Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record... - Page 16

C.C.Sinned · 07-29-2009, 10:58 AM

this thread reminds me of why i smoked pot before all my science classes

flip · 07-29-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Water vapor is the one thing that acts as a blanket and helps cool the Earth everytime it rains. CO2 cannot do that. The specific heat for water is on orders of magnitude higher than CO2. CO2 does not have that property nor that capability. Rather, CO2 is a weak contributor and is manifested in various forms through the ocean waters, plants and the whole decomposition processes. But in no way can it compete with water vapors. And in no way can it compete with the power of the sun. But CO2 is essential to life, not a detractor.

A very simple explaination about CO2 and effect on temperature:

"How does it do this?

Along with methane and water, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy at lower wavelengths than the other major atmospheric gases Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2).

When a molecule of Carbon dioxide is exposed to long wavelength energy, it absorbs this energy and its speed increases. This added speed is an above-normal energy state, meaning it is hotter than it would normally be. Eventually this molecule will lose, or radiate, this heat again and return to its normal state.

The energy it releases is the same as the energy it absorbed, and so it not only absorbs but also emits long wavelength energy. This energy is radiated in all directions; upwards into space, and downwards back towards the Earth.

What is the Problem?

For every extra molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, additional heat is reflected down back towards the Earth. This means that some heat that would otherwise have been lost from the atmosphere is trapped. Given large enough quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere the amount of trapped heat will cause a rise in the surface temperature.

This change in surface temperature can have dramatic effects. Even a slight rise in temperature will result in increased evaporation from the ocean surfaces. Water is also a Greenhouse gas, and the Greenhouse effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere is compounded by the additional water wapour it causes."

Carbon Dioxide Properties: The Warming Effect

flip · 07-29-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

you seem to have a rather unhealthy fixation on 97% and brotherhood

Ok, will leave you alone with your claims about a majority of scientists having an agenda

netrox · 07-29-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

"The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

**Jiro** · 07-29-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

bingo!

now you understand, flip?

**sequoias** · 07-29-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.C.Sinned

this thread reminds me of why i smoked pot before all my science classes

flip · 07-29-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

bingo!

now you understand, flip?

Understand what? It was my understanding you did not want to continue?

If I was wrong you did not want to continue, feel free to:

1. elaborate what I am supposed to understand here.

2. reply my question on what specific agenda about 90 percent of climate scientists share when they have a consensus that human activities are the reason we got this global warming.

Good luck

Everglade85 · 07-29-2009, 02:44 PM

One thing is certain. We have a very limited knowledge of Earth's complex climate system.

The majority of scientists do not have a secret agenda. The goal of science is to improve upon our knowledge by using the scientific method. In order for a theory to be challenged, there has to be some hard evidence refuting that theory that can be verified through multiple experiments. That's the whole beauty of science. A system that relies on evidence and is not subjected to people's emotions, beliefs, or politics.

**deafskeptic** · 07-29-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everglade85

One thing is certain. We have a very limited knowledge of Earth's complex climate system.

The majority of scientists do not have a secret agenda. The goal of science is to improve upon our knowledge by using the scientific method. In order for a theory to be challenged, there has to be some hard evidence refuting that theory that can be verified through multiple experiments. That's the whole beauty of science. A system that relies on evidence and is not subjected to people's emotions, beliefs, or politics.

kokonut · 07-29-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Can you tell me WHY the large percent of doubters are geologists?

It's simply because they are defending oil companies who provide them jobs!

Nice red herring with nary a proof. The word "geologist" is not synomous with oil. It's broad and have many specializations that fit under the geology umbrella description. Such would be economic geology, engineering geology, geophysics, geochemistry, geochronology, hydrogeology,igneous petrology, isotope geology, metamorphic petrology,marine geology, palaeoclimatology,palaeontology, pedology (soil), petroleum geology, sedimentology,structural geology, volcanology, and so forth. It's no different from saying the same thing about math, there are tons of specializations that would fall under the math umbrella. Your ignorancy is showing badly.

