1. Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 125.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Add your web host to our brand new web hosting directory (beta).
    Dismiss Notice

Global Warming is not Anthropogenic

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Meksilon, Apr 21, 2012.

  1. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    If anyone would like to debate me on this, here is your opportunity.

    Here are the facts.

    Human activity has contributed to the rise in CO2 levels over the last 150 years or so. This increase, however, is also somewhat attributed to nature as the ocean is no longer "absorbing" as much CO2.

    CO2 is the "largest" of the minor greenhouse gases; the only major greenhouse gas is H2O. Let me qualify what I mean when I say "largest". It has a greater "warming" effect than any other minor GHG.

    Most GHG's absorb solar radiation that is reflected from the earth on its way back out to space. O3 is an exception, where it absorbs UV radiation on its way in to Earth. Even though the O3 layer is so thin it actually absorbs the vast majority of the radiation that it is capable of absorbing. Just like O3, CO2 absorbs the vast majority of the radiation that it is capable of absorbing. So atmospheric increases can only absorb a tiny amount more since the majority is already absorbed.

    The most sophisticated climate modelling in the world attributing the rise in temperature to greenhouse activity contributes 47% of it to the CO2 increase (NASA); in fact NASA has been telling us that Methane and Black Carbon are large contributors for well over a decade. It most certainly is not 100% CO2 according to any serious climatologist.

    We're still coming out of an ice-age; temperatures should be rising some amount anyway.

    There is strong evidence that in the Medieval Warm Period temperatures rose as swiftly as they are presently and achieved a substantially higher global mean temperature then is at present; especially evidenced by the world's melting glacier's which have not yet retreated to MWP levels, and the fact that Viking remains (land cultivation, graves, etc) from the MWP remain under permafrost on Greenland to this day.

    I'm a "global warming sceptic". And like most GWS's, I believe that CO2 has increased temperatures over the past 100 years, we (sceptics) all do. Yes, that's right, we believe the same thing that most global-warming alarmist climate scientists do. Only difference is I believe CO2 to be responsible for between 10-30% of the trend (most likely about 15%); whereas your climate alarmists generally believe it's anything from 40%-100%. NASA's scientists seem to think it's about 47%, and politicians like Al Gore like to say it's 100% and "truth".

    If you want to have a good-faith discussion please reply. Please don't troll, I've studied the science and followed it for about 7-8 years, and my favourite climatologist is Richard Lindzen, a well-respected "mainstream" climatologist who contributed to the IPCC papers and shares the same view that I do as to CO2's role in climate change.
  2. Peo

    Peo Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Scientists present their case in peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Conspiracy nuts present their case to random people on a free webhosting forum.
    Ben likes this.
  3. ace2010

    ace2010 New Member

    good point
  4. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    I couldn't agree more, especially with the E-Cat scam. This is why anyone can clearly see there is no tangible science behind this, because the "evidence" for Anthropogenic Global Warming is purely based on computer modelling; and that isn't real science. It's certainly not peer-review. Try finding a scientific paper within the last 10 years discussing exactly how much effect the GHE has on the environment, or exactly how much effect individual GHG's have. They're pretty scarce because scientists don't have a confident opinion on it, and it's difficult to measure.

    But also, the onus of proof isn't on me. I can't prove a negative that's impossible. The onus of proof is on the climate scientist making alarmist claims.

    To quote Ivar Giaever:
    That's his full email of resignation to the APS. You can see the policy he's talking about here.

    By the way, I have a history of being correct. I said quasars are not as far away as their redshift tells us while the scientific consensus was still that quasars are giant, distant, galactic objects. The consensus is now, surprise surprise, that they are not so far away. This violates a "scientific law", ie Hubble's Law. Why they (Hubble?) insisted it was a law and not a theory I have no idea, but Hubble's Law basically states that all galactic redshift is cosmological in origin; we now know that for quasars this is not the case, and their redshift does not indicate their position in space. In 2004 and again in 2005 on several forums I challenged anyone to prove to me that the quasar embedded in galaxy NGC 7319 is really "behind it". No one rose to the challenge. But they were pretty sure I was wrong and that I'm a crack-pot. The official line from NASA at the time was that it was due to gravitational lensing (despite it shining through an opaque area of the galaxy). NASA, and everyone else now think that quasars are actually embedded in galaxies and are not ancient far-distant objects. If you do a search on NASA you'll probably find the defunct article.
  5. Ben

    Ben Well-Known Member NLC


  6. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    That's a hockey stick graph (a simple exercise in data mining). How do I know instrumental data wouldn't have shown the same for the MWP? I don't. Therefore, you shouldn't use it.

