Man Based Global Warming....

Zealots in the Church of AGW seem to think that only THEIR peer-reviewed papers are orthodox.

Here are many peer-reviiewed papers from the heretics who think AGW is wrong or not significant.

Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More., page 1

Here's the first one:

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

There are pages of papers listed at this site. But, why bother looking? You know you are right and so do all the other believers. Burn the heretics!

 

ufourya,

Would you care to point out in any of those references or in the one you posted which one concludes that an increase in global temperatures has not occurred or is not likely or that it is not due to greenhouse gases?

My point is it that you interpret them as refuting global warming when they just modify small aspects of it or are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Regarding atheism as a religion. The courts have always concluded atheism should be treated like any other religion. It doesn't mean atheism is a religion based on faith which is the point of the argument.

 

The whole AGW argument is based on the assumption that man's contribution of CO2 (mainly) to the greenhouse gases will cause global temperature to rise drastically in the coming century and this is a situation which must be met with immediate action in the form of curbing CO2 emissions.

No serious person suggests that temperatures don't rise and fall. AGW proponents state that the temperature rise that we experienced recently was drastic - faster and higher than any time in the past. This is simply not true. Many of these papers present evidence that thie most recent rise is not out of the ordinary over geological time spans. Others show that there are other drivers of temperature that are not sufficiently represented in the GCMs (Global Climate Models).

You should be aware that the mandate of the IPCC was and is to study ONLY man's role in what they then called 'global warming' and have since, conveniently referred to as 'climate change'.

From the IPCC itself:

IPCC Mandate

“The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverageâ€

If you set out to study only ONE aspect of climate, where do you think your conclusions will focus? Ask yourself a question or two about this.

As to atheism - since one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a God, one can only argue from faith.

Atheism is a declaration of faith that a God does not exist.

 

No. This is a logical fallacy. In the absence of evidence things don't magically acquire a 50% chance of existing. We simply don't know if they exist.

Atheism is the declaration that there is no evidence or reason to believe in god. It is simply not even a question because there is no reason to ask it.

 

The illogic is solely on your end.

If, as you say, "We simply don't know if they exist," then it is illogical to declare with certainty that they do not. Yet this is what atheists do. Agnostics, on the other hand, do not adopt this illogical stance and freely admit they do not know.

For a more extensive discussion, please see:

http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1396

An exerpt to amuse:

The atheist is constantly bedeviled by the question of "before"? If he subscribes to the Big Bang Theory, that the universe begins with a tiny speck and explodes into the reality which has obtained ever since and whose laws and effects we study, he has not answered the question of the beginning. What put the speck there? A black hole from yet another universe? Perhaps. But that only puts the question of origins at one more remove. It does not resolve it. If he accepts the laws of physics he uses to understand the function of the universe, he is also accepting that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely changes form. Here's the ugly paradox. The atheist has a greater responsibility to account for the origin of the energy that makes and drives the universe than the deists do.

Ha ha, Icarus chimes in to endorse 'useful' illogic. Priceless.

 

ufourya,

you wish to 'argue' about a fantasy ?
Argument requires rational thought. Rational though requires logic. Logic requires foundation. Foundation requires evidence.

Despite what you have been 'taught', ignorance and stupidity is not evidence. This is why Alric stated there is nothing to argue about.

 

Evidence of ignoraance and stupidity abounds; thanks for demonstrating it.

The topic of this thread is based on a fantasy and yet there is serious argument over its premise.

Regarding the OT subject of whether a god does or does not exist, the fact remains that logic can neither prove nor disprove either assertion. To proclaim that it is not a subject of rational discourse or debate is, well, ignorant.

 

opcorn:

This has been a fun thread. I can see that in one sense we are all agreeing on one thing.

We all agree to disagree on certain subjects, and reading through this, both sides have made good points. Let's face it, we can all agree that we are putting CO2, and other pollutants in the environment, we can all agree that we need to curb pollution. Some of us agree that the methods being put forth by governments is not the correct solution, while others blindly agree with them without seeing the long term consequences of them. Some others here defend known criminals like a grandparent to a bratty child, and ignore the facts put forth in front of them(both sides, mine included).

Now here is a key point that Ufourya made, that some thought should be put into.

Why is it that we don't utilize our own resources in this country like OIL and COAL? It will take years to build clean facilities, and I am all in agreement they are needed, but in the meantime, we have no choice but to use what we are using at this moment until such facilities come online. Toyota has come out with a few cars that are extreme examples of efficiency, Ford is following close behind, and is starting to pass Toyota in efficiency with the Fusion. What is not happening though is a backing to get more of these cars on the road, instead they have this cash for clunkers mess, which if you saw some of what was turned in would make you cry. An incentive for buyers to purchase hybrids would, in my opinion, have been a better solution, not only would that get more cleaner burning cars on the road, but it would entice the car manufacturers to build more hybrid models.