**deafskeptic** · 07-30-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Nice red herring with nary a proof. The word "geologist" is not synomous with oil. It's broad and have many specializations that fit under the geology umbrella description. Such would be economic geology, engineering geology, geophysics, geochemistry, geochronology, hydrogeology,igneous petrology, isotope geology, metamorphic petrology,marine geology, palaeoclimatology,palaeontology, pedology (soil), petroleum geology, sedimentology,structural geology, volcanology, and so forth. It's no different from saying the same thing about math, there are tons of specializations that would fall under the math umbrella. Your ignorancy is showing badly.

Most climatologsts and several other "sciences" are part of a vast nefarious international conspiracy against oil companies because they aren't part of Gore run international conspiracy. The only true scientists are the geologists in the oil industry and they have no economic or ideological axes to grind. So then they are the only scientists we should trust.

Yeah right.

flip · 07-30-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Most climatologsts and several other "sciences" are part of a vast nefarious international conspiracy against oil companies because they aren't part of Gore run international conspiracy. The only true scientists are the geologists in the oil industry and they have no economic or ideological axes to grind. So then they are the only scientists we should trust.

Yeah right.

07-30-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

.........The only true scientists are the geologists in the oil industry and they have no economic or ideological axes to grind. So then they are the only scientists we should trust.

Yeah right.

Huh??? Am I the only one that sees a potential conflict of interest there. I would imagine the scientists in the oil industrywould certianly be impacted if say an alternative to fossle fules was destined to replace the dependancy on oil.

**deafskeptic** · 07-30-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Huh??? Am I the only one that sees a potential conflict of interest there. I would imagine the scientists in the oil industrywould certianly be impacted if say an alternative to fossle fules was destined to replace the dependancy on oil.

Unfortunately it does. It would create a bias in scientific descisions affecting the future of their industry. I'd imagine that this also applies to the coal and other fossil based energy industries.

kokonut · 07-30-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Unfortunately it does. It would create a bias in scientific descisions affecting the future of their industry. I'd imagine that this also applies to the coal and other fossil based energy industries.

And not about scientists who are in the tank with global warming policy makers helping them believe we have the ability on total control over global warming and convincing them we're on the verge of a tipping point that would cause imminent collapse worldwide into one grey goo? Sound the alarm!! Sound the alarm!! A waste of time if you ask me. Once war comes or disease, famine, economic collapse, or whatever, this global warming hoax would mean nothing. Right now, it's merely a matter of convenience to serve an agenda rather than about the environment per se. But they don't tell you that. Shhhhh. Mustn't bother the Goracle and his lemmings about the danger of global warming running amok and that CO2 is the ultimate evil that need greater and greater control. Hold your breath! Guess we know who are the ones will be heading over the cliff all blue-faced?

flip · 07-30-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

And not about scientists who are in the tank with global warming policy makers helping them believe we have the ability on total control over global warming and convincing them we're on the verge of a tipping point that would cause imminent collapse worldwide into one grey goo? Sound the alarm!! Sound the alarm!! A waste of time if you ask me. Once war comes or disease, famine, economic collapse, or whatever, this global warming hoax would mean nothing. Right now, it's merely a matter of convenience to serve an agenda rather than about the environment per se. But they don't tell you that. Shhhhh. Mustn't bother the Goracle and his lemmings about the danger of global warming running amok and that CO2 is the ultimate evil that need greater and greater control. Hold your breath! Guess we know who are the ones will be heading over the cliff all blue-faced?

You are saying here that climate science, a branch in science, like biology, meterology, physics and so on, doing extensive research at harvard, stanford, cambridge, oxford, etc, is a hoax and in the tank of global warming policy makers.

It would be fun to know what agenda you belive those global warming policy makers to have, and how they have managed to control a whole branch of science. I have allways liked James Bond style of conspiracy theories.

