6 of the questions are statements that equal or lower CO2 was present in earlier warming. That is the opposite to a question about higher CO2 supporting the hypothesis.
For example: Rain comes in through a window. How can rain come in through an open door?
re:-I don't have 'heros' in a scientific analysis sense. If I did, I would still have a problem because, imo, it would be ALL the 'genuine' Climate scientists i.e. those who DO NOT HAVE a FF subsidised or RW/Libertarian political agendaClippo who is your hero climate scientist?
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
Origonally posted by Ron;
I thaught it was doubtful as there is some sort of negitve feed back due to the way in which CO2 interacts with water vapor. However I am unable to debate it as I don't know enough to have an opinion. I just use the Royal societies figure of 3.6 watts pewr square meter from a doubling of CO2 to conclude that there is absolutly nothing to worry about unless you own a ski shallet at a resort that will not have snow if the snow line increases in altitude by 100m.Originally Posted by ron
Shame that we are killing many millions of poor people a month (at least) to avert this non-problem.
I've finally got a web site to work!! See my page thingy.
So you admit you don't understand the subject and yet are totally convinced there is nothing to worry about... Strange, when I don't understand stuff I tend to have a more open minded approach.
Can you add some details to your statement about millions of poor people dying every month?
To finish up my contribution to this thread, I will add the following :-
Q1. Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
A. As I showed in my earlier post, warming alarmists CAN – and very much. The onus is on AGW deniers to produce convincing empirical evidence that doesn’t support AGW. Also, just last week a peer-reviewed paper appeared which claims mankind is responsible for ALL the recent warming :- the easy version
Gillett et al. Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
Q2. Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
A. Because there are agreed OTHER factors like Solar output, Milankovitch cycles, Nino/Nina etc.etc. which impact global temperatures. The recent increasing global temperatures are clearly by CO2 which have overridden those other effects.
3. Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
A. As answer 2 above – those other factors / cycles predominated.
4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
A. Firstly, multiple temperature proxy studies say it WASN’T warmer then – this is just a denier soundbite denying many temperature analyses.
5. Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?
A. Did they? – give exact peer-reviewed references please. I believe some glaciers in southern Patagonia are slightly increasing now – all down to microclimate.
6. Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
A. Is it – peer-reviewed studies please?
7. Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
A. Has it? – peer-review refs again please?
8. Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?
A. They aren’t better correlations of earth’s temp than with CO2 levels!! – all these other factors, and probably some others, play a part in the normal cyclic variation of global temperature but palaeo-historically, the level of CO2 has been the DOMINANT factor – as it is NOW.
As Besoeker and other have said, these aren’t questions, but loaded statements. No more from me on this.
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Denial is a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality.
So you can not name even one scientist that you think in the field of climate out shines the rest.
The road to hell is paved in good intention.
No, you are making the claim, You prove or shut it, you are trying to manipulate this into a religious argument (Prove there is not a God). Either there is proof of what you claim or there isn't. If there isn't then the AGW theory is a religious argument.The onus is on AGW deniers to produce convincing empirical evidence that doesn’t support AGW.
In that case could they not be the cause of the warming of the late 20th Century? if not, please prove this point.Because there are agreed OTHER factors like Solar output, Milankovitch cycles, Nino/Nina etc.etc. which impact global temperatures. The recent increasing global temperatures are clearly by CO2 which have overridden those other effects.
I refer you to my response to Q1A3. As answer 2 above – those other factors / cycles predominated.
A. Firstly, multiple temperature proxy studies say it WASN’T warmer then – this is just a denier soundbite denying many temperature analyses.
Are you now in denial of the MWP and LIA ?
Perhaps you can prove to me there was no MWP
Here is proof that there was ...
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW...armPeriod.html
Perhaps you can point out where these papers have been debunked. No, I didn't think you could.
I'll get on to the other later, after you reply to this as I feel you will no doubt have some decorating to do.
Last edited by manbearpig; 16-01-2012 at 07:59 AM.
Temperatures and sea level may go down as well as up, terms and conditions apply.
I don't understand enough about the relationship between CO2 levels and the impact in terms of heat balance to confirm or challenge the 3.6 watts per square meter figure so I use it as it's the Royal Institute's figure. The rest after the heat balance figure is given is very simple to understand. How much ice would/will melt due to a 1 degree increase in temperature?
Cronic food shortages:- The price of food has risen due to the west using food to produce fuel. Thisa has replaced the grain mountains and wine lakes of previous decades. It's still there duie to the farmers wanting a subsidy because they don't think that they should be exposed to the same ecconomic forces that the rest of us are. If you have to live on a dolar a day when you can find work then you have seen the price of food become such that you are unable to feed your children properly and now they are cronically undernorished. Remember the food riots a few years back? (In Haiti and west Africa etc) There will be little scientific litreature on it or news paper articles becuse it's not sudden and dramatic or a doomsday story that would effect us rich people. I don't notice if the price of bread doubles. I don't live on a $ a day.
I've finally got a web site to work!! See my page thingy.
If you are happy that nothing at all can go wrong you shouldn't need to be asking any more questions so I am still confused at the position you take. For me there is no doubt about the basis of AGW, the details are another matter and are in a way not very important to my personal position. I'm not in favour of messing about with the planet given the potential seriousness, especially if there are other ways of living that have plenty of other benefits too. Having said that, I believe over population is a more damaging and immediate issue anyway and the one definitely negative thing about AGW is that it is diverting attention away from this far trickier problem.
Over population and poor government is the reason for this. If nations are not able to feed their people but are allowing land to be used for cash crops (today it is fuel, substitute coffee, rubber etc. for other periods in history) then it is up to the government of that nation to resolve the issue. That is unless you think we in the West should act as world policeman and impose democracy and free speech on all nations of the world. I have every sympathy for the poor souls living in these corrupt and failed nations but after decades of government and charitable aid I'm not sure there is anything I can do about it. The people themselves, as the Arabs are showing us, certainly can do something about it though and when they do we can at least act in support, as with Libya.
You asked for empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis - proof has been given, much of it pre-dating the politicisation of climate science. Now it is your turn to refute that proof, that is how science works. Don't play the creationist game of changing the subject when faced with scientific fact.
So...first prove CO2 does not absorb and re-emit IR radiation, if not then prove CO2 is not increasing, if not then prove that this increase is natural.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks