Poll: global warming

[SaigonSaddler]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

A poll of theologians found that 97% of them believe in God.

The other 3%? :D

[SaigonSaddler]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

And some of the leading lights in this field have been found to be bending the evidence. Given it's weight, why do you think they need to do this?

Proof please.

*Awaits the 2 e-mails from a certain university in East Anglia*

[aaaae]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

And some of the leading lights in this field have been found to be bending the evidence. Given it's weight, why do you think they need to do this?

Proof please.

*Awaits the 2 e-mails from a certain university in East Anglia*

How about the US House of Representatives?

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf

Seems to me that the mathematicians and statisticians don't like the work of the climatologists.

[SaigonSaddler]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

And some of the leading lights in this field have been found to be bending the evidence. Given it's weight, why do you think they need to do this?

Proof please.

*Awaits the 2 e-mails from a certain university in East Anglia*

How about the US House of Representatives?

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf

Seems to me that the mathematicians and statisticians don't like the work of the climatologists.

Asked for by Joe Barton, a reknowned climate change denier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton

Report being totally and utterly biased, I include this in the 'internet nutters' section. Certainly well adrift of current US policy and decision making:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_statements_on_global_warming

Added to which, it's absurdity complete, the 'hearing' hardly caught on as a political movement did it, not with 192 countries attending Copenhagen and all. :D

[aaaae]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

And some of the leading lights in this field have been found to be bending the evidence. Given it's weight, why do you think they need to do this?

Proof please.

*Awaits the 2 e-mails from a certain university in East Anglia*

How about the US House of Representatives?

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf

Seems to me that the mathematicians and statisticians don't like the work of the climatologists.

Asked for by Joe Barton, a reknowned climate change denier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Barton

Report being totally and utterly biased, I include this in the 'internet nutters' section. Certainly well adrift of current US policy and decision making:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_statements_on_global_warming

Added to which, it's absurdity complete, the 'hearing' hardly caught on as a political movement did it, not with 192 countries attending Copenhagen and all. :D

The absurdity is 192 countries attending Copenhagen (with all the associated CO2 emmisions) and achieving less than I would in a wet weekend on Dartmoor. :D

What about Wegman? Is he an "internet nutter"?

[SaigonSaddler]

The absurdity is 192 countries attending Copenhagen (with all the associated CO2 emmisions) and achieving less than I would in a wet weekend on Dartmoor.

True, and an abject political failure.

[SaigonSaddler]

What about Wegman? Is he an "internet nutter"?

You tell me.

[aaaae]

What about Wegman? Is he an "internet nutter"?

You tell me.

Don't know him personally :D

"Edward Wegman, a Saint Louis, Missouri native, received a B.S. in mathematics from Saint Louis University in 1965, he then went to graduate school at the University of Iowa where he earned an M.S. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1968, both in mathematical statistics. He held a faculty position at the University of North Carolina for ten years. Dr. Wegman is credited with coining the phrase "computational statistics" and developing a high-profile research program around the concept that computing resources could transform statistical techniques. He joined the faculty of George Mason University in 1986 and developed a master’s degree program in statistical science. He also has been the associate editor of seven academic journals, a member of numerous editorial boards, and the author of more than 160 papers and five books."

I would guess he knows what he's on about.

"We were asked to provide independent verification by statisticians of the critiques of the statistical methodology found in the papers of Drs. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published respectively in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999." and "We were also asked about the implications of our assessment. We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH99 chart by about 1.2 degrees Celsius, and in the NAS panel report chaired by Dr. North, about six-tenths of a degree Celsius in several places in that report."

All sounds sensible to me.

"It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable"

They are not saying that global warming isn't happening or that it isn't caused by man. They are just saying that the stats presented by Mann et all and therefore the IPCC don't add up. He looks quite well qualified to make that analysis. What do you think?

[SaigonSaddler]

What about Wegman? Is he an "internet nutter"?

You tell me.

Don't know him personally :D

"Edward Wegman, a Saint Louis, Missouri native, received a B.S. in mathematics from Saint Louis University in 1965, he then went to graduate school at the University of Iowa where he earned an M.S. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1968, both in mathematical statistics. He held a faculty position at the University of North Carolina for ten years. Dr. Wegman is credited with coining the phrase "computational statistics" and developing a high-profile research program around the concept that computing resources could transform statistical techniques. He joined the faculty of George Mason University in 1986 and developed a master’s degree program in statistical science. He also has been the associate editor of seven academic journals, a member of numerous editorial boards, and the author of more than 160 papers and five books."

I would guess he knows what he's on about.

"We were asked to provide independent verification by statisticians of the critiques of the statistical methodology found in the papers of Drs. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published respectively in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999." and "We were also asked about the implications of our assessment. We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH99 chart by about 1.2 degrees Celsius, and in the NAS panel report chaired by Dr. North, about six-tenths of a degree Celsius in several places in that report."

All sounds sensible to me.

"It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of MBH98/99 suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable"

They are not saying that global warming isn't happening or that it isn't caused by man. They are just saying that the stats presented by Mann et all and therefore the IPCC don't add up. He looks quite well qualified to make that analysis. What do you think?

See that bit in red, that's rubbish that is :D

You know what, politics moves on quicker than the latest scientific analysis. That politically motivated attack (the conclusions of one man, asked to do so by a rabid Republican sceptic from Texas looking for votes from the oil rich south) is even more hopelessly out of date than it was back in, 2005? A reaction to the Bush government changing tack and accepting the CO2 warming link.

I do find your desperate attempts to dispute the science through political meanderings amusing though, perhaps you will post something from Sarah Palin next? The politics is even more crushingly one-sided than anything else, so forgive my amazement at this new strategy. God knows you've tried everything else.

In fact, apart from Palin and a few Republican representatives from Texas and Alaska, a few scientists embroiled in the oil industry and internet conspiracy cranks, who else is left on the sceptic bandwagon?

[Exile]

apart from Palin and a few Republican representatives from Texas and Alaska, a few scientists embroiled in the oil industry and internet conspiracy cranks, who else is left on the sceptic bandwagon?

When the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit is stood down from his post, when his American counterpart (and email buddy) has been caught inverting datasets and relying on statistical shenanigans to "prove" his point, when the politicians who've read the conclusions of a very small minority of scientists in the IPCC reports and still done nothing despite protestations of impending doom, shouldn't we be asking who is left on the CO2 bandwagon? Or are you trying to "hide the decline" in their support?

high profile oil sponsored cronies

Spending by leftist government quangos on climate research grants (the vast majority of which are to research the potential effects of global warming not the proof of anthropogenic global warming): USD30,000,000,000 and climbing. That's why so many papers end with a limp "Discussion" comment mentioning global warming despite having little in the text - that's where the dollars come from.
Spend by "big oil" to counter this propaganda with some of their own: USD27,000,000. That's about 0.1% by comparison.

You carry on casting aspersions and alleging a right wing conspiracy, it's all part of the ad hominem attacks which the fans of AGW love so much in the absence of something called scientific proof. There's very few strident research papers out there, and most are discredited, under dispute or prove nothing.

[Exile]

...and Saigon, you'll love this one. Right up your street.

A bit long, but a published scientific paper detailing how forecasting principles haven't been followed by climate modellers

[SaigonSaddler]

apart from Palin and a few Republican representatives from Texas and Alaska, a few scientists embroiled in the oil industry and internet conspiracy cranks, who else is left on the sceptic bandwagon?

When the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit is stood down from his post, when his American counterpart (and email buddy) has been caught inverting datasets and relying on statistical shenanigans to "prove" his point, when the politicians who've read the conclusions of a very small minority of scientists in the IPCC reports and still done nothing despite protestations of impending doom, shouldn't we be asking who is left on the CO2 bandwagon? Or are you trying to "hide the decline" in their support?

high profile oil sponsored cronies

Spending by leftist government quangos on climate research grants (the vast majority of which are to research the potential effects of global warming not the proof of anthropogenic global warming): USD30,000,000,000 and climbing. That's why so many papers end with a limp "Discussion" comment mentioning global warming despite having little in the text - that's where the dollars come from.
Spend by "big oil" to counter this propaganda with some of their own: USD27,000,000. That's about 0.1% by comparison.