Check the front page on breaking news on science from harvard here, and notice news about problems caused by global warming.
Science and Engineering at Harvard University | HarvardScience

"Scientists expect wildfires to increase as climate warms in the coming decades
Resulting smoke and other particles from more fires could diminish air quality full story» "

They are not discussing if it's for real or not, but what to do. You are on a different planet, not earth, Kokonut. The earth is calling.

kokonut · 07-30-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

A very simple explaination about CO2 and effect on temperature:

"How does it do this?

Along with methane and water, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs energy at lower wavelengths than the other major atmospheric gases Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2).

When a molecule of Carbon dioxide is exposed to long wavelength energy, it absorbs this energy and its speed increases. This added speed is an above-normal energy state, meaning it is hotter than it would normally be. Eventually this molecule will lose, or radiate, this heat again and return to its normal state.

The energy it releases is the same as the energy it absorbed, and so it not only absorbs but also emits long wavelength energy. This energy is radiated in all directions; upwards into space, and downwards back towards the Earth.

What is the Problem?

For every extra molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, additional heat is reflected down back towards the Earth. This means that some heat that would otherwise have been lost from the atmosphere is trapped. Given large enough quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere the amount of trapped heat will cause a rise in the surface temperature.

This change in surface temperature can have dramatic effects. Even a slight rise in temperature will result in increased evaporation from the ocean surfaces. Water is also a Greenhouse gas, and the Greenhouse effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere is compounded by the additional water wapour it causes."

Carbon Dioxide Properties: The Warming Effect

One thing to remember, carbon dioxide does not and cannot absorb all of the incoming infrared rays since it can only absorb heat along limited bandwidths based on its own thermal property on the ability to absorb infrared.

Secondly, H20 absorbs more of the infrared band (infrared - Infrared Waves ) than CO2 can. see graph. Infrared frequency band is from 1 um to 100 um (um = micrometer). See picture that shows infrared frequency bands.
http://mivim.gel.ulaval.ca/imgs/figs/Figure_001big.gif

Thirdly, since about 3% of the atmosphere contains H20 (water vapor) versus .038% for CO2. Water vapor absorbs about 70% of infrared. H20 (water vapor) has a thermal property the ability to absorb and release more infrared (heat) than CO2 when compared in equal volume of the gases.

Quote:

4. CHANGE OF THE TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE BY SOLAR IRRADIANCE (This theme is better developed at Solar Irradiance is Increasing. It was corrected in 30 June 2008 due to minor grammar errors)

The total incoming solar irradiance to the terrestrial surface is 697.04 W/m^2. From this amount of infrared radiation, the surface absorbs about 348.52 W/m^2. The atmosphere absorbs 317 W/m^2. Considering the mass of air and its thermal capacity, the Earth’s temperature should vary by 30 °C. The fluctuation of the solar irradiance in the last 300 years has been 1.25 W/m^2. 1.25 W/m^2 causes a change of the Earth's temperature of 0.56 °C, which is the maximum averaged change in tropospheric temperature achieved during the 1990s (the average of change of temperature in 1998 is 0.51 °C). (Hurrell & Trenberth. 1999)

Planet Earth would not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably, our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar System.

Heat always moves from places of higher density of heat to places of lower density of heat, thus states the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Van Ness. 1969. Page 54). In daylight (P. S. obviously under, Sunlight), air is always colder than soil (P. S. obviously, the surface of soil); consequently, heat is transferred from the soil to the air, not vice versa. By the same physical law, the heat emitted by the Sun -a source of heat- is transferred to the Earth, which is a colder system.

The capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb-emit heat is much more limited than that of oceans and soil; thus, carbon dioxide cannot have been the cause of the warming of the Earth in 1998.

A fact well known to all scientists is that the absorptivity-emissivity thermal property of carbon dioxide diminishes as its density increases and as the temperature increases. This happens because the infrared radiation absorption margin is very narrow (wavelengths from 12-18 micrometers) and so the opacity of carbon dioxide to infrared radiation increases with altitude. As the column of CO2 gains height, its opacity to infrared radiation increases.

