New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[Peikko 1,575]

That's not a very credible website, it doesn't even credit an author - all it is is a bunch of opinion and uncoroberated statetments presented as fact. One should at least go to scientific websites to conduct personal research, for example the met office website. These guys know weather and climate inside out, it's their job. Link

Edited July 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[GaryC 7]

That's not a very credible website, it doesn't even credit an author - all it is is a bunch of opinion and uncoroberated statetments presented as fact. One should at least go to scientific websites to conduct personal research, for example the met office website. These guys know weather and climate inside out, it's their job. Link

My site gave references for all their facts. The Met has a bias toward the man made theory so anything they post will promote that end. I don't see a single mention of an alternative for the data. All I see is man made this and man made that. They would have a lot more credibility with me if they showed both sides of the argument. Just from reading that site you wouldn't know there are competing theories.

[dalegg 143]

Hey just out of curiosity are there any updated graphs showing CO2 vs temperature change like the one Gore had in his movie where he had to use that elevator to get to the top on? How have we been actually doing in the past 10 years? Sorry if its posted somewhere in this thread, but I'm lazy. Google isn't really showing me anything concrete.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Meterological office is biased towards man made global warming why Gary? What's the rationale for that? Is it a political motivation or perhaps, a scientific one? This is an office that provides shipping and weather forecasting for a nation, it is stuffed full of top weather and climate scientist, they spend all day every day steeped in all things weather and climatic but yet you poo poo it because it doesn't say what you want it to say. In favour of what? A site that references itself, nothing outside of itself and no clues to the author. How do you rationalise that behaviour Gary, seriously? What you are doing does not make sense.

[nowhereman 1]

I am by no means a scientist, but I get the distinct impression that the article was written by someone who already made his mind up about GW or at the very least was a skeptic (he was certainly far from being objective). Personally I believe GW is real... perhaps exaggerated but you don't need a PhD to know that at some point there will be consequences to pumping unnaturally high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere.

What baffles me is that ordinarily intelligent people become close-minded, stubborn & unreasonable when it comes to this issue. This thread (and the several other threads about GW) portray this all too well... it's basically the VJ version of the "tastes great, less filling" commerical... basically two sides yelling at each other & yet at the same time not hearing anything but their own voice.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

They are so closed minded. Sad sacks indeed.

[nowhereman 1]

You should have known Dano. As soon as anything comes out to contradict their religion they go into attack mode. Smear the middleman, smear the orginizations they are associated with, ignore the conclusions and focus on anything they can to discredit. Anything but rethink their views.

They are so closed minded. Sad sacks indeed.

You are by no means the poster child for objective & open minded... you are well known for fly-by sound bites like the one above. Kinda difficult to pull off calling others close-minded given your track record.

[GaryC 7]

The Meterological office is biased towards man made global warming why Gary? What's the rationale for that? Is it a political motivation or perhaps, a scientific one? This is an office that provides shipping and weather forecasting for a nation, it is stuffed full of top weather and climate scientist, they spend all day every day steeped in all things weather and climatic but yet you poo poo it because it doesn't say what you want it to say. In favour of what? A site that references itself, nothing outside of itself and no clues to the author. How do you rationalise that behaviour Gary, seriously? What you are doing does not make sense.

If they were not biased they would show all data and theories. All you get is the pro-man made side of things. Or are you saying there is no debate or competing theories?

[tmma 467]

Hey just out of curiosity are there any updated graphs showing CO2 vs temperature change like the one Gore had in his movie where he had to use that elevator to get to the top on? How have we been actually doing in the past 10 years? Sorry if its posted somewhere in this thread, but I'm lazy. Google isn't really showing me anything concrete.

The Vostok Demonstration.

Water Vapor is a major greenhouse gas-I don't think anyone has or will refute that as it's a scientific KNOWN. Water vapor is the dominant positive forcing feedback in our climate system; and the major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

CO2 is an external forcing that CAN be added and removed from our climate system; conversly water vapor is a function of temperature-the warmer the atmosphere- (the more water vapor content). Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation, the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it exacerbates or 'increases) the warming effect-causes more H2O evaporation, thus increasing H20 vapor content, thus increasing temp and warming it to a less stable level, causing more evaporation and so on....

Basically CO2 has an 'amplification' effect on water vapor; which (IMO) is FAR more important than the effect of CO2 by itself.

( I don't have any citations for the text ..but the graph can be found on Google by searching for 'the Vostok Icecore).

Edited July 16, 2009 by tmma

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Meterological office is biased towards man made global warming why Gary? What's the rationale for that? Is it a political motivation or perhaps, a scientific one? This is an office that provides shipping and weather forecasting for a nation, it is stuffed full of top weather and climate scientist, they spend all day every day steeped in all things weather and climatic but yet you poo poo it because it doesn't say what you want it to say. In favour of what? A site that references itself, nothing outside of itself and no clues to the author. How do you rationalise that behaviour Gary, seriously? What you are doing does not make sense.

If they were not biased they would show all data and theories. All you get is the pro-man made side of things. Or are you saying there is no debate or competing theories?

Which again begs the question as to why they would do that, what is the motivation for it?

Perhaps the theories you are promoting just aren't as influential as you think they are. As I've told you before - this is-it-isn't-it GW debate seems to be taking place almost exclusive in this country. You may not find it the least bit odd, but I certainly do.