    Here's another graph:


    The same graph is also on Wikipedia. Would it have some effect on Temperature? Well it should. Maybe not enough to account for the full trend, but certainly enough to not leave "everything" to the GHG. BTW, what do you think caused the MWP?
  7. Ben

    Ben Well-Known Member NLC

    So you completely ignored that a study by faculty from several universities found the Medieval Warm Period was cooler on a global level than now, which negates a major point in your original post. As far as the rest, I don't really care; whether global warming is anthropogenic or natural is completely irrelevant; nothing's going to change. If it's anthropogenic, we're all going to keep doing the same ---- and the world's going to get hotter. If it's natural, we're all going to keep doing the same ---- and the world's going to get hotter. A narcissistic show of internet chest-beating is completely unnecessary; especially on a forum where everybody knows you're an -------. We all know you're a conspiracy nut. ----, we even tried to get you your own subforum created at one time so you could rap away at your keyboard and we wouldn't have to look at it.

    As Peo said, you are a random nut on a forum trying to contradict scientific studies. You are not a climate scientist. Smoke a bowl, drink some beer, barbecue some burgers, and ----ing get over yourself. Or at least keep yourself occupied over at Alex Jones' web sites.

    Do you still believe in magic sky people?

    Here, I'll quote the study for you to make it easier:

    Are you a professor at Penn State, Roger Williams, U Mass, U Arizona, or ----ing NASA? Obviously not. Now go spam another forum about this. Maybe try and link the global warming conspiracy to FEMA death camps or something.
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2012
  8. Seraphim

    Seraphim Active Member

    Well let me present to you the one little fact that breaks any hope of proving with certainty if global warming has anything to do with human activity or not.

    Thermometers accurate to within 5 degrees F have only been available for perhaps 100 years at most, with many areas not having access to them until only 50-70 years ago.

    As such, any records older than perhaps the 1950s cannot be reliably trusted for accuracy. And any temperatures presented older than about 1700 or so are estimates based entirely on geological and historical evidence. They are not actual measurements of the temperature at those times, as no insturments capable of measuring that existed or were in widespread circulation.

    Same thing with the solar irradiance chart. Up until the 1900s, they had no reliable methods of measuring solar irradiance, and would have had to dervive those numbers based on surviving evidence- which could easily have been incorrectly interpreted or could have been altered by the passage of time.

    Altogether, there is NOT ENOUGH RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE THEORY. The historical evidence suggests cycle times on order of thousands of years. Because we do not have reliable evidence of similar age, all of the current conclusions are based on comparing estimates of historical conditions to present day measurements- which may not match exactly.

    However, I have noticed a very interesting phenomena as of the past few years. Last week it was over 80F out, hottest temperature on record for April. Today? I woke up to 6" of snow.

    Earth is an abnormality in space. We maintain a roughly constant surface temperature, with typical day/night cycles of no more than 10F swing and weekly highs/lows usually within 20F of each other. An entire year has only about 75F of temperature variation for most regions. Other planets? The moon's temperature is reported to go from over 500F to below 0F in a matter of minutes depending on if it is exposed to sunlight or not. Other planets that we have landed objects on to take measurements report similar findings- when they are hot they are extremely hot, and when they are cold they are extremely cold.

    What I am seeing here is a situation where whatever has been changing in our atmosphere- be it something we were involved in, or something completely natural, it is causing a rapid increase in the Delta T- the difference between when it is hot and when it is cold, and the maximum rate of temperature change has shifted. This also produces more energetic storm systems, as evidenced by storm after storm of record-setting intensity.
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2012
  9. Ben

    Ben Well-Known Member NLC

    I just remembered a smiley I made some time ago that was added to the official smiley list here at FWS

