Ever wonder if the media thinks for itself?
-
fat_boy wrote:
And so I relooked at that web site. It seems to be less accurate than in the past. I dug abit deeper and found that this body is behind that web site: Vision:
Funny, the about page[^] gives credit to a physicist from Australia, with all of its funding coming from Paypal donations. Where do you see this connection to UU-UNO?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[^] These are the arguments you used against me, At the bottom it says "Many thanks to Dr. Jan Dash, Director of the UU-UNO's Climate Portal for writing many of the one line responses in 'What the Science Says', with some edits by John Cook." SO I had a look, and I am sure you will agree, its a heavilly politicised grop.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, Vostok is mentioned here[^]
And it clearly shows the decline in temperature over the last 10000 years.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Strawman. No one is arguing that global cooling would be harmless. Only that warming would be more harmful than current levels.
Except that it IS getting colder. See above.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what point are you trying to make?
That their refutation is spurious, clearly.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And you determine that net effect by taking empirical measurements and seeing how they correlate to CO2 levels... Which is what was done. Hey, look... They match. What a shocker.
As I said, 'might'. I am not calculating anything, just following the science bwecause what surprises me is that CO2 is supposed to warm, and we should have seen a fair bit already, but cant identify CO2 based warming distinct from natural variation.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Skepticism means withholding judgement until you have concrete data...
Yes, see above. There isnt yet any empiricle data that shows CO2 causes warming.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
And it clearly shows the decline in temperature over the last 10000 years.
Try actually reading that linked article.
fat_boy wrote:
As I said, 'might'. I am not calculating anything, just following the science bwecause what surprises me is that CO2 is supposed to warm, and we should have seen a fair bit already, but cant identify CO2 based warming distinct from natural variation.
That's only because you look at the CO2-based warming and claim that it's natural variation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[^] These are the arguments you used against me, At the bottom it says "Many thanks to Dr. Jan Dash, Director of the UU-UNO's Climate Portal for writing many of the one line responses in 'What the Science Says', with some edits by John Cook." SO I had a look, and I am sure you will agree, its a heavilly politicised grop.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Read what you just quoted... The "one line responses". He isn't giving credit for the actual articles, merely the brief statements that appear at the top. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
And it clearly shows the decline in temperature over the last 10000 years.
Try actually reading that linked article.
fat_boy wrote:
As I said, 'might'. I am not calculating anything, just following the science bwecause what surprises me is that CO2 is supposed to warm, and we should have seen a fair bit already, but cant identify CO2 based warming distinct from natural variation.
That's only because you look at the CO2-based warming and claim that it's natural variation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Try actually reading that linked article.
FS Ian, I did read it, it said nithig about the last 10000 years NOT cooling. Look at the graph Ian, you can clearly see its cooling for yourself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's only because you look at the CO2-based warming and claim that it's natural variation.
OK, time for a bit of classic, controlled experiement here. As Dr Phil Jones has stated the pre war and post 70s warming periods are similar in magnitude and extent. So, whats the difference between the two warming periods? Both occur at a similar period in earths history, oceanic currents are the same, the sun is the same, ot hasnt gone supernova or anything, in fact broadly similar conditions. Except for CO2. Pre war there wasnt mch, post 70s there is. And what effect did that CO2 have thats noticably, and measurably different in the latter one? Hmm, well, kinda none in fact. Thats why its hard to detect CO2 based warming Ian. All scientists know this, YES it SHOULD warm, but its damned difficult finding empiricle evidence of it. (Here is an interesting study: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html[^] "near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.18°C/decade, the 850-300 mb tropospheric layer warmed by about 0.08°C/decade, the 300-100 mb tropopause layer temperature cooled by approximately -0.23°C/decade (driven mainly by large changes in the Polar zones), and the 100-50 mb low-stratospheric layer cooled by about -0.60°C/decade." Now, this study is used by a pro AGW site, but a couple of thigs are of interest. As you know GH gas theory states that the CO2 in the troposphere will trap heat and reradiate it back to the surface. This means the troposphere has to be getting warmer, at least as warm as the surface if not warmer. This report shows it isnt. In fact the surface is twice as warm as the troposphere. This tends to imply the near surface warming measured isnt due to CO2. Secondly, it has found that the upper atmosphere has cooled. Remember what I was saying about the recent NAA research that suggests CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere because of its ability to turn kinetic energy into IR radiation? This
-
Read what you just quoted... The "one line responses". He isn't giving credit for the actual articles, merely the brief statements that appear at the top. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)If you look again you will find those one line responses are at the head of each article. But yes, I will acept you point that this UN organisation is not solely responsible for the content of the website.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Try actually reading that linked article.
FS Ian, I did read it, it said nithig about the last 10000 years NOT cooling. Look at the graph Ian, you can clearly see its cooling for yourself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's only because you look at the CO2-based warming and claim that it's natural variation.
