A nice anti-AGW synopsis

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Liability, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Actually, the article is more of a recapitulation of recent exposures of the improper behavior of the proponents of AGW, like the IPCC and East Anglia College.

    I will not copy and past the entire piece, but here is a nice excerpt and the link:

    The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail

    Yes. That's right. There's trouble in AGW Faither-ville.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    You do not understand the basis of religious faith. It is doubt that makes them believe. The more impossible the assertion, the deeper the belief.

    The postings of such as OldRocks and TruthMatters are like folks doing a rosary. Just repeat the assertions, and each assertion is a proof.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    File under: "Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are....."
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
    YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
    2009 01 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
    2009 02 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
    2009 03 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
    2009 04 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
    2009 05 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
    2009 06 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
    2009 07 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
    2009 08 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
    2009 09 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
    2009 10 +0.286 +0.274 +0.297 +0.326
    2009 11 +0.497 +0.422 +0.572 +0.495
    2009 12 +0.288 +0.329 +0.246 +0.510
    2010 01 +0.724 +0.841 +0.607 +0.757

    January 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.72 Deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    The last 13 months of temperature data according to that famous global warming advocate Dr. Spencer.

    Note the number of minus signs on the global temperature.

    All them minuses really do indicate a cooling, right?
     
  5. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Yet again, Moldy Crock, you try to engage in fraud.

    Listen Moldy Socks. Those of us who doubt AGW are not all denying that there IS some evidence that average global temperature has gone up somewhat in modern times. What AGW doubters DOUBT is the "A" part of AGW.

    Dr. Spencer has made note of some increase in temperature using satellite technology. Noting a temperature anomoly is NOT the same thing as an assertion that it is caused by human activity.

    HERE is what Dr. Spencer's web-site itself SAYS:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
    http://na.unep.net/publications/Himalayas.pdf

    The IPCC cites the World Wildlife Fund (WWF 2005) as its
    source. The WWF report states that “glaciers in the Himalayas
    are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if
    the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing
    by the year 2035 is very high”. The report makes no mention
    of the 500 000 and 100 000 km2 areas that appear in the
    IPPC statement. The WWF credits the 2035 prediction to a
    1999 report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology
    (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and
    Ice (ICSI).
    The ICSI stated that “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding
    faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate
    continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035
    is very high” (Down to Earth 1999). In the following paragraph,
    the same article went on to say “The glacier will be decaying
    at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the
    present 500 0001 to 100 000 km2 by the year 2035.” There was
    no reference to the Himalaya Mountains in this particular
    paragraph although, as shown above, they were mentioned
    in the previous one. The ICSI credits a United Nations
    Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
    report edited by V.M. Kotlyakov (1996) as its source.
    In that 1996 report, Kotlyakov wrote “The degradation of
    the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising
    ocean levels already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic
    rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived
    runoff . This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar
    glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic
    rates—its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2
    by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of
    inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian
    ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in
    some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the
    temperature latitudes”. In his statement, both the 500 000 and
    100 000 km2 areas applied to mountain glaciers world-wide,
    not just the Himalayas, and the prediction was for the year
    2350, not 2035.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
    Hmm..... LOL. You don't doubt that temperatures have gone up somewhat in modern times? My, my, seems that only yesterday all of you were yelling "it is cooling". Change your mind today?

    Well now, what would the increase be caused by. Sun? Nope, a decrease in TSI for the last few years. A very minor one, but still a decrease. Sunspots? Damned few of them, either in the last few years. Yet the last decade has been the hottest on record.

    Now what is left to cause the increase in the warming? How about the increase in the GHGs? And where did those GHGs come from? Hmmm...... could not have been from the giga-tons of coal and oil we have been burning, could it?

    Of course not, we have the two greatest minds of this century telling us it isn't the "Way Things Ought to Be". Ol Limpballs and Liability. Yesireeee Bob, great minds think alike.
     
  8. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    You probably don't realize that you're babbling incoherently, but I'll be pleased to highlight it for you.

    Temperatures go up and down. Climate is not stagnant. There were ice ages and periods of warming BEFORE humankind ever had anything approximating any actual "industry."

    SOME people might derive from those facts something instructive. But not you AGW Faithers. :cuckoo:

    YOU, by the way, chose to cite to Dr. Spencer. His noting that there is evidence of a recent temperature anomaly is HARDLY indicative that humankind is responsible for it, since his contention is that we (us mere humans, that is) don't have much of any climatological impact.

    The fact is that we have only a very sketchy knowledge of ALL the multitude of factors (and their various inter-relationships and cross-effects) to claim to know that so-called "greenhouse" gasses are responsible for any of these temperature anomolies, despite your most strident bleatings.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
    We have very solid knowledge that GHGs in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Not only from physics, but from the geological record.


    A23A
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,560
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,368
    Why yes, that is Dr. Spencer's contention. That is why it is so much fun citing him providing confirmaton of the effects of AGW.
     

Share This Page