leading global warming sceptic admits....

[Dogmeat]

So, this appears to be clearly increasing??????? NASA GISS data.

Clearly that data is false and being misinterpeted.

The data on that graph clearly shows that the global mean temperature of the planet is spiraling out of control and that unless we elect as many Democrats as possible to save the world .... We're DOOMED!

I'm surprised at you Wade, normally you make highly intelligent well thought-out posts, it's sad to see that you are questioning the new Unifying Non-Relegious Relegion of the World that will unify the people of the globe and save us all from certain extinction.

 

[Wade]

so your saying geoligist Ian Stewart is lying, he disproves what you guys are saying in that documentary???

He thinks global warming is real. Therefore, he believes the skeptics are delusional. Don't get me wrong, some of the skeptics are delusional, and some of the global warming fanatics are delusional. Some of both side think their making a difference, and saving the world. But, some of each side have an economic investment, in the mass perceived outcome. A many a lie has been told, to further the "RIGHT" conclusion. Doesn't make it right though.

I don't mind the skeptics exaggerating a bit, it only contributes to better proofs and better conceived science. What I do mind, is the mass hysteria projected by the media and politico's, that we must do something now, take control of all liberties, and spends lots of money, without even knowing if what they decide to do; will make any difference.

I do believe in man made global warming, just not CO2, not to the extent that the fanatics believe. I believe in waste heat from combustion, heat island effects, darkened water, dark particle contamination of snow, and deforestation of third world countries. But, the CO2 thing is just a little too convenient of a truth.

When dealing with governments, it's best if all citizens are skeptics.

 

[MARCUSO]

We should get Snowesters to save the world....

 

[Wade]

Clearly that data is false and being misinterpeted.

The data on that graph clearly shows that the global mean temperature of the planet is spiraling out of control and that unless we elect as many Democrats as possible to save the world .... We're DOOMED!

I'm surprised at you Wade, normally you make highly intelligent well thought-out posts, it's sad to see that you are questioning the new Unifying Non-Relegious Relegion of the World that will unify the people of the globe and save us all from certain extinction.

Given the choice between an equal amount of global cooling, or global warming, I'd take global warming. And yes, environmentalism is the new evangelism. (in a TV preacher voice) "Get on the phone right now!!!, and send me 20 million dollars, or mother nature is going to call me home."

World welfare, world socialism, and global warming, bed fellows with common needs.

 

[somedude]

He thinks global warming is real. Therefore, he believes the skeptics are delusional. Don't get me wrong, some of the skeptics are delusional, and some of the global warming fanatics are delusional. Some of both side think their making a difference, and saving the world. But, some of each side have an economic investment, in the mass perceived outcome. A many a lie has been told, to further the "RIGHT" conclusion. Doesn't make it right though.

I don't mind the skeptics exaggerating a bit, it only contributes to better proofs and better conceived science. What I do mind, is the mass hysteria projected by the media and politico's, that we must do something now, take control of all liberties, and spends lots of money, without even knowing if what they decide to do; will make any difference.

I do believe in man made global warming, just not CO2, not to the extent that the fanatics believe. I believe in waste heat from combustion, heat island effects, darkened water, dark particle contamination of snow, and deforestation of third world countries. But, the CO2 thing is just a little too convenient of a truth.

When dealing with governments, it's best if all citizens are skeptics.

did you see the part in the documentary where he takes a infrared camera and sets it up to look at a flame through a glass cylinder then fills the cylinder with co2 and you can see the flame disappear?? I would say that is convicing evidence that c02 absorbs infrared radiation, which is heat, or is that a camera trick?

 

[somedude]

So, this appears to be clearly increasing??????? NASA GISS data.

it does appear to be increasing it ends higher than it started

 

[Ollie]

I don't mind the skeptics exaggerating a bit, it only contributes to better proofs and better conceived science. What I do mind, is the mass hysteria projected by the media and politico's, that we must do something now, take control of all liberties, and spends lots of money, without even knowing if what they decide to do; will make any difference.

DING DING DING>
We have a winner!

That is the whole problem with any debate about the earth and global warming.
It is nothing more than a means to take control of enviromental issues that people still have no clue about. It's like jumping into a fire carriing a jug of gas. You don't know if you are going to make it worse of not.

(oh, and to the guy that red repped me, pull up your girlie panties and leave a name).

 

[Ollie]

it does appear to be increasing it ends higher than it started

ANd yet trending downward.

 

[Superjag]

All right, sorry I was out of the loop there for a while. I'll try and respond in the order that the objections were raised.

As for the 650 experts you dismiss.
How about you show me the the credintials of the scientist pushing global warming, who they work for and how they get paid? Follow the money.

Here's one example (NASA, Stanford PhD) of what I would consider to be "reputable" credentials:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
But, that doesn't really matter. I think we can agree that we can find scientists on both sides of the issue. I was only referring to the 650 "climatologists" argument...

Regarding the IPCC, here is a direct quote from their website:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." So basically, they do what we are trying to do: Draw our own conclusions from somebody else's data. Also as you may recall, last year they were called to the carpet because they were caught providing fraudulent data. So, their credibility is suspect at best.

Hey superjag,

Lets see your data and references. Put it up like ollie did. I also want to hear your spin on sun spots and solar effects on weather. Also I would like to hear your spin on historical proof of warmer times in mans history with less co2 backed up by reputable resources like NOAA, NASA, science, ect...

