The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Climate of fear.

Climate of fear.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. Page 35
  10. All
Mhaze Quote
Also, noticed that you have again declined to address the issue as to what data you'd need to see to convince you that the theory is wrong or even doubtful. As I've said before, such an attitude treats the theory as religion not science. I know you don't like being told that but alas....the facts are the facts.
______________________________________________________________________
The evidence I require is proof that greenhouse gases do not influence surface temperature in theory or in practice.

The data I require is evidence that Co2 and other greenhouse gases have not increased in the atmosphere and are not the result of human activities.

Data clearly showing that global warming is not occurring, or evidence for an alternative mechanism to explain the warming.

Unfortunately the above is not the case, Co2 absorbs infra red radiation as can be easily demonstrated in the lab,which is part of the spectrum that the earth uses to cool.
The evidence shows that global temperatures have risen steadily since at least the 1970s. This is true for both land and ocean, in fact temperatures have risen faster over land than the oceans. We have the the undeniable fact that ice cover be it glaciers or at the poles is in decline. We have the steady increase in max temperature records but a steady decline in cold temperature records. We are constantly having to update the the figures for average temperatures, because the average is no longer useful for example Melbourne has not seen an average summer temperatures for 27 years. We have evidence that sea levels are rising and accelerating. We have seen a long term increase in sea surface temperatures. We have evidence of ocean warming down to at least 700 meters.

If you wish to dispute any of this, then you have problem because the data and the conclusions have been arrived at by many different reputable organisations and thoroughly checked by suitably qualified people.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 8 March 2013 4:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a great exposition on "climate debate" in the online arena.

mhaze - pertinent to you and other intelligent people "skeptics" who assume they know what they are talking about.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/back-to-school/#more-6326

"And that's much of what's wrong with the online discussion of global warming. People look at some data and try to understand it, but they're in way over their heads and haven't a clue what they don't know. Then instead of inquiring whether or not they might have gone wrong and how - as they should - they declare the real experts are missing something."

Not only that, but they often taunt and insult, and dig out anything else in their bag of tricks. People like Watts and Nova and Monckton actually stake their reputation on such behaviour - and their acolytes trail along behind them casting aspersions like confetti up and down the blogosphoere.

It's an odd phenomenon in a scientifically and technologically advanced age - and its tied to a fundamental insecurity of the notion of change.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 March 2013 9:59:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair wrote:"The evidence I require is proof that greenhouse gases do not influence surface temperature in theory or in practice.

The data I require is evidence that Co2 and other greenhouse gases have not increased in the atmosphere and are not the result of human activities."

But...but....I don't think you'd find anyone who doesn't agree that GHG influence the surface temps in theory and practice. To be fair I think you mean the increase in GHG and there again I think you'll find that the vast majority of sceptics agree that the increase has had some minor affect.

Equally I'd doubt you'd find too many who don't agree that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and that its primarily caused by man.

So in effect you're asking for people to disprove things that are not in dispute.

I'm very much afraid, warmair, that you've entirely misunderstood the views of sceptics. Perhaps if you spent more time trying to understand these contrary views, you'd understand the entire issue a little better.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 10 March 2013 7:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot wrote :"mhaze - pertinent to you and other intelligent people "skeptics" who assume they know what they are talking about."

The problem here, Poirot, and this goes back to my Unabomber comment, is the belief among the committed warmists that all sceptics think alike. I think this is related to the notion that many warmists have just bought the story without thinking too much about it and they assume that the 'other side' does the same.

But I and, I'd venture, most sceptics don't dispute that the amount of arctic sea ice is at or close to record low levels since records began. that isn't the issue. The question is the significance of that, the cause and whether these levels are historically low.

Bear in mind that records only go back to 1979 so saying they are at record lows is somewhat misleading. There is awfully good historic evidence that these sought of low arctic sea-ice levels have been seen before (in the late 19th century). But, since historic data falls outside the purview of climate scientists, it is routinely ignored.
Equally, there is good data that the current levels are caused by local weather patterns rather than global factors. finally, the dispute is the so-what factor. So-what if all the arctic sea-ice melts?

The problem with alot of AGW science is that it is based on assertion loosely supported by unverified models. We go from proving absolutely that sea-ice in the arctic has declined in the past 30 yrs (undisputed) to assertions that, according to models, CO2 is the only possible cause. But, if sea-ice levels were at these low levels in the recent past, then that assertion is (or ought to be) doubted. And that's where the contention lay...not over the maths.

/cont
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 March 2013 11:10:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/cont

Arctic ice events happen on century of even millennial time-scales. Looking at a short, 30yrs period and drawing defintive conclusions is fraught. But somehow, whenever we have short periods that support the theory, they are taken as long enough (arctic sea ice) but when we have short periods that don't support the story (surface temps) the period is never long enough. I wonder why that is?

In this vein, a story the late John Daly used to tell. When French researchers, in the 1950's first dicovered the ozone hole over the Antarctic, they fretted that it seemed to be getting smaller each year. But this was in a time when people hadn't worked out how to turn such observations and concerns into research dollars and so they moved on and the measuring of the hole was dropped. It was only in the late 70's, when alarmism could become a career, that the then growing hole was hyped to death. A solution was proposed and implemented. But now we find that the 'solution'actually wasn't and that the growing and shrinking hole may be just a natural ebb and flow.

Eqaully, had the satellites that now measure the sea ice in the arctic started doing so in 1969 or 1989 we would have a very different view of what was/is happening.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 11 March 2013 11:11:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. Page 35
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy