 |
Green World Trust
No greenwash here. Just truths as we find them, open to discussion and change
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
 Posted: 01 Apr 2009 03:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"every single claim of An Inconvenient Truth can be refuted as cherrypicking, false, or otherwise critically misleading,"
That is wrong, AIT is nearly all correct. The only 'errors' found by the judge were debatable points, for example Kilimanjaro. If you refer to AIT Gore mentions several glaciers as being affected by AGW, but only one is debatable, that is Kilimanjaro. The rest stand as reliable claims.
A part of the problem for AIT is that it tries to condense a massive body of highly complex science into a powerpoint presentation. Many of the problems come from the need to be brief, for example, his treatment of CO2. CO2 is associated with high temperatures in the past, usually but not always lagging temperature rise. At those times it as acting as a feedback.
What we have now is a unique situation historically. Never before has man been capable of releasing such a massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere in such a short time. To rely only on history is going be misleading, since we are currently making history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 01 Apr 2009 06:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yet the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 400 parts per million.
That is 0.04 %......
That is a trace gas. With no observable warming mechanism.
The history we are making at present is a history of BAD SCIENCE that supports the unproven AGW failed hypothesis.
See my signature.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 01 Apr 2009 08:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | That is 0.04 %......
That is a trace gas. With no observable warming mechanism. |
Just because a substance is present in a small amount does not mean it can have no effect. Many trace elements are essential for life, for example. We absorb about 0.000004% of the output of the sun, yet it's more than enough for us.
The warming mechanism is well known and understood, and beyond dispute. CO2 absorbs radiation at a band of frequencies, and re-emits that radiation in a random direction. There are many climate sceptics who agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse gas effect is vital for supporting life on earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 01 Apr 2009 08:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: | "every single claim of An Inconvenient Truth can be refuted as cherrypicking, false, or otherwise critically misleading,"
That is wrong, AIT is nearly all correct...
CO2 is associated with high temperatures in the past... acting as a feedback. |
Read my Primer more carefully please and debate ALL the refutations to AIT I mention there, especially those of Monckton. They deal with a lot more than Kilimanjaro. I also look at the non-existence of evidence of "feedback" - I can find nothing more than claims, unsubstantiated claims, and yes, I have all the RealClimate references. This evidence, or rather non-evidence, is quite important. Please check for yourself.
| hqmonaro wrote: | | What we have now is a unique situation historically. Never before has man been capable of releasing such a massive quantities of CO2 |
Our capacity to release massive quantities of hot air is certainly a unique situation historically! Thank goodness for blogs which, more than anything else, are gradually turning the tide of the alarmist media and scare sites like RealClimate, Gristmill, Open Mind, and so on.
It is important that we take responsibility for our environment. But the first duty of responsibility is to get the truth, not the hype and distortion. Again, go back to the Primer. You've only really looked hard at one side of the story: you have to look at both - try to imagine how I, a former warmist like yourself, could be writing what I now write. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 01 Apr 2009 08:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: |
The warming mechanism is well known and understood, and beyond dispute. CO2 absorbs radiation at a band of frequencies, and re-emits that radiation in a random direction. There are many climate sceptics who agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse gas effect is vital for supporting life on earth. |
"beyond dispute." The science is settled in your opinion no doubt.
That is never the case in science.
The (AGW) warming mechanism is assumed, and not observable, that is the truth of the matter.
Please do not tell us what skeptics collectively think or do not think,
your version of looking at both sides of a discussion is obviously incomplete,
so your opinion is just that, not a knowledgable representation of the reality of what skeptics do or do not think.
However almost all skeptics I know have looked at the greenhouse effect, most do agree there is a greenhouse effect.
The strength and speed of the effect is yet to be determined, and the feedbacks appear strongly negative,
rather than modellings assumed to be dominant positive feedbacks.
Most skeptics have also seen observational evidence that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
So, whether a greenhouse effect is present or not, is not in dispute, but how it works is.
In the end AGW relies on positive feedbacks to multiply the logarithmic effect of CO2.
This is the downfall of AGW, there is no observed warming mechanism that is supposedly multiplying the logarithmic effect of CO2.
That is what is happening in the real climate regardless of modelling and it's unseen assumptions.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 02 Apr 2009 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | "beyond dispute." The science is settled in your opinion no doubt.
That is never the case in science.
|
No, I was just referring to one part of the science, that I think is beyond dispute. There is much work still to be done, and areas of disagreement among the scientists. However, I thought it would be good to at least get this one piece of the science 'settled' here.
Greenhouse gases warm the planet, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although not the strongest one. The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled. It's only a matter of if it is strong enough to cause the predicted warming.
By accepting that there are greenhouse gases, one also rejects Gerlich and Teuchner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Davis
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 291
Location: E. Tennessee USA
|
| Posted: 02 Apr 2009 02:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
hqmonaro:
If these gases warm the planet then please tell me where we can find some green house gases so we can reduce our energy costs. All of the so called Green House Gases are inert and a combination of simple atoms such as Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, and other volatile atoms. Just look at water/ H2O. It combines with all kinds of elements and other combinations of atoms to form different combinations which do something different.
I know that methane is a green house gas and when it is captured it is used as "Natural" Gas. I also know that after a short time in the atmosphere methane will transition into other gases such as CO2.
If you insist on calling these gases Green House gases then you need to undersand that a green house does not warm it restricts/ buffers/ equalizes. Pick your word. Most people think that a green house warms the area. It uses an outside source of warmth and equalizes the enviorment at a desired level. However it can also reduce the temperature and increase the humidity like they are used in the desert dureing the summer.
If you want to call H2O a green house gas I will agree with you as it restricts the flow of energy in the atmosphere.
If you want to claim that CO2 is a green house gas with a presence of less than 4 part per thousand. I would say the effect is awfull weak sport. Do you realise that when you exhale you breath out 4 parts per hundered. Do you know that farmers with green houses add CO2 to reach 1 part per thousand or more almost 3 times what is in the atmosphere acording to MLO data which is used by IPCC. Are you aware that the period in history that had the most diversity in the biosphere was when the temperature was 10C higher than today and the CO2 was 3,000 Parts per million. Of course there were palm trees and alligators around the Artic Circle.
This brings me to AIT from Al Gore. I must admit that I did not see that fantasy. I will comment regarding the glaicers. Do you realize that the glaicers grew dureing the LIA and have been receeding since the LIA ended with no help from so called AGW. As a matter of fact every thing Al claims as proof of AGW is only natural variations or normal weather. We experienced what? 20 to 30 years of warming after 20 to 30 years of cooling after 20 to 30 years of cooling. I keep repeating myself because the global climate keeps repeating itself and that is called climate cycles which have been happening since the globe had an atmosphere.
If you think that Green House Gases warm the planet then please bottle and provide those gases at a reasonable price so we can save the enviorment. Some people have experienced a cold winter because they could not find any of your warming green house gases!
GT paper is showing that you are wrong for claiming that inert gases warm the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek
Experienced User
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 209
Location: Manchester, England.
|
| Posted: 02 Apr 2009 06:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: | The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled. It's only a matter of if it is strong enough to cause the predicted warming.
|
1) "The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled."
- No it is not. The "consensus" admit CO2 is not strong enough on it's own, so also use ASSUMED positive feedbacks.
These can not be observed in reality.
AND, there you go again "the science is settled", when it is only just beginning.
2) " It's only a matter of if it is strong enough to cause the predicted warming "
- No again, the processes involved are not understood in any way that could be described as completely.
The impression you appear to be under is that the figures of the sum are known, but just need better quantifying.
Rubbish, the situation is still very "Donald Rumsfeld".
Lindzen's Iris effect for example.
Gray's 2009 Heartland presentation as another example.
The list is growing, because the science is NOT settled.
The "consensus" explanation is still "Donald Rumsfeld".
ie,
known (supposedly) knowns (that can not be observed in the most important cases)
known, unknowns (largely ignored),
and, unknown, unknowns (usually met with pathetic shouts of the science is settled, which patently it is not).
Please back up untrue assertions before spouting from the AGW bible.
_________________
An induced feeling of guilt is not sufficient reason
to convict, or punish the human race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hqmonaro
Experienced User
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 02 Apr 2009 09:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek wrote: | | hqmonaro wrote: | The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled. It's only a matter of if it is strong enough to cause the predicted warming.
|
1) "The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled."
- No it is not. The "consensus" admit CO2 is not strong enough on it's own, so also use ASSUMED positive feedbacks.
These can not be observed in reality.
AND, there you go again "the science is settled", when it is only just beginning. |
There is a positive feedback already very much appearing, the change in albedo due to loss of sea ice.
The word "settled" is a compromise used to convey to the public the belief that the science is sound. It is impossible to take the massive body of work and expect us to consume it from the source research. I could never understand it. The scientific basis is sound, the effects are being measured, in the case of sea ice in the Arctic, the models are indeed wrong. The ice is melting much faster than predicted.
However, I am hoping we can all agree, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is a greenhouse effect, and the only debate is the magnitude of warming? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lucy Skywalker
Site Admin
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 544
Location: Somerset, UK
|
| Posted: 02 Apr 2009 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hqmonaro wrote: | | I am hoping we can all agree, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is a greenhouse effect, and the only debate is the magnitude of warming? |
With this sentence, yes, we agree.
| hqmonaro wrote: | | The word "settled" is a compromise used to convey to the public the belief that the science is sound. It is impossible to take the massive body of work and expect us to consume it from the source research. I could never understand it. |
The key items of the Global Warming science are simple, as I noted previously, let me repeat them:
(1) that the CO2 rise is supposedly due to our emissions
(2) that this is supposedly capable of causing appreciable warming
(3) that this warming is supposed to be dangerous.
Read my Primer which cuts through the "Gordian Knot" of material which makes you say "It is impossible to take the massive body of work and expect us to consume it from the source research. I could never understand it."
It is possible. I've done it for you.
| hqmonaro wrote: | | The scientific basis is sound, the effects are being measured, in the case of sea ice in the Arctic, the models are indeed wrong. The ice is melting much faster than predicted. |
Read my Primer, and especially click at the top right hand side for the Arctic issues.
| Derek wrote: | 1) "The physical mechanism for greenhouse gases is settled."
- No it is not. The "consensus" admit CO2 is not strong enough on it's own, so also use ASSUMED positive feedbacks.
These can not be observed in reality. |
Derek is right. Positive feedback from water vapour cannot be observed in reality. The opposite is observed. Read the primer here. Also read Lindzen recently on WUWT; Spencer recently on WUWT; Michael Hammer at Jennifer Marohasy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
