Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are deniers laughable or just pathetic with their latest scheme to make all climate s
#1
Yesterday there were attacks on physicists and every day they attack mainstream climate science. Will they end up doing damage to science as a whole in their attempt to continue the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels.
#2
Rolleyes

I see that you to come here swinging for the fence.Instead you strike out.

You started the thread in the wrong forum.
You wrote thread title too long.
You call us names.
Fact free post.

That is why I moved your thread to this forum.Al Gore's Sycophants.It seem a good place for you.

It is up to you to improve.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
#3
Interesting that he does not include a single link to any media source proclaiming these daily attacks on physicists and mainstream climate science. I wonder where all the lurid headlines went?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
#4
(07-24-2011, 09:13 PM)Melvin Detlefs Wrote: Yesterday there were attacks on physicists and every day they attack mainstream climate science. Will they end up doing damage to science as a whole in their attempt to continue the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels.

You call our side the "deniers" when your side has long been denying the effect that GCRs have on Clouds, the geological correlation between Solar Activity and temperature is flawed, and so on and so on...

The observational data does not in any way support your position at all!

You have probably heard every single part of the upcoming catastrophe that is coming from the media- that it is a fact that has been proven and proven again that humans are driving the current climate, and natural factors are very small compared to the human forcing.

But this is not true.

Let's start off with an indirect proof. If Carbon Dioxide were driving the Climate, then we would see a reduction in overall OLR, since the Greenhouse Gases are poised to create a reduction in OLR- if they are the drivers of the Climate.

However, what we can see from the observational data, is that OLR has actually increased during the time we were warming.

[Image: NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationA...verage.gif]

What we can see is that OLR has increased by 11 w/m^2 since the beginning of the satellite era.

According to the Climate Models, we should have seen a reduction in OLR at the TOA, due to GHGs trapping more and more of the OLR. But we haven't. Not at all.

This was seen by Lindzen and Choi's 2009 and 2010 papers. (LINK)

[Image: lindzen-choi-model-vs-reality.JPG?imgmax=400]

Here, we can see, as I explained earlier, that climate Models forecasted a downward trend in OLR at the TOA due to increased GHGs trapping OLR. We can see that reality shows that OLR has increased with temperature.

What does this all tell us?

It tells us that the warming is occuring through an increase in ISR, since if ISR were not increasing, and OLR was going up, we would experience cooling, since the energy leaving Earth, would hypothetically be greater than the Energy getting to Earth.

The only possible factor that could cause an increase in ISR and an increase in OLR, is decreasing Cloud Cover.

Decreasing Cloud Cover allows for more ISR to reach the Earth's Surface, but it also allows for more OLR to escape into space.

However, since Cloud Cover overall reflects more ISR than it traps OLR, if all clouds were to be removed, an extra 17 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget.

From Climate4you.com...

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

[Image: TotalCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif]

So we now know that it is impossible for CO2 to be driving the Climate, because of the reasons expressed above.

But how do the CAGW Proponents reach the conclusions that they do?

Well, often, they will show this graph which depicts a model that is modeling the Anthropogenic VS. Natural Forcings.

[Image: ipcc_model_vs_obs.JPG]


Note that according to the model, natural factors could not possibly explain the temeprature increase, because natural factors significantly diverge from observed data in 1979.

But as already shown above, the model got the OLR Vs. Temeprature Component completely wrong, which shows that the models are misinterpreting something. But what is it?

A paper was published in February 2010, that shows that Climate Models may be underestimating Clouds' role as a negative feedback by a factor of 4. (LINK)

Quote:

The implication of this optical depth bias that owes its source to biases in both the LWP and particle sizes is that the solar radiation reflected by low clouds is significantly enhanced in models compared to real clouds. This reflected sunlight bias has significant implications for the cloud-climate feedback problem. The consequence is that this bias artificially suppresses the low cloud optical depth feedback in models by almost a factor of four and thus its potential role as a negative feedback.


The models, which all catastrophic statements are based off of, have gotten the Cloud Feedback completely mixed up. We know that they have gotten mixed up, because they got the Temperature Vs. OLR component completely off.

"(It is) Foolish to believe humans can control global climate". Climatologist Dr. John Maunder- July 24, 2009

Visit my blog here:

http://www.snowlover123.blogspot.com
#5
(07-24-2011, 09:13 PM)Melvin Detlefs Wrote: Yesterday there were attacks on physicists and every day they attack mainstream climate science. Will they end up doing damage to science as a whole in their attempt to continue the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels.

It is the warmists that have done massive damage to science with their false theory of the greenhouse effect.

It is also typical that a warmist comes here says "denier" and makes a statement with no data or graphs to back it up. Pure propaganda, that's all it is!
#6
Snow nice presentation. I first caught it over on the other board. No great surprise those wizards of smart didn't like it. Well, done and I will check your blog from time to time. Melvin don't give up. Any question you have will be answered in an honest fashion. Myself not included this is the smartest board on the net.
#7
(07-25-2011, 07:33 PM)Goose52 Wrote: Snow nice presentation. I first caught it over on the other board. No great surprise those wizards of smart didn't like it. Well, done and I will check your blog from time to time. Melvin don't give up. Any question you have will be answered in an honest fashion. Myself not included this is the smartest board on the net.

Thank you! Big Grin The real question should be, is that if this statement that Melvin wrote is laughable or pathetic. Wink
"(It is) Foolish to believe humans can control global climate". Climatologist Dr. John Maunder- July 24, 2009

Visit my blog here:

http://www.snowlover123.blogspot.com
#8
(07-24-2011, 09:13 PM)Melvin Detlefs Wrote: Will they end up doing damage to science
Have you heard of Climategate, and the rewriting of the peer review process..By the small team of "consensus" main players?
Then there is the constant "publishing" of papers in "approved" journals without all the data or methods used.
Just which side IS abusing the scientific method?

(07-24-2011, 09:13 PM)Melvin Detlefs Wrote: as a whole in their attempt to continue the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels.

"unsustainable", "fossil fuels" especially with reference to oil, are you sure of your facts?

Please read Joe Postma's paper, you really need to, the earth is not flat after all.
Greenhouse Effect Theory exposed as mathematical wizzardy

You might also like to consider the meaning of my signature.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
#9
It has been two days and no reply by Melvin.

I suggest that we wait and see if he comes back,before we make any more comments.

Too many may make him nervous.

Smile

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
#10
(07-26-2011, 01:58 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: It has been two days and no reply by Melvin.

I suggest that we wait and see if he comes back,before we make any more comments.

Too many may make him nervous.

Smile

When they're confronted with facts, they flee.

I was actually kind of hoping that he would have stayed, so we could have completely torn his 'facts' to pieces.

No wonder why Al Gore won't debate! Idea
"(It is) Foolish to believe humans can control global climate". Climatologist Dr. John Maunder- July 24, 2009

Visit my blog here:

http://www.snowlover123.blogspot.com
#11
(07-26-2011, 08:47 PM)Snowlover123 Wrote:
(07-26-2011, 01:58 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: It has been two days and no reply by Melvin.

I suggest that we wait and see if he comes back,before we make any more comments.

Too many may make him nervous.

Smile

When they're confronted with facts, they flee.

I was actually kind of hoping that he would have stayed, so we could have completely torn his 'facts' to pieces.

No wonder why Al Gore won't debate! Idea

We had a guy who was here 1 1/2 years ago.A Lukewarmer,who started this thread.

the facts about global warming

He lasted for 15 postings and vanished.He had started his little blog forum set up.I went there and posted a few replies.I also reminded him that we were awaiting for his replies.

He never came back.I eventually stopped visiting his little place.

I tell you that Warmist/Alarmists AGW believers and even Lukewarmers are for some reason terrified of my forum.

Big Grin

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
#12
I recently had an eye opening experience. On Facebook a woman I have known for 20 years posted a link to a global warming story. Another friend and myself responded to her story not very forcefully, but clearly skeptical and still very measured and friendly. She deleted are contributions from her feed. She completely avoided a public debate on the subject. I privately contacted her and tried to strike up a conversation with her on the subject. She never replied. Next my very own father-in-law refused any information I might have on this subject. Scared cows die a very hard death.
#13
(07-26-2011, 09:18 PM)Goose52 Wrote: I recently had an eye opening experience. On Facebook a woman I have known for 20 years posted a link to a global warming story. Another friend and myself responded to her story not very forcefully, but clearly skeptical and still very measured and friendly. She deleted are contributions from her feed. She completely avoided a public debate on the subject. I privately contacted her and tried to strike up a conversation with her on the subject. She never replied. Next my very own father-in-law refused any information I might have on this subject. Scared cows die a very hard death.

I've had similar reaction about political stuff. Never forget, AGW is pure politics.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.J Robert Oppenheimer.
#14
(07-26-2011, 11:56 PM)Scpg02. Wrote:
(07-26-2011, 09:18 PM)Goose52 Wrote: I recently had an eye opening experience. On Facebook a woman I have known for 20 years posted a link to a global warming story. Another friend and myself responded to her story not very forcefully, but clearly skeptical and still very measured and friendly. She deleted are contributions from her feed. She completely avoided a public debate on the subject. I privately contacted her and tried to strike up a conversation with her on the subject. She never replied. Next my very own father-in-law refused any information I might have on this subject. Scared cows die a very hard death.

I've had similar reaction about political stuff. Never forget, AGW is pure politics.

That is why I avoid subjects like politics, religion and global warming on Facebook! My friends who I've talked to face to face know my views but I don't think a social networking profile is the right forum for me- I prefer to keep my Facebook profile for social reasons. The best way to use Facebook to debate issues is to start a group to debate such subjects- such as Fay Kelly-Tuncay's Repeal the climate change act facebook groups.

#15
I do not start these discussions. I agree social networking goes much better if these topics are avoided. However, my paticular group politics comes up every so often. The debates are friendly and sometimes lively. One guy I've known since grade school goes full contact and that makes me uncomfortable. I am no stranger to full contact discussions, but I engage in these with people I don't know personally. My outlook is if you can't or won't defend what you post than perhaps you shouldn't be posting it. To avoid debate and sanitize some responses you don't agree with is quite cowardly.
#16
Melvin appears to be a post troll.

:thumbdown:
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
#17
(07-27-2011, 08:43 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Melvin appears to be a post troll.

:thumbdown:

I don't think he is a real person at all. Possibly Greenpeace have started employing programmers to write Trollbots that post generic statements on climate realist websites.

#18
It is a real person.A loser from China.

Registration bots are blocked.

Thread is closed.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)