Data on the increasing loss of global ice mass (from NASA) here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/

Data on the overall earth surface temperature increasing here (also NASA):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
(Note the 5-year mean trend for both the Global Land-Ocean Temperatures and land based weather station temperatures.)

Regarding the 650 "climatologists", I took their references right from Ollie's link. Regarding them being in the vast minority (in terms of their opinion), approximately 11,000 people attended the UN global warming conference, 650 of them thought global warming was a myth. You do the math.

Regarding the rising CO2 levels, see here (also NASA):
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

Regarding Ocean Temps rising (NASA again):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

As far as my "spin" on sunspots (some good info here: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php) and warmer periods in the earth's history during periods of lower CO2 levels (obviously those have occurred) , please go back and read my original post again. You make it sound like I am arguing that humans are definitively causing global warming. I'm not making that argument at all. My argument is that global ice mass is decreasing , global land and water temperatures are increasing (long-term), and CO2 levels are at an all time high. Those things are all generally accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. The debate, (and there are plenty of smart people on both sides of the argument) is about what is causing these things. It may be sunspots, it may be natural weather patterns, it may be humans, it may be a combination of those things. We (as humans) may not know enough at this point in time to draw and concrete conclusions one way or another. My problem is when people have clearly already made up their minds on the issue, and so they just want to dig up "facts" that support their position, rather than going at it the other way around.

 

[Ollie]

Regarding the IPCC, here is a direct quote from their website:
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." So basically, they do what we are trying to do: Draw our own conclusions from somebody else's data. Also as you may recall, last year they were called to the carpet because they were caught providing fraudulent data. So, their credibility is suspect at best.


Actually, what they do is gather all the info from all the sources. they are like a library.
They don't draw any conclusions. They just make the info available for others to look at. That is why I put it in there. It is loaded with info. All kinds of info. All the info you could possibly want.

 

[Dogmeat]

Given the choice between an equal amount of global cooling, or global warming, I'd take global warming. And yes, environmentalism is the new evangelism. (in a TV preacher voice) "Get on the phone right now!!!, and send me 20 million dollars, or mother nature is going to call me home."

World welfare, world socialism, and global warming, bed fellows with common needs.

I know ... I was just being sarcastic

 

[Wade]

I know ... I was just being sarcastic

I know. So was I.

 

[Wade]

it does appear to be increasing it ends higher than it started

Yep, now cut off all the data prior to 1998. What do you see? It's all in how you present the data. Timeframe, Monthly average, Yearly average, 5 year average, deletion of outlyers, it all is used to make the data look, and feel right, But, is it right?

Take the hockey stick, correct for known paleontological (Paleoclimatology) record. And, extend it another 1000 years, you might see a different version of history. After all, why did the IPCC Paleoclimatology graph change, from one report to another? The medieval warming period disappeared, it wasn't convenient, or did science correct a long standing mistake?

 

[Dogmeat]

I know. So was I.

GAH! Double sarcasm isn't going to save the world! We should be ashamed of ourselves!

speaking of that

i am gonna go buy a "save the planet: kill yourself" bumper sticker.

 

[Wade]

did you see the part in the documentary where he takes a infrared camera and sets it up to look at a flame through a glass cylinder then fills the cylinder with co2 and you can see the flame disappear?? I would say that is convicing evidence that c02 absorbs infrared radiation, which is heat, or is that a camera trick?

That experiment was in a different documentary, but I've seen it before. It's the old Venus example. Basically, yes, if you take a optically transparent glass, and fill it with CO2, the CO2 will absorb the infra-red radiation, specifically within it's absorption spectrum. Another words, you'd need a narrow frequency of infra-red light, not just a wide spectral infra-red.

You see the bumps, on the green CO2 absorption band? If you bought a IR light at one of those frequencies, and shown it through the CO2, it would be absorbed. Very little of the frequencies outside of that wouldn't be absorbed.

But, this is at 100% concentration. The earth's concentration is about 385 ppm (parts per million), or 0.0384%. So, it takes miles of atmosphere to do the same. But, that's the interesting part. There's already enough CO2 in the atmosphere, that no infra-red within those absorption wavelengths makes it too the ground. Increasing CO2 wouldn't absorb any more energy (heat), because there's none left to absorb. This also explains why we see in the wavelength (visible light), we see in. If you look at the "Total" graph, the low parts of the graph are the wavelengths that make it to the ground.

What light that does make it too the ground (mostly visible light) is absorbed and re-emitted as primarily infra-red. Then that re-emitted infra-red goes back out towards space and is absorbed by the atmosphere (greenhouse effect). Again, there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the infra-red within the CO2 absorption wavelengths. Increasing CO2 would not result in more infra-red heat being absorbed. It would just absorb it closer to the ground! This is the primary effect of increasing the CO2 concentration, warming up the atmosphere closer to the ground.

By the formulas I've seen, doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration, (which isn't expected until 2250) would only result in a 1.2 to 1.7 degree C.

You might also notice how wide the H2O absorption bands are.

 

[Ollie]

so were not all gonna die tomorrow?
Darn, guess I gotta make the house payment.

 

[Dogmeat]

so were not all gonna die tomorrow?
Darn, guess I gotta make the house payment.

Nope, all you have to do is claim you voted for Obama and your housing mortgage gets abolished, right? I mean hell isn't that why everyone elected him into office, so they wouldn't have to pay off any debts, especially on houses, right?