Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I think you're right that we'll know in the future whether the earth is still warming or not. But let me leave you with this: I'd say that the basic science of how carbon dioxide warms the earth is not really disputed. In the absence of other effects, the earth should warm due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. If the earth is not warming, there must be other factors at play. IOW, pretend that the global temperature remains constant in the next 10 years. That would mean that in the absence of the greenhouse effect of CO2 the earth's temperature would be decreasing.


If I read you correctly, these are our (tenuous?) points of agreement:

1) The Earth has warmed, to some extent, over the last century
2) Greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon

And that seems about it. Without the hockey stick, with the C02 lag problem, the Geological time trends ... etc, there is no proof that human activity has been or will be a driving force in climate change. AGW remains a theory without significant evidence to support it - I would say it is 'disproved', to the extent that any unverfiable hypothesis can be. Which is to say, I could be wrong, but the evidence doesn't support that at the moment. Thanks for the reasoned debate thus far :)
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
If I read you correctly, these are our (tenuous?) points of agreement:

1) The Earth has warmed, to some extent, over the last century
2) Greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon

Yes, I agree with you on those points.
Quote:
And that seems about it. Without the hockey stick, with the C02 lag problem, the Geological time trends ... etc, there is no proof that human activity has been or will be a driving force in climate change. AGW remains a theory without significant evidence to support it - I would say it is 'disproved', to the extent that any unverfiable hypothesis can be. Which is to say, I could be wrong, but the evidence doesn't support that at the moment. Thanks for the reasoned debate thus far :)

I disagree. The greenhouse effect is a real (undisputed?) phenomenon. The amount of greenhouse effect due to humans can easily be calculated, using the equations originally put forth by Arrhenius: Link . So far, I have not seen any evidence which disputes or disproves these orginal calculations.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, the greenhouse effect is very much in dispute. I posted an article on here weeks or months ago, a scientist was talking about how CO2 made up do little of the atmosphere that the claims made about its properties were contrary to the laws of physics. That is when I saw the light, and realized that there is no point. People believe what they want to believe and that is just it. GC thinks he is right and no force on this earth will change his mind.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
No, the greenhouse effect is very much in dispute. I posted an article on here weeks or months ago, a scientist was talking about how CO2 made up do little of the atmosphere that the claims made about its properties were contrary to the laws of physics.

Do you have the link handy?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes.
http://planetgore.nationalrevi.....RlMjMxNzc=

But, I really don't want to get sucked in again to a pointless shouting match.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is another link for you to read gc. It is the conversion of a scientist from CO2 advocate to skeptic.

http://www.dailytech.com/Resea.....e10973.htm

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.


However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Quote:
New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes.
http://planetgore.nationalrevi.....RlMjMxNzc=

But, I really don't want to get sucked in again to a pointless shouting match.

Your link doesn't seem to be working, but judging from the part that you quoted it doesn't seem to be disputing the greenhouse effect.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing.

Unfortunately, I don't see anywhere in the article that explains what this "negative feedback" is.
Quote:
At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

At best, this only refutes the idea of a "runaway" greenhouse effect, it does not dispute the greenhouse effect.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What he is saying, gc, is that one of the variables in the computer models calculation is wrong. The implication are profound. It could explain why the current computer models are not able to accurately predict what is being observed - cooling of the surface, seas and troposphere. His equation can even conform to observations on Mars. Unlike the IPCC models, Miskolcz's corrected equation actually works with real life observed data of both todays climate observations and the geological record.

Mostly it confirms that the "science is not settled" and the AGW attempts to suppress new research that is contrary to current models. There are going to be lots of other discoveries like this that will allow scientists to better understand climate change.

http://www.americanthinker.com.....armin.html

"How good are the assumptions in these models? Well consider the fate of Ferenc M. Miskolczi (pronounced Ferens MISkolshee), a first-rate Hungarian mathematician, who has published a proof that "greenhouse warming" may be mathematically impossible. His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming."


Read the entire article, it very much describes mindsets like yours:

"When True Believers begin to harbor doubts, they don't immediately give up the faith. It's too scary; too much pride and money has been invested; too many jobs and reputations are on the line; and they need to find a new reason to live. So they always try to add on new wrinkles and qualifications to their crumbling story.

Today that's happening with the global warming cult. .....

....Censoring skeptics is an admission of weakness. That's why Pope had to shut up Galileo -- he couldn't win on the facts. The science establishment is now going after the Galileos of our time for the same reason, because orthodox scientists are pretty frail human beings and don't really like to be wrong. Reasoned skepticism is not something our papacy of politicized science wants to hear. Off with their heads!

That's the real global warming tragedy -- a speculative bubble in science, which happens all the time, has now been protected by the politicians, and allowed into an ugly and expanding volcanic pressure point. It is threatening to erupt and engulf climate modeling around the world. Scientists are pretty ruthless with open failure.

Politicized science is a far bigger disaster than NASA's Challenger tragedy. Americans understood the Challenger tragedy as a technical mistake at the leading edge of space exploration. What we cannot understand or forgive is corruption of scientific inquiry to push a money agenda.

When this farce is finally exposed, heads must roll. Not for being wrong about the global warming hoax, because anybody can be wrong -- but for politicizing normal scientific debate. Politicized science kills science. This is one festering boil that has to be lanced."
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On average the tempature of the earth is increasing though, I think that we can all agree on, thats a fact.
And tim ball seems like a jerk LOL
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-.....-documents
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, FL. To come full circle with the original post - there is evidence that there has not been average warming, Even the IPCC acknowledges this:

"Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant.""
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is just the now. 1970's were cooler and the 1930's were hotter.

In the geological past, like the medieval warming period - it was much warmer. The little ice age much cooler.

Review:

- no warming in the sea, no warming in the troposphere, no abnormal warming on the surface.
-computer models wrong
-Mann hockey stick wrong
-NASA ten warmest years had to be corrected
-hurricane predictions wrong
-gores movie found inaccurate by UK judges

Looks like there is lots of reasonable doubt about the AGW theory.

I guess a better question is : what prediction has the AGW theory gotten correct so far?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
I guess a better question is : what prediction has the AGW theory gotten correct so far?

So far, they've got the funding applications right. Other than that.... :wink:

-Mac
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No kidding...and it's not lack of trying to connect everything "under the sun" to AGW. Here is a running list:

http://americanthinker.com/blo.....lobal.html
or
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

:D
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

casper35 wrote:
What he is saying, gc, is that one of the variables in the computer models calculation is wrong. The implication are profound. It could explain why the current computer models are not able to accurately predict what is being observed - cooling of the surface, seas and troposphere.

It's not surprising that computer models can't accurately predict what is observed. There are probably way too many variables to consider. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that one of those variables, the amount of carbon dioxide, can be calculated.
Quote:
His proof involves long equations, but the bottom line is that the warming models assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. Why? Because it simplifies the math. If on the other hand, you assume the atmosphere is about 100 km thick (about 65 miles) -- which has the big advantage of being true -- the greenhouse effect disappears! No more global warming."

I don't know where he got the idea that the calculations were done assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere. The calculations are done with the actual thickness of the atmosphere. If you used an infinitely thick atmosphere, all of the heat would be absorbed.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


climate facts to warm to...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB