Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: David Staup on 20 Feb 2010 11:40 "Dave Typinski" <m�bius(a)trapezium.net> wrote in message news:ko9vn5563iqfbv6ce701jbptgueki5tqmr(a)4ax.com... > Quadibloc <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> >>On Feb 19, 9:35 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: >> >>> We need a good laugh, explain how >>> Global Warming causes cold and snow again. >> >>Cold and snow are caused by winter, and winter is caused by the >>orbital specific interacting with Earth's mainly equatorial climate :) > > If nothing else, at least Mr. Orbital Specific provides good fodder > for humor. > > Anyway, I had a look at the Swiss ProClim document linked by Sam > (thanks, Sam!). The ProClim document addressed many concerns, but not > all of them. That is to say, it removed some of my doubts, but not > all. > > As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why > I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate > change. > > In no specific order: > > 1) The raw data and its analysis appear to have considerable wiggle > room. That is, the data is massaged before processing and it is not > clear to me just how much. > > 2) The raw data is not available. That leads me to wonder who is > hiding what. I realize the proprietary nature of the process of data > collection often prevents free distribution. I also realize that > climate scientists and those empaneled to evaluate climate research > are human and subject to human failings. > > 3) The good climate science being performed is being muddled by the > new religion of environmentalism. Anthropogenic environmental change > has become original sin updated for new millennium sensibilities by > many people. As such, it is very difficult to separate fact from > faith. > > 4) Climate change is being used by political bodies as an excuse to > engage in social engineering. It has become the global political > power game of the millennium. As such, politics has muddied the > waters even more than the True Believers. > > 5) If anthropogenically forced global warming were an ironclad fact, > why isn't it clear? To put it another way, why isn't it easy to show? > > 6) My sense is that there are too many caveats in the data processing > methodology; i.e. too many manually inserted fudge factors. (this is > probably a repeat of #1 above) > > 7) My sense is that not all climatologists agree on the details. > > 8) My sense is that not all climatologists agree that anthropogenic > activity is the primary cause of global warming. > > 9) My sense is that some climate researches have falsified data. > Probably more to save their own jobs than to promulgate some ideology, > but who knows... True Belivers can do some amazingly dumb things. > > Summed, these fill me with confidence neither about the current state > of our understanding of the climate nor the politics that has become > inseparable from it. > > I'm a fairly intelligent, rational person, quite more so than average. > As such, I claim that if climate change really is caused for the most > part by humans, those with a clear understanding of how and why are > doing an exceedingly poor job of communicating it. If I'm not > convinced, how is the average person supposed to be convinced? They > must take it on faith. Faith is not a good way to decide things. > > A parting thought for those who are knowledgeable about climate change > yet worried that we are proceeding stupidly to our doom: I do not have > the time to research and read every refereed paper on climatology. But > I do take the time to vote. > > This does not excuse me from my personal responsibility to do my own > research. By the same token, my responsibility does not excuse the > climatology community from theirs. Namely, to communicate to the > intelligent lay reader the facts of the current state of our > understanding so that we voters may cast a vote based not on faith, > but on evidence and on well working models (i.e., no fudge factors) > that agree to a high degree with observation. > > As such, I stand behind all efforts and expenses incurred with moving > the global population inland and increasing energy efficiency. Those > simply make good sense given the undisputed facts: the Earth's climate > is warming up and primary sources of energy are in ever shorter > supply. However, I firmly resist any notion that we should try to > legislate a change in the environment. > -- > Dave Typinski well stated and my sentiments exactly! thank you I would add only this..evidence that this has happened (global warming) before is indisputable and evidence that the planet has generally been warmer or colder than it is now is also indisputable (although probably more on the warmer side) maybe we should be doing as much as possible to skew towards warmer... as a side note you will never convince the AGW environmental activitists that they might be wrong in any respect THEY are never wrong and know that better than anything..
From: oriel36 on 20 Feb 2010 11:40 On Feb 20, 11:30 am, Dave Typinski <möb...(a)trapezium.net> wrote: > Quadibloc <jsav...(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > >On Feb 19, 9:35 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > > >> We need a good laugh, explain how > >> Global Warming causes cold and snow again. > > >Cold and snow are caused by winter, and winter is caused by the > >orbital specific interacting with Earth's mainly equatorial climate :) > > If nothing else, at least Mr. Orbital Specific provides good fodder > for humor. > Dave Typinski Well,if it isn't epicycle Dave,glad I could give you those 'peer review' things you like so much but astronomy operates on a different standard and I see you don't last long at a genuine astronomical level,and its geometric and physical affirmations as others have discovered. As for the orbital specific,there is only one way to answer it correctly and in doing so,you all acquire the understanding as to why the Earth is split into hemispherical weather patterns of Spring/ Summer/Fall/Winter along with why,in tandem with daily rotation,the natural noon cycles vary,you can actually interpret the motion directly using Uranus and its distance from the Earth and from the central Sun - http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infrared/UranusAo/ur_time_2001_2005.jpg The question as to whether the Earth and all planets keep the same face to the Sun or change it through 360 degrees,remembering that orbital motion is an independent motion,is answered by interpretation of the above images which positively demonstrates the global climate is a result of the changing relationship between daily rotational and orbital characteristics which in turn divide into the hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) of Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter. An intelligent person reaches the conclusion that the seasons cannot be explained directly using planetary dynamics and their characteristics but global climate can.It tells everyone here how little they know about climate and how enjoyable it actually is.
From: Chris L Peterson on 20 Feb 2010 12:09 On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:30:29 -0500, Dave Typinski <m�bius(a)trapezium.net> wrote: >As an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, I'd like to point out why >I--and possibly others--haven't seen fit to buy into global climate >change... Hi Dave- While I disagree with your conclusion, and with a few of your basic assumptions (for instance, the majority of the raw data _is_ publicly available), I appreciate that you approach this using a rational methodology. Your post should provide a good lesson to the idiots who blindly state "that there is zero evidence for GW", and have no further analysis. It is possible to have a reasoned, scientifically sound discussion when a skeptic provides actual points to discuss! _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 12:35 On Feb 20, 5:30 am, Dave Typinski <möb...(a)trapezium.net> wrote: > > As such, I stand behind all efforts and expenses incurred with moving > the global population inland and increasing energy efficiency. ø There is not reason to move population inland. The seas are not rising, and are not likely to rise at all for a hundred thousand years or more. ø The most efficient energy source is petroleum. That is crude oil, natural gas and coal. Those > simply make good sense given the undisputed facts: ø Your "facts" are false definitely "disputed" > the Earth's climate > is warming up ø You do not have any proof of that. and primary sources of energy are in ever shorter > supply. ø The primary sources of energy, crude oil and natural gas supplies are infinite. >However, I firmly resist any notion that we should try to > legislate a change in the environment. > -- > Dave Typinski
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Feb 2010 13:12
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:14:48 +0100, Roving rabbit wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: >> Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the >> science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, >> those details being: >> >> 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > > Lie #1 > >> 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > > Lie #2 > >> 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > > Lie #3 > >> 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. > > Lie #4 > >> 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. > > Lie #5 > > >> Gawd, Humans are a gullible species. I can't believe you fell for AGW. > > Check that iphone app from www.skepticalscience.com, I love it. > > Q The "iPhone app" is still using Jones lies. Even Jones now admits that there has been no warming since 1995. So, your "app" is just stupid propaganda that made a fool out of you. |