|
Post by woodstove on Jun 18, 2009 15:56:23 GMT
I want to second Ian Wylie twice over:
First, I have to say that socold (while relentless) is generally civil -- a good model.
Second, Captain Higley:
Welcome!
Those who dismiss you will be in the minority on this site. (I needn't tell you that they will also be wrong.)
I, too, hope that you will see fit to take part in the discussions on an ongoing basis.
All the best,
Harold Ambler
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 18, 2009 18:20:04 GMT
woodstove: "First, I have to say that socold (while relentless) is generally civil -- a good model."
I guess you prefer that one smiles as he insults your intelligence. Soclod is a good model for disingenuousness, if there is such a word. When he was asked to comment on one of Dr. Spencer's rebuttals of the hysterical catastrophic AGW theology, he at first ignored it. When I asked why he had not replied, he said the link didn't work. When I provided a link, he came back in less time than it would have taken to read Dr. Spencer's article, with a DISMISSIVE response that he had obviously lifted from a snide rebuttal on realclimate. After soclod had exhausted all the canned arguments from the realclimate denier refutaton file, he played the religion card. Dr. Spencer apparently has some unconventional ideas about evolution, which disqualifies him as a climate scientist. Creationism=AGW skepticism seems to be soclod's default ad hominem, when all else fails. Soclod's agenda here is to attempt to make deniers look like dummies, loons, and miscreants. It is very kind of you to call him civil.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 19, 2009 14:12:51 GMT
woodstove: "First, I have to say that socold (while relentless) is generally civil -- a good model." I guess you prefer that one smiles as he insults your intelligence. Soclod is a good model for disingenuousness, if there is such a word. When he was asked to comment on one of Dr. Spencer's rebuttals of the hysterical catastrophic AGW theology, he at first ignored it. When I asked why he had not replied, he said the link didn't work. When I provided a link, he came back in less time than it would have taken to read Dr. Spencer's article, with a DISMISSIVE response that he had obviously lifted from a snide rebuttal on realclimate. After soclod had exhausted all the canned arguments from the realclimate denier refutaton file, he played the religion card. Dr. Spencer apparently has some unconventional ideas about evolution, which disqualifies him as a climate scientist. Creationism=AGW skepticism seems to be soclod's default ad hominem, when all else fails. Soclod's agenda here is to attempt to make deniers look like dummies, loons, and miscreants. It is very kind of you to call him civil. I have seen SOCOLD interact in the way that you describe, more than once. And I concur that it is frustrating. What I have not seen is him making direct ad-hominem attacks on the people on this site. The fact that in the current debate climate that qualifies as civil behavior is a little depressing. On the other hand, I like to hope that the debates we have here could eventually change the mind of a warmist. I also like to hope, frankly, that if everybody on this site got together for an in-person debate/forum that civility, and maybe even cordiality, would be the rule.
|
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on Jun 19, 2009 15:50:54 GMT
SOCOLD Still waiting on a direct answer to why MODTRAN gives more weight to CO2 than either CH4 or water vapor.
Even though I think (know) its a flawed program, it is fun to play around with some of the parameters. Example if the CO2 were to reach 400ppm then the earth surface temp would have to rise a whopping .08C to come back into equilibrium. Now thats a scary ooooooh temp rise.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 16:17:27 GMT
SOCOLD Still waiting on a direct answer to why MODTRAN gives more weight to CO2 than either CH4 or water vapor. Sorry didn't see your question. The per molecule comparison (methane more powerful) probably refers to current conditions rather than starting from zero. I suspect each molecule of methane provides more warming than co2 because methane is at such low concentrations. In the same way the warming per molecule of co2 at 10ppm would be greater than at 1000ppm It's 5 years from reaching 400ppm
|
|
|
Post by france on Jun 20, 2009 10:48:16 GMT
And jet stream is more active when sunspots or coronal hole emerge when speed and protons rate of solar wind increase. I get graphs showing correlation with sunspot ,aa indice and rainfall over latitude 44° 50 N - long 0°.34 O
|
|
|
Post by captainhigley on Jun 29, 2009 23:46:24 GMT
I believe the statements from alarmists saying things like "same old discredited arguments" are part of the "ad hominem" attack strategy that is all too common in the world. I do not know if I am biased in saying that the alarmist camp resorts to this more often (with the exception of SoCold who is mostly very civil). I wonder if there is enough good-will left in the world to bridge this divide between us and to focus on real problems (there are many). Yes, there are even real environmental problems (e.g. fishery depletion, plastic waste in the oceans, dead zones near river deltas from agricultural run-off, bacterial contamination of lakes and rivers, etc., etc.), that need lots of attention. Ian
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 29, 2009 23:55:41 GMT
Folks, if you can see it, the 25% increase in the amount of atmospheric CO2 is represented by the small circle in the middle of the grid. Can you see it? That's the cause of every catastrophic weather event on the planet and future ones too! Did I mention several degrees Celsius rise in temperature? These people really are religious zealots.
|
|
|
Post by captainhigley on Jun 30, 2009 0:40:06 GMT
I believe the statements from alarmists saying things like "same old discredited arguments" are part of the "ad hominem" attack strategy that is all too common in the world. I do not know if I am biased in saying that the alarmist camp resorts to this more often (with the exception of SoCold who is mostly very civil). I wonder if there is enough good-will left in the world to bridge this divide between us and to focus on real problems (there are many). Yes, there are even real environmental problems (e.g. fishery depletion, plastic waste in the oceans, dead zones near river deltas from agricultural run-off, bacterial contamination of lakes and rivers, etc., etc.), that need lots of attention. Hi Ian, The "debate is over" means that they know that if they do debate, they will lose. And attacking the speaker or feigning boredom is another way to say that they do not have the science to back them up. The sad aspect of the alarmists is that they believe that anything goes to win, evidenced by the Brits who were let off for doing thousands of pounds of damage in their protest of GW. I love the argument that this is a moral issue. It is - it is immoral to lie about the science. Recently I worked hard to fix the Wikipedia entry on the Medieval Warm Period. The Alarmists have a man sitting on the entries for this and the Little Ice Age so nobody can change it to a more balanced treatment. The Wiki entry on the Medieval Warm Period says that it was caused by farming and deforestation by the (many?) people of the time, even the American Indian farming. Then, they claim that the plagues caused the Little Ice Age as the loss of human activities allowed such huge reforestation that it created this very cold period. I tried to add a couple of sentences to balance the presentation - not changing anything already extent. I was repeatedly deleted by the Dr Connor who monitors the entry for changes. And, after three attempts, he threatened to have me banned from making entries at all. I did a little sleuthing and discovered that Dr Connor is a colleague of Dr Hansen. Remember, Dr Hansen was once the science adviser for VP Al Gore - golly gee Batman, they must be working together! I can find no way to counter such dastardly monitoring of such a public source (Wikipedia does not have such a mechanism that I can find) - they are purposely maintaining a wonderful public resource in a politically biased state. This is sick, immoral, and just plain dishonest. How can we effectively argue with people who refuse to recognize the truth when it is presented and believe that denying when the truth is apparent and continuing to lie is the way to a good future. No matter what we do right or wrong, nature will give us a clear answer. One thing that the modelers do not recognize is that the Earth is a perfect model in which everything is already integrated and given its proper weight - nothing is left out. Apparently looking back at Earth's past behavior is not valid due to one simple assumption - all past natural influences have been over-ridden by man's activities. It's just too simple and arrogant to be true. Just as their list of global warming disasters includes every disaster known to man - including higher taxes - is just too much to be true. My favorite anecdote is the report from Britain that flowers are blooming 2 weeks earlier in the Spring due to global warming. Now, this is in spite of the fact that sites in England have not reported any warming, but everybody agrees, the flowers cannot be wrong. Well, the flowers are not wrong. When given more CO2 (not warming), plants are more temperature tolerant and can grow and bloom earlier and at cooler temperatures than before. I saw another coral reef bleaching report today. What these guys fail to do is go back later and see how the recovery is going. Sure, occasional chemical kills, dust settlement (Sahara dust in the Caribbean), and viral attacks can attack reefs, but another rather common effect is that as ocean temperatures go up and down or as the zooanthellae in the corals polyps catch a virus, the corals expel their symbionts and either take them back later or, with temperatures going up or down, they pick up a more temperature appropriate symbiont species or variety. Coral reefs (and virtually everything else in the world) are much hardier than the alarmists would like us to think. I think scientific integrity is our most valuable product and it is also our duty to track down everything and make sure that we are not taking anything for granted. In tracking AGW