The dispersion of emitted heat increases when the density of carbon dioxide increases because there are more microstates toward which energy can diffuse. As a result, the momentum of the carbon dioxide molecules decays each time heat is transformed into molecular kinetic energy, and emitted heat disperses in greater amounts towards deep space through the upper layers of the atmosphere. This process -determined by the second law of thermodynamics -could explain the observed paradoxical phenomenon of the coldness of the higher tropospheric layers in contrast with the tropospheric layer above the Earths surface, which is always warmer than the upper layers.

When the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the strong absorption lines become saturated. Thereafter its absorptivity increases logarithmically not linearly or exponentially; consequently, carbon dioxide convective heat transfer capacity decreases considerably.

Heat Stored by Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Note the red bolded words above.

Flip, that article is erroneous. More global warming alarmist nonsense.

More notes.

Quote:

Very little of the radiation from the sun at the wavelengths at which carbon dioxide absorbs reaches the surface of the Earth directly. Similarly, very little of the radiation at these wavelengths that originates at the surface makes it all the way to space. Most of the infrared at these wavelengths is produced by black body radiation from objects that have been heated up by absorbing radiation at shorter wavelengths. This means that even if the carbon dioxide levels increase, it will have little effect on the total amount of infrared radiation that is absorbed from the sun. The main effect would be to trap radiation originating at the surface at lower levels in the atmosphere than before, where it would be slightly more difficult for the heat to be re-radiated back into space. This is the principle on which most of the global warming predictions are based.

CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant (in terms of its effect on local temperature) compared to the effect of water vapor. This is one of many factors that mitigate against the idea of a "climate catastrophe." [16]

The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.

The analogy with a greenhouse would be that the glass in the roof becomes slightly thicker. The effect of warming also depends on the conditions inside the greenhouse. If the greenhouse were full of ice at exactly -0.01 degrees Celsius, making the glass slightly thicker just might be enough to melt all the ice and flood the greenhouse. But if the greenhouse had some regions that were hot and some that were very cold (as the planet Earth does), it would have a very small overall effect.

As an aside, the term "greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer. In greenhouses, most of the warming that is observed is not caused by carbon dioxide, or by absorption of infrared radiation by the glass as many people think, but by reduction in convection.

Cold Facts on Global Warming

kokonut · 07-30-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

You are saying here that climate science, a branch in science, like biology, meterology, physics and so on, doing extensive research at harvard, stanford, cambridge, oxford, etc, is a hoax and in the tank of global warming policy makers. Koko - rather it's those who are in the tank by declaring that the debate is over when it's far from over. Remember, this is not consensus science.

It would be fun to know what agenda you belive those global warming policy makers to have, and how they have managed to control a whole branch of science. I have allways liked James Bond style of conspiracy theories. Koko - look no further than the cap and trade scheme and the failed Kyoto protocol.

Check the front page on breaking news on science from harvard here, and notice news about problems caused by global warming.
Science and Engineering at Harvard University | HarvardScience

"Scientists expect wildfires to increase as climate warms in the coming decades. Resulting smoke and other particles from more fires could diminish air quality full story» "

They are not discussing if it's for real or not, but what to do. You are on a different planet, not earth, Kokonut. The earth is calling.

Regional haze from IMPROVE sites (of which I was an IMPROVE operator and program manager for over 7 years) over the last decade and half includes smoke and other aerosols. As you can see more better days were seen than bad days. And compare that to the frequency of fires over the last decade (including increasingly bigger fires, I know, I fought large wildfires, too, where it was big as over 200,000 acres ).

How come as fire frequency and size go up but saw increasingly better days of regional haze?

Secondly, this one.

