Global Warming

[xyzer]

Pooey..there you go again..

But the US is covers a relatively large land mass, if we can change the temperature so much with just our aircrafts, how can you deny that we can't change our climate to any significant degree? I'm not even talking about global warming. Another example would be in China where Rain fall is reduced by 50%. I'm sure you'll once again go, "blah blah it's just China bah". But of course, a quick search will net you a story on the global effects of China's pollution.

No I wont go blah! I'll just question the relationship between global warming and rainfall in the mountains of China? As usual in your dithyrambic thought processes you are using an unrelated example to prove humans are causing global warming?

Isn't it rather arrogant and juvenile, to promote oneself as an important authority?

I'm speaking as if I am in a position of importance; I don't reinterpret the data that hundreds and thousands of qualified personnels and try to pass it off as fact.

and then to blindly believe its certainty and posit that you know thousands of qualified persons are making the same interpretations of the general subject of climate warming that you are? I've repeatedly posted sources that differ in their studies from the current alarmist orthodoxy spawned by the IPCC? Studies that show CO2 is a minor element in the atmosphere and humans contributions miniscule! Studies that show natural causes are the most important climate drivers.Someone has to counter your paralogistic impressions of reality?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..there you go again.. No I wont go blah! I'll just question the relationship between global warming and rainfall in the mountains of China? As usual in your dithyrambic thought processes you are using an unrelated example to prove humans are causing global warming?

Hang on a second, when we're talking about global warming, we're typically talking about climate change as a whole. Now, seeing as you are adamant on the denial of climate change and its causes, I thought it was more prudent to bring an example of climate change brought about by human activities which we know with high certainty. I guess there is no pleasing some people...

Quote by: xyzer Isn't it rather arrogant and juvenile, to promote oneself as an important authority?

Yes, it is. But I am not the one who's using their opinion to override those of others in this debate.

Quote by: xyzer and then to blindly believe its certainty and posit that you know thousands of qualified persons are making the same interpretations of the general subject of climate warming that you are?

I have already posted the joint statements made by all the major National Science Academies in the world, in addition to many other major organisations that research climate change. They represent thousands and thousands of scientists. What do you have to show for yours? I have posted my source numerous times so I won't do so again unless requested.

Quote by: xyzer I've repeatedly posted sources that differ in their studies from the current alarmist orthodoxy spawned by the IPCC? Studies that show CO2 is a minor element in the atmosphere and humans contributions miniscule! Studies that show natural causes are the most important climate drivers.Someone has to counter your paralogistic impressions of reality?

Those aren't studies, those are misrepresentations of the data and at every point I have countered your myths on climate change! Yet each time, instead of facing the rebuttals, you move on to a different area and the cycle is repeated. It's like a brick wall that I'm talking to but here it is again for your education; Myth 1, CO2 is an unimportant greenhouse gas.
Myth 2, our emissions are too small to matter.
So which of the natural causes are to be blamed for the recent warming? As you know, a recent report has absolved the sun of being the culprit for the past 2 decades.

[xyzer]

OK Pooey lets look into the details of one of your so called valid sites?
New Scientist Environment.
The hockey stick graph..

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Preface to the article on climate warming.

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Does this show evidence of bias before the facts are prevented? It show me that the author was predisposed to believe in anthropogenic causes.

Chaotic influences..

Similarly, while we cannot predict the weather in a particular place and on a particular day in 100 years time, we can be sure that on average it will be far warmer if greenhouse gases continue to rise

Models

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars. In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like “likely” and “very likely” in terms of percentage probability.

We've discussed the value of certainty and the generalized definitions offered by the IPCC. Would you be willing to invest your life saving is it was only 'likely' that it would be safe? When one concludes from a study that something is likely to occur in 100 years is that enough certainty to act?

Notice the shunting aside of this so called anomaly? Plus the admission that there are inherent errors in the observation and the models?

There is still some ambiguity in the tropics, where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere. However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the observations and the models.

I've posted evidence that the IPCC has ignored contra evidence when it suited the agenda!

I could go on Pooey but even you might get the drift by now. There is a pall of uncertainty in this whole business. A rationalization of any facts or hypotheses that cast doubt on the IPCC orthodoxy that the warmth we are experiencing is due to human activity? This has been continued even when we experienced a recent period of cooler temperatures at the same time that CO2 emissions were increasing?

By the way..

But I am not the one who's using their opinion to override those of others in this debate.

I'm not trying to override your or anybody elses opinions. I'm posting what I believe! I could care less whether you agree or disagree. Thats not the purpose of debate is it?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer OK Pooey lets look into the details of one of your so called valid sites? New Scientist Environment. The hockey stick graph.. Preface to the article on climate warming. Does this show evidence of bias before the facts are prevented? It show me that the author was predisposed to believe in anthropogenic causes.

