Global Warming

[xyzer]

Century..

Xyzer, you are either snowed by their rhetoric.. or are in denial. When Gore delivered the bad news.. and it is bad.. many people simply went towards the slippery slope down into denial. It is easy to "just ignore" something not imminent. Maybe it will go away. Not..!! It is similar to grief. When you get the bad news time has run out for your whole future, you first "deny" it. Then will come anger.. and mourning.

The post is a good example of the illogic I posted above? You entirely ignore the facts(recently measured cooling) and rant on about an entirely different matter.(the evils of Bush and Cheney) Perhaps your fertile knowledge can help us ...If the IPCC models show high and increasing levels of human created CO2, are a primary cause of warming why have global temps gotten cooler as CO2 has gone up?

Monckton(if you have bothered to read the fine print) addressed these points as well as the lack of several key ingrediants in the IPCCs models of the earths climate picture.

In debate there is one adage I remember that is valuable.." get your facts first, and then you can distort them"? You obviously don't care about the facts You care more about Bush/Cheney and their alleged affect on climate?????

[xyzer]

Pooey..Here we go again..

At the bottom of the article. So no, the APS as a whole has not changed its stance

It sure has..Before this incident it was completely in the tank of human caused warming! From the Thinker Article

Then, despite the Society's official position that evidence of mankind's influence on Earth's climate is "incontrovertible," the newsletter's July 2008 edition contained Jeffrey Marque's editor's comments which welcomed the reasoned debate Lord Monckton's paper would "kick off," allowing that:

Note the term "Incontrovertible"? Does it mean something different than that contained in a dictionary of word meanings?

The latest try at a 'discalimer' shows that politics has again reared its ugly head even on a site allegedly representing the scientific community, Does it not suggest that some believers said NO? Suffice to say that an impartial (scientific) view would welcome the discussion.

[xyzer]

Here is a follow up in the American Thinker...
American Thinker Blog: Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'

The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.

Where is the consensus? The IPCC conclusions were created by one panel..which was in some degree political and non scientific. Now we have literally thousands of scientists questioning it and the myth continues? Go figure.

[Century 25]

Quote by: xyzer Century.. The post is a good example of the illogic I posted above? You entirely ignore the facts(recently measured cooling) and rant on about an entirely different matter.(the evils of Bush and Cheney) Perhaps your fertile knowledge can help us ...If the IPCC models show high and increasing levels of human created CO2, are a primary cause of warming why have global temps gotten cooler as CO2 has gone up? Monckton(if you have bothered to read the fine print) addressed these points as well as the lack of several key ingrediants in the IPCCs models of the earths climate picture. In debate there is one adage I remember that is valuable.." get your facts first, and then you can distort them"? You obviously don't care about the facts You care more about Bush/Cheney and their alleged affect on climate?????

As for the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton..et al bunch, the only connection to global warming is their blatant refusal to sign on with the other 95% of the world (Kyoto Protocol) - and toss in their push to drill for more polluting oil, plus their push for new refineries. Nuff said. They are (hopefully) on their way out. The sooner they vacate 1600 PA Ave, the better for all of the world's people.

Yes xyzer, I am sure many people are questioning or trying to filter the noise from the signal:

If the IPCC models show high and increasing levels of human created CO2, are a primary cause of warming why have global temps gotten cooler as CO2 has gone up?

But.. too many think global warming means a steady.. monotonic.. & relentless warming everywhere year after year. You must know that weather and climate are 2 different things..? I suggest you visit NOAA: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Or Wikipedia and see: "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" - well, here, I'll give you a quick synopsis from here:Physical Oceanography Division -

What is the AMO? The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

What are the impacts of the AMO?

The AMO has affected air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes. It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming.

"It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming."