items, I came to the conclusion that there must be some other agenda as nothing they were saying was making sense. About then I started stumbling on articles to that effect and it all fell into place. The history of AGW and the plot to create a one-world government is fascinating. The extreme south boundary of moose in Wisconsin are moving North not because of the supposed global warming, but because they are burdened by a disease and parasite load introduced by a growing white-tailed deer infestation (a man made problem). In such weakened and malnourished condition, the hottest days of a normal summer, even the hottest of a cooler overall year, can be too much of a metabolic load. I heard a NPR debate between a realist scientist and an alarmist scientist. The realist gave a cogent description of one aspect of CO2 and warming. The alarmist did not counter with any science except that with more CO2 poison ivy would grow better and pine trees would form more pollen and cause increased allergies. Thus, we must deal with this crisis and decrease our emissions. His entire argument was ad hominem, no science. Anyhow, my family motto for 300 years has been "Never Despair". Cheers, Charles
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 30, 2009 1:37:06 GMT
Charles, I set up an account at Wikpedia to change the MWP entries. I am having a problem posting the source to my changes. Can you help me? It does appear that the MWP was a global event, not regional as is indicated in their article. I at least wanted to add China..... www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/Just to get started. Thank you
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jun 30, 2009 3:45:55 GMT
Sigurdur,
Don't be discouraged by exaggerations, misrepresentations, unfair tactics or even lies. The Truth is a very powerful force and will eventually prevail. In the end we all have to answer to our conscience, and the only thing that we have a real hope of controlling is our response and our own outlook. False cheerfulness is not helpful, but long-term optimism AND civility always is. I know that there are many people performing barbaric acts in the real world that in moments of weakness I could think of myself as harming to stop them, but I know that that would be as evil as what they do. There is always hope for even the most extreme person, it is up to everyone to leave a path back for everyone.
Along those lines, I wonder what sort of real world changes in temperature, ocean heat content, trends or other factors would be taken as definitive one way or the other to convince either side of the truth of the other's position. I know that most everyone becomes convinced of the truth of one's position and then spends a great deal of time trying to find supporting evidence rather than looking for evidence that would refute our beliefs. This is human nature. However, we all have (and especially those on this web-site) logic and reason and when we don't allow our emotions to take over, logic and reason can serve us well in this debate. I would add that civility and good faith also engenders a certain degree of trust that can act to bridge the gaps between us.
Hope this is relevant. Hope to post a new thread on suggestions to bridge the gap between those who support AGW and those who don't (or doubt it a lot).
Ian
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 30, 2009 5:25:24 GMT
Re:wikipedia
Actually, I recall checking in the past when the MWP/LIA articles on wikipedia were far less balanced. The little ice age article especially seemed to be a running retreat. Supposedly plausible explanation followed explanation. While evidence may not always be straight forward, the article read like the convoluted excuses made by criminals in attempts to avoid responsibility.
Now...it at least sounds like the article truly entertains both notions...that the LIA may have just been localized or it really could be more or less world-wide.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jun 30, 2009 7:43:36 GMT
Was there a global LIA between 3rd century AD and say 800 to 900? According to Brian f*gan the 3rd C Roman crisis led directly to serfdom. Equally Asia endured significant political and social changes arising from a rapidly cooling climate. The Mayans also became defunct in that period. If that is the case, then in the past two thousand years has humankind not fundamentally experienced a cooling global climate and possibly the termination of the Holocene? Is there a known average for stadials?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2009 6:43:36 GMT
|
|