What matters is the case content, it clearly spells out to you that you are lying when you say that the Hockey stick graph has been shown to be completed flawed and that later studies have disproved it.

Quote by: xyzer Chaotic influences..

Let me guess, you're trying to tell me that Climate runs on a chaotic system and thus cannot be predicted?

Quote by: xyzer We've discussed the value of certainty and the generalized definitions offered by the IPCC. Would you be willing to invest your life saving is it was only 'likely' that it would be safe? When one concludes from a study that something is likely to occur in 100 years is that enough certainty to act?

The percentage given was a figure of around 90% for certainty. If someone told you that there was a 90% chance your house would set on fire, wouldn't you call the fire brigade?

Quote by: xyzer Notice the shunting aside of this so called anomaly? Plus the admission that there are inherent errors in the observation and the models?

Which anomaly? Also, all current published science, especially those dealing with numbers must be given with margins of error. To feign that one's results are absolute would be the real crime. If you knew anything about science you would understand this.

Quote by: xyzer I've posted evidence that the IPCC has ignored contra evidence when it suited the agenda!

I seem to have missed this, where was it? Because I sure as hell haven't seen any so far!

Quote by: xyzer I could go on Pooey but even you might get the drift by now. There is a pall of uncertainty in this whole business. A rationalization of any facts or hypotheses that cast doubt on the IPCC orthodoxy that the warmth we are experiencing is due to human activity? This has been continued even when we experienced a recent period of cooler temperatures at the same time that CO2 emissions were increasing?

I have already posted this half a dozen times but I do so again; the cooling was due to human activities, and it was our act of change that ironically, allowed the warming to increase again.
This is another demonstration of how I have refuted your misleading points and you have conveniently ignored it, only to repost the same thing again some time down the line. I have no doubt that you will bring up this point again in a few weeks time, only to be shot down...again.

Quote by: xyzer By the way.. I'm not trying to override your or anybody elses opinions. I'm posting what I believe! I could care less whether you agree or disagree. Thats not the purpose of debate is it?

The contents of your posts would beg to differ.

[xyzer]

I have already posted this half a dozen times but I do so again; the cooling was due to human activities, and it was our act of change that ironically, allowed the warming to increase again. This is another demonstration of how I have refuted your misleading points and you have conveniently ignored it, only to repost the same thing again some time down the line. I have no doubt that you will bring up this point again in a few weeks time, only to be shot down...again.

I wont bother to check the record but I doubt that I've ever read an admission from you that cooling(1940/70 period) was caused by human activity?
But lets address your reference on the matter..From... New Scientist Environment..A site with a high sounding name but no authenticity? How do we know it represents anything but an agenda? These two paragraphs point out the problem..

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The statement about the rise in industrial activity after the end of WW2(1945, doesn't match the cooling that had already started in 1940? There was no major change in industrial production in the USA starting in 1946 and the European countries and Japan were destitute and unable to produce much of anything for a decade or more after the war? Good old logic would tell the less gullible that these two paragraphs are flawed ?

The eruption of the volcano(1963) didn't occur until the end of the cooling period?
Which was 1940-1970? So that statement is flawed...illogical?

I don't have time at present to check the rest of this example of an attempt at global warming fraud, but it isobvious. It joins the rest of the illogical hype that surrounds climate change? Omly the the naive believe it implicitly? Naive is a polite word for gullible.I say the author of this gibberish lies!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I wont bother to check the record but I doubt that I've ever read an admission from you that cooling(1940/70 period) was caused by human activity?

Well, many times this year it's been questioned and I had provided the explanation.

Quote by: xyzer But lets address your reference on the matter..From... New Scientist Environment..A site with a high sounding name but no authenticity? How do we know it represents anything but an agenda? These two paragraphs point out the problem..

If you want to talk about agenda, let's look at your sources, typically speaking they're from the financial section with economist writers. New scientist is a respectable science magazine that reports the latest journal news in layman's format.

Quote by: xyzer The statement about the rise in industrial activity after the end of WW2(1945, doesn't match the cooling that had already started in 1940? There was no major change in industrial production in the USA starting in 1946 and the European countries and Japan were destitute and unable to produce much of anything for a decade or more after the war? Good old logic would tell the less gullible that these two paragraphs are flawed ?

He said that, "The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war.". Now I don't know about you but from 1940, many countries were working overdrive to fuel their war efforts, the US may not have joined the war till 1942 but they manufacture products for the war. After the war, a lot industry had to work in overdrive to fix the damage that was done, or had you forgotten that?