  10. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    Not completely, no. I'm ignoring the instrumental data tacked onto the end of the graph. As for the rest of your post it doesn't deserve a response.
    Regardless, tacking the instrumental data onto the end of the graph is wrong. Al Gore, in "Inconvenient Truth" uses nothing but Antarctic Ice core data to measure GLOBAL historical temperature, and then tacks on instrumental data for the 20th century.
    Incorrect. The data is very reliable back to about 1700 or so. The graph I used goes back as far as 1611; the measurements for the 17th century are still reliable enough, but are not from so many different sources, etc, that the 18th and later century’s are. One thing that proves the data is pretty good is the fact that you can clearly see the 10-year cycle.
    Sceptics don't need to PROVE anything, you can't prove a negative. Do you know how long we believed that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slaves for? About 2,000 years. And on what evidence did we believe this? One single piece of writing by a Greek historian written some 2,000 years after the last of the pyramids were built. You think sceptics could prove a negative? Of course not, but no one said they had to believe it, and so many theories were out there, until eventually we dug up the graves of the Egyptian workers who built the pyramids. Same with climate, I don't care whether or not I can prove what it's attributed to, the question for me is this: is the evidence for anthropogenic change sufficient, and I think not.
    Oh, get out of my thread! Go bother someone else. Did I somehow force you to start posting nonsense in my thread? No. Go away.

    You couldn't even answer my question. The general consensus is that it was probably an increase in solar activity at the time. Something that is automatically discounted from the possibility of this tend despite the graph I showed you.

    BTW, as for Michael Mann and his sea level rises:


    When was the last time it WASN'T rising??
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  11. Peo

    Peo Administrator Staff Member Admin

    You've "studied the science"? Ok, let's find out what that means. At what university? For how many years did you study climate science at the university? What degree do you have within this field of science? Any post-doctoral research? Have you published any research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about climate science?
  12. Ben

    Ben Well-Known Member NLC

    Here you go Meksi: http://www.infowars.com/

    There you can talk about how the climate change conspiracy was orchestrated by the Bilderberg group as part of a plot to secure the future of a Neo-Green-Marxist New World Order designed to send every single person in the world to FEMA death camps for mass extermination while the Reptilian overlords lead us into a free market paradise where Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ

    You'll fit right in with that crowd
  13. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    No, however I've debated successfully against friends of mine who studied it at length at university. My favourite question is this: given CO2 already absorbs the vast majority of the solar radiation in the wavelength that it absorbs - and remembering that even O3, thin though the O3 layer is, also successfully absorbs the vast majority of the UV solar radiation in the wavelength that it absorbs, what tangible evidence is there that CO2 will continue to have a greater greenhouse effect on the environment, when it already absorbs "almost all" of its solar radiation already? It's my favourite because it's original research, I didn't copy others and just ask the same questions that they ask like what you see with the alarmist crowd.

    Serious sceptical scientists aren't so much interested in that particular point, they're more interested in what evidence there is, or isn't, for positive-forcing from water vapour.

    And just recently I watched Lateline the other night with Michael Mann rattling on about how "sea levels are rising because of global warming", and defending his hockeystick graph. It's actually pretty slick if you listen to him "well the tree ring data is accurate up to a certain point..." Which of course is nonsense, it's not even a consensus view or anything, it's just something that climate alarmists like to say and then they'll hide behind the so-called consensus that they have. Given the "scientific consensus" is purely politically based, influenced by active politicians and put in place by a political body, the IPCC, if you come to me and tell me you are a qualified active climate scientist and try to tell me that the GHG is driving climate change, I'll say almost exactly what you said Peo, except like this: Well what qualifications do you have regarding politics, because this isn't really a scientific issue?

    Yes I have an answer to that too, I am a member of a political party and I've read many of the climategate emails (they're still sitting on my PC); so I know when Mann says things like "well they took that out of context" I know it's untrue because I read all the other emails leading up to it. Even if I agree that "Mike's Nature trick" was potentially taken out of context, there's still way more in there. They talk about threatening scientific journals if they publish "sceptic's work" and also talk about what to do about the journals currently publishing "sceptical" peer-review-papers: "we'll just say that we don't read those papers because they're not really peer-review", etc. They clearly talk about manipulating the evidence. Cheerypicking. Also, peer-review is way overrated anyway. You think Einstein ever posted a single peer-review paper? Well he did actually, he wrote about 300 scientific papers, but he only sent ONE that we know about to peer-review. And he couldn't even say he was qualified since he couldn't even get an academic position and was a clerk for the patent office, well at least at the time that he came up with his most significant work anyway.

    Science advances by falsification. So peer-review is not helpful if you're trying to stop people from falsifying current theories, then you're just essentially stagnating science from advancement or development or any real positive future.
  14. stuffradio

    stuffradio Super Moderator#1 NLC

    I read weather data, weather discussion, models, graphs, etc. every day for hours. I'm not knowledgeable enough one way or another to debate for or against though. I'm a skeptic until I can understand what Scientists believe and why they believe what they believe.

