Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
FutureSDguy
ParticipantBut they have eleven (ELEVEN!) scientists that say so. You seem to forget that modern science is done by voting.
Anyway I’m still looking for material that shows that the rate of global temperature rise in the past century is higher than it has been in the past, say 1000 years or so (or any time scale).
ParticipantConversely, one could say that the theory of anthropogenic CO2 warming is so weak that someone who is an amateur climate scientist (according to Wiki page on him) can debunk it.
If the record shows a strong correlation between the sunspot record and earth temperature (even at a decade-resolution in the past century), and we know that earth’s temperature changes cannot cause changes in the number of sunspots, then it is reasonable to look here when describing climatic changes. IPCC does not appear to show any interest in it. To ignore other theories for global warming is unscientific.
ParticipantGreat exposition. I’ll have to try to pick it apart later.
One question: you discount orbital insolation? Does this mean you’re rejecting Milanhovich cycles as a driver of climate?
I’m reading this: http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
You may rebut that if you’d like.
ParticipantDrunkle: “it’s [junkscience] creator is politically funded.”
And what of IPCC?
ParticipantThere is a very good correlation between sun activity (measured in terms of sunspots) and climate. While that in itself is not proof, it gives probable cause. This is no different than looking at the ice core and seeing that CO2 is probable cause for causing temperature rise. Even if CO2 is disproven to cause the amount of global warming as originally purported, there will be those who will want to go through with the Kyoto treaty anyway (in other words, the guiding interest is not in understanding climate, but rather to enact a desired outcome.)
But I digress… Realclimate’s refutation of Svensmark’s, to give the benefit of the doubt, is probably scientifically honest. (I need to understand what is meant by GCR trends.) But in general, I find that Realclimate stands to attack any dissenting scientific opinion no matter whom it is from. That is why I think Realclimate and Junkscience has to be tempered with a view that they aren’t neutral.
It has not been proven that CO2 is the cause of 20th century warming, and at the same time solar activity is at an 8000 year high. The real killer, in my mind, is more likely to be the sun. There needs to be more research, and IPCC should not be telling the public about a 90% consensus and “the matter is settled,” because it’s far from that.
Chaos: “And asserting a hypothetical solar mechanism does NOT turn off the obvious, and experimentally demonstrated mechanism of GHG. …. How could it? How do you turn off known physics?”
Who claimed that solar variance turns off known physics? Remember, no one is claiming that there is only one factor that sets the earth temperature. It’s well established that GHC does modulate temperature, but there is no evidence that increases in CO2 really do lead to the kind of temperature rises observed. Remember, the Ice ages came and went without man’s help!
Actually in 2005 Svensmark demonstrated in the lab that cosmic rays do in fact cause condensation in an environment that was set up to replicate the earth’s atmosphere. This is a real-time experiment where results are seen immediately (i.e. it didn’t need to demonstrate any time-delayed effect.). The beauty is that he formulated a hypothesis based on knowledge of the relationship between ions and condensation, gathered funding, set up the experiment, performed it, and proven his hypothesis. This is the scientific method as it should be.
Chaos: “Never heardof that, but 0.5 billion years ago the Sun indeed could have been in a different configuration, and besides that is probably near the time of evolution of eukaryiotic cells.
More recently there was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum which had lots of extinction, with CO2 levels of 2000-3000 ppm, and crocodiles in the arctic. Permian-Triassic mass extinction may also have been caused by global warming from immense volcanism and release of oceanic methane hydrates.”
Fair enough–it’s not conclusive.
Chaos: “So if #2, noticing correlations in the geological record is unreliable, then your first comment is also irrelevant.”
I didn’t say the correlations are not reliable. There’s a clear correlation, but that does not establish causation, especially considering the 800-1000 yr lag.
Participantdup (getting server response really slow!)
ParticipantBorat: “That doesn’t mean that everything he says is true or false, but it does tell you what his motivation is. I find it incredible that people accuse scientists of having a financial motivation while ignoring the fact that many of the “debunkers” do too.”
This is all the reason to evaluate articles on their own merits, and weigh them against other sources. Source watch is a mechanism by which one tries to impugn the author and sway readers against considering the merits of the article. The more that you guys do this, the more I believe that you don’t have anything scientific to say.
ParticipantI do too in other areas outside of CO2 emissions; man pollutes the local environment. A half billion years ago–it is 450M or 650M, not sure–the earth was very cold yet had 10x CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 being the primary reason for 20th century warming is still an unproven theory that was borne out of 1. the need to assign blame to man for global climate change, and 2. noticing correlations in the geological record.
Let them call me FutureSDoilguy. Chances are they guzzle more gas than I do because i don’t have the need to drive much. Their obsession with “big oil” just further shows that they don’t have any real science to stand on.
ParticipantBoth junkscience and realclimate are advocacy blogsites. Realclimate, to me, is a handbook for countering AGW skeptics, not unlike what religious cults have to counter outside influences and criticisms. Junkscience is the same in the opposite direction. I don’t think citing either one proves anything other than establish whose side we are on, and one must read between the lines to sense bias and scientific validity. In the end, only one side can be right: either man’s CO2 0.28% contribution to greenhouse gases (source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) is going to cause the earth’s temperature to skyrocket out of control (source: An Inconvenient Truth), or man has nothing to do with climate change, and the point of having these debates is to compare notes, challenge our biases and suppositions, and hopefully force the other side to submit to reason.
ParticipantWhere’s the inconsistency? The only point to be debated here is whether creationism should be taught concurrently with evolution, or just one or the other.
ParticipantDrChaos: “Anthropogenic global warming was indeed suggested as a prediction for the future back in the 1960’s or 1970’s before the instrumental record clearly showed an abnormal trend. It was a prediction, based on physics. It turned out to be true.”
Do you have a citation for this 1960-70’s prediction of anthropogenic warming, based on physics?
Also, while you are at it, could you help me by pointing me to where the rate of temperature rise in the past century was greater than anytime since the last ice age? (I believe that this data is needed to show that the recent warming is not natural.)
Thanks
ParticipantLOL. True.
Participantjrp1, i’m not impressed by your posturing. I would suggest you read some of the links I provide and rebut them. Your personal attacks are not helping to demonstrate AGW whatsoever. By “extra-terrestial” I am referring to solar influences. There is no definitive evidence that CO2 caused the global warming this century. That is my premise. Now contradict it, and spare me your posturing. And don’t even dare to question my interest in the truth.
Participantdup
-
AuthorPosts