Quote by: xyzer The eruption of the volcano(1963) didn't occur until the end of the cooling period?

I see you seem to have poor reading skills. Let me quote the entire sentence.

In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

Note that part about in addition.

Quote by: xyzer Which was 1940-1970? So that statement is flawed...illogical?

No, the only illogical and flawed are your reading skills.

Quote by: xyzer I don't have time at present to check the rest of this example of an attempt at global warming fraud, but it isobvious. It joins the rest of the illogical hype that surrounds climate change? Omly the the naive believe it implicitly? Naive is a polite word for gullible.I say the author of this gibberish lies!

If you don't read the entire article then how would you know? Furthermore, he isn't pulling the data out of thin air, it is all clearly referenced and accessible.

This is another example that you do not want to face the facts, even when they're undeniable in front of you, you persevere with your denial. It must take a special type of stubbornness to do that. I take my hat off for you.

[xyzer]

The usual juvenile ad hominem tinted nonsense Pooey. Suggest you go back to school and take a course in logic.

Well, many times this year it's been questioned and I had provided the explanation

Is this one of the six times?:)

New scientist is a respectable science magazine that reports the latest journal news in layman's format.

Is that supposed to ameliorate the illogical post I referenced which didn't fit the time frame or historical reality?

The Agung eruption didn't occur until 1963 Pooey ..the cooling started in 1940 over 23 years earlier? Don't you get it? The author said Agungs eruption was a factor before it even erupted? Duh? Now I'm understanding what intellectual level you are coming from? I suggest you re read the article because your reading skills may approach your poor interpretaive and deductive skills.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer The usual juvenile ad hominem tinted nonsense Pooey. Suggest you go back to school and take a course in logic.

I see you've, once again, failed to concede or address the points but instead accuse me of something with a fancy latin term.

Quote by: xyzer Is this one of the six times?:) Is that supposed to ameliorate the illogical post I referenced which didn't fit the time frame or historical reality?

You mean it doesn't fit your version of reality? Please, you should really keep these delusions to yourself, it's getting embarrassing.

Quote by: xyzer The Agung eruption didn't occur until 1963 Pooey ..the cooling started in 1940 over 23 years earlier? Don't you get it? The author said Agungs eruption was a factor before it even erupted? Duh?

I already highlighted the words, "in addition", that means it's on top of something that has/is already happening which in this case is the sulphate in the atmosphere. The prior cooling was induced by human industrial activity (as it says) and that in 1963, the drop was sustained due to the volcanic eruption.

Quote by: xyzer Now I'm understanding what intellectual level you are coming from? I suggest you re read the article because your reading skills may approach your poor interpretaive and deductive skills.

You must have some sort of special reading skills as it is quite clear to me that you've intentionally misread the article despite the fact that I pointed out the obvious part for you.
Your stubborn and arrogance has really shone through in this case, I did not expect you to point out the same thing again as soon as I'd corrected you. Are you going for a hat trick for the next post?

[rmnunez]

Honda versus Prius, which is more environmentally-friendly? Hummer vs Prius Redux: This time to Hummer? I don't think so! - AutoblogGreen

But that's a 'green' site just as the report was generated by an 'auto' site. Here's a summary that seems a bit more even handed (to me):

Hummer vs. hybrid report raises controversy | KATU - Portland, Oregon | News

[xyzer]

If you, a so called moderator, don't know what ad hominem means, I suggest you replace your Cantonese Dictionary with an English one Pooey?
You are really too much...:)

[xyzer]

I drove through Sudbury many years back rm and its no lie that area was wasted! Environmentally destroyed.
I read somewhere that the fatality rate in large vehicles is much less than in the smaller ones. That too is a consideration along with the pollution difference. Even if CO2 has not been proven to a major climate influencer, auto exhaust fumes can get irritating particuarly when there is a temperature inversion.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer If you, a so called moderator, don't know what ad hominem means, I suggest you replace your Cantonese Dictionary with an English one Pooey? You are really too much...:)

Latin terms are so grammar school (elitist), I prefer to avoid them if I can.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, cars don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things (It does, however, cause most rainfall on the weekends due its air pollution). Air planes and our primary energy generation is where efficiency needs to be tightened up. I'd like to point out that I support the idea of increasing our energy efficiency (so that there is less waste), which would allow us to reduce our carbon emissions. Even if CO2 had no relevance to climate we would still benefit from this change, so what are people afraid of?

[xyzer]

I'll drink to this Pooey..

I'd like to point out that I support the idea of increasing our energy efficiency (so that there is less waste), which would allow us to reduce our carbon emissions. Even if CO2 had no relevance to climate we would still benefit from this change, so what are people afraid of?

