General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

"85% DUH rating, and we still read"
hehe.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MORAY37
No offense... I was walking dead when I posted that one...I had had a very long night the night before and had no coffee..... Made for fuzzy math that was plain wrong.
Everyone's allowed a post or two that's bunk... look at Lazs.  85% DUH rating, and we still read.

Everyone makes mistakes or talks out their bellybutton from time to time. Some of us more than others. Still, your flawed response to lazs made me wonder how much you've actually considered the potential for a rise in sea level?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
I guess it's a matter of perspective but this comment seems to characterize the global warmings alarmists from mine.

I am by no means, an alarmist.  I simply approach the gathered data with analytical means.  No matter what happens, I'll be long dead before any of the really big things happen.  No alarm here... though I don't have children who's futures I must address.  If you do, I would suggest you wrap your mind around the problem with a clear understanding, of what both sides say, and make an informed opinion OF YOUR OWN.

People like Lazs, they go backwards.  They form an opinion FIRST, then attempt to find supporting evidence for their ideology.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I am by no means, an alarmist.  I simply approach the gathered data with analytical means.  No matter what happens, I'll be long dead before any of the really big things happen.  No alarm here... though I don't have children who's futures I must address.  If you do, I would suggest you wrap your mind around the problem with a clear understanding, of what both sides say, and make an informed opinion OF YOUR OWN.

People like Lazs, they go backwards.  They form an opinion FIRST, then attempt to find supporting evidence for their ideology.

I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.

[lazs2]

I think you alarmists are not getting it..   It is not me that you are vilifying..  it is all the scientists that I am quoting..

All the scientists with bigger IQ's and better credentials than you have that say it is a hoax.. it is the ranks of said scientists who are deserting the cause.

I just quote em.    

I understand your frustration... people are catching on... you guys had a good run tho.. at one point it was hard to find a scientist who would speak up against the hoax.. The UN had it made.. people almost believed em... algore's fairtail was accepted without question (even got awards...big ones)... NPR had a weekly program that told us what we could do to stop global warming....  It was hard to even get a hit on google when you used MMGW and hoax in the same sentence.   Newsweek devoted a last ditch drama cover to try to bury the "deniers"...  there were moves to take away credentials of scientists who didn't go with the party line...

now... more and more... scientists are dropping from the ranks and only a few are hard core "MMGW and it is a catastrophe" types...  only 6% of the papers instead of 100% are sure this is true.

The UN paper has been sued by some of the scientists to get their name off it... algores movie has been declared fiction and drama by english schools... NPR dropped their series and doesn't mention MMGW at all..  it is MMglobal climate change if it is anything.. and then.. only in passing.. not as a subject anymore..

newsweeks drama was over before it started.. a retraction followed before the week was out.  The article was pretty much a hate and spew filled hortlund deal with moray arrogance thrown in...   No on is asking for the heads of scientists who go against the alarmists.    and.. when you do a google for info now... it is childs play to get both sides.   The US senate heard testimony and shot down the alarmists yet again.

But.. most of all... a discussion now on a BB such as this is not one guy against a crapload of alarmists and parrots... it is about 50/50 saying "the end is nigh" and "the numbers don't add up" with a whole big majority saying...  "I don't know.. I will wait and see but they better not do anything to ruin my life till they prove it is happening and there is something we can do about it."

The reason they are so angry is not because I quote people smarter and with better credentials than them... it is because they are losing ground every day.

lazs

[MORAY37]

On this new "clouds" postulate that was back in the thread a bit....

Clouds, as of now, DO reflect a portion of solar irradiance.  It all depends on what the clouds are made of... look at Venus...clouds there tend to reflect a small percentage and hold the rest IN.  Can anyone tell me what clouds on Venus are made from?  Bonus question... Titan, moon of Saturn, come up with atmospheric composition and deviation from expectected surface temperature....

On solar forcing of global warming.... and Mars....

Mars is warming, currently.  Earth is warming currently.  Posters have drawn these two events and tried to tie them together.  If solar forcing was truly doing this... wouldn't the other planets.... in particular VENUS be showing the same...considering it's closer to the sun than either of the other two?????  Venus isn't warming.   Mars and Earth's events are not tied together..... and can be further refuted by the fact they are warming at different RATES...if the same variable was working upon all three, all three would be showing the SAME RESPONSE to the VARIABLE, at least in rate response to external forcing.

[AKIron]

Venus is already pretty hot, a lot hotter than Earth or Mars. Even hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun. Rather than focus on one planet, what's happening to the rest?

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.

I am in that camp as well.... that many people need a cause, on both sides of the issue.  GW isn't mine... I just present the data as I see it, and as it pertains to my work.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by AKIron
Venus is already pretty hot, a lot hotter than Earth or Mars. Even hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun. Rather than focus on one planet, what's happening to the rest?

Isn't that EXACTLY what I said.... to compare what's happening to the rest?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Isn't that EXACTLY what I said.... to compare what's happening to the rest?

I dunno, did you say what was happening to the rest? I musta missed it. What's happening on Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury...?

[AKIron]

Hmmm, this site has some info on our system's various planets. Looks like some warming going on. Of course I haven't yet verified the accuracy of any of these.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by AKIron
I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.

Yes I heard that too - in the global warming swindle programme! So therefore it must be true

Even if it's true, I don't think the current warming can be compared with previous warmings. And that's because never before has warming occurred at the current unprecedented rate. And also you need to bear in mind that never before in the history of the earth has one species ever emitted as much CO2 as has been emitted by mankind in the last 200 years.

You should also consider the following.

• CO2 is not the only gas generated by the burning of fossil fuels.
• Water vapor has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
• Burning fossil fuels like oil produces BOTH of these greenhouse gases.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
If you're right that all clouds on average will have a net result of cooling the earth then we shouldn't fear global warming. The earth will self-regulate it's temperature when the warmer, moister, air has a cooling effect.

I didn't make that conclusion. You are. If YOU read the entire article it describes global dimming as masking the full effect of global warming ... not that it provides an effective long term solution.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arlo
I didn't make that conclusion. You are. If YOU read the entire article it describes global dimming as masking the full effect of global warming ... not that it provides an effective long term solution.

Global dimming as addressed in that article is the result of increased clouds due to pollutants, not increased clouds due to warmer air. You seem to have claimed that the end result is known yet you've never said what you believe it will be. I think you don't have a clue and are tap dancing.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
Global dimming as addressed in that article is the result of increased clouds due to pollutants, not increased clouds due to warmer air. You seem to have claimed that the end result is known yet you've never said what you believe it will be. I think you don't have a clue and are tap dancing.

Hmmmm .... I'm tap dancing. Let's see:

Where in that article does it claim that pollutants increase cloud production?

I certainly didn't say that. You seem to think so.

"Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming."

You think I claimed to know the end result of all variables. I didn't. I said the effect of the variable of increased cloud cover is known regarding solar reflection/temp. You seemed to beleive otherwise.

One variable. One effect. Known. Yes?

Got tap dance?