Climate 'Study' By Non-Scientist At EPA Is Right's New Cause Celebre

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

good now can we get back to stoning the gw skeptics?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah, morality is the burka, and not just as a fashion accessory.

[tmma 467]

Original? My join date is before the imposter HAL 9000.

Yes copied, and like all copies you don't match up to the original.

I believe the HAL 9000 is married. Suck up to him all you want, the only VJ man you have a prayer of tapping is Charles.

Oh, you are one of these religious nuts that believes that once you are married you should never, ever discuss anything with anyone other than your spouse? Excellent

They're called morals. Oh, wait. You're European. You wouldn't know nothing about that, would you?

Do we have a failed insult "she wouldn't know nothing"?? <<Hypothesis.

I'm going to prove the hypothesis using the Law of the Double Negatives.

**Applies said law to HAL90000000's comment**

My hypothesis is correct! Using the Laws of Double Negatives, HAL90000000 failed at insulting Madame Cleo.

Edited July 1, 2009 by tmma

[Peikko 1,575]

Haltheclone is just a failure period no wonder he's run home to cry to mummy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This will vanquish HAL 90000!

[Peikko 1,575]

good now can we get back to stoning the gw skeptics?

You are just a troublemaker

[nowhereman 1]

or better yet just close the thread. Edited July 1, 2009 by nowhereman

[HAL 9000 96]

:ot2 or better yet just close the thread.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

look over there! Its Fox News Girls Gone Wild!

[GaryC 7]

So basically, Gary, you don't accept Global Warming theory as valid because - one, you don't believe it is widely accepted (no consensus) and two, because it is just a theory and therefore falsifiable?

In other words, Gary, what would it take for you to accept a scientific theory as valid?

There are equally valid theories that do not use man as the boogie man as the reason for climate change. Those theories also fit the data seen today. Hence my argument that just because someone has a theory that fits the data does not mean it is true. I have read and tried to understand as much as I can about both sides and I see huge holes in the man made theory. The one that theorises that the changes are natural make more sense to me. One hole that is both obvious and reasonable is that if CO2 is a leading indicator to temp then why has the global temp leveled out and gone down over the last 10 years while CO2 levels continue to rise? The non-man made theory states that CO2 is a lagging indicator. That theory fits the data while the man made one does not.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

1st of july - this morning it was 60 degrees outside at 0630. unusually cold for this time of year.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

[HAL 9000 96]

Just out of interest. Those who do believe that global warming exists but do not believe that man has been a significant contributor in this, what do you think explains this sudden warming? What natural factors explain this?

What sudden warming? It's been a cold and wet summer so far.

1st of july - this morning it was 60 degrees outside at 0630. unusually cold for this time of year.

And its been unusually warmer in parts of the S. Hemisphere for this time of year. Winter for them.

[GaryC 7]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

[GaryC 7]

Gary- if the molecular energy reflection of CO2 is argued to be at saturation, and increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 doesn't make a large dent in the atmospheric energy levels... then it is easy to see why in a short time span (decades) there is no huge increase in temperature. However, world temperature has increased over the last decades. That in itself is an indicator outright.

Besides, the lagging indicator theory espoused by the non-man made groups quite clearly states that CO2 lag peaks at 800 year cycles. That is a different timescale to decades is it not?

This is called rejecting one thing by saying something else and is the basis for many rejection letters when articles are submitted for peer review.

Who says it is at staturation? If it was then more CO2 isn't going to increase temps until we hit a tipping point and we get run away green house and turn into Venus. The 800 year lag does mean that varying CO2 levels will not be a good indicator of future temps. That is the whole point. If that theory is correct then looking at CO2 levels makes no sense. It is other factors that cause our global temps to change. The sun is the main one, water vapor and methane are two others. This is my whole point. CO2 isn't something we should worry about. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and a very minor contributor to the general temp of the planet.

The article you yourself posted a link to earlier today.

As for arguing that an 800 year cycle is nothing to be concerned about pertaining to CO2 levels... it is quite irresponsible. Again- lets review the difference between temperature shifts due to climate factors and weather factors. Both have very different time scales.

The same article you posted claims CO2 is unmistakably a greenhouse gas- and in one fell swoop (several, actually), discredits it as such when it is quite admissible and clear that not only is it one, but that the complete story behind its action (and that of other factors) is still incomplete. Rushing to conclusions right now is very irresponsible and in science, one should always consider ALL contributing factors until they have been ruled out.

CO2 has not been ruled out by a long shot, and chemically, physically, and even biologically... a mountain of evidence indicates that on a planetary scale it does indicate its role in climate change. Much more so than data that may minimize its role in such events and much more than in its misinterpretation.

Alright, I misread what you said. If the reflectivity factor of CO2 is at saturation then how do we explain the rise in temps over the last few decades before it leveled off? Quite simple, the other factors I have been talking about. Methane, water vapor but most important, the sun. Sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many. When compaired to methane it is a very small contributor to the overall temp of the planet. When put up against the sun it is even less important. There are many other factors that haven't been taken into account with the man made theory. The variations in the earths orbit and spin of its axis are a few that pop into mind. The idea that CO2 alone is driving our temps is just as irresponsible and nothing more than fear mongering. CO2 isn't the huge problem it is made out to be. The changes are natural and will happen regardles what man does.