Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 3 votes

Do you accept the reality of AGW ?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ? (50 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?

  1. Yes (31 votes [60.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 60.78%

  2. No (20 votes [39.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#106    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:59 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

funny, I could swear i was looking for answers and not questions.

furthermore, questioning a questioner is a trait of dogmatism.
I was just reviewing one of your thread on Bill Gates using vaccines as a means of population control. You used the same obfuscation tactics there, until a senior moderator concluded that you weren't serious about discussing the issues. You have form.

No ones going to learn anything about climate change through a discussion with you so I thought I would just have a Little fun showing how you are capable of swearing blind that basic empirical evidence is wrong.

it seems i'am about one of the only people left on these boards who is prepared to enetertain any sort of a discussion with you, even I get bored of never getting you to accept when your incorrect in your evidence.

So Little Fish - how is Bill Gates killing off the world through vaccines ??

hows that whole population control thingy going anyway - seems all the evidence shows its been a bit of a failure - what with the growing population and all that :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 27 February 2013 - 11:06 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#107    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

Here's another question to which you avoided ansewring, what were you trying to achieve with this graph ??

Posted Image

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#108    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:13 PM

magicians misdirections and ad hominems are not evidence man affects the climate.

where is the evidence that man has a significant or even measurable effect on climate?


#109    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:20 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

magicians misdirections and ad hominems are not evidence man affects the climate.

where is the evidence that man has a significant or even measurable effect on climate?

Hey Little Fish, I told you how i am going to play the game from now on - if you don't like it then buzz off.
Meanwhile its important to establish the credibility of you opponent before entering into any discussion.

The simple fact is, I don't like you, I don't think your honest and I don't think you know what credible evidence is. I am quite capable of disagreeing with someone and ending up shaking hands over the disagreement - if I think they have been honest in the debate and acknowledged the others point. You consistently fail on that count in all your debates with everyone.

It gets boring.

I'll wait for you to prove AGW is a lie, and then prove you wrong :tu:


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 27 February 2013 - 11:26 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#110    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

trolling and flamebaiting is about all you have left. you are describing yourself, its called pyschological projection.
http://en.wikipedia....ical_projection

just show the evidence, or "buzz off" as you put it.


#111    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:41 AM

This paper and the recorded increase in ocean heat content should be all the evidence anyone needs to accept that AGW is real;

Increases in greenhouse forcing

inferred from the outgoing longwave

radiation spectra of the Earth in

1970 and 1997

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively

studied and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures

and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this

relationship is complicated by several feedback processesÐmost

importantly the hydrological cycleÐthat are not well understood5

±7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected

from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8

±10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and

carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the

greenhouse effect11±13. Here we analyse the difference between

the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as

measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We ®nd

differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in

atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12.

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a signi®cant

increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with

concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

https://workspace.im...70 and 1997.pdf

Posted Image
http://www.climatewa...2011-ocean-heat

A summery of what is known about climate science;

http://www1.ncdc.noa...eans-lo-rez.pdf



More energy is been trapped in the planetary system by an increase in long wave absorbtion due to greenhouse gas increases and this is finding its way into the oceans, which in turn is heating the surface air.


Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#112    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:49 AM

It seems that UM is slightly off the general feeling in the general populaztion of the US regarding the reality of climate change.
Here we have 62.5% accpting AGW, but in the general population that rises to 80%.

"
Phil Adams, a retired freelance photographer from Washington, N.C., said he was "fairly cynical" about scientists and their theories. But he believes very much in climate change because of what he's seen with his own eyes.
"Having lived for 67 years, we consistently see more and more changes based upon the fact that the weather is warmer," he said. "The seasons are more severe. The climate is definitely getting warmer."
"Storms seem to be more severe," he added. Nearly half, 49 percent, of those surveyed called global warming not just serious but "very serious," up from 42 percent in 2009. More than half, 57 percent, of those surveyed thought the U.S. government should do a great deal or quite a bit about global warming, up from 52 percent three years earlier."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080143113.html

It seems the denial publicity steamroller is running out of steam and the tide has turned towards accepting the reality of their own eyes.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#113    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 28 February 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

This paper and the recorded increase in ocean heat content should be all the evidence anyone needs to accept that AGW is real;

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processesÐmost importantly the hydrological cycleÐthat are not well understood5 ±7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8 ±10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11±13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We ®nd differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a signi®cant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

https://workspace.im...70 and 1997.pdf

even if you assume that comparing and finding small differences between two different measurement systems means anything, the paper does not answer the question of whether man's co2 has an affect on climate worth worrying about.


I'd also question whether that paper was properly peer reviewed given the graph in fig 1a has the IMG and IRIS satellites labeled incorrectly. something like this should have been picked up by a reviewer if the reviewer had understood what he was reading.


"The conclusion as stated is somewhat misleading. It does not provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in earth's greenhouse effect. It does so only for the cloud-free part of the atmosphere located over a portion of the planet's oceans. And for such circumstances, the authors' results are exactly what we would expect: over the 27 years in question, measured increases in the atmospheric concentrations of the gases mentioned should indeed have increased the greenhouse effect of the pristine cloudless atmosphere.

This finding, however, tells us nothing about earth's climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing, which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere. In fact, the authors' finding is so rudimentary as to be essentially meaningless. Assuming, for example, that their handling of their data is correct - and this is a huge assumption they spend over half their paper discussing - they have simply verified the definition of the greenhouse effect!"

http://www.co2scienc...s/V4/N12/C1.php


#114    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 28 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

even if you assume that comparing and finding small differences between two different measurement systems means anything, the paper does not answer the question of whether man's co2 has an affect on climate worth worrying about.[/left]

I'd also question whether that paper was properly peer reviewed given the graph in fig 1a has the IMG and IRIS satellites labeled incorrectly. something like this should have been picked up by a reviewer if the reviewer had understood what he was reading.