Until more cars are made that burn less, and less gas, we will always need oil, so why not tap our own supplies? The nearly 1 Trillion dollars that was wasted in the past "Stimulus" bills could have been put to better use by supplying factories, and power plants the money to convert to cleaner emissions systems, and put to building wind farms and solar energy, instead of attempting to bail out a car company that still managed to fail. How do you stimulate the economy? Jobs. How do you create jobs? Well, you need projects that put people to work, and had the bills been put towards increasing alternate reliable energy, I am fairly certain jobs would have been created.

What a few of you here fail to understand on my point of view is, the GC alarmists have yet proven to me that man is the sole cause of the variance in climate. With what is being proposed in the government will only impact those who can least likely afford it, those who are in power, who are the ones passing these bills, will not be the ones paying the costs on the bills, it will be the little guys who are barely making it through now that will be paying the price for these bills. Same goes for the health care bill they are trying to pass. Not a single person who is working on this bill will be affected by it, from the congressman, to the president, they have their own health care, and that will not be affected by the bill they are trying to pass, and I fear that what they are trying to do will break the CARE part of the healthcare system. The US has some of the finest health CARE available, it is just the system for obtaining the care that is broken. What they have been proposing so far, I feel, will damage, or destroy how health care is done now.

What I do agree on, and some of you have made very good points of it, is the damage that we are doing to the planet itself, not the climate, but the planet. I agree that we all must do our part to clean up the environment, and for that you will never get an argument from me, you will get one when its affects how its done. Forcing people to do "whats right" in some peoples minds, is not the right way to do it. Raising taxes on energy will only piss people off to the extent that eventually it can cause an uprising, OTOH, giving people a choice to reduce their energy consumption by giving them access to alternate sources that are more affordable can make a difference in energy consumption.

 

Democracy (or a democratic republic, if you prefer) doesn't get you the best solution. It gets you a hopefully good solution that most people agree on.

IMO, there would not be consensus for a large-scale hybrid incentive program like there is with CfC (note there is already a hybrid incentive program, but it expired long ago for the Prius).

The stimulus bill, which did not include any automaker provisions (aside from components that apply to all corporations), was designed to create jobs. Whether or not this is the best method of doing so, or whether or not it's effective, is a whole other debate that probably will only be settled after all this is over. It also included billions of dollars for alternative energy. The pending climate change legislation also has many provisions for alternative energy.

I don't think anyone has claimed humans are the "sole cause of the variance in climate", so I don't think anyone will be able to prove that to you. However the preponderance of the evidence, in the opinion of most scientists, suggests that human activity is affecting the climate.

People have had a choice to reduce energy consumption since electricity was invented. They've had guaranteed access to alternative energy for 10 years in some markets. It hasn't worked.

 

A number of things may be addressed here. I think it's been shown that free prople and a truly free market will arrive at the 'best' solution much more readily than central control (government). A policy decreed to solve a problem invariably stumbles over unintended consequences. The free market automatically prevents most of this type problem.

You mention the CfC program - a perfect example of a government-run program. They offer to re-imburse car dealers $3,500 to $4.500 for offering a discount of the same to persons trading in a clunker. The entire stated purpose is to 'green-up' by an over-all improvement in mpg for the new vehicle ersus the old, and to 'stimulate' the car industry. The framers of this program had absolutely NO idea that the 'free money' would be exhausted in less than a week! (They thought it would last until November.) The 20 pages of paperwork involved strangled the servers devoted to this program and consequently no one knows when the dealers will be recompensed. There are other unintended consequences I can go into later.

While only an idiot would claim that man is the sole cause of climate variance, the IPCC addresses only this area. Draw your own conclusions.


Strictly speaking, electricity was discovered rather than invented. The inventions to generate and utilize it are at the crux of mankind's advanced societies.

 

ACDII writes: "Why is it that we don't utilize our own resources in this country like OIL and COAL? It will take years to build clean facilities, and I am all in agreement they are needed, but in the meantime, we have no choice but to use what we are using at this moment until such facilities come online."

Turn the question around and ask, why are we not prepared to build the clean facilities that WE agree we need? How about if the Cash for Clunkers deal in addition to having some stimulative effect on the economy creates a net decrease in energy use as well as emissions, isn't that a win/win?

How about instead of waiting "years to build clean facilities" we create both carrot and stick to make this happen faster? The bottom line is that NO ONE who uses/generates/refines conventional energy pays the full price of that energy choice. Only those that generate their own power with sustainable methods, power their transport that way, fuel the transport of their food that way etc. can be said to be paying the "real and total" cost!

I guarantee you, (those that want their beloved free market to rule) that if we were forced to pay the real cost rather than passing it off on future generations alternatives would abound. The reality is that Pv solar is CHEAPER on a kwh basis than conventional power during peak times in California. The noise we here about how expensive it is, is due in large measure to the artificially low power rates we pay due to subsidized (BPA/TVA etc) power rates. Other utilities benefit even if they are not a direct customer of these, mostly due to cheap coal that doesn't BEGIN to cover it's cost(s).

