Reply With Quote
I have this mental image of Yonivore getting all excited because he thinks he's found something new every time he posts something new. Reading a thread is hard.
Seein' as how Manny loves the scientific paper, what say you, Manny? And, have fun!
1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,
- John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"
- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidate"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."
- John H., Comment at RealClimate.org"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."
I have this mental image of Yonivore getting all excited because he thinks he's found something new every time he posts something new. Reading a thread is hard.
Logarithmic forcing math
No I don't need them. I've never doubted we were increasing CO2, it's seems pretty obvious without scientific study. I don't think I fully accept your 100% number because it's so absolute but it's not something I would debate either.
If you come across studies concerning the amount of co2 increase from fossil fuels vs deforestation I would be interested in reading those. I read general articles putting deforestation as be responsible for anywhere from 20% to around half of the CO2 increase but I haven't seen the actual studies on that topic.
Also if you want to talk about how the measured co2 increase relates to the measured temp increase. In other words how much of the measured temp increase can be directly tied to the measured temp increase (and how do you know). Minus the math debate, it's been over 20 years since I took math and physics courses.
OK, what do you call it?
Why is it that you only laugh instead of bringing anything pertinent to the discussion?
We finally got aspie to go away. Do not evoke him please.
Irony thy name is WidlDumbass.
At this point we have been trying to get you to understand the pertinent points for years.
I would call it a system whose response is a ln function. But again you are failing to see how things interconnect. That response doesn't just happen and then the world stops. there are simultaneous systems at work.
Its just like you talking about nonconservative systems and and drawing conclusions about scalar values at the endpoints. Time is continuous and all types of things happen between two arbitrary times. Things you do not even begin to try to account for.
Most natural systems are grossly nonlinear and their functions cannot be forced into superspos ion such that the eigenfuynctions can be teased out using 'easy' tricks.' Thats why supercomputers are used because you have to sample point in time by point in time and slug out all the operations.
This is not a car where the gear ratios are deliberately chosen to yield nice linear combinations. Or a genous abiotic can of soda fizzing out on an open ended interval. Natural systems are not applications of specific engineering principles. Even then you do not grasp how things work on a broader scale.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 06-17-2012 at 04:43 PM.
While I wouldn't presume to speak on Manny's behalf, I refuse to add to the cesspool that this thread has become. It's my belief that you don't buy half of the junk that you spew. Rather, you just crave the attention.
Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you?
There is more than likely an increase that would have occurred regardless of human emissions at this point. That being said, in the past 100 years you likely would have seen no more than 10 ppm (and i'm being pretty generous here). Thats pretty much all academic, though.
For the purposes of any general conversation I'm extremely confident saying the virtual entirety of the increase is caused by anthropogenic causes.
I don't know any of the top of my head but I'll look for some. Over the years I've read estimates as high as 20% but I don't think I've seen any higher than that. (even 20% strikes me as extremely high)
If you come across studies concerning the amount of co2 increase from fossil fuels vs deforestation I would be interested in reading those. I read general articles putting deforestation as be responsible for anywhere from 20% to around half of the CO2 increase but I haven't seen the actual studies on that topic.
The best estimates now are a fairly wide range from 1.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C or so because of the uncertainty of feedbacks - especially clouds.Also if you want to talk about how the measured co2 increase relates to the measured temp increase. In other words how much of the measured temp increase can be directly tied to the measured temp increase (and how do you know). Minus the math debate, it's been over 20 years since I took math and physics courses.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ure-spm-2.html
Thats probably the most famous figure that shows you the given forcing amounts. You can see the error bars and many things are fairly small - especially the GHG. Thats because we can take direct measurements of just how much energy these gases are reemitting. But the biggest problems come in with things like clouds and aresols.
Clouds are the biggest uncertainty. We simply don't have the computer power to replicate process that occur in cloud formation so we have to parameterize clouds. IOW, when a parcel of air at a certain temp has a certain level of humidity clouds form or they don't etc etc.
Until we're able to get a better handle on that, the range is going to continue to be fairly wide, IMO.
Then why are you flicking the that follows?
How little you know.
Not that it's any of your business, but they were good to me. Coming her just because you're on the rag and feel the need to pick on me as others do shows very poor class on your part, especially since you aren't engaging in the topic at all.
Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you, that you have to be unkind to others?
Death Spiral Watch: Arctic Sea Ice Takes A Nosedive
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...es-a-nosedive/
Are you denying that your display in this thread is nothing more than histrionics at this point?
As for my being rude and not contributing to this thread, well you've set the bar awfully low. Don't complain when people settle for clearing such a low standard.
You're engaged in attention seeking at this point, nothing more.
Pothead, I simply got bored constantly embarrassing you over and over. Your blackmail has failed and I have been working on many new Truth articles,
The Truth about Judith Curry
The Truth about Richard MullerJudith Curry is not a skeptic but a hurricane alarmist who had an alleged epiphany after Climategate and now seeks to be some sort of arbiter of scientific integrity. Her history of trust building includes accusing world leading hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray of "brain fossilization" and that, "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say" for his objections to her alarmist position on hurricanes. Curry has derided skeptics as "deniers" in both a testimony to congress and in the peer-reviewed literature, apparently in attempts at building "trust". Not even the most moderate of skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg was safe, "he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all". Regarding the corruption exposed by Climategate she incomprehensibly believes, "I don't think anybody’s come at this with bad motives". She even defended Michael Mann by claiming that Steve McIntyre only found, "relatively minor errors" in Mann's Hockey Stick papers. But when it comes to the alarmist English major Chris Mooney, author of such "amicable" les as the "The Republican War on Science", she gave him a five star review on Amazon for "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming" calling it, "Science writing at its best".
