Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Um, if we didn't pollute, no-one would be talking about AGW, slim.
So just because it is the IPCC, all the research they have is junk. Yeah, that makes sense.
Anyway, the info is available that shows climate temps over the past 500 million years. The latest period shows a glitch in the cycle.
Here's some info on Milankovitch's stuff:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In it, there is mention of unexplained climactic events. As much as people have polluted the planet and the fact that chemistry is a factor in climate change, I think it's presumptuous to state that we haven't had a hand in it. Things aren't that clear yet, IMO.
So just because it is the IPCC, all the research they have is junk. Yeah, that makes sense.
Anyway, the info is available that shows climate temps over the past 500 million years. The latest period shows a glitch in the cycle.
Here's some info on Milankovitch's stuff:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In it, there is mention of unexplained climactic events. As much as people have polluted the planet and the fact that chemistry is a factor in climate change, I think it's presumptuous to state that we haven't had a hand in it. Things aren't that clear yet, IMO.
Anna,
In the context of this discussion, CO2 and pollution are not interchangeable. If one were to really (I mean really, really) split hairs on this issue and pursue the anthropogenic angle honestly; this entire debate would focus on global, sustainable population assessments... In the end, this element is the most base factor that underlies this entire debate/discussion. The political reality is that it is untouchable and I feel that this is the reason that the Gore's, Suzuki's and UN/IPCC's of the world turn a blind eye to it.
In the context of this discussion, CO2 and pollution are not interchangeable. If one were to really (I mean really, really) split hairs on this issue and pursue the anthropogenic angle honestly; this entire debate would focus on global, sustainable population assessments... In the end, this element is the most base factor that underlies this entire debate/discussion. The political reality is that it is untouchable and I feel that this is the reason that the Gore's, Suzuki's and UN/IPCC's of the world turn a blind eye to it.
Sure did.. Crosby from Iggy for the tin!
Not exactly a highlight reel goal, but it counts all the same.
Not exactly a highlight reel goal, but it counts all the same.
Yes, only without properly referenced points. Hence my challenge to you in a more formalized style of debating these points.
My discussion will be focused on establishing that the warming signal and many corollaries we measure is predominantly a function of an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Your position that:
will be up to you to provide evidence for. As a head's up to you, I will tell you right now that an immediate halt to our emissions of greenhouse gases will not have tangible effects for some time. It will only mean that we stabilize the global mean temperature at a value a little higher than the warming we've already experienced.
You can read more about experienced warming to date, the warming still "in the pipeline" and relevant time lags in the climate system in this paper:
Temperature increase of 21st century mitigation scenarios — PNAS
(though right now the PNAS site seems to be down for maintenance)
My sources will be scholarly, peer reviewed articles. The best system we have for ensuring results are robust, and the methodology sound.
My defining statement is this: we've experienced about 0.8°C warming over the last century. The first part of the century was a mixture of anthropogenic and natural variability, while the latter half has been dominated by the anthropogenic signal. I will provide evidence from observations that confirms the expected results from an enhanced greenhouse effect. To show that the observed climactic changes are consistent, climate model results will be validated and used to show that the observations are an artifact of an enhanced greenhouse effect, and are not primarily the function of a known signal from a source of natural variability in the climate system.
We can start a new thread for this, I don't really care who leads it off. Just so we're clear, opening statements, then rebuttals to opening statements, then questions arising thereafter.
The Damoclean sword is poised to strike.
But Walter is right...AGW doesn't depend on science, it depends on what Al Gore says and does...that's how the world works alright...sheesh.
But Walter is right...AGW doesn't depend on science, it depends on what Al Gore says and does...that's how the world works alright...sheesh.
But you haven't lost interest yet, huh. lol You can dig and dig and dig till you wring the last vestiges of denial out of the net.
lol Tricky, dood.OMG!
Walt, check it out, Artic sea ice is rising rapidly towards a new ice age.8O
Another nail in the coffin being pounded in by some oil sponsored researcher.
American Thinker- Print Article
American Thinker- Print Article