You carry on casting aspersions and alleging a right wing conspiracy, it's all part of the ad hominem attacks which the fans of AGW love so much in the absence of something called scientific proof. There's very few strident research papers out there, and most are discredited, under dispute or prove nothing.

It's all true. All of it. I have been positioned here by a leftist quango as part of a climate change cell. Once activated by my handler, Sheff, using the password 'greenhouse', I embarked on this climate change crusade to try and defend the climate change lie in order to hoodwink UTS members that may casually drop by.

Anyway, any tangible proof for anything at all you've suggested above?

I'm amazed by this kind of fantasy world you have shrouded yourself with, as even the most casual observation reveals that most/all the statements you make above are either cynical fabrications, gross misunderstandings or deliberate falsehoods.

The East Anglia Climate Research Unit revelations reduce to 2 e-mails, both of which explicable by science-speak - ie 'trick' means a neat way to do something, rather than another example of deception. The police are.......investigating death threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the e-mails. Nice.

A very small minority of scientists which turns out to be UN representatives, World Meteorological Organization, elected government representatives of 194 countries, including 1000s of scientists involved at the fore-front of their discipline. Some minority.

Decline in the CO2 support. Erm, right, so droves of scientists flocking towards the lifeboats of a doomed proposition? Which would explain why the funding is so high? No, that doesn't make sense. Because you stated that the scientists are only bothered because of the money. You can't have both.

Again the money, so much, something that only strengthens my position. Why spend so much on a doomed thesis? Especially in difficult financial circumstances. Maybe there's something in it...

You admit that the oil companies have deliberately and quite cynically raised capital and constructed websites and other media formats to propogate their position.

No right wing conspiracy, just the tenacious defence of the oil industry by a few individuals in political dire-straights.

There's very few strident research papers out there, and most are discredited, under dispute or prove nothing

Exactly, nothing that seriously detracts from the CO2 warming position. If you hadn't written off all the articles in mainstream scientific journals you would know that.

[SaigonSaddler]

...and Saigon, you'll love this one. Right up your street.

A bit long, but a published scientific paper detailing how forecasting principles haven't been followed by climate modellers

It is long, which demands more reading.

Initial impressions is one a trite and vacant exploration of how to predict something. I think you realise it would be a lot stronger if it actually identified specific examples in the IPCC report rather than drifted along on it's own whimsical abstract.

Also, very easy to attack any prediction, about anything at any time, the one that people have worked long and hard to get as complete as they possibly can. Does a similar sceptical prediction and explanation of warming (please don't say solar flares) exist, or are you happy just to diss the only explanation?

[Exile]

...and Saigon, you'll love this one. Right up your street.

A bit long, but a published scientific paper detailing how forecasting principles haven't been followed by climate modellers

It is long, which demands more reading.

Initial impressions is one a trite and vacant exploration of how to predict something. I think you realise it would be a lot stronger if it actually identified specific examples in the IPCC report rather than drifted along on it's own whimsical abstract.

Also, very easy to attack any prediction, about anything at any time, the one that people have worked long and hard to get as complete as they possibly can. Does a similar sceptical prediction and explanation of warming (please don't say solar flares) exist, or are you happy just to diss the only explanation?

I am happy to diss an implausible and speculative explanation that exists only in a few computer models, not backed up by empirical data, real world example or adequate scientific endeavour.

Alternatives? Given that the earth's atmosphere is a complex, chaotic thing, with non-linear trends and stochastic variables, to be able to condense it into "CO2 did it" in the space of a few years of research by some of the same people who, 30 years ago, were saying we're heading into another ice age is stretching credulity to the limit, so I'd say there's plenty of under-researched options to a very poor hypothesis out there.

