Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not every mainstream association, just the ones funded by government grants. No grants are awarded to causes that are not alarmist.
What mainstream scientific association have rejected anthropogenic climate change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
Claiming that there is consensus is just another method to avoid the actual argument.
It's not, it's a counter to the erroneous statement that there is significant scientific disagreement. There isn't, but go ahead make you factual argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
You still haven't proved it to logical people.
Actually we have and you flatter yourself way too much. As Clint Eastwood said, "A man has to know his limitation" Work on it.
No scientist disputes that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. It is in every model. It just doesn't vary independently. It's a function of temperature.
The Rise of CO2 & Warming (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html - broken link)
Wow... the stupidity of the person who wrote this article is simply amazing... he makes statements that are obviously flawed and based on observation instead of CAUSATION...
1) "The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.)"
Let me get this right... CO2 increases EVERY YEAR and yet temperature FLUCTUATES... so CO2 causes temperature fluctuations or does it cause temperature increases? It follows if it causes temperature increases, then there is NO fluctuation but apparently not... ... 2001 was the second warmest year? So I guess 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 was warmer? Or did CO2 emission go down in 2002-2007..... Apparently not... Let me get this right, random spikes in temperature is caused by CO2 emissions.. you can't predict when it happens, it just happens randomly... riiiiiight...
2) "The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level."
Undoubtedly huh? How? Oh, you don't have an explanation just connecting the two because of some legitimate science... did you know ceiling fans cool down your room (that's a fact)... install ceiling fans in every house and its collective effect will cool down the planet and lead us into an ICE AGE... OMFG... please... stick to the real science and not made up bunk...
3) "Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models)...... In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity"
What climate model is this? Care to explain how your model works? No? Just accept that it is the way you say it is... I don't think so. Oh, I guess it was too complex for them to figure out but at least somehow... someway they did find a link between CO2 and temperature change... I just don't see where they explain the linkage... I guess it just is because its.... "magic"
4) "One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise."
Wait a minute... so far the article has NOT explained how CO2 causes global warming... "it just does" and now it says using a simple calculation it explains the whole global warming debate... wow... such ignorance... the debate is over... look at this simple calculation... its all over.. yippee!
5) "That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation."
Wait a minute... did you just say that the Sun's solar activity causes temperature change... the temperature drop even though we emit more and more CO2.... well that is strange....and then dismiss it because it doesn't account for human activity? Wow... the gall on this guy... Because it is the simplest explanation for temperature increases AND decreases..... whereas CO2 increases causes RANDOM fluctuations in temperatures... yeah, i think I go with the simple theory....
5) "But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause."
Did this person even investigate "any known natural cause"? Apparently not... what an idiot... making statements like this is pure bunk...
6) "The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend"
Let me get this right... you want to charge me $1000 a month more to do your little economic green game and I have to provide YOU proof... you want to charge ME money and I have to provide YOU proof... what a dumbazz...
Here are some more factoids about the global warming... only if you are brave enough to read it that is... or you can get your information from the media...
Busting Green Myths and Lies: The Top 10 on Global Warming (http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/top10.htm - broken link)
No scientist disputes that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. It is in every model. It just doesn't vary independently. It's a function of temperature.
Wow this is refreshing. The first person on the liberal side of the argument who I have come across that admits that water is the #1 greenhouse gas. Next question - What percentage of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by human activity? Try to find an answer that does not exclude water please. BTW water is not in every model. The honest ones have an asterisk that says water vapor excluded, but I have seen identical graphs without the asterisk.
Wow this is refreshing. The first person on the liberal side of the argument who I have come across that admits that water is the #1 greenhouse gas. Next question - What percentage of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by human activity? Try to find an answer that does not exclude water please. BTW water is not in every model. The honest ones have an asterisk that says water vapor excluded, but I have seen identical graphs without the asterisk.
All scientist know that water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. You are just dead wrong in your assertion.
The percentage of the greenhouse effect that is anthropogenic is small in total. What we are talking about is the change in the greenhouse effect. Relatively minor changes in global temperature will produce fairly profound changes in our environment.
Water vapor is in all models used by the mainstream scientific community. It's not always listed as a greenhouse gas because, as I said, it's not an independent variable. The only thing that affects global water vapor is global temperature. As temperature goes up, water vapor goes up, amplifying the impact of the independent greenhouse gases like methane, CO2 etc. To calculate the change in global temperature from a change in greenhouse gas concentration you have a first order effect from the gas on the atmosphere and you have a second order effect from the impact of the temperature change directly caused by the gas on water vapor. Most models subsume the change in water vapor in the change in the greenhouse gas. Much like reducing an algebraic equation. That may create the impression among the naive that water vapor isn't included in the model, but the more sophisticated reader understands that what has happened is just the result of high school level algebra.
What mainstream scientific association have rejected anthropogenic climate change?
From the link provided by evilnewbie-
[LEFT]Fact A: Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Fact B: A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Fact C: Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. FACT D: At the most recent international meetings of climatologists nearly 25% of the surveyed attendees did not believe that anthropogenic warming was wholly responsible for the current warming.
I'll add one of my own. My brother with a masters in meteorology has been offered several jobs for over $150K a year to support the global warming theory, but won't based on principle. He cannot get a job for the other side. I know where the money is coming from and how this bunk theory is supporting industry. It is exactly the same as the OZONE cooling theory backed by the air conditioning industry that forced the replacement of every chiller and air conditioning compressor in the USA. Only this time we have to replace everything that uses energy. FOLLOW the money and continue to research for yourself even if someone tells you there is a consensus.[/LEFT]
All scientist know that water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. You are just dead wrong in your assertion.
The percentage of the greenhouse effect that is anthropogenic is small in total. What we are talking about is the change in the greenhouse effect. Relatively minor changes in global temperature will produce fairly profound changes in our environment.
Water vapor is in all models used by the mainstream scientific community. It's not always listed as a greenhouse gas because, as I said, it's not an independent variable. The only thing that affects global water vapor is global temperature. As temperature goes up, water vapor goes up, amplifying the impact of the independent greenhouse gases like methane, CO2 etc. To calculate the change in global temperature from a change in greenhouse gas concentration you have a first order effect from the gas on the atmosphere and you have a second order effect from the impact of the temperature change directly caused by the gas on water vapor. Most models subsume the change in water vapor in the change in the greenhouse gas. Much like reducing an algebraic equation. That may create the impression among the naive that water vapor isn't included in the model, but the more sophisticated reader understands that what has happened is just the result of high school level algebra.
We are really getting somewhere now. I agree with everything above.(Except that I am dead wrong on my assertion and the REASON water is not always listed) Now let's quantify exactly how small the change in the greenhouse effect is and let's compare that to the historical change in global temperature over the past several hundred thousand years which could not have been anthropogenic. Since we all understand high school algebra, would you care to quantify the percentage of the greenhouse effect that is anthropogenic?
[LEFT]Fact A: Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." [/LEFT]
No they haven't the document is a fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
[LEFT]Fact B: A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [/LEFT]
Got a link to that Gallup poll, because Gallup doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
[LEFT]Fact C: Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. [/LEFT]
Greenpeace web site lists no such survey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
[LEFT]FACT D: At the most recent international meetings of climatologists nearly 25% of the surveyed attendees did not believe that anthropogenic warming was wholly responsible for the current warming.[/LEFT]
What international climatologist meeting was that. I can't find any proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
[LEFT]I'll add one of my own. My brother with a masters in meteorology has been offered several jobs for over $150K a year to support the global warming theory, but won't based on principle. He cannot get a job for the other side. I know where the money is coming from and how this bunk theory is supporting industry. It is exactly the same as the OZONE cooling theory backed by the air conditioning industry that forced the replacement of every chiller and air conditioning compressor in the USA. Only this time we have to replace everything that uses energy. FOLLOW the money and continue to research for yourself even if someone tells you there is a consensus.[/LEFT]
OK your brother doesn't believe in global warming. Well some people are slow. There is still a flat earth society. The Flat Earth Society -- Home
We are really getting somewhere now. I agree with everything above.(Except that I am dead wrong on my assertion and the REASON water is not always listed) Now let's quantify exactly how small the change in the greenhouse effect is and let's compare that to the historical change in global temperature over the past several hundred thousand years which could not have been anthropogenic. Since we all understand high school algebra, would you care to quantify the percentage of the greenhouse effect that is anthropogenic?
Since the Industrial age began.
Carbon dioxide 280 ppm to 384ppm +87 ppm
Methane 700 ppb to 1,745 ppb +1,045 ppb
Nitrous oxide 270 ppb to 314 ppb +44 ppb
CFC 0 to 533 ppt +533 ppt
The alarming issue is the rate of increase of all these gases. CO2 has increased by about 10% in the last 25 years. Again the important question is how much of the change in greenhouse gases and temperature is due to anthropogenic sources. And what will happen in the future if we don't begin to control this pollution.
I could go on, as I am sure you could as well. Please, could you explain to the Chinese about the mini ice-age they are having this winter? See if you can convince them the globe is warming.
Old Al sure has created a nice, profitable cottage industry, hasn't he? Although I am encouraged his little hoax is not working as planned, the reason being his 300 Mil ad campaign trying to convince people of his junk science.
Last edited by sanrene; 04-09-2008 at 05:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