Once again - I direct you to this inconvenient truth (no pun intended):

Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

That's pretty damning, Gary.

[tmma 467]

p.s--It's not suprising, really, that computer generated [numeric] climate models can be/are flawed. Trying to predict the outcome of a fluid atmosphere by mathematical models alone and basing a conclusion with that-- is a mistake.

Any climatologist/meteorologist or scientist [ on ANY side of the GW debate] that relies solely on numerical prognostic models for a conclusion on anything from tomorrow's weather to climate in 100 years time is doing a disservice to themselves and the folks relying and interpreting their analysis.

Forecasts of weather and longterm theories of climate are a combination of study and knowledge of scientific fact and processes, solid ice core evidence of paleoclimatic changes, current trends in SST as seen by satellite data and real time bouy data, air samples from across the globe...etc etc.

(ALL IMO)

Edited July 16, 2009 by tmma

[HAL 9000 96]

That isn't what the article says... the threat is still quite... real.

It says this:

We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I read that as most of the warming came about because of things OTHER than CO2. Just like today.

We can read it any way we want and the evidence they themselves analyze is quite clear. Besides... the specific analysis is one where the temp went upwards to 9 degrees C. a CO2 contribution of up to 3.5 degrees C is hardly unsubstantial. In statistical terms, that's quite a significant contribution to the whole (almost 40%).

Plus, like its been stated ad hominem, its not that CO2 is the ONLY greenhouse gas, its that its one that contributes, and NOW (very different set of causal factors in very different proportions NOW versus the one analyzed in this paper) is much more important, significant, and substantial (again, part of the whole) given the direct input of this gas on artificial drivers.

Dannologic again, has failed.

How can you say that so confidantly? Where is your evidence to back up such a claim? From what I understand the human contribution to the total CO2 in todays air is 3%. One good volcano can dwarf the human output for a whole year. Our contribution to a minor greenhouse gas like CO2 is not significant. I have yet to see any study that says otherwise. If there is one please point it out.

I got my numbers from here:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

How can I say what confidently? Besides having dominated statistical and conventional science speak I mean?

I understand your numbers- imagine that. Gary- atmospheric CO2 is around 2-3% of the atmospheric mix anyway. Imagine that. What you consider minor based on absolute numbers sure has shown to have quite an effect.

That's not a very credible website, it doesn't even credit an author - all it is is a bunch of opinion and uncoroberated statetments presented as fact. One should at least go to scientific websites to conduct personal research, for example the met office website. These guys know weather and climate inside out, it's their job. Link

My site gave references for all their facts. The Met has a bias toward the man made theory so anything they post will promote that end. I don't see a single mention of an alternative for the data. All I see is man made this and man made that. They would have a lot more credibility with me if they showed both sides of the argument. Just from reading that site you wouldn't know there are competing theories.

Bias towards man-made theory = conclusions based on keeping up with the research and evidence.

I am by no means a scientist, but I get the distinct impression that the article was written by someone who already made his mind up about GW or at the very least was a skeptic (he was certainly far from being objective). Personally I believe GW is real... perhaps exaggerated but you don't need a PhD to know that at some point there will be consequences to pumping unnaturally high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere.

What baffles me is that ordinarily intelligent people become close-minded, stubborn & unreasonable when it comes to this issue. This thread (and the several other threads about GW) portray this all too well... it's basically the VJ version of the "tastes great, less filling" commerical... basically two sides yelling at each other & yet at the same time not hearing anything but their own voice.

The incorrectly concluded 'review' by Marc Morano is quite laughable. The article Gary linked in the previous page is actually quite supportive of CO2 as a MAJOR greenhouse gas.

Hey just out of curiosity are there any updated graphs showing CO2 vs temperature change like the one Gore had in his movie where he had to use that elevator to get to the top on? How have we been actually doing in the past 10 years? Sorry if its posted somewhere in this thread, but I'm lazy. Google isn't really showing me anything concrete.

The Vostok Demonstration.

Water Vapor is a major greenhouse gas-I don't think anyone has or will refute that as it's a scientific KNOWN. Water vapor is the dominant positive forcing feedback in our climate system; and the major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

CO2 is an external forcing that CAN be added and removed from our climate system; conversly water vapor is a function of temperature-the warmer the atmosphere- (the more water vapor content). Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation, the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it exacerbates or 'increases) the warming effect-causes more H2O evaporation, thus increasing H20 vapor content, thus increasing temp and warming it to a less stable level, causing more evaporation and so on....

Basically CO2 has an 'amplification' effect on water vapor; which (IMO) is FAR more important than the effect of CO2 by itself.

( I don't have any citations for the text ..but the graph can be found on Google by searching for 'the Vostok Icecore).

Ayyy... gracias.

tmma-

Lucky me I'm no climate scientist.

Now if you ask me about p-chem... yeah... alright.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

yo there ain't nuttn about no global warming in da bible

thaz all i need ta know

[tmma 467]

.......

Now if you ask me about p-chem... yeah... alright.

(O/T sorry) I might just do that when I am defending my thesis and authoring dissertation in the future..... as all POV on the science of physical chemistry and the properties of matter and it's interactions and impact on physical life is both obvious and relevant. (oh man-I just re-read that and I hope it makes sense).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

you fancy book larnin' people make me sick.