The following features of the global climate model (GCM, such as there is) ought to be researched much more thoroughly for the CO2 brigade to be able to have any confidence at all in their computer game:

Oceanic heat storage and distribution - the earth's oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere and this is not adquately accounted for in IPCC reports, especially in conjunction with...
Oceanic Oscillations - decadal and multidecadal variations are poorly understood yet research is showing these can have a significant effect on climate; whether causal (I favour) or otherwise (you probably favour) needs to be explored in much more depth (haha). these will influence...
Clouds and water droplets/water vapour - this hugely important function of the earth's atmosphere is poorly understood at best, although research into it is conclusive enough to have secured extra funding for some very expensive experiments, It is under-represented in IPCC GCMs which theoretically conclude it is a climate forcing function where observations show the opposite. One aspect of clouds might be...
Sunspots and Solar Magnetic Field - in and out of synch according to the Sun's own orbital progression yet yielding cycles which mirror Earth's climate variations well, and possibly related to...
Cosmic Ray influx (variable and related to the Sun above) - looking forward to some preliminary Sevnsmark's studies later in 2010. In any rate both the above vary according to...
Barycentric orbit variations, axial tilt, etc. - aspects of the solar system that affect all planets and the Sun. Mars has been warming too, but has no CO2.
Atmospheric boundary conditions and equilbrium - probably the capstone for all the above alternative options

That's my take. CO2 may have had a small effect over a small amount of time, but it's logarithmic 'heat' properties mean it's all but useless as a driver for any climate variation, unless you include regression to the mean, or equilibrium where some effects may occur. From what I have read (incomplete as I am!) researchers in these field all suggest

See - no mention of solar flares! :wink:

Disappointing to see you are still resorting to ad hominem attacks which do you and your argument no credit whatsoever. Discredting with petty put-down really shows how closed-minded your side are when confronted with any alternatives. I'd post a whole load of sciency links to actual papers but don't think the majority of UTSers want to read them. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, being so well versed in this.

[SaigonSaddler]

...and Saigon, you'll love this one. Right up your street.

A bit long, but a published scientific paper detailing how forecasting principles haven't been followed by climate modellers

It is long, which demands more reading.

Initial impressions is one a trite and vacant exploration of how to predict something. I think you realise it would be a lot stronger if it actually identified specific examples in the IPCC report rather than drifted along on it's own whimsical abstract.

Also, very easy to attack any prediction, about anything at any time, the one that people have worked long and hard to get as complete as they possibly can. Does a similar sceptical prediction and explanation of warming (please don't say solar flares) exist, or are you happy just to diss the only explanation?

I am happy to diss an implausible and speculative explanation that exists only in a few computer models, not backed up by empirical data, real world example or adequate scientific endeavour.

Alternatives? Given that the earth's atmosphere is a complex, chaotic thing, with non-linear trends and stochastic variables, to be able to condense it into "CO2 did it" in the space of a few years of research by some of the same people who, 30 years ago, were saying we're heading into another ice age is stretching credulity to the limit, so I'd say there's plenty of under-researched options to a very poor hypothesis out there.

The following features of the global climate model (GCM, such as there is) ought to be researched much more thoroughly for the CO2 brigade to be able to have any confidence at all in their computer game:

Oceanic heat storage and distribution - the earth's oceans store much more heat than the atmosphere and this is not adquately accounted for in IPCC reports, especially in conjunction with...
Oceanic Oscillations - decadal and multidecadal variations are poorly understood yet research is showing these can have a significant effect on climate; whether causal (I favour) or otherwise (you probably favour) needs to be explored in much more depth (haha). these will influence...
Clouds and water droplets/water vapour - this hugely important function of the earth's atmosphere is poorly understood at best, although research into it is conclusive enough to have secured extra funding for some very expensive experiments, It is under-represented in IPCC GCMs which theoretically conclude it is a climate forcing function where observations show the opposite. One aspect of clouds might be...
Sunspots and Solar Magnetic Field - in and out of synch according to the Sun's own orbital progression yet yielding cycles which mirror Earth's climate variations well, and possibly related to...
Cosmic Ray influx (variable and related to the Sun above) - looking forward to some preliminary Sevnsmark's studies later in 2010. In any rate both the above vary according to...
Barycentric orbit variations, axial tilt, etc. - aspects of the solar system that affect all planets and the Sun. Mars has been warming too, but has no CO2.
Atmospheric boundary conditions and equilbrium - probably the capstone for all the above alternative options

That's my take. CO2 may have had a small effect over a small amount of time, but it's logarithmic 'heat' properties mean it's all but useless as a driver for any climate variation, unless you include regression to the mean, or equilibrium where some effects may occur. From what I have read (incomplete as I am!) researchers in these field all suggest

See - no mention of solar flares! :wink:

Disappointing to see you are still resorting to ad hominem attacks which do you and your argument no credit whatsoever. Discredting with petty put-down really shows how closed-minded your side are when confronted with any alternatives. I'd post a whole load of sciency links to actual papers but don't think the majority of UTSers want to read them. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, being so well versed in this.

Interesting scientific analysis. Rather than read your suppositions (again) why not indeed link to relevant scientific papers. Surely the scientific community will have thought of these as well and at least done preliminary research.

Please do link to the science, as I am unfamiliar with some of the more obscure corners of the internet. We've had a bout of political background and some unsatisfactory preamble about the problems in predicting, but this remains a scientific question. Without a link to the science your thoughts, however interesting, remain no more relevant than any other confection of ideas.

[SaigonSaddler]

Also, only your arguments attract criticism. I am hardly brutalising you by challenging what you are saying and asking for evidence from the scientific arena. Feel free to return any perceived slight in the same coin if you so wish. :wink:

[aaaae]

Also, very easy to attack any prediction, about anything at any time, the one that people have worked long and hard to get as complete as they possibly can. Does a similar sceptical prediction and explanation of warming (please don't say solar flares) exist, or are you happy just to diss the only explanation?

It's not so easy if the prediction is proven by observation though is it?

[Exile]

How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

something inadequate based on this

[aaaae]

How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

something inadequate based on this

This is THE crux of the matter for me. I don't really care about the rest - polar bears, pacific islands, glaciers etc, although sometimes they make an amusing diversion.

The science is settled you r-tard!

[SaigonSaddler]

Excellent - I appear to have rattled a couple of cages! :D

Response in full after I have indoctrinated more poor fools into the global warming sham (along with teaching them Angleeach of course!) 8)

[derbysaddler]

But what about the methane threat eh?

[SaigonSaddler]

But what about the methane threat eh?

You're not going to drop one are you Derby? :shock: :(

[derbysaddler]

Too late, office is experiencing a smog.


Nah, I got into a wobbler the other month when I read about vast pockets of methane that are stored under the Russian tundra forests. If the permafrost starts melting it could be released and cause far more damage than carbon levels.

[aaaae]

Too late, office is experiencing a smog.

Nah, I got into a wobbler the other month when I read about vast pockets of methane that are stored under the Russian tundra forests. If the permafrost starts melting it could be released and cause far more damage than carbon levels.

No doubt someone is coming up with a plan right now to build a huge airtight dome over the whole of Siberia. Gordon Brown is probably waiting with slightly sweaty palms for the blue prints. "This'll show those damn flat earthers! Sarah, pass me me those tissues, will you?"

[SaigonSaddler]

How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

something inadequate based on this

Well, again we have more introspective, navel gazing scientific analysis from planet Ex. Regretfully, the scientific proof for any of this remains undisclosed and so I must insist that you give scientific rationale for these statements, as well any of the other volumous pet theories you have outlined. I have done this to support mine when challenged. That includes support of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by the way, in case you actually want to stoop to reading any of the links I have diligently supplied - look around page 11-13 when PJD expressed a similar request.