There is no question that we need better and cleaner sources for our energy consumption. Perhaps hydrogen technology will be one answer.

Incidentalkly I thought this might interest you. It shows how the hysterical, sensation seeking media, is a part of the alarmist problem about what might happen if climate change continues..http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

If this doesn't work, try this site..An Examination of the Media and the Global Warming Hoax

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Incidentalkly I thought this might interest you. It shows how the hysterical, sensation seeking media, is a part of the alarmist problem about what might happen if climate change continues..http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf If this doesn't work, try this site..An Examination of the Media and the Global Warming Hoax

Without a doubt, and I have said it before, the media is sensationalising the issue. Much like how they do with any other story they have these days and I don't like it either. Hydrogen technology will still need another energy input to produce that hydrogen, for that I fully back the use of nuclear fission, which should hold us out till Fusion is commercially viable. I trust you would also agree to this as it will remove our dependency from the oil rich nations that seem to dictate our country's policy to some extent.

[rmnunez]

The UN's all-powerful climate change panel is no straightforward scientific body. It is a deeply political organisation that was born out of disenchantment with progress.

UNEP was the organization which drove the Montreal Protocol to completion in 1987. In 1988, UNEP and WMO created the IPCC. The specific mission of IPCC was defined as investigating/assessing/etc the impact/risk of human-induced climate change.

That paradigm and focus on human-induced was driven by the success of the CFC ban the year before. The MISSION of human-induced means that human-induced models/research forms the core - and other-induced research is a backfill/supplement/modification/rejected/etc.

Question the core paradigm and you are questioning the mission of IPCC. Challenge the core paradigm and you are challenging the mission of IPCC. Reject the core paradigm and you are rejecting the mission of IPCC.

Assuming what has yet to be proven (and back the possible alternatives were not even researched) is not a good way to set an agenda/mission. There's no way back except to start over - from scratch - with an open mind.

That paradigm is IMO the group psychology behind this herding that is now called "consensus".

Interesting article (historic not scientific) about the roots of the IPCC Digging up the roots of the IPCC | spiked

[xyzer]

Interesting approach and article... rm!
Scientists are attempting to politicise scientific findings...The collective results of various studies are collated by a political body(IPCC), intepreted and defined in totality as dogma. A result that stresses a gloomy outlook.

We've read Pooeys frequent insistance that the IPCC is correct in its alarmist predictions because its summaries are based on scientific studies? We are not allowed to question the dogma or any flaws in the studies that produced this new dogma. why? Because we are not scientists! Humans are responsible for climate change and if humans change their energy consumption habits climate will change? Words like "likely" are used to frighten the inexpert herd into actions without regard to the economic and social impacts! When the US Senate and Presidents Clinton and Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol becaused of the uncertainty and economic impacts they were castigated! Opportunisyic clowns like Gore fan the flames and uninformed poltiicians join the circus!
I'm still shaking my head on that one and I'm still a non scientific skeptic!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Interesting approach and article... rm! Scientists are attempting to politicise scientific findings...The collective results of various studies are collated by a political body(IPCC), intepreted and defined in totality as dogma. A result that stresses a gloomy outlook. We've read Pooeys frequent insistance that the IPCC is correct in its alarmist predictions because its summaries are based on scientific studies? We are not allowed to question the dogma or any flaws in the studies that produced this new dogma. why? Because we are not scientists!

Would you challenge a doctor's opinion if he diagnosed you with a disease? Of course, you'd ask for a second opinion. So what if an entire hospital's staff gave you the same answer? Would you still be in doubt even though you have little to no medical knowledge? Same applies here, if you don't have a good understanding of the science you'll just keep making wrong assumptions and believe misleading information; this thread's content is evidence enough for that.

Quote by: xyzer Humans are responsible for climate change and if humans change their energy consumption habits climate will change? Words like "likely" are used to frighten the inexpert herd into actions without regard to the economic and social impacts!

Full regard has been given, the IPCC's report is very conserved and does not paint a catastrophic picture as you put it. The Stern reports makes it clear that it is in our economic interest to act now rather than continue stalling. Further more, I have cited articles that tell how we can be more energy efficient to make a difference without the sky falling on our heads as you would have us believe.

Quote by: xyzer When the US Senate and Presidents Clinton and Bush rejected the Kyoto protocol becaused of the uncertainty and economic impacts they were castigated! Opportunisyic clowns like Gore fan the flames and uninformed poltiicians join the circus! I'm still shaking my head on that one and I'm still a non scientific skeptic!

I'd more akin it to burying your head in sand. Then adding a tonne of cement on top.

[xyzer]