scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com— Author provides an extremely detailed debunking for all of our global warming deniers. Bookmark this - it's a resource you can use over and over again.
Jul 23, 2007View in Crawl 4
Problem #1 - CO2 peaks after prior warming episodes partly because of the oceans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not happening this time around - if it were, O2 concentrations would be going up and dissolved CO2 concentrations would be going down, which is the exact opposite of what's actually happening.Problem #2: the image you sent me to is a 12 month averaged temperature while most climatologists use a 5 or 10 year averaged value to predict the trend and take out all the swings (and the supposed "flattening" you're talking about). So you're comparing apples and oranges. An eyeballing of a best-linear fit of the global trend from the graph still looks like heating to me. And I hope you realize that you're very selectively reading the graph - a "flattening" in the last 2-3 years isn't a trend any more than the "cooling" for a couple of years after the 1998 peak was a trend.Problem #3: Have you ever heard "past performance is no guarantee of future success"? Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it has to happen in the future. All things being identical, we could reasonably expect that modern climate change would be driven by natural cycles exclusively because of the past. But past cycles don't include a 33% increase in CO2 that is irrefutably from human activity, nor does it include aerosol effects, or methane and nitrous oxide effects. In other words, all things are not even close to equal, so we cannot assume that the Earth's response will be equal. You are, and that's the logical fallacy.
#1 - Wrong we have no evidence what is going right now is any different then what went or in the past. Oceans may have acted in the exact same way it did in the past. Secondly it does not matter because the oceans warmed WITHOUT CO2 in the past something caused the exact same warming several times in the past the world warmed just fine with out co2 and cooled just fine with lots of co2 in the air. Finally look at JUST the ice core data Co2 has shot up but the temperature REMAINS BELOW the last 4 peak highs.<a class="user" href="http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg">http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg</a>#2 Over all trend over the last decade is level, NH going up, SH going down, level or DAMN close too it is certainly not accelerating out of control like the alarmists would like you to believe. Oh I didn't trend it right now good what ever, again my average is wrong your average is right because why? Again you just make up "rules" because a short trend shows a leveling off of warming, and I'm sure in 10 years when a yet a longer trend will show more cooling what then I'll need a 50 years trend and 10 year averages?#3 ANd the last Lie of the Greens, the GREAT ATMOSPHERE CHANGE, "past cycles don't include a 33% increase in CO2 that is irrefutably from human activity, nor does it include aerosol effects, or methane and nitrous oxide effects." prove to me that this is more than 100 PPM of atmosphere. CO2 the biggest one is only 60-90 PPM and the others are all smaller by a factor of 10. So what is 100 PPM That is exactly .01% of the Atmosphere. So if you told someone that the atmosphere was lets say 99.99% the EXACTLY the same as it was when the atmosphere from the rest of the history when the earth warmed and cooled with out the great humans, I think you could get away with saying it's not a illogical to use this research. Finally when Al Gore used this EXACT same data and was hailed as a hero, now that the data is critical of the AGW. The data should be disregarded? Can you say Hypocrite? I'm still waiting for 1 the 2500 IPCC consensus scientists.and did you read the wegman report?
I admit that I need to do more research into the Ordovician ice age to be able to make a convincing argument. My point was scattered at best, so I'll go back and do some more research and update this one when I have better information on it. Fair criticism.Past climate performance is vital. But we have to understand when the factors that influenced past performance are being overwhelmed by factors that did not exist when past climate cycles occurred. This is the single most important point that seems to be getting lost here. No serious scientist, amateur or professional, would ever deny that the earth changed in the past without human interference. But every serious scientist has to admit that there are differences between this climate change and prior climate cycles. These differences are a matter of fact, not opinion. What little debate there is must focus on the relative strengths and the effects of those differences, not their existence.
climatehereticJul 23, 2007
Ok first of all the Hockey Stick model was completely debunked by scientists who feed random data into the system and kept geting the hockey stick, so GW advocates forget the hockey stick it is crap and has be superceded on both sides by better data. <a class="user" href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf">http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf</a> Next the author debunks Wikipedia and one report by Monckton hardly the extremely detailed debunking promised, so I will put this in my file 13 system.
railerJul 24, 2007
Yes add one in the next few days that points out water vapor is 40000 PPM and MM CO2 is 60-90, the spectrum of CO2 is minor compared to H2O.Here I'll help you out, debunk this:<a class="user" href="http://nov55.com/ntyg.html">http://nov55.com/ntyg.html</a>And remember use you own words, vomiting up real climate isn't research it's plagiarism, and since "The Team" is 100% dependent, academically and financially, on AGW their little explanations really don't hold much water. Hey throw this one in too if you don't mind, there is no consensus, can you find me the full list of names of the 2500 scientists that the IPCC says makes up it's consensus?Finally I recommend:<a class="user" href="http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf">http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf</a><a class="user" href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf">http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf</a>Can you debunk the myth that the majority of "science" for global warming is created by a small group of scientists who incestuously you each other work over and over again ignoring all other departments like statistics and geology?Any how get those ones for me and I'll get you more REAL myths.
anglissJul 24, 2007
Problem #1 - CO2 peaks after prior warming episodes partly because of the oceans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not happening this time around - if it were, O2 concentrations would be going up and dissolved CO2 concentrations would be going down, which is the exact opposite of what's actually happening.Problem #2: the image you sent me to is a 12 month averaged temperature while most climatologists use a 5 or 10 year averaged value to predict the trend and take out all the swings (and the supposed "flattening" you're talking about). So you're comparing apples and oranges. An eyeballing of a best-linear fit of the global trend from the graph still looks like heating to me. And I hope you realize that you're very selectively reading the graph - a "flattening" in the last 2-3 years isn't a trend any more than the "cooling" for a couple of years after the 1998 peak was a trend.Problem #3: Have you ever heard "past performance is no guarantee of future success"? Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it has to happen in the future. All things being identical, we could reasonably expect that modern climate change would be driven by natural cycles exclusively because of the past. But past cycles don't include a 33% increase in CO2 that is irrefutably from human activity, nor does it include aerosol effects, or methane and nitrous oxide effects. In other words, all things are not even close to equal, so we cannot assume that the Earth's response will be equal. You are, and that's the logical fallacy.
railerJul 25, 2007
#1 - Wrong we have no evidence what is going right now is any different then what went or in the past. Oceans may have acted in the exact same way it did in the past. Secondly it does not matter because the oceans warmed WITHOUT CO2 in the past something caused the exact same warming several times in the past the world warmed just fine with out co2 and cooled just fine with lots of co2 in the air. Finally look at JUST the ice core data Co2 has shot up but the temperature REMAINS BELOW the last 4 peak highs.<a class="user" href="http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg">http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg</a>#2 Over all trend over the last decade is level, NH going up, SH going down, level or DAMN close too it is certainly not accelerating out of control like the alarmists would like you to believe. Oh I didn't trend it right now good what ever, again my average is wrong your average is right because why? Again you just make up "rules" because a short trend shows a leveling off of warming, and I'm sure in 10 years when a yet a longer trend will show more cooling what then I'll need a 50 years trend and 10 year averages?#3 ANd the last Lie of the Greens, the GREAT ATMOSPHERE CHANGE, "past cycles don't include a 33% increase in CO2 that is irrefutably from human activity, nor does it include aerosol effects, or methane and nitrous oxide effects." prove to me that this is more than 100 PPM of atmosphere. CO2 the biggest one is only 60-90 PPM and the others are all smaller by a factor of 10. So what is 100 PPM That is exactly .01% of the Atmosphere. So if you told someone that the atmosphere was lets say 99.99% the EXACTLY the same as it was when the atmosphere from the rest of the history when the earth warmed and cooled with out the great humans, I think you could get away with saying it's not a illogical to use this research. Finally when Al Gore used this EXACT same data and was hailed as a hero, now that the data is critical of the AGW. The data should be disregarded? Can you say Hypocrite? I'm still waiting for 1 the 2500 IPCC consensus scientists.and did you read the wegman report?
anglissJul 25, 2007
I admit that I need to do more research into the Ordovician ice age to be able to make a convincing argument. My point was scattered at best, so I'll go back and do some more research and update this one when I have better information on it. Fair criticism.Past climate performance is vital. But we have to understand when the factors that influenced past performance are being overwhelmed by factors that did not exist when past climate cycles occurred. This is the single most important point that seems to be getting lost here. No serious scientist, amateur or professional, would ever deny that the earth changed in the past without human interference. But every serious scientist has to admit that there are differences between this climate change and prior climate cycles. These differences are a matter of fact, not opinion. What little debate there is must focus on the relative strengths and the effects of those differences, not their existence.