    Let's all pretend though that GW is caused by man. We aren't going to do anything about it. Even if we started doing something about it, it would probably take centuries to get some results.
  15. Seraphim

    Seraphim Active Member

    It is amazing how the people who are the most vocal about global warming also happen to be the same people with the largest individual carbon footprint- be it a large fancy house, an exotic fuel-wasting vehicle, or something else.

    Of course there excuse is "Oh I buy carbon credits."

    So? That still doesn't excuse the fact that America contains only a fraction of the world's population, yet produces a vast majority of CO2 released every year.

    The only way that is going to change is a combination of government and economic forces teaming up to trigger a lifestyle change.

    Because in these parts at least, you essentially can't earn a living without owning a car or having a reliable friend who happens to be going the same way.
  16. Peo

    Peo Administrator Staff Member Admin

    So, you have no education within climate science at all. None. And still you're trying to convince yourself you're smarter than NASA scientists and on top of that compare yourself to Einstein. Typical politician. :biggrin2:
  17. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    I'm completly self-taught PHP, HTML, JAVASCRIPT, VBSCRIPT, CSS, VisualBasic too Peo, that doesn't mean I don't know my stuff.
  18. Meksilon

    Meksilon Well-Known Member NLC

    Like I said to begin with, I'm not arguing that CO2 hasn't had some effect. I've already disproven QM as a definitive model of the microworld as posted on my blog using a simple thought experiment. Unlike Schrödinger's Cat, there is no error in my thought experiment and unlike Schrödinger I don't believe the answer could possibly be "hidden variables", I'm no crackpot I can see that can't possibly work, it would be a Bell inequality. A friend of mine who is a mathematical physicist saw no flaw in it. He was of course insistent that neutrinos don't travel faster than light, and I said well you're not saying that GR is a complete understanding of the universe are you? And he said "no, of course not". The neutrinos are a moot point, the fact though is even physicists don't believe their theories are definitive, my friend doesn't believe any theory (string theory, etc) can ever unify QM and GR. If Einstein knew what we know today his theory would have bee different; and on that point we certainly agree upon. We also agree that QM is a lot easier to understand because it's closer to classical physics than GR is.

    I also know what a straw man argument is, and that I didn't claim to be smarter than Mann let alone smarter than NASA scientists. NASA at least are lot more open about the rest of the so-called EGHE, whereas Mann and all his minions are not.
  19. Peo

    Peo Administrator Staff Member Admin

    If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.

    Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread, let me try again. I'm a strong supporter of education and I'm a strong supporter of science. So, I don't exactly appreciate a conspiracy nut posting random bs here claiming to be some expert when you're clearly not. If you truly would like to challenge the science within this field with your 0 years of education, I guess it would make slightly more sense to post on science forums than on a webhosting forum.
  20. Seraphim

    Seraphim Active Member

    Peo, I think he's alright in trying to at least learn about it.

    But presenting the topic like some kind of educational material while being yet another armchair expert on the subject with no real experience in the field or credible sources to back it up ends up producing what amounts to nothing more than speculation on the topic.

    There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.

    Also, although experimental devices to measure temperature have been around for a long time, none of them were repeatably accurate because without mass production methods each one had to be individually calibrated and were vulnerable to losing that calibration if handled roughly. Combine that with unreliable recordkeeping and scientific practice, and you effectively lose any evidence older than the 1900s as being unreliable in terms of accuracy of insturmentation and recordkeeping practices. The most accurate thermometer until the mass-produced mercury glass was the Gallileo thermometer, and that required extreme care in construction or it would not be accurate.

    Same thing with the solar input situation. Prior to the invention of devices that could directly convert solar energy to electrical energy- which could be quantified reliably and accurately using electrical insturments, the only way to measure solar energy input was to use optical devices to gather sunlight upon a target and then measure the change in temperature of that target. Again insturmentation and methods would vary widely from experimentor to experimentor, the resulting data cannot be trusted for accuracy.

    But unless this forum happens to contain somebody with an on-record college degree in Meterology who can accurately account for all of the processes involved, the best we can hope to agree upon here is a highly limited awareness of the subject and speculation of what is happening.

    Now I can say without needing any college degrees or anything that the past few years have seen an increase in severe storm intensity and frequency, and there are weather records showing tendancies towards temperature extremes with a reduction in the amount of moderate periods. That's something that could be related to global warming phenomena, but it gives no clue at all as to the underlying cause of it.

    Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

Share This Page