Author Topic: More Global Warming Skeptics  (Read 80504 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #250 on: June 30, 2007, 06:31:58 PM »

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #251 on: July 28, 2007, 08:37:30 AM »
I am SO GLAD you brought up thermodynamics wacki - how about you tell us what the Earth's theoretical "black body" temp calculates out, and the delta between that and the CURRENT Earth temp.  You DO agree that the "black body" temp is the absolute MAXIMUM temp, right?

No I don't.  Nowhere near it.  Go ahead and try to apply the "black body" calculations to venus and see what you get back.  Good luck getting anywhere near the right answer.  You can use this spectral calculator and even data from experimental databases to see that the greenhouse effect doesn't stop:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php
Put the CO2 at 380 ppm and look at the 620 -720 cm-1 wavelengths and play with the numbers.  Might write more later. 

Also, the H2O argument is completely bogus because when you go high enough the air gets really cold (for a while) and water vapor levels drop to almost nothing while CO2 levels remain.  This is why climate models are "multi-layered".  Just like layers of clothing different layers of the atmosphere insulate differently.

mountainclmbr

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Sunset, Casa Mountainclmbr
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #252 on: July 30, 2007, 09:11:25 AM »


http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1780

Quote
Global Warming, Not
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007


An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation.

Satellite and projected data do not agree, claimed Murray. Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful. Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist, the economics of global warming should be our main concern, Murray pointed out. Even if Kyoto is correctly implemented to the nth degree, results by 2050 would be totally inadequate.

Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited. Murray continued with some propositions:

What do we do? We need to tackle the effects (meaning poverty, health issues) of Global Warming directly. Kyoto, if fully executed, will be barely measurable, so bypass this. Invest in other problems. Put Kyoto funding towards poverty. Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.

Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.


Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "Socialism, the ends justify the means."
Just say no to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's mama.

mountainclmbr

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Sunset, Casa Mountainclmbr
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #253 on: August 03, 2007, 02:16:28 PM »
Three more studies find little CO2 warming effect and more bad weather predicted for UK.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38


Quote
030807 Marc Moranos Round-up  August 3, 2007

3 Significant New Studies on Climate
(Mark August 3, 2007 as key date in climate science)

Society of Environmental Journalists called Global Warming Propaganda Factory

Excerpt: In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: "Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics", the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you're looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity. The site is largely a compendium of links to global warming promoters. Many of the links use adjectives like prestigious, best respected, and reputation unrivaled to burnish their credibility. The so-called deniers on the other hand are described with adjectives like, highly polemical, outright false, and deceptive partisan attack dogs. The description of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is especially derisive, citing the often leveled false accusation that they the tool of Exxon Mobile. And this is journalism at its finest? The SEJ is supported mainly by foundation grants from many of the places that fund Bill Moyers and PBS. The remaining revenue is generated from membership dues and conference fees.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_propaganda_fact.html

STUDY # 1:
"Belgian weather institute (RMI) study dismisses role of CO2" http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=B18307176070801
(Translation)

Excerpt: "Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder says. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Luc Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. (Belga) Translation provided by Theo van Daele

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2

STUDY # 2:
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle

Excerpt: To accurately assess the effects of human-induced climate change, scientists must be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes. The existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, but its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites. To assess how this less-controversial oscillatory forcing affects climate on Earth, Camp and Tung compare surface temperature measurements across the globe between years of solar maximum (with higher heat output) and years of solar minimum. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Title: Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm

STUDY # 3:
New Study: Global warming over last century linked to natural causes
(Below excerpt clarifies studys conclusion)

Excerpts: It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.L13705 TSONIS ET AL.: MECHANISM FOR MAJOR CLIMATE SHIFTS L13705 4 of 5 in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm


Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl reacts to new climate change study linking temps to natural causes (Study # 3 above)

Excerpt: If you are interested in their predictions, a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so and by cooling in the rest of the 21st century. 2100 is seen as more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than 2005. While they admit the possibility that their curves should be superimposed with contributions such as the enhanced greenhouse effect, they have a very different explanation for the climate shift in the late 1970s that has nothing to do with aerosols or greenhouse gases.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/mechanism-for-major-climate-shifts.html

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn Debunks recent No Solar-Climate Link Study (Corbyn heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action)

Excerpt: In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwoods refutation of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the worlds temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the suns activity. So what does he do? He finds that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time. The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002191.html
(Links to discussion blog with Corbyns comments reprinted)

More No Solar-climate link debunking

Excerpt: Solar activity is higher than it has been for at least 1000 years. IPCC AR4 rates the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as low, other solar factors have a LOSU of very low. The emphasis is always on irradiance rather than eruptivity, which I believe is much more important. Small solar changes seem to have a much larger influence on climate than expected, suggesting an unknown amplification mechanism. Global mean surface temperatures have leveled off since the 1998 El Nino, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the past 5 years according to the ARGO network. Solar cycle length, sunspots, irradiance, are general indicators of solar activity. Nir Shaviv sees no reason why the length of the solar cycle should be related to solar activity  it could be a coincidence, and it is largely a phenomenon of the Northern Hemisphere. That said, the correlation between solar cycle length and a long mean surface temperature series has also been <http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/abstract196.html>observed at Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002198.html
Just say no to Obama, Osama and Chelsea's mama.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #254 on: August 05, 2007, 12:31:23 PM »


http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1780

Quote
Global Warming, Not
by: Mary Kapp, July 25, 2007


An increasing number of policy analysts are finding that, despite what you hear from media and academic elites, global warming may be neither universal nor particularly warm. Global warming isnt global, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out in a July 9th forum on Capitol Hill. It is much warmer in Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain, but the tropical areas havent warmed at all.
um........ ok.



It is true that tropical areas haven't warmed as much but it's plain false that they haven't warmed at all.  As for Antarctica, Scandinavia, and Great Britain well that is called polar amplification.  Polar amplification is a smoking gun of global warming so this argument is pure deception and not a refutation of the global warming theory.  Here we have 1 falsehood and 1 deception tactic.

Quote
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a think tank that investigates environmental problems to see whether real dangers exist and looks at solutions to genuine environmental challenges that do not involve government programs. Murray spoke at an event sponsored by the Young Americas Foundation.

They are an oil & tobacco funded think tank that has a long history of screwing up highschool level science & math and denying some really basic science such as whether or not CFC's float in the air.  CEI is a joke.

Quote
Satellite and projected data do not agree, claimed Murray.

This is true when satellite data wasn't adjusted for a degrading orbit.  Once the falling satellite heights were adjusted for everything lined up perfectly.  This argument was settled in August 2005.  This information is extremely difficult to miss as information about this is not only highly published/referenced but talked about on documentation pages of temperature graphs which include this adjustment.  He had to basically ignore just about every graph used in any major paper or scientific institutions website.  So his argument is a portrayal of ignorance, deception or just a plain lie.  You be the judge.


Quote
Surface temperature measurements are not reliable, so satellite information is much more useful. Murray also pointed out that regardless of whatever hypothetical evidence does exist,

This argument is funny since they line up with the satellites.  Also there are thousands if not tens of thousands of surface devices but only a few satellites.  Surface readings are far more extensive.  So their argument seems to be wrong on both counts.

Quote
Directly opposed to what green economists would have you believe, reducing emissions could hit the poor the hardest, and would cost families 3% of their annual income, while the wealthy will be benefited. Murray continued with some propositions:

Well global warming is supposed to hit the poor the worst so......

Quote
Quote
Put Kyoto funding towards poverty. Some examples were mentioned by Murray, including removing regulatory barriers and freeing up electric systems and zoning restrictions.

Mary Kapp is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "Socialism, the ends justify the means."

Don't you mean "Bla, bla, bla......Translation: "I am just an intern fronting for big oil & coal""?

I agree with their opinion on Kyoto but all of their science based arguments are either false or an obvious deception.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #255 on: August 05, 2007, 01:34:13 PM »
Three more studies find little CO2 warming effect and more bad weather predicted for UK.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=38


Um... the AGU study (STUDY # 2:) on solar does not conflict with the overall conclusions of the IPCC.  So listing it there is kind of odd. 

Study #1 apparently hasn't been published yet so I can't comment.  But I will say that paragraph disagrees with the conclusions and official statements of every major scientific society in Belgium.  Also, there is a long history of people lying about the contents of the IPCC in the WSJ and Exxon is offering $10,000 for each global warming skeptic so unless we have access to the paper I would treat this paragraph with a grain of salt.

Study #3 is something I'm going to have to review later as I don't have access to the paper unless I'm at work and the abstract just talks about "theory of synchronized chaos".  As of right now I have no idea if this agrees with or disagrees with the IPCC. 

The blog posts:
The Motl has a history of deception.  His post is only 2 days old and covers study #3.  I'd keep an eye out on Deltoid, rabett run and realclimate for rebuttals.  Since this "chaos" argument seems to be getting some attention one of the mainstream scientific blogs will surely address it within a week or two.

The two solar blog posts don't seem worth really discussing.  Just look at the graphs here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html

So a recap:
  • We have 1 study that agrees with the overall conclusions of the IPCC
  • 1 chaos theory that I can't address right now cuz I don't have access.  Sounds like some crazy math so it might take me a while to get back to you on this one anyway.
  • 1 unpublished paper that is being reported as disagreeing with it's own leading institution.
  • 2 unpublished non-peer reviewed joke of attempts at attacking solar.

Nothing really impressive here.

richyoung

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,242
  • bring a big gun
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #256 on: August 05, 2007, 08:54:51 PM »
I am SO GLAD you brought up thermodynamics wacki - how about you tell us what the Earth's theoretical "black body" temp calculates out, and the delta between that and the CURRENT Earth temp.  You DO agree that the "black body" temp is the absolute MAXIMUM temp, right?

No I don't.  Nowhere near it.  Go ahead and try to apply the "black body" calculations to venus and see what you get back.  Good luck getting anywhere near the right answer.  You can use this spectral calculator and even data from experimental databases to see that the greenhouse effect doesn't stop:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectralcalc.php
Put the CO2 at 380 ppm and look at the 620 -720 cm-1 wavelengths and play with the numbers.  Might write more later. 

Venus - atmospheric pressure 90 atmospheres
Earth -   atmospheric pressure 1 atmosphere
Venus -  solar radiation/area = 2 X Earth
Earth -   solard radiation/area = 1 X Earth
Venus - % CO2 - 96%!!!
Earth  - % CO2 - 0.038%

Suffuce it to say Earth is in NO DANGER of turning into Venus.

Quote
Also, the H2O argument is completely bogus because when you go high enough the air gets really cold (for a while) and water vapor levels drop to almost nothing while CO2 levels remain.  This is why climate models are "multi-layered".  Just like layers of clothing different layers of the atmosphere insulate differently.



"...water vapor levels drop to almost nothing ...."  because they have become ICE CRYSTALS, aka "clouds", which ALSO have effects on overall aldebo and reflectivity/absorption.  They don't just disappear via the Global Warming fairy...


Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't...