Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
ClimateGate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: [qb] You know what? I'm not a climatologist. I have however read a number of very dull and dry scientific papers from a number of sources that have suggested to me that there is a measureable change in the climate both localy and globaly. I have also seen papers showing an increase in "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, as well as a number of other ways human activity has left its mark on the ecosystem in a huge number of ways. I have also seen evidence of human activity (and by this I DO NOT just mean driving, burning stuff, not switching off lights in empty rooms) has dramatically increased the level of these gases. And I have seen a number of sources showing good evidence linking these three points.[/qb][/QUOTE]And that's the crux of the issue, right there. Let's note/recap some logic and science: 1. Correlation does not imply causation. Two things rising together doesn't mean that one caused the other. 2. CO2 invariably lags behind temperature increases. It is claimed to be an amplifier or reinforcer of increases, even when the temp increases stop (turning to declines) long before the CO2 maxes out. Rising CO2 and dropping temperature . . . funny, that. 2a. CO2 and temperature have varied tremendously over the history of the planet, sometimes together and sometimes seperately. CO2 is at a low point in the atmosphere right now compared to the past. 3. CO2 is 3.6% of the total supply of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is 95%, but climate modelers are unable to deal with water vapor or water's cycle very well and so they commonly ignore it. Mankind is said to contribute about 3% extra CO2 over 'normal', whatever precisely that is, meaning that our CO2 output represents 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) in the atmosphere for any given year. With all greenhouse gases taken together, mankind is said to contribute about 0.25% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over and above natural emissions yearly. That's one quarter of one percent. 4. The period 1940-1980 saw no significant warming trend according to the more reliable sources, with similar results for the past decade. However, AGW folks commonly point to the last century or the last 30-40 years as proof of warming. 5. Earth is currently in an interglacial stage, and those commonly feature temperature variations. The Medieval Warm Period was one, and the Little Ice Age that came after was another. Depending on where you look, the MWP was either warmer or as warm as today. The LIA (circa 1500-1750, though some date it from 1300-1850) was notably cooler, and even featured glacial advance. That, mind you, was a mere 250 years ago (or 150 depending on who you ask). Now, consider the thesis of AGW, which is that mankind's increasing release of the *primary climate forcing agent* of CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, and that this unnatural forcing of the last century is a unique event in history that overwhelms natural cycles and natural atmospheric controls. CO2 hasn't been a climate forcing agent the past, hasn't always correlated with temperature increase in the last century even, and only represents 3.6% of greenhouse gas . . . the AGW climate models don't even deal with *clouds*, the big puffy high-albedo ice/water/vapor objects that can cover the whole sky. Meanwhile, Earth has enjoyed natural climate variations (many cyclical) over millions of years. Given the two concepts, what conclusion would you draw? Note that at no point in that did I bring up the anti-scientific behavior of the main proponents of AGW like Hansen, Jones, Mann, et cetera. I'm just telling you what it is. And hey, you don't have to take it from me . . . I've linked to a whole lot of stuff in this thread. It's a good starting point for your own research, if for whatever reason Jason's attacks and my deigning to reply have poisoned the well of discourse for you. (For instance, it looks like someone has reacted poorly to my intentional use of a ridiculous ad hominem attack against Jason's spelling to point out to him that ridiculous ad hominem attacks are ridiculous and obnoxious. I though I was being pretty clear in what I was doing, but oh well.) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3