I know others who will use BPA or TVA as an example of "government interference, and indeed I concede the point. The reality is that these organizations served a cogent, rational purpose in the 1930's. It is time to rethink the rationality of these projects and consider alternatives.

For example currently BPA is selling power for ~$.028 a kwh! The market is closer to $.15 and peak can excede $.35 in some markets. If we were to rationally raise the BPA rate to say $.10 kwh and use the money to reduce consumption/develop RE and fund conservation it would be a win/win,,,, but people would howl to pay the added cost even if it is still not the "real" cost.

Icarus

 

I don't think that has been shown anywhere. There are countless examples of free-market failures and successes, as well as countless examples of government failures and successes. The reality, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. The "free market" -- as understood in the US -- cannot efficiently operate without some kind of central control for things such as weights and measures, currency, disputes, etc. In many cases, this central control is the government, but not always (ANSI, ASTM, SAE, etc).

The free market never has unintended consequences? I don't even know where to start. The unregulated "free market" has resulted many ecological disasters, for one.

Regardless of which method is better or worse, you have yet to advance one free market solution to CO2 emissions.. just some hand-waving about how the magical market can do it better than government (as long as the government subsidy is there).

There obviously has never been a private program that underestimated demand.

KFC/Oprah, anyone?

This is simply hogwash. It's impossible to make a conclusion about the climate without looking at all the pieces. Now you'll probably claim that this is exactly what IPCC is doing, but that is demonstratively false. See IPCC4-WG1 Chapter 9.

 

Going back to the original topic for a sec:

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June

"July 17, 2009

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880."

 

Ya cant trust Noaa,, there notting but a bunch of gov'ment "propaganda scientists!

Icarus

 

Certainty is the firm conviction that something is true. I am firmly convinced there is no god because there is no evidence at all for its existence. If there was even an argument for gods existence I would be less certain, but there isn't.

None of what you quoted from that strange, strange website has anything to do with god. Just questions for which there is no answer yet. No need to invoke a deity.

I believe likewise in the non-existence of werewolves and living mummies. What is your stance on these too. Are you agnostic about werewolves?

 

Damn, Alric beat me to it...

Warmest seas on record

 

The warm seas effect showed up in that deviation map posted earlier. We had a cool July here (June was normal for this past decade...meaning hot compared to long term averages.) Unfortunately this means that the largest portion of the Earth was hot while we were cool.

 

That 'strange, strange' website (instapunk.com) presents a perfectly good argument for the existence of a creative and governing intelligence. I am not at all surprised that you cannot discern it.

 

A truly free market is self-correcting. When mistakes or unforseen circumstances arise, the market changes. Government run programs are unwieldy and are changed (if at all) slowly and with great difficulty. This is obvious to anyone who cares to look. The great example of capitalistic free-market success is the United States BEFORE the government began to intervene.

The Free Market versus the Interventionist State | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

An excerpt:

It is important to note that the interventionist system represented by these seven points can only be implemented through violent means. Only the threat or the use of force can make people follow courses of action that differ from the ones that they would have taken if not for government intervention. Thus while intervention is usually discussed under the heading “public policy,” there is nothing “public” about them. They are coercive policies carried out by politicians and bureaucrats.

Contrast these policies with the free market, or unhampered economy, as we defined it. What is most striking is the voluntary nature of truly market-based social arrangements. Violence or its threat is reduced to a minimum, and the individual is left at liberty to live his own life and improve his circumstances through free association with others.

I posted the IPCC mandate a few posts ago. It states very precisely that its focus is man's effect upon the climate. Yes, the models include other climate drivers, but the only one they use that makes a serious difference in their models is CO2. There are so many diverse drivers that they don't have a clue about that it's ridiculous.

They've got all their eggs in one basket and no matter how much they've tweaked the models, they don't relate to the measured reality:

A simple analogy on climate modeling – looking for the red spot Watts Up With That?

The satellites and weather balloons have been measuring for decades and there is no red spot. Period. The models are false. The theory is probably false.

 

Ask yourself this, how many years does it take to build a nuclear power plant? 10, 15? It is this interim time that I am referring to. You cant build a large scale power plant in a matter of a few months, it takes years. That is the point I am trying to get across.

If that were the case, how are the power companies surviving? When you consider the amount of infrastructure required to deliver power to a farmhouse 100 miles away from the power plant, it is staggering. Where are the subsidies coming from and who is paying them? If its from the government, guess who is paying for them, us taxpayers, so in essence we are already paying the cost, we just dont realize it.

As far as the "incentives" for hybrids, a small tax credit doesn't cover much, I think it raked me in a total of $13 on my tax return, I would much rather have had it knocked off the price of the car.