Quote:

Using samples from sediment cores at the bottom of Alaskan lakes, climatologist Philip Higuera of Montana State University has discovered it could be the type of vegetation that grows in response to temperature increases that affects the frequency of subsequent wildfires. There is little indication to suggest the frequency of wildfires increased as global average temperatures increased over the past 15,000 years. This might be counter-intuitive, but it would appear nature has an automatic fire-retardation mechanism.

"Climate is only one control of fire regimes, and if you only considered climate when predicting fire under climate-change scenarios, you would have a good chance of being wrong," Higuera says. "You wouldn't be wrong if vegetation didn't change, but the greater the probability that vegetation will change, the more important it becomes when predicting future fire regimes."
.
.
Climate affects vegetation, vegetation affects fire, and both fire and vegetation respond to climate change," Higuera adds. "Most importantly, our work emphasizes the need to consider the multiple drivers of fire regimes when anticipating their response to climate change."

Although we may not escape the clutches of wildfires in Southern California this year, the last 15,000 years have shown us that this may gradually change as vegetation adapts to hotter conditions, becoming more fire-resistant…

Despite Global Warming, Wildfire Frequency Does Not Increase | Universe Today

Now. What you have presented is called a prediction model. It's only a prediction and it is limited in a lot of ways when there are unknown and known constraints, parameters, sensitivity values to deal with. So, again, always cast a reserved eye when it comes to any kind of environmental modeling because it's only a predictive tool, not a crystal ball. You do learn that after 4 1/2 years worth of contaminant (PCB, Benzene, Toulene, DNAPL, NAPL, transport, fate, characterization, etc) modeling of groundwater as a grad student. Learned lots.

flip · 07-31-2009, 04:44 AM

Those articles, arguing on non-linear temperature rise, explains why your point with the graph in post #138 is flawed, and explain why the earth wasn't hot as Venus 600 millions years ago, even with 7000 ppm CO2. Non-linear rise isn't even a controversy, and a known fact given to us from climate scientists.

I didn't bother take time to find the obviously flaws in all the articles, but choose arandom one, the nasif article. A problem with the Nasif article, is that it's very brave at trying to predict the climate, in a way that not even real climate scientists do. You critize climate scientists for making wild guesses, while you pull up an article that is making more bomb proof conclusions than climate scientists do. The math of path lenghts are wrong in the Nasif article something that a long discussion between DeWitt and Nasif show here, where Nasif withdrew from the discussion for some obvious reasons according to DeWitt:
Viewing a thread - A debate between Hans Erren and Nasif Nahle

One advice, stop posting long articles that you don't understand and can verify is right with your knowledge. It's more interesting if you can elaborate with your own words what and why you belive this and that, and perhaps add a link, instead of posting articles that you don't understand while bragging about beeing a bigger scientists than all of us. That does not give you much cred. I could go on posting thousands of long articles telling why your stuff is nonsense, but that would ruin this thread.

Your article on wildfire don't makes any points here. Nor does it deny that forest fires frequency are at a very high rate, and nor does it deny that the global warming is the cause. All it says, is that the nature will change to cope with a changing climate, so there won't be more forest fires in the future, but that's bad news for many species and plants.

Last, it's a consensus in climate science. That's your biggest problem, and why you aren't able to come up with a single scientific post that can support your view.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

This is probably my last post in this thread, as I am getting bored with the rambling and cheap attempts from you to try to score points. It's too easy to pick apart your arguments.

**deafskeptic** · 07-31-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Last, it's a consensus in climate science. That's your biggest problem, and why you aren't able to come up with a single scientific post that can support your view.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

This is probably my last post in this thread, as I am getting bored with the rambling and cheap attempts from you to try to score points. It's too easy to pick apart your arguments.

I am suggesting that Koko who is better versed in science than I am and who is apparently a researcher in his field, should go to this forum. I'm sure they'll take his AGW views much more seriously than us average joes. After all, why waste time and so much energy wasting his knowledge on us when he should be convicing them that this is all a hoax.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't conservatism inherently anti-science? I do know Republicans who have scientific training but the majority of these republicans tend to lean toward the economic side of the Republican party rather than the conservative side of it.

