Czech president: Gore is insane.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Amongst some of these anti-intellectuals one must of course deal with 'light weight' intellectual 'deniers' such as:

Hope you don't mind that I add a bit more info on some of these scumbags.

Dr. Wegman

http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.html

Dr. Tol

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/tol.html

Dr. Christopher Landsea

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/old_bio.html

Dr. Duncan Wingham

http://www.cpom.org/people/djw/index.htm

Dr. Richard Lindzen

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Dr. Svensmark

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

Dr. Nir Shariv

http://www.sciencebits.com/NoInterview

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/cv/cv.html

[Berzerker]

B, there is a relationship between temperature and CO2 levels that one can see without mathematics by looking at the ice ages and CO2 levels. What is most interesting is that CO2 levels

FOLLOW

temperature. CO2 levels have been quite high when we slid into ice ages. This somewhat demonstrates that CO2 levels cannot fundamentally alter the basic processes that are warming and cooling the Earth. This much is obvious from historical data.

I think CO2 levels are much higher today and will go even higher, and if the vast tundra of the northern hemisphere warms enough methane will enter the atmosphere warming us even more. It would be interesting to see if we have any data on past methane releases during warm periods. If it was warmer 7,000 years ago, was there a spike in methane as tundra warmed? I've heard methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas so maybe we'll need to warm the world enough to free land locked methane.

Funny, I must be the only advocate of global warming

I have, in other threads, linked articles to show that the amount of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemphisphere is the dominate mechanism for climate temperature. Nothing else is as important. That level varies according to our orbit and our tilt. It is also affect by solar activity and by

Today the tilt is ~23.5 with a range of 24.5 - 21.5 degrees, 20,000 years ago the tilt would have been ~22.5. But this was coming out of a period when the tilt was even less, 21.5 degrees. Just as the northern hemisphere retains the summer and fall heat - its warmer on Sept 21st than March 21st - the Earth stays warmer following the maximum than the minimum. We hit our maximum tilt about 7,000 years ago, and the record shows it was warmer and wetter (lots of fresh water being released) 9,000 - 5,000 years ago. So in 7,000 years we'll be back to 22.5 degrees, the same tilt back when the ice sheets were nearing their maximum coverage. But ice sheets need time to grow, so we probably wont see them until the tilt is nearing 21.5 degrees - 14,000 years from now. I hope by then we've pumped so much gas into the atmosphere the poles stay warmer and we dont go into another deep freeze.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Doddler


Why should anyone trust the IPCC? They've lied before (e.g. about the hockey stick) and not made apologies or admissions.

They change the start and end dates of assessment periods in order to get the "right result" for headlines.

They publish a summary before the actual body of the report, in order that their spurious claims can not be investigated before the media spin machine gets into action.

Why trust them? Basically because they don't do the scientific research themselves, they simply review and analyze it. They don't have any bias in supporting this or that theory because the mass of IPCC researchers would neutralize biased opinions.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Odin: What does consensus have to do with science?

Nearly all climatologists say global warming is anthropogenic, therefore AGW is the scientific consensus.

[DinoDoc]

You haven't answered the question. What relation does consensus have with science? I had this conversation with others on the last page. Most of the questions went unanswered if you want to expand it if that would make it easier to deal with.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Odin


Nearly all climatologists say global warming is anthropogenic, therefore AGW is the scientific consensus.

That's the whole point. The above statement isn't true.

(I suppose that depends on how you define "nearly all". I personally would define "nearly all" at 90% or more)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I think CO2 levels are much higher today and will go even higher, and if the vast tundra of the northern hemisphere warms enough methane will enter the atmosphere warming us even more. It would be interesting to see if we have any data on past methane releases during warm periods. If it was warmer 7,000 years ago, was there a spike in methane as tundra warmed? I've heard methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas so maybe we'll need to warm the world enough to free land locked methane.

Funny, I must be the only advocate of global warming



Today the tilt is ~23.5 with a range of 24.5 - 21.5 degrees, 20,000 years ago the tilt would have been ~22.5. But this was coming out of a period when the tilt was even less, 21.5 degrees. Just as the northern hemisphere retains the summer and fall heat - its warmer on Sept 21st than March 21st - the Earth stays warmer following the maximum than the minimum. We hit our maximum tilt about 7,000 years ago, and the record shows it was warmer and wetter (lots of fresh water being released) 9,000 - 5,000 years ago. So in 7,000 years we'll be back to 22.5 degrees, the same tilt back when the ice sheets were nearing their maximum coverage. But ice sheets need time to grow, so we probably wont see them until the tilt is nearing 21.5 degrees - 14,000 years from now. I hope by then we've pumped so much gas into the atmosphere the poles stay warmer and we dont go into another deep freeze.

Perhaps. We still do not know whether GHGs can dominate Earth's natural mechanisms. In the past, high CO2 concentrations did not fend off ice ages. In fact, there is no historical data whatsoever that I know of that shows that CO2 or any other GHG affects global temperatures in any measurable way.

The same clearly is not true of AEROSOLS. Every time we have a major volcanic eruption, the Earth's temperatures immediately drop like a rock. AEROSOL polution, I submit, could be a greater problem than GHGs.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ned
"Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them...

"His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology..."
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

Clearly just a couple of oil-company shills...

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Why trust them? Basically because they don't do the scientific research themselves, they simply review and analyze it. They don't have any bias in supporting this or that theory because the mass of IPCC researchers would neutralize biased opinions.

They don't "analyze" the research.

They pick which research to include, and which to ignore.

They pick what aspects of any given study to emphasize.

And they carefully wordsmith every word of their "analysis" like a piece of finely wrought propaganda. (which, after all, is what it is.)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


That's the whole point. The above statement isn't true.

You truly are an ignorant moron.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Odin
You truly are an ignorant moron.

Sometime, a citation to a well respected source of information is more persuasive than calling them names. ...just a thought.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Odin


You truly are an ignorant moron.

Once again you've resorted to the #1 tactic of people who hold your point of view. Thank you for being so predictale.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


Perhaps. We still do not know whether GHGs can dominate Earth's natural mechanisms. In the past, high CO2 concentrations did not fend off ice ages. In fact, there is no historical data whatsoever that I know of that shows that CO2 or any other GHG affects global temperatures in any measurable way.

WHA...???

CO2 levels are high when the Earth is in a "hot-house" phase and low when it is a "ice-house" phase. CO2 levels over long stretches of geological time (over millions of years) are the result of changes in tectonic activity.

During periods of with lots of orogenic (mountain building) activity, especially orogenic activity caused by continent-to-continent collisions, the CO2 level decreases because young mountain ranges erode rapidly and erosion removes CO2 from the atmosphere (eventually ending up as the carbonate ions in limestone on the ocean floor) faster then volcanoes can add CO2. We are currently in a period with lots of orogenic activty. The Carboniferous, another ice-house period, is another period with a lot orogenic activity.

When there is little orogenic activity and lots of volcanic activity CO2 levels increase. The Cretaceous period is a good example.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Sometime, a citation to a well respected source of information is more persuasive than calling them names. ...just a thought.

Sorry, I just get annoyed when people don't know what they are talking about. I'm getting sick of getting told the same BS talking points again and again when it comes to GW.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin


Sorry, I just get annoyed when people don't know what they are talking about. I'm getting sick of getting told the same BS talking points again and again when it comes to GW.

At least you have it easy - if people says something you belive in and they don't know about it, they are ignorant morons, and if they know something about it, then they are paid by the oil companies. That really makes life much less complicated.