Climate Change!

[Greatcloud]

Dr. Fred Singer is right about the coming ice age. It starts with cycle 25 and now you will tell me about realclimates claim that this won't happen and how they are climatologist there and any other person who says differently is off their rocker in your opinion. I may as well beat my head against a wall. Of the three main posters who hold the AGW view who post here Rambot is the most respectful of the other side of the debate and you RickG are the least you dismiss every site and every scientist as wackos. Thumaturgy you are about in the middle.
RickG what do you think of the scientist named Lindzen, Richard Lindzen in your opinion is he a wacko too ? Dr. Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic concerning catastrophic global warming and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism Also what about Dr. Roy Spencer Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural. He argues that climate is inherently stable to changes in radiative forcing from variations in natural drivers as well as humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution. He suggests that natural, chaotic variations in factors including low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.

There are many more but what do you think of these two RickG.

 

[rambot]

Let me be clear, I have very VERY little respect for the other side of this debate. I believe their scientists are wrong. I believe their institutes, groups and lobbyers are nefarious, unscrupulous, individuals (or collections) who are motivated by greed over fact.

What I DO feel is pity for the simpletons who have been duped by those insisting you throw away common sense. If it comes across as respect for your opinion, it's not meant to be. It's just respect for you as a person. I think your wandering and everchanging hypothesis is a pile of horse hockey.


To illustrate:
A quote from your article can be paraphrase as such "There are two doctors. One says "You're going to die. Give up. One says, let's step back and review the facts".
For the thinking human, there would be a few problems with this:

1) There are NOT "two doctors". There are 100 doctors. 97 doctors say one thing. 3 say something else.

2) The 97 doctors are saying "We are causing something bad to happen and it could be a little dangerous". 3 doctors are saying "Nah. Those other guys are part of a massive conspiracy. And maybe this is hapenning instead."

3) There is an underlying assumption that the 97 doctors have NOT "reviewed the facts" or considered other options." That is a lie.

 

[Greatcloud]

Let me be clear, I have very VERY little respect for the other side of this debate. I believe their scientists are wrong. I believe their institutes, groups and lobbyers are nefarious, unscrupulous, individuals (or collections) who are motivated by greed over fact.

What I DO feel is pity for the simpletons who have been duped by those insisting you throw away common sense. If it comes across as respect for your opinion, it's not meant to be. It's just respect for you as a person. I think your wandering and everchanging hypothesis is a pile of horse hockey.


To illustrate:
A quote from your article can be paraphrase as such "There are two doctors. One says "You're going to die. Give up. One says, let's step back and review the facts".
For the thinking human, there would be a few problems with this:

1) There are NOT "two doctors". There are 100 doctors. 97 doctors say one thing. 3 say something else.

2) The 97 doctors are saying "We are causing something bad to happen and it could be a little dangerous". 3 doctors are saying "Nah. Those other guys are part of a massive conspiracy. And maybe this is hapenning instead."

3) There is an underlying assumption that the 97 doctors have NOT "reviewed the facts" or considered other options." That is a lie.

My side is growing and your side Rambot RickG & Thaumaturgy is becoming less and less among climate scientists. A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend — which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end — is caused by man's industrial activities: driving cars and the like. More than a fifth — 20.5 percent — rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided.

Silencing the Global Warming Skeptics


“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot


Frequently Asked Questions









1 Question
We have been told that the science is settled on the global warming issue and that all except a few radical scientists agree that global warming is caused by mankind emitting carbon dioxide.
Answer
Proponents of man-caused global warming, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former Vice President Al Gore, have claimed that there was consensus among scientists that man was causing global warming for over two decades. The media has reinforced that belief. That was never the case. A large percentage of all scientists familiar with this issue have always had doubts at some level. There was not convincing evidence either way. In recent years, however, emerging science is increasingly showing that the warming of the twentieth century was not caused by greenhouse gases, but by natural events. As this science became known, more and more scientists who once believed global warming have abandoned the theory publicly.

Frequently Asked Questions

 

[DennisTate]

I personally am of the opinion that the most immediate and serious threat posted by climate change is rising ocean levels.

The West Antarctic Ice is especially vulnerable to rapid collapse due to the fact that it is below sea level. Just imagine what would happen to it if it was hit by a tsunami even half as severe as the one that struck in Japan?

My home is on a lake classified as tidal water so as you can guess this causes me to be biased toward this aspect of the entire subject!

 

[DennisTate]

With God, ALL things are possible!


...except evolution

rambot....I must beg to differ with you in this assertion that evolution is not possible with God......actually one quite logical angle on Theistic Evolutionary Theory is that God is the first major intelligence to occur in truly fundamental energy and from then on learn/evolve over infinite time.

I believe that this theory would fit with The Anthropic Principle, The Cyclic Model of the Universe as well as String Theory.

One of the best writers who I suspect is basically on a similar page to this would be Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman.

 

[dlamberth]

Land Temperature Anomaly Video - YouTube

.

 

[rambot]

rambot....I must beg to differ with you in this assertion that evolution is not possible with God......actually one quite logical angle on Theistic Evolutionary Theory is that God is the first major intelligence to occur in truly fundamental energy and from then on learn/evolve over infinite time.

I believe that this theory would fit with The Anthropic Principle, The Cyclic Model of the Universe as well as String Theory.

One of the best writers who I suspect is basically on a similar page to this would be Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman.

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist....no tongue in cheek emoticon. Sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

I personally am of the opinion that the most immediate and serious threat posted by climate change is rising ocean levels.

When the pizza delivery guy starts delivering my pizzas in a motorboat, then I'll start worrying about global warming.

 

[RickG]

Dr. Fred Singer is right about the coming ice age. It starts with cycle 25 and now you will tell me about realclimates claim that this won't happen and how they are climatologist there and any other person who says differently is off their rocker in your opinion. I may as well beat my head against a wall. Of the three main posters who hold the AGW view who post here Rambot is the most respectful of the other side of the debate and you RickG are the least you dismiss every site and every scientist as wackos. Thumaturgy you are about in the middle.
RickG what do you think of the scientist named Lindzen, Richard Lindzen in your opinion is he a wacko too ? Dr. Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic concerning catastrophic global warming and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism Also what about Dr. Roy Spencer Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly natural. He argues that climate is inherently stable to changes in radiative forcing from variations in natural drivers as well as humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution. He suggests that natural, chaotic variations in factors including low cloud cover may account for most observed warming.

There are many more but what do you think of these two RickG.

Roy Spencers could argument is not valid. He incorrectly applies climate sensitivity to low latitudes ignoring the rest of the earth, especially the high latitudes where most of the warming is occurring. His recent paper in the Journal Remote Sensing, had so many errors, that the editor of that journal apologized and resigned for allowing the paper to pass peer review, which obviously was not performed by experts in the field in which he published.

But don't take my word for it, read the editors resignation letter which is posted on the Journal's own site for your self. Please, I urge you to read it.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

 

[TeddyReceptus]

When the pizza delivery guy starts delivering my pizzas in a motorboat, then I'll start worrying about global warming.

Then switch to tacos so you can enjoy TACOCOPTER! (pending legal hurdles of using unmanned vehicles for food deliveries) (Google it, I can't post a link yet)

 

[AV1611VET]

Then switch to tacos so you can enjoy TACOCOPTER! (pending legal hurdles of using unmanned vehicles for food deliveries) (Google it, I can't post a link yet)

-- Shades of Demolition Man!

 

[RickG]

My side is growing and your side Rambot RickG & Thaumaturgy is becoming less and less among climate scientists. A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend — which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end — is caused by man's industrial activities: driving cars and the like. More than a fifth — 20.5 percent — rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided.