I also think he missed his calling in political science. His views appears to be nothing more than that of a rabid conservative.

I think I am done here too because I think I've provided enough links in the Obama thread for the average joes like me to help with dealing with who to believe and why or why not to believe the AWG(anti global warming) folks or and the climate change folks. I think people lost interest in that thread so I'm not posting there anymore.

It's pointless to debate with a conservative "fundmentalist". *shrug*

flip · 07-31-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I am suggesting that Koko who is better versed in science than I am and who is apparently a researcher in his field, should go to this forum. I'm sure they'll take his AGW views much more seriously than us average joes. After all, why waste time and so much energy wasting his knowledge on us when he should be convicing them that this is all a hoax.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't conservatism inherently anti-science? I do know Republicans who have scientific training but the majority of these republicans tend to lean toward the economic side of the Republican party rather than the conservative side of it.

I also think he missed his calling in political science. His views appears to be nothing more than that of a rabid conservative.

I think I am done here too because I think I've provided enough links in the Obama thread for the average joes like me to help with dealing with who to believe and why or why not to believe the AWG(anti global warming) folks or and the climate change folks. I think people lost interest in that thread so I'm not posting there anymore.

It's pointless to debate with a conservative "fundmentalist". *shrug*

I never thought about conservatives beeing anti-science, but it looks like that sometimes yeah. Don't forget we got some radicals that seems a bit naive about green energy

Thanks for link to the forum, some interesting threads there. Stole this from a thread on climate change from there, and it was pretty spot on from what I have seen here.

""OK, so where did the author f*ck up?".

Every single paper that I've seen deniers cite as solid evidence against AGW contained at least one major f*ckup. And this latest paper is no exception -- it contains a pretty spectacular f*ckup (i.e. remove a trend by differentiating it away and then claim that there's no trend) that will haunt the journal's editors for quite some time."

kokonut · 07-31-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Those articles, arguing on non-linear temperature rise, explains why your point with the graph in post #138 is flawed, and explain why the earth wasn't hot as Venus 600 millions years ago, even with 7000 ppm CO2. Non-linear rise isn't even a controversy, and a known fact given to us from climate scientists. Koko - Long story short, I explained this before a few times, post #138 was to point out only about CO2 ppm concentrations that were high in various periods. But isn't interesting that around 150 million years ago temp shot up 5 degrees and stayed around there for 100 million years while CO2 ppm went down 1000 ppm? I thought that CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global warming?

I didn't bother take time to find the obviously flaws in all the articles, but choose arandom one, the nasif article. A problem with the Nasif article, is that it's very brave at trying to predict the climate, in a way that not even real climate scientists do. Koko - that is exactly what climate scientists do, including those who do model to find global cooling results. Again, predicting means exactly that, predicting and does not mean it will happen in the way they are trying to model. We know it will happen, global warming and cooling, The contention again is that increaseing CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global warming. If so, the decreasing CO2 should also be the primary driver of global cooling. But you don't go there, do you?

You critize climate scientists for making wild guesses, while you pull up an article that is making more bomb proof conclusions than climate scientists do. Koko - look and read closely. I basically said that climate modeling is not a crystal ball. There are scientists who have done climate modeling come up various scenarios (that's what they are, possible scenarios) that includes global cooling results. Modeling has inherent flaws, not a crystal ball but it is a tool to help us understand. Are you saying that climate modeling is 100% correct? Sounds like it to me. The math of path lenghts are wrong in the Nasif article something that a long discussion between DeWitt and Nasif show here, where Nasif withdrew from the discussion for some obvious reasons according to DeWitt:
Viewing a thread - A debate between Hans Erren and Nasif Nahle