OK, time for a bit of classic, controlled experiement here. As Dr Phil Jones has stated the pre war and post 70s warming periods are similar in magnitude and extent. So, whats the difference between the two warming periods? Both occur at a similar period in earths history, oceanic currents are the same, the sun is the same, ot hasnt gone supernova or anything, in fact broadly similar conditions. Except for CO2. Pre war there wasnt mch, post 70s there is. And what effect did that CO2 have thats noticably, and measurably different in the latter one? Hmm, well, kinda none in fact. Thats why its hard to detect CO2 based warming Ian. All scientists know this, YES it SHOULD warm, but its damned difficult finding empiricle evidence of it. (Here is an interesting study: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html[^] "near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.18°C/decade, the 850-300 mb tropospheric layer warmed by about 0.08°C/decade, the 300-100 mb tropopause layer temperature cooled by approximately -0.23°C/decade (driven mainly by large changes in the Polar zones), and the 100-50 mb low-stratospheric layer cooled by about -0.60°C/decade." Now, this study is used by a pro AGW site, but a couple of thigs are of interest. As you know GH gas theory states that the CO2 in the troposphere will trap heat and reradiate it back to the surface. This means the troposphere has to be getting warmer, at least as warm as the surface if not warmer. This report shows it isnt. In fact the surface is twice as warm as the troposphere. This tends to imply the near surface warming measured isnt due to CO2. Secondly, it has found that the upper atmosphere has cooled. Remember what I was saying about the recent NAA research that suggests CO2 has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere because of its ability to turn kinetic energy into IR radiation? This
fat_boy wrote:
FS Ian, I did read it, it said nithig about the last 10000 years NOT cooling. Look at the graph Ian, you can clearly see its cooling for yourself.
Maybe you missed the part where it says that CO2 has reversed that trend, and that it's no longer cooling.
fat_boy wrote:
So, whats the difference between the two warming periods? Both occur at a similar period in earths history, oceanic currents are the same, the sun is the same, ot hasnt gone supernova or anything, in fact broadly similar conditions. Except for CO2. Pre war there wasnt mch, post 70s there is.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Thats why its hard to detect CO2 based warming Ian. All scientists know this, YES it SHOULD warm, but its damned difficult finding empiricle evidence of it.
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
This means the troposphere has to be getting warmer, at least as warm as the surface if not warmer. This report shows it isnt
http://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
If you look again you will find those one line responses are at the head of each article. But yes, I will acept you point that this UN organisation is not solely responsible for the content of the website.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Yes, the one-line responses are at the top of each... But those are quick summaries, not the entire rebuttals. First the rebuttals were written, and then that guy came along and said something like "Hey, this would be a lot easier to understand if there were quick summaries," and he contributed them. That has zero effect on the credibility or bias of the actual articles.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
FS Ian, I did read it, it said nithig about the last 10000 years NOT cooling. Look at the graph Ian, you can clearly see its cooling for yourself.
Maybe you missed the part where it says that CO2 has reversed that trend, and that it's no longer cooling.
fat_boy wrote:
So, whats the difference between the two warming periods? Both occur at a similar period in earths history, oceanic currents are the same, the sun is the same, ot hasnt gone supernova or anything, in fact broadly similar conditions. Except for CO2. Pre war there wasnt mch, post 70s there is.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Thats why its hard to detect CO2 based warming Ian. All scientists know this, YES it SHOULD warm, but its damned difficult finding empiricle evidence of it.
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
This means the troposphere has to be getting warmer, at least as warm as the surface if not warmer. This report shows it isnt
http://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm[^] http://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe you missed the part where it says that CO2 has reversed that trend, and that it's no longer cooling.
So I say its been cooling for 10000 years, you say it hasnt, and then post a link with a graph showing 10000 years of cooling, then refute that cooling by saying the trend has been reversed (a trend fro cooling, thus admitting it has ben cooling) by CO2 (which has only been produced by man in significant quantities form 1870 (source, IPCC) which is a time span considerably shorter than 10000 years. Ian, if you are going to argue, dont argue like a woman. Its only women who say, when refuted, "yeah but two years ago the grass was shorter" or some such utterly spurious statement. And in any cae, it doesnt say "CO2 has reversed the trend" it says " 2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise. It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely." As for troposphereic warming, its still a problem for AGW. Because no matter how much they adjust the satellite data its still not warm enough because, and let me say this again, for GH gas warming to be evident the troposphere must warm at least as much as the surface.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe you missed the part where it says that CO2 has reversed that trend, and that it's no longer cooling.