Therein lies the inherent weakness in your arguments, for you are unable to back up your fringe ideas on warming, or provide a viable explanation for the anthropogenic position. The two occasions (ice sheet melting) where you ventured to do so have been dismantled so comprehensively that you have abandoned them without further comment, choosing instead to quote ‘shift’ to other arenas. 8)

I also note with interest that you have abandoned your global cooling position in the face of a rising scientific tide of fact, pinning your hopes on the question of human influenced factors. This is something PJD, to his credit, has done from the start.

the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback..

What the reactionary elements of the media publish and how you choose to react to it are beyond my control.

CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...

Established in 1845, 1896 and accepted by even the most sceptical of contrarians. If you have alighted upon some new titbit that states that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere it would be of interest to a great many people.

there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...

Here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

http://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/news/water-vapor-found-amplify-warming

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm

Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000 found that... water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed.

neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

Here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Checkout page 5 and 6 'causes of change'

Oh dear. Yet another barrage of pseudo-science addressed. If you would like to support any of the controversial statements you have given over the last 15 pages then I would be delighted to have a look.

Having nailed your colours to this particular mast, I fear that only embarrassment awaits as 1) the earth frustratingly continues to warm (due for the warmest year on record in 2010) and 2) humiliatingly, further references are made to all sorts of carbon reduction schemes in the national press, policy makers discuss it in international conferences and scientific literature continues to swell in it’s support, while remaining notably absent from your position. Your lines of enquiry will get even more out of date and moribund. Good luck!

[SaigonSaddler]

To sum up: Please post links in support of your statements Exile!!!

NOT to fringe websites, but to recognised science!

[SaigonSaddler]

Too late, office is experiencing a smog.


Nah, I got into a wobbler the other month when I read about vast pockets of methane that are stored under the Russian tundra forests. If the permafrost starts melting it could be released and cause far more damage than carbon levels.

More info here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece

You can't throw a wobbler, it's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening, it's not happening

:wink:

[ShyTallKnight]

How about, for once, you link to the science behind your AGW hypothesis?

Here's [yet another] crux of the matter (I'll keep shifting these as it's always quite amusing to read your inadequate responses :wink: ):

1 - the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback from rising CO2 being a positive forcer for temperatures, as modeled in their computer programmes, because they say...
2 - CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...
3 - there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
3 - I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...
4 - neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

What do you suppose this means? I'd hazard a guess that it means, to use a term common to computer programmers, 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'.

PS - Criticism I have no problem with, but your withering attempts at putdowns are becoming embarrassing for you, not me. Don't get me started on slinging insults. I'd never stop. Here's your response to my poser above by the way:

something inadequate based on this

Well, again we have more introspective, navel gazing scientific analysis from planet Ex. Regretfully, the scientific proof for any of this remains undisclosed and so I must insist that you give scientific rationale for these statements, as well any of the other volumous pet theories you have outlined. I have done this to support mine when challenged. That includes support of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by the way, in case you actually want to stoop to reading any of the links I have diligently supplied - look around page 11-13 when PJD expressed a similar request.

Therein lies the inherent weakness in your arguments, for you are unable to back up your fringe ideas on warming, or provide a viable explanation for the anthropogenic position. The two occasions (ice sheet melting) where you ventured to do so have been dismantled so comprehensively that you have abandoned them without further comment, choosing instead to quote ‘shift’ to other arenas. 8)

I also note with interest that you have abandoned your global cooling position in the face of a rising scientific tide of fact, pinning your hopes on the question of human influenced factors. This is something PJD, to his credit, has done from the start.

the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback..

What the reactionary elements of the media publish and how you choose to react to it are beyond my control.

CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...

Established in 1845, 1896 and accepted by even the most sceptical of contrarians. If you have alighted upon some new titbit that states that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere it would be of interest to a great many people.

there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...

