Global warming?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Ah well it was worth a try, as it is about once a year.

It seems to me that once a year (or more), skeptics point to a study and make claims that were neither the intent nor the conclusions of the authors.

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

Blimey TW. The more I read those words the more I wonder what on earth is going on? The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists?

Here's a link to the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

What you quoted intentionally distorts and misrepresents what that BBC interview reported.

Phil Jones said:

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

Curiously, Phil Jones says UT's claims from his only source are statistically insignificant. Jones then provides data that is statistically significant.

Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this:

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Jones even provided numbers. Why did you ignore his major point to claim something contrary to what he said? BBC did not misrepresent what he said. Only you did that.

Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored.

I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Did you not understand the BBC interview? Or not read all details and numbers? Why did you ignore his many important points and numbers while completely misrepresenting one paragraph? You perverted what the BBC reported by misquoting one paragraph and by ignoring relevant numbers.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

no matter ...

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

I'm feeling ya dude - Déjà vu

[Fair&Balanced]

When skeptics aren't pointing to studies and making claims that were neither the intent nor the conclusions of the authors, there is always the old stand by of quoting a scientist out of context and then having the balls to claim that you were misquoted.

There is no limit to the skeptic tactics, but they become tiresome when repeated so often.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Blib27

If you do not, I shall report you.

I'm sorry, I believe you mean put you on report.


Though it's not going to work, in any case.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

Evidence in full?

Quote mining may not cause global warming, but I dont believe it is a reportable offense.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

It seems to me that once a year (or more), skeptics point to a study and make claims that were neither the intent nor the conclusions of the authors.

Once a year I engage with tw.

And now, twice a year with you.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Once a year I engage with tw.

And now, twice a year with you.

There's not much I can do about that when you are unwilling to continue a discussion when your position is respectfully challenged.


Talk again around Christmas time?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Once a year I engage with tw.

You cited one source about "air pollution". Your source even says global warming is created by mankind. And still you quoted a scientist out of context and then have the balls to claim that you were misquoted? Those PNAS authors were misrepresented by you.

Global warming exists no matter how many sources you or Blib27 quote out of context. Reality does not change because numbers and details are ignored.

Blib27 - you posted an opposite of what Prof Jones actually said in that BBC interview. You misrepresented reality using methods routinely implemented by extremists for political purposes. Methods that work when illiteracy is widespread.

[Undertoad]

I said good day.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

117 papers that somehow say global warming does not exist - and that poster did not even read one. Coign is a classic example of why so many are so easily brainwashed by a political agenda. He knew what the political agenda ordered him to believe - nothing more. That, BTW, meets the definition of brainwashing.

I came back to just see how this thread was going to find out you are STILL attacking me and lying about me.

That was NINE HUNDRED papers that said global warming is NOT caused by humans. And I READ 15 of them and had earlier posted examples from 4 of them. (They are very dry reading.)

But others on sites I trust have read them and posted over-reaching synopsis letting me know, they are proof if I would take the time to read more.

WHERE is your proof? I showed you proof and you dismiss it out of hand by saying it doesn't count because I did not read more than 15 of them. HOW MANY papers have you read and post them. I will post the paper that disproves it.

TW, you are a babbling loon that is guilty of exactly what you accuse me of.

[Undertoad]

A return to thread topic

The usual prologue: I believe in global warming, I understand the theory of greenhouse gas and why it's plausible man has had a factor in this increase.

However, as a born skeptic, I have to apply that too, and the debate fascinates me. Let's test these ideas with the right kinds of questions, and as the questions are answered correctly, so the truth becomes evident. Or doesn't!

The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out?

A new U of Alabama study, involving NASA data, now suggests more energy i.e. heat is lost to space than climate scientists' models originally predicted.

(I hope that this is correct but I do not know if this is correct. Nevertheless, it will probably be the focus of global warming debate for a while.)

bold by undertoad

Originally Posted by U of Alabama Climate Scientists

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

[Undertoad]

Leaning towards not correct, as one of the study's main authors is not credible.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A return to thread topic

The usual prologue: I believe in global warming, I understand the theory of greenhouse gas and why it's plausible man has had a factor in this increase.

Here is an article with math and science and everything trying to explain why CO2 gas cannot be the reason for Global Warming. And if the only way that man is causing Global Warming is by putting CO2 into the air, then we cannot be the reason for Global Warming. Thus why do we have to hamstring our economies fighting CO2 emissions?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Here is the summary of the article if you don't want to read the very large and sometime mathamatical discussion.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere. We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.) But some scientists such as Dr. Heinz Hug who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate. Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured. We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024. And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture.

Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.

In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:


"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."