So?
Both pictures show significant ice loss, what's your point old boy?
Btw a little note on your hero Anthony Watt's.
Both pictures show significant ice loss, what's your point old boy?
Btw a little note on your hero Anthony Watt's.
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Tamino has ripped Watts to shreds many times. This one really exemplifies the level of Watt's understanding, or rather his misunderstanding...
If you like blogs, try this one Walter:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/has_arctic_summer_sea_ice_tipp.html
If you like blogs, try this one Walter:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/has_arctic_summer_sea_ice_tipp.html
Nice change of tact Avro.
That has been my single argument this whole time and that has been what you were arguing against all this time.
I originally maintained that it was ridiculous to burden our economy with carbon paranoia when there is little evidence carbon is the culprit in GW. It is a factor certainly but as every model has shown it is a very minor one.
That was my original argument and still is my argument.
Me!?!?!?!
I told you over and over again you (and others) weren't listening to me. You thought I was saying GW wasn't real. I explained that wasn't my issue with the myth. A key component of the myth is that carbon is the bogeyman and that simply isn't true - it is that component which makes it a myth. It is very likely and extremely probable that GW is a natural occurrence.
I have never changed that stance and I never got hysterical. That crown rests firmly on the posts of others who maintained humans could do something about GW. The evidence is that we cannot.
Causes...
Carbon from cars, power plants, air planes, buildings etc etc.
Methane from rice patties, bovines, production of fossil fuels all caused by man growing, harvesting and producing.
Water vapor caused by warming from....you guess it carbon and methane production.
Nitrous oxide something we as humans use quite extensively as fertilizer.
Tearing down forests which remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Thawing of permafrost caused by warming caused by carbon and releasing more carbon.
Thawing tundra, same effect as above.
Population of man, more humans, more breathing, more carbon into the atmosphere.
Carbon isn't the only cause but it is the main one in itself.
Carbon from cars, power plants, air planes, buildings etc etc.
Methane from rice patties, bovines, production of fossil fuels all caused by man growing, harvesting and producing.
Water vapor caused by warming from....you guess it carbon and methane production.
Nitrous oxide something we as humans use quite extensively as fertilizer.
Tearing down forests which remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Thawing of permafrost caused by warming caused by carbon and releasing more carbon.
Thawing tundra, same effect as above.
Population of man, more humans, more breathing, more carbon into the atmosphere.
Carbon isn't the only cause but it is the main one in itself.
If that were true then why do you suppose non of the models demonstrate it? Why do you suppose Science magazine is even questioning that rhetoric now? In fact they straight out say "oops.."
Gee whiz, I have no idea.
I went to science magazine and saw no debunking of AGW, just stuff like this, perhaps you could lend me linky.
Last edited:
I'm quickly loosing interest in this topic anyway. I've concluded that GW is a faith based belief system. Except for destroying our economy I really don't think it's zealot adherents are going to cause much harm. Thankfully the majority of Canadians are able to figure GW out as the myth it is.
I take the opposite view that man has caused to enviromental destruction and carbon production is one of the reasons.
Btw, I'd like to see a poll backing up your claim that a majority of Canadians support what you are saying.
You didn't just make that up did you?
Can you even comprehend English? What do you think this quote actually says? It starts out with a Science editor rightly claiming that there has been high profile disagreements between climate models and observations. Then, it says that models are getting the causes right, while getting things like spatial distribution wrong. You can read the study this editors pick is based on, I'll post it below.
Add to those observations a decreasing delta T in the diurnal cycle, and a cooling stratosphere, and the observations are really, really starting to back up the models.
By the way, this article didn't appear in the Journal Science. This study was in Geophysical Research Letters. The authors work for NASA GISS, so you can freely access their work from the website.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf
See, you think you get it because you read some crap on the net. You don't have a clue...
I quoted Science magazine not the internet as I said.
"The anthropogenic forcing is the net effect of eight different components, including greenhouse gases, land use and snow albedo changes, and (admittedly uncertain) tropospheric aerosols."
And this isn't a new model it's a new way of analyzing the data:
"Climate models suggest that most of the rise is due to greenhouse gas emissions, but the accuracy of the models is not entirely certain,...
...found that only four factors--ENSO (El Nio-Southern Oscillation), volcanic activity, solar activity, and anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases--are required to explain 76%" Which leaves 24% unexplained! Enough to invalidate the model and any findings!
So where one cause was claimed to be the reason we now have four and in what you posted there are eight!!! "The anthropogenic forcing is the net effect of eight different components..."
And we are still left with 24% of temperature unaccounted for!
So, in other words, the models and the data demonstrate conclusively that carbon isn't the reason for warming but one of eight known reasons - indeed "What Have We Done?" In fact just the unknowns are enough to account for warming!
Learn how to read f##kwit.
Right, it was a Science editor writing in Editor's Choice. The journal article that pick is based on appeared in GRL.
So? What's your point?
Who said it was a new model?
Umm, wrong. It means that only 4 factors are needed to explain 76% of the variance. Nowhere did I see they could only measure 4 factors to explain variance. You fail again.
You're skipping the part that says:
Furthermore 90% or more of the warming trend of the past 100 years can be explained by invoking anthropogenic effects, and solar forcing can explain a negligible percentage of the rise in temperature over the past 25 years.
No, but you're trying hard to put words in peoples mouths here, and looking like a fool which is your standard fare...
No, what we have is more proof of your serious shortcomings in the cognitive department...
You fail yet again! No surprises...go back to school, and remember to ask the teacher what +/- 100 means (that's a range of 200)
I see you still haven't read the study. It's actually the second time I posted it. Why not try reading it. Real science. You might learn something...
So "What Have We Done?"
Really meant: wow we got it right?
:lol:
Your funny.
You really love your carbon bogyman don't you? :sign5:
Unfortunately the problem is a lot more complicated than first proposed (gee I knew that) and you can't save the world by riding your bicycle to work. Bummer huh?
Really meant: wow we got it right?
:lol:
Your funny.
You really love your carbon bogyman don't you? :sign5:
Unfortunately the problem is a lot more complicated than first proposed (gee I knew that) and you can't save the world by riding your bicycle to work. Bummer huh?
Last edited:
All this time you've been maintaining that GW is caused by carbon. Here we have a report that clearly shows it has at least eight different causes and more that are unknown!
Epic fail Tonkahead!
I was right, you were wrong - deal with it :lol:
"What Have We Done"
Epic fail Tonkahead!
I was right, you were wrong - deal with it :lol:
"What Have We Done"
Last edited: