Global Warming is so 90's

[RickG]

Link #1.

This one has all the same SCIENCE as a speech by Karl Heinrich Marx about why things need to change.
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is a very reputable national science association made up entirely of scientists. The Karl Marx remark is utterly ridiculous.

Link #2

Guys with telescopes have an opinion about climate? So what?

They sure do, it's called measuring Total Solar Irradiance and Earth's energy budget.

Link #3.....(This is what happens when a guy Cuts & Pastes a WALL-O-TEXT with the intention of overwhelming the readers into submission. VERY poor form Sir. Not scientific and thorough at all.)

Link #3 This link is simply a list of references to the opinions of other groups. The first reference is to the "IPCC".
This referance for the citation is missing. So that's an authority? Groups who don't know how to create referances for their own papers?

There is mention of IPCC in reference #2 though. Lets see if that works:

The American Chemical Society is a professional organization of which I have been a member for many years. Atmospheric and Geochemistry is a very important aspect in studying both climatology and paleoclimatology. Your so called Wall-o-text statement is incorrect. The page is clearly labeled, "ACS Public Policy Statement". Oh! The horror of a professional science organization actually making a public statement about climate change.

An error has occurred.

Page does not exist
Address used: InterAcademy Council -
Item id: 13042

So one of the links moved the page. Nevertheless, it still went to the correct site. By simply typing in "climate change" in the search site box and you would have come up with this:

InterAcademy Council - Search

And if you want to know who they are click on the "about IAC", and you will find the following:

"In May 2000 all of the world's science academies created the IAC to mobilize the best scientists and engineers worldwide to provide high quality advice to international bodies"

(Emphasis mine.)

Who are your sources, ummm let me guess; Hearland Institute, Discovery Institute, WUWT, Fox News, etc.

 

[Greatcloud]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is a very reputable national science association made up entirely of scientists. The Karl Marx remark is utterly ridiculous.



They sure do, it's called measuring Total Solar Irradiance and Earth's energy budget.



The American Chemical Society is a professional organization of which I have been a member for many years. Atmospheric and Geochemistry is a very important aspect in studying both climatology and paleoclimatology. Your so called Wall-o-text statement is incorrect. The page is clearly labeled, "ACS Public Policy Statement". Oh! The horror of a professional science organization actually making a public statement about climate change.



So one of the links moved the page. Nevertheless, it still went to the correct site. By simply typing in "climate change" in the search site box and you would have come up with this:

InterAcademy Council - Search

And if you want to know who they are click on the "about IAC", and you will find the following:

"In May 2000 all of the world's science academies created the IAC to mobilize the best scientists and engineers worldwide to provide high quality advice to international bodies"

(Emphasis mine.)

Who are your sources, ummm let me guess; Hearland Institute, Discovery Institute, WUWT, Fox News, etc.

Rick G there is nothing wrong with your sources but new ideas come from unsuspecting origons.

 

[Michael]

Rick G there is nothing wrong with your sources but new ideas come from unsuspecting origons.

GC, Could you explain your position on CO2 for me? We can argue about the meaning of various global temperature statistics for a very long time, but that particular one seems pretty irrefutably linked to human activity.

 

[Greatcloud]

GC, Could you explain your position on CO2 for me? We can argue about the meaning of various global temperature statistics for a very long time, but that particular one seems pretty irrefutably linked to human activity.

I believe CO2 pollution is linked to human activity but the climate change is natural and the amount of human contribution is very small.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I believe CO2 pollution is linked to human activity but the climate change is natural and the amount of human contribution is very small.

Then you have arrived at a different conclusion from the vast majority of experts in the field. Can you show us where these countless thousands of highly trained specialists have erred?

Is it in the assessment of CO2 climate sensitivity? (Because that would have to be about the only thing they are wrong on, if you believe that CO2 pollution is linked to human activity, or do you believe that the greenhouse theory is wrong? Are you willing to go up against 150 years of chemistry or a couple decades worth of paleoclimatology?)

 

[Greatcloud]

Then you have arrived at a different conclusion from the vast majority of experts in the field. Can you show us where these countless thousands of highly trained specialists have erred?

Is it in the assessment of CO2 climate sensitivity? (Because that would have to be about the only thing they are wrong on, if you believe that CO2 pollution is linked to human activity, or do you believe that the greenhouse theory is wrong? Are you willing to go up against 150 years of chemistry or a couple decades worth of paleoclimatology?)

I believe I am right and there are millions of people who agree with me.

 

[CabVet]

I believe I am right and there are millions of people who agree with me.

Well, there are billions that don't.

 

[Greatcloud]

Well, there are billions that don't.

I'm sorry I ment billions of people who agree with me.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I believe I am right

Is this "faith based" science?

and there are millions of people who agree with me.

Except most of them aren't scientists and almost none of them are trained in the appropriate fields associated with this topic.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I'm sorry I ment billions of people who agree with me.

LOL! Yeah.

 

[SkyWriting]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is a very reputable national science association made up entirely of scientists. The Karl Marx remark is utterly ridiculous.

That doesn't change the fact that the statement reads like pure Communist propaganda.

The American Chemical Society is a professional organization of which I have been a member for many years. Atmospheric and Geochemistry is a very important aspect in studying both climatology and paleoclimatology. Your so called Wall-o-text statement is incorrect.

I was referring to YOUR Wall-o-text. This time it was about you.

The page is clearly labeled, "ACS Public Policy Statement". Oh! The horror of a professional science organization actually making a public statement about climate change. So one of the links moved the page. Nevertheless, it still went to the correct site. By simply typing in "climate change" in the search site box and you would have come up with this: InterAcademy Council - Search

The first citation is :

The first reference is to the "IPCC".
This referance for the citation is missing.

MISSING reference. Paper = fail

 

[Greatcloud]

SkyWriting: I really like what you have to say, keep up the good work. We can team up on the fanatics and show them their error.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting: I really like what you have to say, keep up the good work. We can team up on the fanatics and show them their error.

I'm just working at exposing them as anti-establishment tree hugging fanatics wiling to put the welfare of the earths population at jeopardy with a good chance of causing more harm and zero good.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Does anyone think that Great Cloud and Sky Writing are the same person?

In SkyCloud's signature it says "do your OWN research" as the primary piece of advice. So, instead of coming on here and debating with us and linking to OTHER sources, I want SkyCloud to go conduct their own research.

Go to this website. Its the Weather Network. These people have no vested interest in climate change, all they are doing is automatically reading the current temperature off of a thermometer. If you don't trust how a weather station works, go to your local airport or university and ask for a tour. I've gone on a tour of my university weather station and it was very informative. All weather stations adhere to the same guidelines internationally.

1) Make an Excel spreadsheet with about 100 towns from all over the world. Make sure the towns are <100,000 people to negate urban heat island effects.
2) Record the daily high and low temperatures that day from the Weather Network
3) Repeat this process every day for the next 50 years.
4) Make a graph and see what you get.

Come back to us when you've got this figured out.

In the mean time I will continue to use the graphs that have already been made and are continuing to be made by people doing the EXACT SAME THING except BETTER (more locations, more data, higher recording frequency, more obscure locations).

Here's another thing you can do (which only takes a few days instead of 50 years):

1) Go buy some dry ice (CO2) (you can often buy it at a local grocery store)
2) Get two glass jars and put two identical brands of thermometer inside each jar.
3) Fill one of the jars with the dry ice until the jar fogs over
4) Seal both jars with saran wrap+duck tape (make sure you have a perfect seal). One jar has "normal" air in it while the other jar has excessive amounts of CO2
5) Let both jars sit overnight and then take thermometer readings in the afternoon the next day
6) See which jar is warmer.

You can also do this with matchstick or campfire smoke because those are primarily CO2.

In case you're wondering, an amateur do-it-yourself scientist like you already did this and here are the results.

So both these experiments are interesting to perform, but both have already been done. And both confirm the Global Warming Hypothesis:

Premise 1: More CO2 in a closed system = Warmer average temperatures in that closed system
Premise 2: Human activity causes billions of tons of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere

Conclusion: Human activity is causing warmer temperatures in the atmosphere

Premise 1: More A = More B
Premise 2: C is causing more A

Therefore: C causes more B

 

[SkyWriting]

Does anyone think that Great Cloud and Sky Writing are the same person?
In SkyCloud's signature it says "do your OWN research" as the primary piece of advice. <snip>

So you call that research?

I meant actually do your own research. If you had done that
you'd know I expect global temps to raise by 2-5 more degrees before they
swing back down due to climate response mechanisms.
Look on the right. When you were just a kid, 20,000 years ago, temps started to climb.
They can be expected to go 2 more degrees on a "Natural" cycle but given
our addition to the CO2, I'd expect a spike of 2-5 more degrees.



Next time do your own homework on where people stand.

I want SkyCloud to go conduct their own research.

It would be such a wonderful world if people would just do what we want them to do. But that just doesn't happen.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then you have arrived at a different conclusion from the vast majority of experts in the field. Can you show us where these countless thousands of highly trained specialists have erred?

It's clear from the list of professing believers that 1000's have not done their own work. Every statement on global warming cites other groups for reference sources. The "error" I see is not seeing a pattern below. I would "predict" either 5 degrees higher or 8 degrees lower.
The very very last thing I'd predict is stable temperatures.

 

[Halossellar]

On the contrary there are a good number of scientist who disbelieve the GW theory , Richard Lindzen among them.

On the contrary^2, 97% of climatologists agree that GW is happening.

FactCheck.org : Santorum&#8217;s Science

2-3% isn't a "good number". It's actually a "bad number". So why do you want to believe the 2-3%? Not going with your personal politics over facts are ya?

 

[SkyWriting]

On the contrary^2, 97% of climatologists agree that GW is happening.

FactCheck.org : Santorum’s Science

2-3% isn't a "good number". It's actually a "bad number". So why do you want to believe the 2-3%? Not going with your personal politics over facts are ya?

If you ask them if the earth shows a history of stable climate before humans became a measurable factor, how many would say "yes"?
Hopefully "0%".

 

[Halossellar]

If you ask them if the earth shows a history of stable climate before humans became a measurable factor, how many would say "yes"?
Hopefully "0%".

If you're saying the earth has not had a history of a stable climate, therefore humans can't affect the earth's climate, that's a non sequitur.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you're saying the earth has not had a history of a stable climate, therefore humans can't affect the earth's climate, that's a non sequitur.

No, I'm saying those who expect a stable climate are idiots.
But I was tip-toeing around that statement.