Global Warming for Scientific Moderates

I had to Google AGW. That's how little I know. (Didn't know what the A stood for.) When I googled it, I was set straight on the A. But also my eye caught on this article:

The AGW Smoking Gun
Archived-Articles: The AGW Smoking Gun


If anyone reading this thread knows enough to understand what that is saying, and whether it has merit, I'd be interested in your input. In the meantime, back to the RealClimate link. And thanks again for the help.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).


Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
 
Judging from your "Thanking" of Crusader Frink's silly post, I'm guessing what you actually are seeking is a skeptic/denier site.

If you really want an unbiased, strictly factual take? Pick up an encyclopedia or science book. But I doubt your going to find much of what I suspect you seek.

If I'm correct and you're looking for a denial site, just google it. There's gaggles of'em.

In what universe can science not be deceptive?

What makes scientists so fucking honest and benevolent?

So all I have to do is spend 4 more years in college - get a masters in something scientific and you will only then believe me??

I didn't know trust was for sale.

Any real scientist would question anyways - thats what they do and that's how they advance science.

It just so seems politics are at the forefront of science these days rather than actual science. And these same assholes rely on the laymen to submit to them because they're laymen that will believe absolutely anything they cannot understand just as long as it comes from the right corrupter.

The notion that the scientific community is somehow honest and benevolent is downright bullshit and I feel sorry for anyone that believes that.

Now, I'm very fond of Geology and real geology contradicts nearly everything the AGW nuts have been spewing...

Not only that but there was once a time when AGW nuts were spewing human made global cooling using the same evidence they use today.

The geological record PROVES warming is a natural process and there are 20+ layers to prove that.

Only a dumbass would be shocked by "climate change" and would attempt to blame man given the notion that the climate has been changing since we had a "climate."

What a bunch of BS. Already posted what the AGU states concerning global warming.

Here you can find what the Geological Society of America states concerning global warming;

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.



Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

This is what real geologists have found when reviewing the evidence. There are many links on the site to other scientific organizations that are actively involved in the study of the warming.

One further point. There is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states that the AGW theory is wrong. And most have issued postition statements as strong as that of the AGU and the GSA.
 
I can safely say DO NOT trust ANYTHING oldrocks, konradv, or any of their pals or alter egos send you to..

They have all been shown to be full of it and post directly from the UN IPCC or worse, like oldsocks likes to post from greenpeace...

I can tell you that The IPCC, is not a scientific body but a political one. And The UEA was the home of ClimateGate.

The only way to get good accurate information on this anymore is to follow the links to the actual sources and data they usually list in a good article on it, and read it for yourself. The media knows if it bleeds it leads and if you put eco, green, or climate change in a headline and tell a scary story it will sell.

I recommend wattsupwiththat.com if you don't mind a lot of math and a very cerebral experience for the most part. I like this one personally. Facts about Climate Change Science and Ocean Acidification, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics
 
Now G-string, the sites that I gave Amelia are the premier scientific societies sites. The ones you gave are politically driven sites, with little or no peer reviewed data.

Sure, go ahead into your anti-peer review rant again, and expose yourself for the idiot you are. Peer review may not be perfect, but it far exceeds getting your scientific information from a drugged out radio jock, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.
 
Amelia- I dont know where your level of understanding is concerning AGW but there are numerous sites on the web with almost as numerous attitudes towards the subject. 'Watts Up With That' is a clearinghouse for day-to-day stories. even more important is the list of other sites in its blogroll, divided up into warmers, lukewarmers, skeptics and information only sites. Once you visit another site, check out their blogroll for more sites, and so on.

two of my favourite sites are 'the inconvenient skeptic' and e m smith's 'chiefio'. sorry about no links but I am posting on my phone.
 
Why should the US assume the responsibility for global warming? Let China worry about it while we get back on our economic feet.
 
LOL. Only because we have been the primary source of the GHGs that are presently causing the problem. Of course, China and India are doing their best to put as much GHGs into the atmosphere as we have, but they have a problem of a one hundred year catchup.

I am quite sure that we will do very little about our emissions, and they will continue to increase theirs. And we can all enjoy the inevitable results.
 
Now G-string, the sites that I gave Amelia are the premier scientific societies sites. The ones you gave are politically driven sites, with little or no peer reviewed data.

Sure, go ahead into your anti-peer review rant again, and expose yourself for the idiot you are. Peer review may not be perfect, but it far exceeds getting your scientific information from a drugged out radio jock, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.

Oldsocks you post someone else's interpretations of peer reviewed data, and for that matter the peer review process is not a "its a fact now" card you can pull out of your ass anytime you want.

Peer review is not a true or false committee despite what you think. The claimed Ice Age fro the 70's was peer reviewed too. So were many many other things later proven to be false.

BTW the links I gave her where to legitimate sources. You just don't like they do not have a greenpeace slant on them.

Peer review..:lol: Thats your calling card oldsocks
 
Nobody I know has stated that peer review makes what is stated a fact. All that does is gaurantee that the article that is published meets a certain level of methodology. The conclusions drawn from the article may be incorrect, but the science in the article was done correctly. And another scientist may see the correct conclusion based on the evidence presented. Watts and that ilk present stuff that barely passes the National Enquirer level of evidence.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
 
Nobody I know has stated that peer review makes what is stated a fact. All that does is gaurantee that the article that is published meets a certain level of methodology. The conclusions drawn from the article may be incorrect, but the science in the article was done correctly. And another scientist may see the correct conclusion based on the evidence presented. Watts and that ilk present stuff that barely passes the National Enquirer level of evidence.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

I don't know whats funnier.. The fact you post that same link every time the 70's ice age scare is mentioned or you just sat here basically calling peer review the answer to this only to say its not so now....:lol:

Socks you are a greenpeacer, you know it, I know it. You will do, say or try anything no matter how full of shit it may be just to sell their agenda...:lol:
 
Now G-string, the sites that I gave Amelia are the premier scientific societies sites. The ones you gave are politically driven sites, with little or no peer reviewed data.

Sure, go ahead into your anti-peer review rant again, and expose yourself for the idiot you are. Peer review may not be perfect, but it far exceeds getting your scientific information from a drugged out radio jock, or an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.

The one I gave is the best, hands down.
 
To that end ... do you know a good nonpartisan site on this topic?

Here are a couple that I read regularly.

Climate Etc.

Judith is a warmist. She believes in AGW and is a bonified climate researcher. To her credit, however, she does not censor skeptics and some pretty high powered skeptics regularly join discussions at her site.

It is interesting, and often quite entertaining to see the warmist argument go down in flames at the hands of physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, engineers, etc.

I also regularly read Roger Pielke's site:

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. | by Roger Pielke Sr.

Dr. Pielke is a warmist but is intellectually honest enough to question the mainstream and call bullshit when he sees it coming from the mainstream which is quite often.

CO2 science is most definately a skeptics site, but they deal almost exclusively with peer reviewed material that is skeptical of mainstream claims or disproves mainstream claims.

http://www.co2science.org/

I also read the hockey Schtick. Another skeptical site but again, mostly peer reviewed material that challenges mainstream claims and highlights the failures of mainstream climatology to predict anything like actual observations.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
 
If anyone reading this thread knows enough to understand what that is saying, and whether it has merit, I'd be interested in your input. In the meantime, back to the RealClimate link. And thanks again for the help.

Yes, the article has merit. Warmists often use one of the graphs in that article and point to claimed reductions in outgoing LW radiation. Of course, they don't give you the rest of the graphics so that you might actually compare one time frame to the next.
 
Amelia, with regard to the sites recommended by old rocks, I suggest that you ask him which parts of any of them he views as proof, or hard evidence of man's responsibility for the changing climate. He posts those links like they were scripture but remains unable to point to any part of them that he believes constitutes proof of anything. If you are looking for the dogmatic scripture of the church of AGW, then his links are just the thing but if you wan't actual science, look elsewhere.
 

Forum List

Back
Top