Andre well

Who is scaremongering now?

Show me where *any* head of *any* country is talking about spending googillions to address climate change.

junkscience.com estimates the Kyoto Protocol has cost signers about 9.45x10¹⁰ USD while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is immeasurably small. They use common sense and primary school reasoning to figure the number.

The recommendations from the concerned scientists and other groups are:

(1) Develop alternative energies (create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil)

I think nuclear fission and fusion are the way to go for the next generation of power plants. Why try and do all this hydrogen fuel cell and solar cell and hydropower stuff?

(2) Reduce emissions at a steady pace (through hybrid technologies, hydrogen cells, in other words see #1)

I say just move on, the less developed nations would still be burning fossil fuels, then what would the environmentalists say? Stop them from developing into a nation with miniscule emissions?

(3) Sustain habitat (maintain biodiversity, which has benefits for health and tourism and other industries ... here's an abstract on how an unusual frog may help in the fight against AIDS:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050829204919data_trunc_sys.shtml . Also, this maintains the carbon sink a little better.)

I don't understand this. To sustain habitat would mean like passive conservation, what industries get money from spending money on keeping people out? And what does the HIV vs. Frog fight have to do with this? And what carbon sink? *rips hair out* Yes, I really would like you to clarify on this statement, PLEASE!

Find me an environmentalist who is scaremongering.

I laughed at that one.

LD
Once again someone stole my post, who keeps stealing these posts?[/color]

Look a Condescending Derision! the last intellectual arguement of an intellectual who has no arguement.

At Least your an Honest Condescending Derisionist

Please let it stand this time. otherwise your demonstrating yourselves as Prejudice and Intolerant[/color]

Ooooohhhhh big words!

 

[Andre]

Dear Pattylou I do apologize for wearing you out and from your post I understand nothing too, which seem to confirm that we live on totally different worlds.

Before explaining my world, let me try and understand about your world.

You worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and you are dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

You can see several problems on your specialities and you trust that the mainstream is science is dealing correctly with other major problems like climate change, something like this:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html
and how it went: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/exeter_peiser.pdf

Considering this, it’s unthinkable that there are still people opposing the good cause of correcting the adverse anthropogenic impact on Earth, like pollution, destroying habitats, depleting resources and fooling around with the climate.

Now in my world I worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and I am dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

Hmm sounds familiar. Well, anyway,

Although I’m not a scientist and having no specialities like for instance oh …something like the genetics of Escherichia coli, or something, I happen to love solving riddles and learn immensely in the process. As a result I challenge any Ph.D to beat me on the knowledge of complete worldwide climate around the era of the Younger Dryas and, why the perception in that link about that period is a bit erroneous. Now please, I beg you read http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Hot%20Springs.doc and look at http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/BB.ppt to get an idea of who I am.

Based on that more complete picture of the climate at the termination of the Pleistocene ice ages it became clear that the current mainstream conclusions –the very fundamentals of the current climate hype- need some revision. Seeing what has really happened, it is clear to me how remarkable stable climate on the average really is and how little carbon dioxide has to do with it. Consequently I see in all the details where, how and why mainstream science went astray.

However, doubting mainstream science the is unthinkable, challenging the shortcomings and revising the battle against the adverse effects of mankind. This leads inevitably to the label of:

“cash-amplified, flat-earth pseudo-scientists; the Carbon
Cartel; incessant denialists; villains who have managed to drag “the
process” [of Kyoto negotiations at COP10] to an almost complete halt;
flacks; refuseniks; our enemies; skeptics-cum-denialists; polluters; a
powerful and devious enemy; profligates; conspicuous consumers; crank
scientists; some individuals on the fringes; extremist rearguard;
climate loonies.” (quoting of one of my fellow residents of that house who registered all the classifications given by the alarmists to the sceptics).

You have mentioned oil companies on more than one occasions, doubting my intentions and indicated bias. This is an indication of how successful the climate lobby is. Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically. And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

The world is completely different and I try to convey that message before it’s too late and we have spend our assets with re-arranging the deck seats in an attempt to prevent the sinking of the Titannic. Instead wouldn’t it be great if those assets lost to pointless climate studies could have been used directly for fighting pollution and preservation of biotopes and biodiversity?

Now what exactly didn’t I address?

 

[iansmith]

People, try to maintain the discussion civilized and let's try to focus with the original poster comments.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Just some Humor

Agreed, but doesn't the Statement of "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates Suggest" that it got Heated to much, that is what 'evaporation' implies.

 

[pattylou]

I got to thinking why we can't use "biased" material, but we can use material biased against us? Does it matter they are all valid studies that we are speaking of right? I would more than frown upon anyone who invented a reference.

And like there's no bias among environmentalists? Greenpeace or PETA, or even LiveScience or Scientific American who routinely make fun of Global Warming skeptics. What is ironic here is that skepticism is the very foundation of science.


I seem to have much less education than you with an almighty PhD, and understand Andre well


junkscience.com estimates the Kyoto Protocol has cost signers about 9.45x10¹⁰ USD while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is immeasurably small. They use common sense and primary school reasoning to figure the number.


I think nuclear fission and fusion are the way to go for the next generation of power plants. Why try and do all this hydrogen fuel cell and solar cell and hydropower stuff?


I say just move on, the less developed nations would still be burning fossil fuels, then what would the environmentalists say? Stop them from developing into a nation with miniscule emissions?

If what you say truly "makes sense" to others, (and I trust those individuals to decide for themselves if your posts are truly sensible or not) then I am happy for you and for them.

I'm happy to let you decide for yourself, MK.

I don't understand this. To sustain habitat would mean like passive conservation, what industries get money from spending money on keeping people out? And what does the HIV vs. Frog fight have to do with this? And what carbon sink? *rips hair out* Yes, I really would like you to clarify on this statement, PLEASE!