Your failures are building at a rapid pace.Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship anic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism,
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
- Richard Muller, 2008
The link on Hansen was posted on Friday, the link on the 1000+ scientific papers on May 17. Were either of them discussed, in this thread, before I posted them?
I have this mental image of Yonivore getting all excited because he thinks he's found something new every time he posts something new. Reading a thread is hard.
And, I didn't get "all excited;" the information was new to me and I was curious of your response.
I realize the idea that skeptics criticize current climate models, based on the failure of previous efforts, isn't new but, the German website raises it again and, in a way that I think calls on current AGCC proponents to demonstrate how current methodologies are different and more effective.
I posted the link from PopularTechnology.net because, I wasn't aware such a repository existed and -- wasn't sure you were either. The post on the 1000+ papers was put up in May; has it been discussed in here since then? I don't recall having seen it.
You're still having fun, right?
you people suckered into "arguing", actually pissing matches, against WC and PussyEater should admit it's not, in any way, about the climate science.
It's intentionally blind and willfully ignorant, right-wing/UCA ideology to deny science in order to protect their wealth and power.
How can you be so wrong?
I respond to attacks and you call it attention getting?
My problem is having a hard time not to respond to the childish personal attacks from people like you, and i should completely ignore thy cyber bullies like FuzzNutz.
As for what I say on the topic, i believe what I say.
Why are you deflecting this thread instead of adding something of value?
An older version of the list was posted here where you where not actively commenting, the most recent version has not been discussed.
To add, I have admitted I get some terminology wrong sometimes. An example, I believe I said "the added humidity" when discussing the H2O feedback with Manny. Thing is, the 13.2% is how much more water the air holds at the same humidity with the 2C increase. I don't always correct myself on these mistakes, until others point them out, and when they don't, I figure they didn't notice and it doesn't matter.
What mistakes have I made that warrant your attack?
Notice how nobody yet has shown any solid evidence H2O causes that much feedback? The heating curve is pretty large if his contention is the, and makes a bigger case for the skeptics.
you sure showed me, aspie.
Ah, well, I think the issues with models and their predictive ability being directly proportional to the complexity of the variables inputted is something the climate gang can't seem to overcome. Hansen being so demonstrably wrong in 1988 has relevance in 2012. What was the response?
And, if I'm not mistaken, at the PopularTechnology.org website, they've added a whole category where criticisms can be addressed and/or refuted. I don't know how new that is but, while the list may have existed in another form, this site specifically addresses the nonsense that passes for debate in this forum.
Perhaps even Manny would learn something about the debate over AGCC.
Lets use mistakes from 24 years ago to characterize the science of today.....
We also should not have bothered with HTTP, rDNA, nanotech, brain actuated prosthetics, or anything else for that matter.
Systems analysis and computational power compared to 24 years ago is an exponential increase in the order of at least 5 and with P2P notions its that much more.
In the 1970s was when oceanic and atmospheric modelling began in earnest using engineering principles. The issues arise in respect to the dynamics of the systems of variable and not to do with the variables themselves.
The systems are nonlinear and nonperiodic and as such the solutions to simultaneous phenomenon are not 'easy.' The Lorentz Attractor, nondeterminstic flow, chaos theory and the like became big talking points in the scientific community in the 1990s because of these difficulties.
In essence what you are doing is the same as taking the state of manmade flight from about the mid 1800s when scientists were beginning to understand dynamics and claiming that a failed flight test in 1880 shows that the science is a failure.
Reading what you say it is very indicative that you are regurgitating dumbed down explanations of what the scientists are attempting to do and then ridiculing it. I do not deign to know the specific state of climate science as I am not working in one of the plethora of Universities and Ins utes working on the problem but I do know better than to characterize the state of the science in 2012 on the basis of the science in 1988.
it's asinine.
The major changes besides more papers since 900+ was published is that the table of contents was added, the entire list was organized chronologically by category (some categories are new like the Highlights section), dozens of editors were directly contact to further confirm peer-review status of their journals and the entire list was link checked correcting over 100 broken links.
Rebuttals have been on there for sometime (December 2009) but critics never could find them (or intentionally did not) so the table of contents has appeared to correct this problem.
You are correct though that the 1000+ version has not been discussed here. I completely agree that it addresses much of that nonsense, especially relating to skeptics making valid scientific arguments against alarmist claims.
There is much more to come Pothead. The great offense you have taken towards the Truth articles further inspired me to keep up the great work.
I must say its interesting watching people completely oblivious of social conventions go whether or not it is intentionally obtuse.
BTW I sent Judith and Richard a copy of the email.
As for inspired, I didn't read the links because I am not going to your site but if it doesn't have communist flags, bookies, terrorists and El Salvadoran communist ties then your is weak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