"The conclusion as stated is somewhat misleading. It does not provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in earth's greenhouse effect. It does so only for the cloud-free part of the atmosphere located over a portion of the planet's oceans. And for such circumstances, the authors' results are exactly what we would expect: over the 27 years in question, measured increases in the atmospheric concentrations of the gases mentioned should indeed have increased the greenhouse effect of the pristine cloudless atmosphere.

This finding, however, tells us nothing about earth's climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing, which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere. In fact, the authors' finding is so rudimentary as to be essentially meaningless. Assuming, for example, that their handling of their data is correct - and this is a huge assumption they spend over half their paper discussing - they have simply verified the definition of the greenhouse effect!"

http://www.co2scienc...s/V4/N12/C1.php

A very unconvincing response there Little Fish.

One small piece of evidence to which which supports the observation of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and attributes it to specific causes which are the change in absorption in response to increasing concentrations of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
There are multiple other strands of evidence which demonstrate the existence of an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere so the paper quoted cannot be viewed and critiqued in isolation. Stratospheric cooling supports this;

Posted Image
Graph of measured stratospheric cooling.
http://www.wundergro...ato_cooling.asp

Stratospheric cooling is not a clear sky response so answers the other dubious critique of the original paper sited.
One set of measurements in isolation  could be wrong, but when multiple strands of evidence point to an energy imbalance in the system it is far more likely that they are right. Picking holes in one analysis is only credible if the the same argument credibly explains the multiple other strands of evidence - which CO2science critique fails.

The attribution of those gases is further demonstrated by the changing isotopic ratio of the carbon and the lock step reduction of atmospheric oxygen concentrations.  If there is an energy imbalance then it has to end up somewhere and the only place accumulating energy is the ocean - which is the main driver of surface temperatures.
The final response is indicated by the accumulation of energy in the system - which has and will continue to cause changes in the planetary energy flow systems - which by any other name is climate change.

The first fact demonstrates a net input of energy to the system, and the second shows where it is ending up. The critique you have referenced effectively denies the fact that energy is accumulating in the system - it tries to infer that the change in absorption has no net effect on the energy level of the planet when demonstrably the energy is accumulating. That is hand waving since it denies the evidence of the system response that has already been observed in an attempt to deny that there is any change in net energy input. to attempt such a stance requires another undiscovered source of energy input to the system to account for the accumulating energy which is observed - why go looking for another mystery energy input when the energy imbalance caused by CO2 is the most reasonable candidate.

The other effects of that change in energy are a whole other area of proof which flows from these two measurements. If you can't acknowledge that there is an energy imbalance in the atmosphere then you have stalled any meaningful discussion and we will end it there.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 28 February 2013 - 10:12 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#115    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:48 PM

Quote

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1375.html

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#116    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:05 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 28 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

The critique you have referenced effectively denies the fact that energy is accumulating in the system
there is no need to deny an increase in radiative forcing to show that the paper does not answer my question.

here again:
"tells us nothing about earth's climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing"
right there, the logic assumes "an increase in radiative forcing" also stating the operative issue as "the earth's response" to it. so its not denied as you claim, but more importantly the paper doesn't show how the earth climate responds so therefore does not answer my question.

the radiative forcing from co2 is not enough in of itself to worry about, that's what the critique is saying here:
"...which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere".
the debate is about the climate sensitivity to co2, whether the feedbacks are positive or negative, you need the feedbacks to be strongly positive.

here is the question again:
http://www.unexplain...75#entry4680450

your response does not answer it.


#117    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:12 PM

If you refuse to accept that there is a measured energy imbalance, and that energy is measured to accumulate in the oceans and atmosphere, then there is no possible way of proving "to you" that climate change is real.

The feedbacks are not significant in that the the response is been directly measured and the magnitude of the feedbacks are inferable from the measured response. Otherwise you have to invoke another energy source to account for the measured accumulated energy.

You position requires a denial of observational reality preferring to substitute unknown magical entities to account for the observed systemic change. You subsistute no account for the rise in system energy for a reasonable account.

You refuse to acknowledge basic factual axioms which are foundational on proving AGW. Therefore you are beyond reasonable debate on the subject and this discussion will simply circle. You have not critiqued the paper in any meaningful way, simply claiming that feedbacks swamp the response when the response is clearly measurable in the oceans. Your response is unable to account for those systemic energy responses and simply chooses to deny them. This has been you position for a long time, you deny CO2's effect but have no credible and consistent account for what is causing the accumulation of energy within the system - which to me is denial.

Let me ask you, what could constitute proof of AGW ? If you answer nothing - then we can end this charade now.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 28 February 2013 - 11:36 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#118    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:43 PM

if "the feedbacks are not significant" then why should anyone care whether the oceans have warmed 0.09 C over the last 50 years?


#119    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:53 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 28 February 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

what could constitute proof of AGW ?
its the wrong question, it should be "dangerous AGW" not AGW.
I can heat the oceans by dropping a lit cigarette off the side of a boat, but there is no need to worry about a climate response to the cigarette.


#120    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 01 March 2013 - 12:01 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 28 February 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

simply claiming that feedbacks swamp the response when the response is clearly measurable in the oceans
that's false, i never claimed that.
i don't think you understand that CAGW or dangerous AGW requires a strong feedback, that's what the debate is about. the climate models have an in built strong feedback, they are not calculated, they are just assumed, which is why those climate models produce unrealistic and falsified projections.



Edited by Little Fish, 01 March 2013 - 12:09 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users