So I say its been cooling for 10000 years, you say it hasnt, and then post a link with a graph showing 10000 years of cooling, then refute that cooling by saying the trend has been reversed (a trend fro cooling, thus admitting it has ben cooling) by CO2 (which has only been produced by man in significant quantities form 1870 (source, IPCC) which is a time span considerably shorter than 10000 years. Ian, if you are going to argue, dont argue like a woman. Its only women who say, when refuted, "yeah but two years ago the grass was shorter" or some such utterly spurious statement. And in any cae, it doesnt say "CO2 has reversed the trend" it says " 2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise. It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely." As for troposphereic warming, its still a problem for AGW. Because no matter how much they adjust the satellite data its still not warm enough because, and let me say this again, for GH gas warming to be evident the troposphere must warm at least as much as the surface.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
So I say its been cooling for 10000 years, you say it hasnt, and then post a link with a graph showing 10000 years of cooling, then refute that cooling by saying the trend has been reversed (a trend fro cooling, thus admitting it has ben cooling) by CO2 (which has only been produced by man in significant quantities form 1870 (source, IPCC) which is a time span considerably shorter than 10000 years.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't dispute that it was warmer 10k years ago. I just linked an article showing that the trend has been reversed by CO2.
fat_boy wrote:
And in any cae, it doesnt say "CO2 has reversed the trend" it says " 2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
Ok, my mistake... "the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases" has reversed the trend. If not for that, it would have been cooling instead of warming.
fat_boy wrote:
As for troposphereic warming, its still a problem for AGW. Because no matter how much they adjust the satellite data its still not warm enough because, and let me say this again, for GH gas warming to be evident the troposphere must warm at least as much as the surface.
Why?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
So I say its been cooling for 10000 years, you say it hasnt, and then post a link with a graph showing 10000 years of cooling, then refute that cooling by saying the trend has been reversed (a trend fro cooling, thus admitting it has ben cooling) by CO2 (which has only been produced by man in significant quantities form 1870 (source, IPCC) which is a time span considerably shorter than 10000 years.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't dispute that it was warmer 10k years ago. I just linked an article showing that the trend has been reversed by CO2.
fat_boy wrote:
And in any cae, it doesnt say "CO2 has reversed the trend" it says " 2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
Ok, my mistake... "the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases" has reversed the trend. If not for that, it would have been cooling instead of warming.
fat_boy wrote:
As for troposphereic warming, its still a problem for AGW. Because no matter how much they adjust the satellite data its still not warm enough because, and let me say this again, for GH gas warming to be evident the troposphere must warm at least as much as the surface.
Why?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't dispute that it was warmer 10k years ago. I just linked an article showing that the trend has been reversed by CO2.
Well actually you did dispute it because the first time you respnded with this link: http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, my mistake... "the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases" has reversed the trend. If not for that, it would have been cooling instead of warming.
Hang on, so you think man made CO2 ended the LIA? ie reversed the trend, a reversal that happened around 1750? While man made CO2 didnt become significant till 1870 (source IPCC)? :laugh: Come on Ian, if man made CO2 reversed the trend it at least has to coincide, not be 120 years late!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why?
What? You have to ask why? Put it this way, hot bodies radiate to colder ones, not the other way around.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't dispute that it was warmer 10k years ago. I just linked an article showing that the trend has been reversed by CO2.
Well actually you did dispute it because the first time you respnded with this link: http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm[^]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, my mistake... "the warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases" has reversed the trend. If not for that, it would have been cooling instead of warming.
Hang on, so you think man made CO2 ended the LIA? ie reversed the trend, a reversal that happened around 1750? While man made CO2 didnt become significant till 1870 (source IPCC)? :laugh: Come on Ian, if man made CO2 reversed the trend it at least has to coincide, not be 120 years late!
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Why?
What? You have to ask why? Put it this way, hot bodies radiate to colder ones, not the other way around.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Well actually you did dispute it because the first time you respnded with this link: http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm\[^\]
Oh, is that what that is? I thought you'd have realized by now that I'm just matching your arguments to the questions on that site. Your repetitive and oversimplified arguments have really worn away any desire to spend any significant amount of time doing original research to disprove you. The necessary research has already been done, so I'm just linking to it now.
fat_boy wrote:
Hang on, so you think man made CO2 ended the LIA?
Ohh, you're talking about the little ice age... The site has something for that. http://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
What? You have to ask why? Put it this way, hot bodies radiate to colder ones, not the other way around.
Ok, the skepticalscience site doesn't have that particular argument, so I'll just go to google. http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/troposphere-not-warming[^] http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/2030[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Well actually you did dispute it because the first time you respnded with this link: http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm\[^\]
Oh, is that what that is? I thought you'd have realized by now that I'm just matching your arguments to the questions on that site. Your repetitive and oversimplified arguments have really worn away any desire to spend any significant amount of time doing original research to disprove you. The necessary research has already been done, so I'm just linking to it now.
fat_boy wrote:
Hang on, so you think man made CO2 ended the LIA?
Ohh, you're talking about the little ice age... The site has something for that. http://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
What? You have to ask why? Put it this way, hot bodies radiate to colder ones, not the other way around.
Ok, the skepticalscience site doesn't have that particular argument, so I'll just go to google. http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/troposphere-not-warming[^] http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/2030[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels):zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Precisely.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)