My interest in the environment actually has very little to do with climate change. I am more concerned with deforestation and pollution. Human activities are destroying habitat all over the planet - from measures that interfere with salmon spawning waterways to cutting down trees in the Amazon.

Insofar as a warming planet isn't *helping* this trend, I pay attention to the warming argument as well.

Carbon sink: Forested areas. Trees contain an incredible amount of carbon, and they get it from the CO2 in the air. They pull it out of the air, and make cellulose with it, and grow bigger. This traps the CO2 from the atmosphere, into plant matter. Cut down the trees and replace it with asphalt, and you have lost that carbon "sink." Replace it with farmland, and you have still incredibly reduced the sink (a field of grass contains far less carbon that a patch of trees on the same land. And, the grass isn't a long term sink, as it is harvested and decomposed every year. In essence, replacing with farmland is no better than paving the area, in terms of the carbon sink that has been lost.)

The frog is an example of the value of biodiversity. Biodiversity is lost when habitat is destroyed (see preceding stuff.) Many amphibia have gone extinct thanks to man in the last 30 years. Imagine if this frog had gone extinct - and as a result we had never found that it has a powerful anti-AIDS chemical in it's blood (or skin or whatever.) The point is that if you are going to argue economics, you might wish to consider the cost of the AIDS epidemic. If we develop a treatment from this frog that cuts the cost of that epidemic by half - then we are saving billions of dollars per year. In other words, living green can be cheaper.

This frog is not unique - lots of medical treatments have been found in wild animals, plants, fungi, etc. In other words, the benefit of maintaining habitat (and this includes, but is not limited to, heating up the planet) is that we can more easily discover new pharmaceuticals, and cut health care costs.

I laughed at that one.

So... name one. Go ahead.

-Patty

p.s. My PhD isn't 'almighty.' It's just something I earned. I am neither bragging, nor do I see any sense in not mentioning it out of ...decorum? What? It's a degree. I am sure you have one yourself. I mentioned it only because in the program, I was required to learn to read the scientific literature - and that applies to these discussions. Now, it is an easy thing to pick up Nature or Science and see what is cutting edge in any area, including the climate debate.

You are certainly free to earn your own PhD. It requires an investment of time. I encourage you to seriously consider the possibility, the experience is priceless.

 

[pattylou]

Dear Pattylou I do apologize for wearing you out and from your post I understand nothing too, which seem to confirm that we live on totally different worlds.

Before explaining my world, let me try and understand about your world.

You worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and you are dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

You can see several problems on your specialities and you trust that the mainstream is science is dealing correctly with other major problems like climate change, something like this:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html
and how it went: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/exeter_peiser.pdf

Considering this, it’s unthinkable that there are still people opposing the good cause of correcting the adverse anthropogenic impact on Earth, like pollution, destroying habitats, depleting resources and fooling around with the climate.

Now in my world I worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and I am dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

Hmm sounds familiar. Well, anyway,

Although I’m not a scientist and having no specialities like for instance oh …something like the genetics of Escherichia coli, or something, I happen to love solving riddles and learn immensely in the process. As a result I challenge any Ph.D to beat me on the knowledge of complete worldwide climate around the era of the Younger Dryas and, why the perception in that link about that period is a bit erroneous. Now please, I beg you read http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Hot%20Springs.doc and look at http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/BB.ppt to get an idea of who I am.

Based on that more complete picture of the climate at the termination of the Pleistocene ice ages it became clear that the current mainstream conclusions –the very fundamentals of the current climate hype- need some revision. Seeing what has really happened, it is clear to me how remarkable stable climate on the average really is and how little carbon dioxide has to do with it. Consequently I see in all the details where, how and why mainstream science went astray.

However, doubting mainstream science the is unthinkable, challenging the shortcomings and revising the battle against the adverse effects of mankind. This leads inevitably to the label of:

“cash-amplified, flat-earth pseudo-scientists; the Carbon
Cartel; incessant denialists; villains who have managed to drag “the
process” [of Kyoto negotiations at COP10] to an almost complete halt;
flacks; refuseniks; our enemies; skeptics-cum-denialists; polluters; a
powerful and devious enemy; profligates; conspicuous consumers; crank
scientists; some individuals on the fringes; extremist rearguard;
climate loonies.” (quoting of one of my fellow residents of that house who registered all the classifications given by the alarmists to the sceptics).

You have mentioned oil companies on more than one occasions, doubting my intentions and indicated bias. This is an indication of how successful the climate lobby is. Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically. And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

The world is completely different and I try to convey that message before it’s too late and we have spend our assets with re-arranging the deck seats in an attempt to prevent the sinking of the Titannic. Instead wouldn’t it be great if those assets lost to pointless climate studies could have been used directly for fighting pollution and preservation of biotopes and biodiversity?

Now what exactly didn’t I address?

I've been very forthcoming that my field of expertise has nothing to do with climate. It is relevant *only* because through that training I was forced to learn to read scientific literature for comprehension.

I've also said that I am the first to admit that you may well be 'right.' In fact, we probably agree on far more, than what we disagree on.

Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically.

In my understanding, this isn't the case. In my understanding, the models are presently fairly good, and continue to get better. For example, the reference that began another thread - From Science, shows that the troposphere is warming, as had been predicted by most if not all models. It is my understanding that the consensus position is fairly strong.

And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

Again you are inciting emotion. Where has anyone called it a crime against humanity to oppose the consensus position on climate change?

Science can't progress without questions, and skeptics provide questions. The concern is, that with every year that passes without some measure to make our best guess to keep the planet "healthy," (for humans), that we are digging the hole deeper. The precautionary principle comes to mind.

Thank you for not telling me my previous post was nothing but a fallacy.