It's just an attack on something he dosen't believe Tonn because he believes it isn't happening.
What a tangled web he weaves.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
It's just an attack on something he dosen't believe Tonn because he believes it isn't happening.
What a tangled web he weaves.
Oh I think he believes it is happening, I just think he's wrong about why. I've asked him a few times now, if he thinks he knows what is causing it to occur, then he should be able to make predictions with his model. Well, not his, but the one he thinks is best. Anyways, nothing to date.
Sorry, I miscomunicated.
He believes dosen't believe in AGW because he believes there is another cause.
Is science like religion that relies on the necessity of belief? Predictions are made in Revelations.
If religious prophecy were to come true it would no longer be a prediction and religion would become a bonafide science.
Can any of you say you know AGW to be true or do you all just believe it?
Why haven't any of you "believers" answered my queries?
What does the leading Canadian proponent of AGW mean when he says "there are too many people and feeding what we already have is killing the planet"?
If agriculture/food is by far the leading source of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and we are already doomed at current population levels does he mean
a) population and food production need to slashed?
b) we all become vegetarians eating a highly restricted diet of UN biscuits with 5.5 billion people taking to tilling, seeding, harvesting strictly organically fertilized low yielding fields by hand by day or those designated to work in the recycling and recondition facilities and returning to our hermetically sealed and controlled subterranean "liberty bunkers" by night?
c) we eat our dead?
d) invade Mars and eat their dead?
Sounds familiar doesn't it? Field work (sickle). Industry (hammer). Great purge(population/social control). Eating the dead (Holodomor). Mars (Red planet)
Looks more red than green.
Are we really going to debate the validity of science in this thread? If you want to throw down an entire movement, then make another thread. For the purpose of AGW, the only deliberation regarding science should be to differentiate real science from junk science. In this thread we should be accepting authentic science as authentic science.
If you want to question that, then create an entirely new thread in philosophy. When you can prove your case there, then you can go ahead and decry all the facets of science altogether. For the purposes of this thread, we don't need to go as far as justifying science to show AGW.
If you want to question that, then create an entirely new thread in philosophy. When you can prove your case there, then you can go ahead and decry all the facets of science altogether. For the purposes of this thread, we don't need to go as far as justifying science to show AGW.
Last edited:
September 16The greenhouse effect is not unclear; it is a simple, demonstrable fact of nature.
If you wrap a blanket around yourself, it is not the blanket that warms you with it's own energy by convection. The blanket is preventing the emission of heat away from your body. That is a thermal imbalance. So your body warms until the energy is again in balance.
A greenhouse gas does the same thing, it prevents radiation from escaping to space.
You can see how various gases affect the transmission of radiation through our climate system:
If you want to test the theory more sensibly, one should expect cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights. This has been tested, and indeed cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.
Scientist: There is no observational evidence for influence of CO2 on present or past climate
Science is about explaining observations using existing scientifically proven facts. So pseudoscience in this case explains beliefs with unproven causes in a purely intellectual sense. This means that the measured down welling IR in the earth’s atmosphere isn’t coming from “grennhouse gases” but from another source – atmospheric electric currents that for the most part are operating in ‘dark current plasma model’. Unfortunately Svenmark’s hypothesis does not included an electrically active earth with active plasma double layers or “Langmuire Sheafs”; including these known physical phenomena offers prosaic solutions to the thermal anomaly of the earth rather than the magical powers of CO2, a minor trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere.
Dr. Ir. Noor van Andel, former head of research at Akzo Nobel, recently presented a talk at the Dutch Meteorological Institute KNMI, concluding there is
• No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
• Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
• Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
• Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
• Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo [the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. Source
• No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
• Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
• Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
• Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
• Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo [the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. Source
Tonnington must look stupid sitting arround in his CO2 blanket that his profs knit for him. There,s nothing funnier than the AGW mob right at the moment. I watch them every day tripping over their big silly shoes. I can see a time, not too distant in the future,when it will be necessary to round up the loons that supported AWG and stretch them a bit with good strong hemp rope. Our species cannot afford to promote and support these perrenial dupes any longer. There,s nothing more dangerous than uninformed do gooders out to save a planet they barely understand the power transmission of.
You don,t have that kind of patients Tonn. Now why don,t you gracefully admit that you don,t actually have a clue about how the old ball hangs in space and that you are woefully and intractably void of any knowledge whatever of the power transmission of that same ball.
PS How,s the baby making going?:smile:
More dodging.:roll:
I have asked several times Petros and you haven't answered.
So from this I have to assume you believe AGW is nonsense and believe the denier crowd with all their non peer reviewed garbage science.
No fraud.
No lies.
No misrepresenting the facts.
No questionable funding.
No cherry picking of data.
No political agenda.
You want answers but provide non yourself....I'm done.
If you wish to continue then by all means answer the question, otherwise, have a great day.:smile:
We tried irradiance as the reason. Unfortunately, it didn't hold up.
Post #450
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/68017-our-cooling-world-15.html#post1316197
Despite being on the lower end of the solar cycle, global temperatures are still rising. That isn't to say that solar cycles do not have an effect, but that effect is truly minimal, and doesn't explain the increase in global temps for the last 30-40 years:
--
"Only in the anthropogenic influence is there a sufficiently large upward trend over the past 120 years to explain global surface temperature variations self-consistently with the space-era components. Accordingly, trends in solar irradiance in the past century contribute global warming of 10% or less."
Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate - Lean - 2009 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library (peer reviewed study)
Maybe you can answer th questions Avro... Poor old Tonington is all flustered in his realization that the answer is one that he doesn't want to recognize.