One advice, stop posting long articles that you don't understand and can verify is right with your knowledge. Koko - I understand those articles. But do you? It's more interesting if you can elaborate with your own words Koko - I have, numerous times. For example, water vapor makes up 3% of the atmosphere, Co2 about .03 percent but water vapor is a better temp regulator than CO2 and absorbs (and reflect) more the infrared than CO2 could ever do. And that's a fact. How much more simpler do you want me to get but yet demand some validity which is why I provide links to peer reviewed articles, scientific studies and other articles and so on. what and why you belive this and that, and perhaps add a link, Koko - sigh. I have. instead of posting articles that you don't understand while bragging about beeing a bigger scientists than all of us. Koko - so, you as a non-scientist have a better understanding over scientists?? That does not give you much cred. I could go on posting thousands of long articles telling why your stuff is nonsense, but that would ruin this thread. Koko - but you haven't and when you did provide a link I pointed out numerous times why it was flawed rather than simply point a finger and say it was flawed. That's how you do it. It's funny how a non-scientist go around telling scientist, especially in the field of Earth science, saying "you don't understand." What a hoot. My advice, keep that sort of commentary out and debate on the merit of science itself.

Your article on wildfire don't makes any points here. Koko - I should've clarified after the link. Climate is only one control of fire regimes, and if you only considered climate when predicting fire under climate-change scenarios, you would have a good chance of being wrong. Nor does it deny that forest fires frequency are at a very high rate, Koko - um, if you look at the graph again, frequency of wildfire dropped but the size (acreage) of wildfire has gotten larger, especially over the last 10 years. It was unheard of to hear wildfire over 100,000 acres 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Now, it's common to see that size. and nor does it deny that the global warming is the cause. All it says, is that the nature will change to cope with a changing climate, so there won't be more forest fires in the future, but that's bad news for many species and plants. Koko - that was one aspect but it also pointed out that climate isn't the only influencing factor on fire regimes and it'd be erroneous to think along that line, too. And that's where you fall into that trap. There are a variety of factors that influence larger or more frequent fires.

Last, it's a consensus in climate science. That's your biggest problem, and why you aren't able to come up with a single scientific post that can support your view. Koko - I have. Numerous times. You chose to ignore it or don't read it or simply do not understand.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

This is probably my last post in this thread, as I am getting bored with the rambling and cheap attempts from you to try to score points. It's too easy to pick apart your arguments. Koko - when you talk like that it's a defensive posture. Coming from a non-scientist that's rather amusing.

Oh, btw, "non-linear" since non-linear could either means logarithmic or exponential. Which "non-linear" part are you talking about?

**deafskeptic** · 07-31-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I never thought about conservatives beeing anti-science, but it looks like that sometimes yeah. Don't forget we got some radicals that seems a bit naive about green energy

I will have to keep that in mind.

Quote:

""OK, so where did the author f*ck up?".

Every single paper that I've seen deniers cite as solid evidence against AGW contained at least one major f*ckup. And this latest paper is no exception -- it contains a pretty spectacular f*ckup (i.e. remove a trend by differentiating it away and then claim that there's no trend) that will haunt the journal's editors for quite some time."

That's what I thought, but I do not have the training to spot these mistakes.

kokonut · 07-31-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I will have to keep that in mind.

Koko - Naive about green energy? I support green energy, only if it's done in the right way. Plus there are inherent flaws concerning some green energy as well. I also support drilling our own oil instead of buying foreign sources of oil at the tune of $500 billion dollars a year. Reverse that and keep the money here while we move toward more and better green energy sources and products. Who said that nobody want clean air, water and land?

That's what I thought, but I do not have the training to spot these mistakes. Koko - neither does a non-scientist over a scientist, too..

My comments are in red

flip · 07-31-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Oh, btw, "non-linear" since non-linear could either means logarithmic or exponential. Which "non-linear" part are you talking about?

I am not going to respon to someone that can't quote properly in a reply. Finding your replies in red and make replies to them is tiresome. That's perhaps what you want, too, avoid making your funny replies stand out? So, if you want reply from me, quit that red thing and use the QUOTE tag. A highly acclaimed scientists like you should be able to do that.

Read your own posts to figure out if it's logarithmic or exponential. Help me someone..

flip · 07-31-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

I will have to keep that in mind.

That's what I thought, but I do not have the training to spot these mistakes.

Belive me, everything he has posted so far got at least one major f*ck up. He also have posted stuff from climate scientists that goes against his own claims.

kokonut · 07-31-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I am not going to respon to someone that can't quote properly in a reply. Finding your replies in red and make replies to them is tiresome. That's perhaps what you want, too, avoid making your funny replies stand out? So, if you want reply from me, quit that red thing and use the QUOTE tag. A highly acclaimed scientists like you should be able to do that.

Read your own posts to figure out if it's logarithmic or exponential. Help me someone..

So, is this your way of admitting that you don't know and an excuse not to debate/discuss further? Sure, I'll quit that "red thing" and do it "properly."

kokonut · 07-31-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

Belive me, everything he has posted so far got at least one major f*ck up. He also have posted stuff from climate scientists that goes against his own claims.

Easy to say, hard to back it up.

flip · 08-01-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

So, is this your way of admitting that you don't know and an excuse not to debate/discuss further? Sure, I'll quit that "red thing" and do it "properly."

I never whimp out

It was not necessary to "shout" at you about the red comments, sorry, but great that point is taken, as it can get tiring.

flip · 08-01-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Easy to say, hard to back it up.

Yes, isn't it..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-29-2009, 10:58 AM	#451 (permalink)
C.C.Sinned Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,476	this thread reminds me of why i smoked pot before all my science classes

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

07-29-2009, 02:44 PM	#458 (permalink)
Everglade85 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Sac-town Posts: 122	One thing is certain. We have a very limited knowledge of Earth's complex climate system. The majority of scientists do not have a secret agenda. The goal of science is to improve upon our knowledge by using the scientific method. In order for a theory to be challenged, there has to be some hard evidence refuting that theory that can be verified through multiple experiments. That's the whole beauty of science. A system that relies on evidence and is not subjected to people's emotions, beliefs, or politics.

07-31-2009, 04:44 AM	#469 (permalink)
flip Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,848	Those articles, arguing on non-linear temperature rise, explains why your point with the graph in post #138 is flawed, and explain why the earth wasn't hot as Venus 600 millions years ago, even with 7000 ppm CO2. Non-linear rise isn't even a controversy, and a known fact given to us from climate scientists. I didn't bother take time to find the obviously flaws in all the articles, but choose arandom one, the nasif article. A problem with the Nasif article, is that it's very brave at trying to predict the climate, in a way that not even real climate scientists do. You critize climate scientists for making wild guesses, while you pull up an article that is making more bomb proof conclusions than climate scientists do. The math of path lenghts are wrong in the Nasif article something that a long discussion between DeWitt and Nasif show here, where Nasif withdrew from the discussion for some obvious reasons according to DeWitt: Viewing a thread - A debate between Hans Erren and Nasif Nahle One advice, stop posting long articles that you don't understand and can verify is right with your knowledge. It's more interesting if you can elaborate with your own words what and why you belive this and that, and perhaps add a link, instead of posting articles that you don't understand while bragging about beeing a bigger scientists than all of us. That does not give you much cred. I could go on posting thousands of long articles telling why your stuff is nonsense, but that would ruin this thread. Your article on wildfire don't makes any points here. Nor does it deny that forest fires frequency are at a very high rate, and nor does it deny that the global warming is the cause. All it says, is that the nature will change to cope with a changing climate, so there won't be more forest fires in the future, but that's bad news for many species and plants. Last, it's a consensus in climate science. That's your biggest problem, and why you aren't able to come up with a single scientific post that can support your view. BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science This is probably my last post in this thread, as I am getting bored with the rambling and cheap attempts from you to try to score points. It's too easy to pick apart your arguments.