There is nothing more I can contribute in this thread. I'm sure you are quite unfazed by anything not suited to your "beliefs" re: global warming. I suppose all of us either "believe" in or trust areas of our lives that are important. I cannot "believe" anything except what has been either proven by repeatable experiment.. or verified to as many decimal places so as to be "true" - like trusting in the ability of an aircraft to transport me between point A & B.. I trust

[xyzer]

Sorry there is nothing more you can contribute to this thread century?
Frankly in the past couple of years on this thread I have yet to read anything meaningful from you on the Global Warming myth? You are a "believer" who will accept no contra evidence?

Here is another opinion by an Australian Scientist which migh help drive the nail home.
No smoking hot spot | The Australian

From the reference..

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Can you and Pooey also take Lord Keynes advice? The recently measured facts have shown that logically(that means with evidence) human released CO2(energy consumption) has not been the primary cause of the climate warming late in the last century?. I repeat we are talking about FACTS in the form of satellite measurement
disproving predictions of computer models which PREDICTED rather than proved?
It has actually grown cooler in the last 5 years when the IPCC models predicted it would grow warmer??????

Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

Incidentally your.AMO?

"It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming."

Is AMO not a natural(non manmade) influence on climate that transcends human CO2 as a primary driver of climate? Does not your statement assume that human caused CO2 is the primary driver but can be, and is, overcome by other Natural factors. Which is answering the question by showing CO2 is the culprit but can be influenced? Crazy logic. Shouldn't we just start out by saying Natural factors (the sun) is the primary climate driver and there are a myriad of other influemnces including human created CO2??

[Century 25]

lol.. "Lord Keynes" - ? I think John Keynes was a clever fellow.. too bad he changed his major to econ. Guess he couldn't understand an evolutionary science-type world either..

Ah, I must toss this out here. It brings us back to how your way of looking at our wondrous universe. I understand how you have approached the subject of global warming. I just refer to this post of yours whenever science & "belief" systems collide.

As I said, no, I have nothing more to add to this thread. So.. see you in another science vs.. ?? thread..

Quote by: xyzer Did anyone ever admit there are some things we just don't know? Some things we can't explain scientifically? In any discussion of why, there is a jumbled mix of the known(evolutionary processes) with the unkown(intelligent design)? We just don't know how it all started and we just don't know why it evolved into what we can observe? Obviously thats why humans adopt belief systems(religion) because it offers an explanation for the unkown or unexplainable? .Above it all is the randomness of events. e,g, We can't predict why of all the brains that have evolved over the eons the human brain is capable of thought and imagination and other species brains are not? Can you evolutionists tell us? I think thats why intelligent design stands up to scrutiny. There are some things that just don't fit the evolutionary path? What causes them?

[Spider]

"don't fit the evolutionary path" has been quoted. Anyone remember the Piltdown Man ! thought to be the "missing link" along the evolutionary path. Taught in schools for 30+ years. Proved to be a hoax. What to believe????

[xyzer]

You make a subtle point Spider! Humans ability to rationalize and think as well as believe, make for some strange myths. The really interesting part, IMNSHO, is that when faced with reality(actual evidence) some contiue to ignore the evidence and rationalize their implanted beliefs in an illogical manner? In this case actual climate measurements by our most reliable method (satellite) show a global cooling over the last 5 or so years(In direct contravention of IPCC predictions)? Century and others deliberately ignore the actual evidence. Its as if not allowing onesself to rely on the actual evidence shows their position is valid?
Unfortunately, such a strange belief system is fairly common, particularly among the ill informed? Like the Piltdown Myth human causes of global warming have been the dogma for almost a decade, taught in schools, headlined in the media and so on. Now as it is revealed as questionable many just cant handle it.

[xyzer]

How about another little? aside in the climate warming debate?

Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming - earth - 09 July 2008 - New Scientist Environment

The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.

The good ol' sun must really have a greater influence than human generated CO2 ...smog?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..Here we go again.. It sure has..Before this incident it was completely in the tank of human caused warming! From the Thinker Article Note the term "Incontrovertible"? Does it mean something different than that contained in a dictionary of word meanings? The latest try at a 'discalimer' shows that politics has again reared its ugly head even on a site allegedly representing the scientific community, Does it not suggest that some believers said NO? Suffice to say that an impartial (scientific) view would welcome the discussion.

No, you're not listening, the APS as a whole has not changed their stance.

Climate Change APS Position Unchanged APS reaffirms its 2007 position on climate change. An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), with the notice that, "All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee." This newsletter is not a journal of APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Front page of APS at time of posting
Regardless of your cries of foul play, that is their official statement.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is the edited copy of the paperAPS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered Which shows the APS is obviously in the tank! Not really an organization interesed in scientific progress so much as agenda driven. I don't want to brag but if one bothers to check my past posts on this thread you will see they agree with Moncktons on the obvious natural influences on climate change and their overwhelming influence compared to humans paltry influence.

How does this show APS as an obvious tank? As stated in your article

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

So come back when we get this thing peer reviewed, then we'll discuss its validity.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a follow up in the American Thinker... American Thinker Blog: Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Where is the consensus? The IPCC conclusions were created by one panel..which was in some degree political and non scientific. Now we have literally thousands of scientists questioning it and the myth continues? Go figure.

Again, you give us the crap that is the Oregon Petition Project, which your said post refers to

Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition,"

We have already established that is petition is a complete farce which you can't seem to acknowledge.
Must try harder.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another opinion by an Australian Scientist which migh help drive the nail home. No smoking hot spot | The Australian From the reference..

You hit the nail on the head quite nicely there, it is his single opinion. Furthermore, I don't see how he is involved in active climate research, can you help me with that?

Quote by: xyzer Can you and Pooey also take Lord Keynes advice? The recently measured facts have shown that logically(that means with evidence) human released CO2(energy consumption) has not been the primary cause of the climate warming late in the last century?. I repeat we are talking about FACTS in the form of satellite measurement disproving predictions of computer models which PREDICTED rather than proved? It has actually grown cooler in the last 5 years when the IPCC models predicted it would grow warmer??????

Again, you've neglected the fact that we've established why it appears the warming has plateaued. We know that the PDO cycle has a huge effect and we know that in the past few years it is in the La Nina phase which counteracts the warming. This has been traced throughout the past 50 years, these factors are known to temporarily affect global temperature but due to their chaotic nature, can not be predicted precisely.

Quote by: xyzer Incidentally your.AMO? Is AMO not a natural(non manmade) influence on climate that transcends human CO2 as a primary driver of climate? Does not your statement assume that human caused CO2 is the primary driver but can be, and is, overcome by other Natural factors. Which is answering the question by showing CO2 is the culprit but can be influenced? Crazy logic. Shouldn't we just start out by saying Natural factors (the sun) is the primary climate driver and there are a myriad of other influemnces including human created CO2??

Not again what he posts;

The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes.

Hence, so it cycles within half a century, certainly cannot explain the increased warming over a century.
Also, you're just playing with words, we are trying to tell you that even factoring in all the known natural influences, we cannot account for the increased warming. Which is why we're left with the conclusion that increased a greenhouse gas concentration is the primary cause for this instance.

Again, I will ask of you just one thing, show me a published scientific paper which account for the majority of the increased warming by natural factors.

[xyzer]

Again!!!You dodge the question Pooey? If Human generated CO2 is the Primary driver of climate change, how come it has increased while temperatures cooled? Don't you get it? Actual measurements have refuted peer reviwed predictions. In a logical sense this disproves the IPCC conclusions and yet you make the ridiculous statement that these conclusions need peer review..when they are in fact peer review. You can't supress truth using that illogical drivel?

You post...

Again, I will ask of you just one thing, show me a published scientific paper which account for the majority of the increased warming by natural factors

The scientific papers you keep referring to are merely predictions based on models. The alarmist general conclusions, announced by the IPCC based on those papers, were not scientifically reviewed ...in fact they have been refuted by actual measurement! A more logical and likely scenario is evident and you even admit it by saying that natural factors override human factors... Doesn't that reflect the fact that we just don't know? And we do know climate has varied over the eons and warmed or cooled many times before humans could influemnce it?
From one of your recent posts?

We know that the PDO cycle has a huge effect and we know that in the past few years it is in the La Nina phase which counteracts the warming. This has been traced throughout the past 50 years, these factors are known to temporarily affect global temperature but due to their chaotic nature, can not be predicted

Does'nt it sink in Pooey, you are admitting there are natual factors that override the human and you even admit the evidence???

Another flaw in your position is "peer review"? You keep saying conclusions that oppose the IPCCs interpretations don't have peer review? Do you realize that you are trying to assert that interpretations of a non peer reviewed set of IPCC conclusions need peer reviw? If you are, your off your trolley? Opinions based on other evidence don't need peer review. This study and collation of opposing views(backed by evidence) is made by scientists?

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project doesn't need peer review. Its a logical refutation by scientists, with references, of the general IPCC conclusions ? It points out where the predictions have been faulty.
You keep using the illogical ruse that it is not scientific and that its peer review function is bogus? Yet you don't explain who and how conclusions can be peer reviewed? Maybe you mean challenged?

[xyzer]

Lets continue with your illogical responses Pooey? You dismiss the credentials of the author(David Evans) of the australian article "No Smoking Hot Spot"? Did you read his expert credentials? He was directly involved in the study of climate change, originally believing the warmth was human induced but actual measurements changed his mind? Showed him something was flawed in the model predictions.

And this reference which knocks you peer review argument into a "cocked hat"?
CFP: The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

This shows the original claim that thousands of scientists(peers)reviewed and concurres with the IPCC report was a myth? Many fewer reviewed the entire report and some of those reviews were rejected or ignored in the final conclusions? It turns out you beleived a questionable if not spurious claim of scientific review?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Again!!!You dodge the question Pooey? If Human generated CO2 is the Primary driver of climate change, how come it has increased while temperatures cooled? Don't you get it? Actual measurements have refuted peer reviwed predictions. In a logical sense this disproves the IPCC conclusions and yet you make the ridiculous statement that these conclusions need peer review..when they are in fact peer review. You can't supress truth using that illogical drivel?

You seem to misunderstand and suffer from selective amnesia again. We've never claimed that the ONLY climate driver is carbon dioxide. This is the red herring you're attributing to me. This is NOT the case. The IPCC has even pointed out that about 20% of the current warming is likely due to increased solar activity. Peer review for a scientific paper requires more than a few "scientists" patting each others back over a blog.

Quote by: xyzer The scientific papers you keep referring to are merely predictions based on models.

Which scientific papers?

Quote by: xyzer The alarmist general conclusions, announced by the IPCC based on those papers, were not scientifically reviewed ...in fact they have been refuted by actual measurement!

Which measurements? The IPCC projects long term warming, it cannot account for short term events caused by phenomenons like the PDO cycle.

Quote by: xyzer A more logical and likely scenario is evident and you even admit it by saying that natural factors override human factors... Doesn't that reflect the fact that we just don't know? And we do know climate has varied over the eons and warmed or cooled many times before humans could influemnce it?

Again, I will use the analogy of cancer; what you're saying is the equivalent that because people have had tumours long before man could create carcinogens, it means all cancer today is directly due to natural causes and nothing to do with human influence.

Quote by: xyzer From one of your recent posts? Does'nt it sink in Pooey, you are admitting there are natual factors that override the human and you even admit the evidence???

Yes, plenty of factors can override human influence. If we had a very large volcanic eruption that threw immense particulates into the air, we'd see a large reduction in global temperature! But that just means the negative forcing has overwhelmed the positive forcing, doesn't mean automatically that the latter doesn't exist!

Quote by: xyzer Another flaw in your position is "peer review"? You keep saying conclusions that oppose the IPCCs interpretations don't have peer review? Do you realize that you are trying to assert that interpretations of a non peer reviewed set of IPCC conclusions need peer reviw? If you are, your off your trolley? Opinions based on other evidence don't need peer review. This study and collation of opposing views(backed by evidence) is made by scientists?

This is a prime example of your lack of scientific methodology. Raw data on its own can tell us a lot of things but there must be a validated way to interpret it. Hence, this method of interpreting the data must be shown to be consistent and accurate et cetera, hence the need to be peer reviewed. No scientist is infallible, unless you suddenly consider those who are AGW denialists to have such a property?

Quote by: xyzer Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project doesn't need peer review. Its a logical refutation by scientists, with references, of the general IPCC conclusions ? It points out where the predictions have been faulty.

There are also plenty of blogs out there that claim to refute Global warming or Evolution with references. I will point out again that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and its petition is a complete farce.

Quote by: xyzer You keep using the illogical ruse that it is not scientific and that its peer review function is bogus? Yet you don't explain who and how conclusions can be peer reviewed? Maybe you mean challenged?

How is it illogical? You're being hypocritical; on the one hand, you're saying that you have scientific support, but on the other, you say you don't need proper scientific approval because your sources are infallible. Peer review exists to route out the poor science, it has been used for the past hundred years and look at where it's gotten us, scientific progress has never been better!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Lets continue with your illogical responses Pooey? You dismiss the credentials of the author(David Evans) of the australian article "No Smoking Hot Spot"? Did you read his expert credentials? He was directly involved in the study of climate change, originally believing the warmth was human induced but actual measurements changed his mind? Showed him something was flawed in the model predictions.

Well, actually I asked a link for his credentials because there's some many David Evans on the internet. I am genuinely interested and not just knocking him for the sake of it. Clearly, you can refer me directly?

Quote by: xyzer And this reference which knocks you peer review argument into a "cocked hat"? CFP: The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax This shows the original claim that thousands of scientists(peers)reviewed and concurres with the IPCC report was a myth? Many fewer reviewed the entire report and some of those reviews were rejected or ignored in the final conclusions? It turns out you beleived a questionable if not spurious claim of scientific review?

Here in lies the problem, the article is making a claim that in order for the statement of ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’ to be true, then all of them must've worked on WG I. Well, clearly they couldn't because their expertise is needed else where. So the question is, 1900 reviewers didn't work on WG I and equally opposed the statements made in the summary report, why didn't they issue their complaints? With the internet so widely available, they can post their views up and be seen around the world in less than a day.
At the end of the day though, the IPCC reviews publications of scientific papers, which are already peer reviewed.

[xyzer]

You really don't get it do you Pooey/ It takes you a half page of blather to distort the original contention of we deniers. That human created CO2 is not the PRIMARY driver of climate! Thus we have given you plenty of valid references about the PRIMARY impact of the sun and other natural phenomena compared to the minor influence of less that 1% of CO2 emissions.
Dragged you through the illogical barriers of flawed models which can't predict reality! And we have shown you actual evidence(satellite measurements) that climate has cooled from these other factors despite the climbing rates of human CO2 emissions? Yet incredibly you still cling to your now antiquated evidence that humans can change, and are, changing climate. This and your reluctant admissions that other factors the sun and the oceans have an overwhelming influence on climate are thus illogical?

Then you add this nonsensical paragraph?

Here in lies the problem, the article is making a claim that in order for the statement of ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’ to be true, then all of them must've worked on WG I. Well, clearly they couldn't because their expertise is needed else where. So the question is, 1900 reviewers didn't work on WG I and equally opposed the statements made in the summary report, why didn't they issue their complaints? With the internet so widely available, they can post their views up and be seen around the world in less than a

Some did complain! Thats what the article was all about? The record shows that you(on this thread) and others echoed the news that 2500 scientists agree with the GENERAL conclusions of the IPCC study When they didn't? Their reviews were more directed at specific aspects of the study!. Plus they wete numbered in a lot less than the 2500 scientists claimed to agree with all aspects of the conclusions? And as I have posted some still disagree with the general premise that humans have a primary or any major affect on climate? By the way we are talking about "reviewed" not "worked on". The claim that 2500 scientists worked on the study is ridiculous!

Here is another of your posts which admits that other factors are just as important or more so influence