Here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

http://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/news/water-vapor-found-amplify-warming

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm

Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000 found that... water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed.

neither can the IPCC teams despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

Here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Checkout page 5 and 6 'causes of change'

Oh dear. Yet another barrage of pseudo-science addressed. If you would like to support any of the controversial statements you have given over the last 15 pages then I would be delighted to have a look.

Having nailed your colours to this particular mast, I fear that only embarrassment awaits as 1) the earth frustratingly continues to warm (due for the warmest year on record in 2010) and 2) humiliatingly, further references are made to all sorts of carbon reduction schemes in the national press, policy makers discuss it in international conferences and scientific literature continues to swell in it’s support, while remaining notably absent from your position. Your lines of enquiry will get even more out of date and moribund. Good luck!

Well we have made a good start here haven't we :roll:

[ShyTallKnight]

What is the problem? We are all dead anyway. The scientific models for SARS, swine flu, CJD, bird flu et al said so :lol:

[Exile]

the AGW case for dangerous global warming which we're all supposed to be so scared of relies completely upon water vapour feedback..

What the reactionary elements of the media publish and how you choose to react to it are beyond my control.

CO2 in the atmosphere [may] cause some warming, but...

Established in 1845, 1896 and accepted by even the most sceptical of contrarians. If you have alighted upon some new titbit that states that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere it would be of interest to a great many people.

there's only so much longwave infrared CO2 can sequester, and doubling CO2 does not double the effects of CO2 in this spectrum, hence the need for water vapour in their models. But...
I can find no empirical data that support the positive feedback claim for water vapour, and...

Here:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

http://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu/news/water-vapor-found-amplify-warming

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm

Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000 found that... water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback. If cloud feedback is strongly positive, the water vapour feedback can lead to 3.5 times as much warming as would be the case if water vapour concentration were held fixed.

Oh dear. A 2005 article in a National Geographic that you no doubt kept for the pictures of topless piccaninnies on page 38, a 3 line precis and the IPCC report which is based on computer simulations not the real world. I'm quaking. Speaking of which, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before global warming is blamed for the earthquake in Haiti.

*************

[

neither can the IPCC teams [find evidence] despite 20 years of trying and unlimited funding.

Here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

Checkout page 5 and 6 'causes of change'

Checked out - couldn't find the words 'water vapour' anywhere, although there were some pretty pictures, and lots of uses of the words 'likely' and 'very likely', which is tantamount to saying 'we're not certain', which is what science ought to be about.

******

Oh dear. Yet another barrage of pseudo-science addressed.

My, how well you addressed it.

How about more stuff? (and I'll use IPCC terminology):
Climate sensitivity: here's a piece on how sensitivity is likely overexaggerated by GCMs used by CRU, NASA, etc. It also mentions cosmic rays, which I know you'll like, and if you really dig, it shows an element of AGW, which should have you creaming your pants
Or maybe...
Clouds and energy: http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdfThe work of Ferenc M. Miskolczi - his detractors mostly complain that they can't understand him, but he's interesting nonetheless. A layman summary is found here - the comments thread is worth reading too, if you can follow it.
Perhaps...
Heat storage in the atmosphere: http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html#anchor_62Nahle's work is of interest.
Maybe..
TSI and warming: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.4319v1.pdfScafetta could cast some light on things.
Also...
Clouds and CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/#more-15198Dr Roy Spencer, who I'm sure you love dearly.

If you would like to support any of the controversial statements you have given over the last 15 pages then I would be delighted to have a look.

I have. Please review the last 15 pages for examples of your own proofs. I tried last night and got to page 9 before giving up.


****

Having nailed your colours to this particular mast, I fear that only embarrassment awaits as 1) the earth frustratingly continues to warm (due for the warmest year on record in 2010) and 2) humiliatingly, further references are made to all sorts of carbon reduction schemes in the national press, policy makers discuss it in international conferences and scientific literature continues to swell in it’s support, while remaining notably absent from your position. Your lines of enquiry will get even more out of date and moribund. Good luck!

Do you want a hanky to wipe that egg off your face later? :D