Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 13:58 On 2/20/10 4:38 AM, Last Post wrote: > � Can you control the wind? > Can you control the rain or snow? > Can you control the climate. > If you say yes to any one be prepared > to describe your method Rebutting of ignorant positions similar to what you post, backed up by scientific references: > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf Give it a read--You might learn something.
From: Last Post on 20 Feb 2010 14:30 On Feb 20, 10:27 am, hal wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), Last Post > > <last_p...(a)primus.ca> wrote: > > | In real science the burden of proof is always > > | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far > > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one > > | iota of valid data for global warming nor have > > | they provided data that climate change is being > > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by > > | natural phenomena > > YOU defy logic. Of course there is proof for global warming. ø Then where is it? > data is all there. ø Once again Where is it?? It is not in the IPCC reports. It has not been posted on the web. Sure we see a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda, & what if. That cuts no ice at all > The only question remains is to how much effect > does manmade carbon emissions contribute to the ø Manmade CO2 amounts to 3.5% of the whole and the trivial amount (less than 14 ppm) contributes trivial amounts to agriculture and zero to climate. ø 100% is natural climate cycles. Another question remains as to how little > effect cutting back on emissions would actually have on climate > warming, ø Carbon dioxide has has no ie ZERO affect on climate The cloud effect (CO2+H2O vapour = carbonic acid gas) has an increasing effect of cooling (Tyndall: water blocks radiation) but the data is clear and conclusive: the plantet is warming ø The only data you have has been sliced diced and cooked to produce a false result > over the last several decades. Warming a lot, and rapidly, and you > denying it only makes you look like the fool. ø No - you ARE the fool. So if you're against > AGW, then say so, and say why, but at least try to get your story > straight and state exactly what it is you are denying, because it sure > the hell can't be climate change because only shows you for what the > fool you are. ø Every post of yours that I have seen has been as idiotic and stupid as it possibly could be. Take your nonsense and shove it where the sun don't shine.
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 16:00 On 2/20/10 12:45 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > Now Jones even ADMITS there has been no warming > since 1995, so you don't even have the "correlation proves causation" > fallacy as an excuse. Of course, you are wrong Marvin! There certainly have been global warming since 1995--That's in that data. You are in denial and not even questioning your reasoning. > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf See sections A3, A4 and B5 A) Global warming: • Al Global temperature cannot be calculated because of unreliable measurements • A2 Global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island effect • A3 The most important argument of IPCC (Mann et al "hockey stick" curve) has proved to be incorrect • A4 Satellite data show no warming of the troposphere In contrast to model predictions • A5 Sea level isn't rising everywhere • A6 There Is no apparent Increase of extreme events • A7 In earlier times the climate was much warmer than today B) Forcing factors: • B1 Other factors have potent ally caused the present warming • B2 Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, CO2 is unimportant • B3 Climate change is driven by the sun • B4 Climate change is driven by cosmic rays • 05 Anthropogenic CO, emissions are much smaller than natural CO2 emissions • B6 Volcanoes emit more greenhouse gases than human activities • B7 There was global cooling between 1940 and 1970 although CO2 concentration increased C) Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Cl CO2 measurements In Ice cores are not reliable • C2 CO2 increase is just the result of temperature change • C3 CO2 is just a fertilizer for plants and therefore positive • C4 The observed increase in CO, IS much smaller than assumed In climate models • C5 The greenhouse effect of CO, is small because CO, absorption bands are saturated > http://www.swissre.com/resources/2225fb0040c36b1fa49cbfb02e99dba1-Factsheet_Climate_sceptic.pdf
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Feb 2010 16:09 On 2/20/10 1:23 PM, Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > > Don't mess with Sam Wormley. > You'll get phrenic distortion and have to pay your doctor after a while of > reading his BS. > That isn't worth the issue. It might even be worth not posting at all to sci.physics and sci.astro.amateur, as Wormley counters with science references.
From: I M on 20 Feb 2010 16:12
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:30:29 -0500, Dave Typinski <möbius(a)trapezium.net> wrote: >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. Good post Dave, while I have been trying to punch holes in the "consensus" for 3 or 4 years (I never heard of AGW before that even though I read sci.physics every day), I never expected the industry to go in the dumps because of exposed wrong doing. The biggest weakness I see is trying to show how one of the minor trace gases that cool the atmosphere by radiating energy to space also can warm the lower atmosphere more as it increases in concentration. Some types of science can be promoted and publicized by the investigator or inventor or discoverer, but analysis of data recorded by others should be done by people able to set aside any personal bias and do the science in an impartial way, obviously a few of the major players were not able to do that. There is major technical problems with all the new technology, the switch from the old analog to digital instruments, with some of the older data acquired by humans, not automatic instruments, and trying to remove any bias due to increasing urban sprawl. I did not have confidence in the correctness before the mischief was exposed, so I have even less now. |