ScienceChic says "Yes, the biggest driver of the warming is the greenhouse effect".
Yes, ScienceChic, you drank the coolaide. By accepting this "truth" there is no way in which you can be convinced otherwise. It is a tenet of faith and all other points of view are filtered by that tenet.
Arlen, I'm curious - have you read the original paper by Svante Arrhenius demonstrating the effects of CO2 and water vapor on ground temperature? Do you realize that it was published in 1896
, nearly 100 years before "global warming" became a politicized topic and "evil term"?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
ScienceChic wrote: Arlen, I'm curious - have you read the original paper by Svante Arrhenius demonstrating the effects of CO2 and water vapor on ground temperature? Do you realize that it was published in 1896
, nearly 100 years before "global warming" became a politicized topic and "evil term"?
Perhaps you could provide backup for this "ever growing body of papers and research" that is coming from the climate deniers. Be assured that if these are credible, I for one will certainly review such credible research. As yet, I have found few credible sources that would lend validity to the denial of global warming and/or greenhouse effect. There are theories that claim global warming occurs from solar disruptions or from ocean currents, but these are not supported by sufficient credible evidence to be viable. The other school for "scientific global deniers" is the claim that these patterns are historical. Yet they do not fit into historical trends, that when global temperatures have changed significantly, these occur over millenniums not 150 years or have occurred to global catastrophic events, such as multiple enormous volcanic activity.
I look forward to your contribution to providing the "ever growing body of research" in regard supporting climate denier claims.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
I am still waiting for the Rev to post a scientific responce to the link from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
You have the floor Rev.
Give us real climate denier science that does not come from a Blog.
More than willing to read it.
Believe me Rev, I really hope that Global Climate Change is no where near as severe as the Scientists say. Cheer me up and show me the facts.
This might well take several sites so I'll check back in a day or two.
whitegp wrote: I am still waiting for the Rev to post a scientific responce to the link from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
You have the floor Rev.
Give us real climate denier science that does not come from a Blog.
More than willing to read it.
Believe me Rev, I really hope that Global Climate Change is no where near as severe as the Scientists say. Cheer me up and show me the facts.
This might well take several sites so I'll check back in a day or two.
I'll play this game for a bit. What are the rules? Specifically, what would be the criteria for scientific opinion to valid? Does the scientist(s) have to be paid by some gov't agency or by a public grant, or can credentials and resume be enough? And do scientists have to address every exact study you choose? And is it ok if I just give one example at a time or must I try to dig up a list that rivals the number of human cause global warming supporters?
Just trying to avoid some of the usual nonsense by knowing the rules beforehand. I'm no expert on the subject but I do believe that much of the global warming debate has been fueled by politics. I'm no global warming denier, but I do understand how politicians operate... they use fear to push their agendas (on both sides)... so maybe this could be educational for myself and others.
This could be a very very long thread unless certain people enter and derail it with their usual puke... hopefully they will be "asked" to take their bs to the ring. And if I don't put up a new scientific opinion or study or article every day, it just means I don't have the time/patience/motivation/desire that particular day/week/month. Maybe others can join in and make this more worthwhile.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
whitegp wrote: I am still waiting for the Rev to post a scientific responce to the link from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
You have the floor Rev.
Give us real climate denier science that does not come from a Blog.
More than willing to read it.
Believe me Rev, I really hope that Global Climate Change is no where near as severe as the Scientists say. Cheer me up and show me the facts.
This might well take several sites so I'll check back in a day or two.
I'll play this game for a bit. What are the rules? Specifically, what would be the criteria for scientific opinion to valid? Does the scientist(s) have to be paid by some gov't agency or by a public grant, or can credentials and resume be enough? And do scientists have to address every exact study you choose? And is it ok if I just give one example at a time or must I try to dig up a list that rivals the number of human cause global warming supporters?
Just trying to avoid some of the usual nonsense by knowing the rules beforehand. I'm no expert on the subject but I do believe that much of the global warming debate has been fueled by politics. I'm no global warming denier, but I do understand how politicians operate... they use fear to push their agendas (on both sides)... so maybe this could be educational for myself and others.
This could be a very very long thread unless certain people enter and derail it with their usual puke... hopefully they will be "asked" to take their bs to the ring. And if I don't put up a new scientific opinion or study or article every day, it just means I don't have the time/patience/motivation/desire that particular day/week/month. Maybe others can join in and make this more worthwhile.
I don't consider climate change to be a game. However, here is what I would consider to be credible evidence and/or credible sources for evaluation of climate change denial science. The source should have a CV with actual background in the study of climate science. Their scientific evidence should be peer reviewed, and include actual hard data not anecdotal instances.
Here are examples of what I do not consider to be credible. oil and gas lobbyists giving op-ed pieces in right wing blogs. architecture professors. politicians (including but not limited to Al Gore and Sen. Inhofe). Heartland Institute. "evidence" based on opinions with no factual underpinnings or no factual data or selective data. Organizations that do not make public their funding.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
This is going to be rather difficult to debate based on the scientific terms I'm not familiar with but i will attempt to meet your basic requirements. There is a ton of stuff so I'll just pick out a section or two.
Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Richard Lindzen
Reconciling observations of global temperature change
Richard S. Lindzen and Constantine Giannitsis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Received 13 September 2001; revised 11 February 2002; accepted 28 February 2002; published XX Month 2002
What seems likely is that, as
has been frequently noted, the period is too short to infer
trends from any of the series since the trends estimated
depend greatly on the subintervals chosen. The effective
agreement of the satellite and radiosonde data, however,
permits us to consider longer periods. Before turning to the
longer records, however, it should be stressed that there is
no rigorous reason to suppose that atmospheric and surface
temperatures need track each other arbitrarily closely especially
over short periods, and changes in each can represent
a variety of mechanisms. Changes in oceanic upwelling and
downwelling, for example, can directly impact surface
temperature without directly impacting mid tropospheric
temperatures. Greenhouse warming, on the other hand,
impacts emission levels (ca 5 km) first, with the warming
communicated to the surface through a variety of mechanisms,
and with the surface temperature subject to ocean
delay [Lindzen and Emanuel, 2001]. The absence of midtropospheric
warming would, therefore, tend to rule out
greenhouse warming.
4. Concluding Remarks
[6] Comparing radiosonde global averaged temperatures
for the troposphere with surface temperatures over the
period since 1964, shows that the gross trends are almost
the same. This contrasts with similar comparisons since
1979 where trends for the troposphere from both radiosondes
and microwave sounders are nearly zero in contrast
to increases of about a couple of tenths of a degree C for
surface data. The longer series suggests that the increase in
tropospheric temperature occurred rather abruptly around
1976, three years before microwave observations began.
The suddenness of the tropospheric temperature change
seems distinctly unlike what one expects from greenhouse
warming, while the relative rapidity with which the surface
temperature caught up with the troposphere, less than about
10 years, suggests low climate sensitivity for a wide range
of choices for thermocline diffusion.
[7] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by grants
ATM9813795 from the National Science Foundation, DEFG02-
93ER61673 from the Department of Energy, and NAG5-5147 from National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors wish to specifically
thank John Christy for supplying current MSU results.
[8] The Editor would like to thank the reviewers of this manuscript.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