Silencing the Global Warming Skeptics


“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot


Frequently Asked Questions









1 Question
We have been told that the science is settled on the global warming issue and that all except a few radical scientists agree that global warming is caused by mankind emitting carbon dioxide.
Answer
Proponents of man-caused global warming, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former Vice President Al Gore, have claimed that there was consensus among scientists that man was causing global warming for over two decades. The media has reinforced that belief. That was never the case. A large percentage of all scientists familiar with this issue have always had doubts at some level. There was not convincing evidence either way. In recent years, however, emerging science is increasingly showing that the warming of the twentieth century was not caused by greenhouse gases, but by natural events. As this science became known, more and more scientists who once believed global warming have abandoned the theory publicly.

Frequently Asked Questions

It sure would be nice to discuss climate science for once instead of a bunch of politically motivated rants.

You are all over the board from one topic to the other with no discussion, just rants and accusations. If you wish to discuss a specific aspect in climate science, let's do so. It is your choice. I will not respond to Gish gallops and political ideology. If you want to run off an claim victory, please do so, I really don't care. I am not here to win a debate. I am here to discuss science and only science. This is a science forum. Please, let's stick to the science.

 

[idscience]

My side is growing and your side Rambot RickG & Thaumaturgy is becoming less and less among climate scientists. A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend — which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century's end — is caused by man's industrial activities: driving cars and the like. More than a fifth — 20.5 percent — rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." Half were undecided.

Silencing the Global Warming Skeptics


“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot


Frequently Asked Questions









1 Question
We have been told that the science is settled on the global warming issue and that all except a few radical scientists agree that global warming is caused by mankind emitting carbon dioxide.
Answer
Proponents of man-caused global warming, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former Vice President Al Gore, have claimed that there was consensus among scientists that man was causing global warming for over two decades. The media has reinforced that belief. That was never the case. A large percentage of all scientists familiar with this issue have always had doubts at some level. There was not convincing evidence either way. In recent years, however, emerging science is increasingly showing that the warming of the twentieth century was not caused by greenhouse gases, but by natural events. As this science became known, more and more scientists who once believed global warming have abandoned the theory publicly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Still going eh. At-a-boy, keep it up. Your posts are detailed and very credible.

 

[idscience]

It sure would be nice to discuss climate science for once instead of a bunch of politically motivated rants.

Rick, I have to say, you are tenacious buddy, still fighting. I am impressed.

 

[RickG]

Still going eh. At-a-boy, keep it up. Your posts (Greatcloud) are detailed and very credible.

Really? All I got from it was a lot of political ideology. Did you follow the link I posted to Wagners resignation letter over the publication of Roy Spencer's heavily flawed article that was misrepresented by the media and other organizations?

 

[RickG]

Rick, I have to say, you are tenacious buddy, still fighting. I am impressed.

Perhaps because my tenacity comes from knowledge of the subject rather than my political ideology. You know, one might think that science would be discussed in a science forum rather than politics. Maybe?

 

[idscience]

‘Missing’ global heat may be hiding in deep oceans

• "The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported.
  Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly."
  

Hey, where is our missing evidence?

 

[RickG]

‘Missing’ global heat may be hiding in deep oceans

• "The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported.
  Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly."

Hey, where is our missing evidence?

Much probably is going into the deep oceans where it currently is not being measured. The fact is that incoming energy is out of balance with outgoing energy. All that means is that all is not accounted for. What is known is that there is more incoming than outgoing. BTW, the oceans are warming more than the atmosphere.

 

[idscience]

Handy that its beyond measurable. Maybe its all going out into space like NASA dude said. But that can't be. Makes more sense we just can't find it. In most science if there is no evidence of something, its not there. but if you have a philosophy that says its there, you have to come up with some reason you can't find it. Evolution is the same way.

 

[RickG]

Handy that its beyond measurable. Maybe its all going out into space like NASA dude said. But that can't be. Makes more sense we just can't find it. In most science if there is no evidence of something, its not there. but if you have a philosophy that says its there, you have to come up with some reason you can't find it. Evolution is the same way.

Really idscience, where do you get your information? NASA does not say the excess is going into space.

Try reading some science for once.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf

NASA - Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity