What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Knut Sand]

Høyh!

I'll quote:

it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

Quote end.

Uncertainities about when climbers started to observe loss of ice, doesn't nessesary mean the main conclusion is false; There's loss of ice in some (large) regions... I've been to some mountains in my life, too few... But some places, that I've been to more times; there's a trend; loss of ice... That's my observation and "feeling"...

and caused by?

There we'll have soot from human stoves (and increased number of people with stoves), co2, methane, natural variations. You can name it. But CO2 has some properties mechanical/ physical that can't be argued away from... But is it within the natural variations? I don't know, but I use the seatbelt in the car.... Life is uncertain, I still don't see no reason to not be careful.

And to those who say it's not warming... Well, here its cold as hell (Helheim, the vikings believed was a cold place). Radio warning to drivers... (here in Norway...?). But the birds still tend to come earlier in the spring... So what triggers the migration of the birds? The temperature and climate where they are in the winter, or the temperature the expext to find here...? Or is it as simple that they have been bought by IPCC?

Not all birds are blondes...

[Boston]

Miklos Zagoni is another odd ball if you ask me. Not a climate scientist but lots of opinion that is taken as gospel by the deniers given his flip flopping on the issues. Nationalism ?

interesting that the paper you mentioned on radiative forcing was ignored though, two or three years down the road and still no citations, thats telling.
Or at least thats how papers got measured back in the day. Even one or two citations was considered being ignored depends on the subject of the paper .

I'll send him the rebuttal and see if he responds
if he does I'll send his response on to Levensen for comment
( I just used that e mail you provided and sent Levensen's rebuttal )

I do have to wonder why he would not engage in the defense process and just sent his paper to panel after panel hoping it would be eventually accepted

thing is the major publishers have excellent panels and can in detail review the validity of a work
as publishers get smaller there panels get more and more constrained in there expertise, eventually you might get a panel that knows nothing of the actual subject of a paper but passes it anyway.
which is why people seek out the "respected" or "prestigious" publishers when they are really on to something. Lends a lot of credibility to the paper to have say, the journal of science or the MMM publish there work.

just a thought
am wondering if you know if he made a defense and if those transcripts are available
there were apparently multiple rejections so he had multiple opportunities to make a standing defense

[Boston]

Hey Knut its not about the ice melting
its about "proof"
the deniers want unequivocal "proof" and not just the obvious observations of local people

its why they are called deniers
they simply deny anything is happening
ignore the evidence,the scientific process, the vast body of work in support of the theory, the physics, hopefully my spelling
and demand proof

you cant prove the force behind gravity either but
do you really want proof of its effects

the deniers would say
of course the ice is not melting
we have no proof
and never mind if the ice climbers have not had any ice to climb for a while

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Well, you should avoid expresions as "blatantly false" as many of us think you are the wrong one. As a matter of fact all clues (may I say facts?) lead us to think AGW "hard core" proponents are just a few dozens of scientists in the world, managing funds and power. They hide and treat data to their convenience, as well as struggle to ban opponents off the peer review process and main magazines. The majority remain silent or refute, and of those who follow either do it based in data provided and governed by the "team", or then do sustain warming but not the alarmism or defend AGW but caused by manmade influences other than CO2.

Cheers.

Well, no. I shouldn't avoid the expression 'blatantly false,' if it's appropriate. The vast majority of scientists worldwide don't believe AGW is a joke. And fasteddie has been involved in enough discussions to know it, I'm sure.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

When even the oil industry's geologists start climbing on board, who's left?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

In my opinion it is not absurd at all if you put it in its intended context.
And talking about absurdities, what do you think of this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

Cheers

Well, I agree that it's an absurdity. Someone needs to be fired, if the article is correct.

However, the fact that a few bits of supporting research or evidence may be absurd or wrong doesn't invalidate the entire premise. This is not the OJ trial, where defense lawyers get to argue that if even one little iota of evidence is questionable, unproven or wrong, we have no choice but to come back with a not guilty verdict.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I'm very, very sorry and heartly apologize. Someone gave me negative points referring to your post with the verses and I stupidly asumed it was you. Please admit my excuses.

Cheers.

A very gracious apology, and I certainly accept it. It was a reasonable assumption on your part, particularly since you don't know me personally.

[hoytedow]

AGW is still bovine scat.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

AGW is still bovine scat.

Ah, yer no fun. No weird quotes, nothing taken out of context, no questionable sources...just a flat statement of belief. How can I pick on you? There's nothing to get a handle on.

[hoytedow]

AGW would still be BS.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

AGW would still be BS.

BS; That would be the methane...
Lemme find the numbers om that one....

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by troy2000

A very gracious apology, and I certainly accept it. It was a reasonable assumption on your part, particularly since you don't know me personally.

I thank you for that. Sincerely.

Best regards.

[Guillermo]

Boston, it's not a matter if someone is an 'odd ball' or whatever, but if he's right or not or at least if what he says makes sense. When will you learn?

That kind of scorning attitude happens only in the GWA camp: There is no web site (at least up to what I know) in the Cool camp devoted to specifically list and attack opponents to the AGW CO2 theory, like they do in deSmogBlog, Real Cimate Wiki, etc, etc. Don't you realize that? Have you asked yourself why?

BTW, you confounded David Stockwell with a said "Stockton" in your post 4418. Who is he?

I'm curious to see if Miskolczi answers you.

And about your statements about his work not being admitted to peer review that's only your assumption, as the reviews you mention from RC Wiki and the like, are not at all part of a peer review process. And of course you have realized Levenson's rebuttal is neither a paper, but just a personal opinion published in his web site, while Miskolczi's paper has been published by the Hungarian Metereological Service, not by the Boy Scouts. Science is not only done in the USA, even you have to admit that. Don't commit the same kind of errors you attribute to others.

Cheers.

[hoytedow]

The desert spaces of the world are relatively reflective, except where plants capture light rays in the process of photosynthesis, simultaneously capturing and holding CO2 in the form of organic chemicals, primarily cellulose. When that natural reflection is disturbed by the introduction of "green" energy technology, in essence solar panel arrays, the result is the light is trapped and is transformed into energy of either mechanical or thermal type. Mechanical energy, such as used as the motive force in the electric car, inherently loses some efficiency in the form of friction, which we also know as heat. Thermal energy, having been transformed from electrical "friction" in resistance coils, is used to toast your breakfast scone, with that resultant heat also ultimately being lost to the immediate environment. Return the deserts to their natural state and restore their natural reflectivity.
The windswept places of the world are places where the great and lesser raptors fly in their rightful domain. These same areas are much-sought as installation points for huge wind machines that capture this atmospheric circulation generated by the sun to be converted into electricity which in turn is used to create mechanical and thermal energy so that one can drive the electric car and munch on a freshly toasted scone, this time at the expense of buzzards from the condors to the lesser vultures and seabirds from the albatrosses to the gulls and terns.
Oh, and the rich liberals who advocate these atrocities only want them placed in view of other world dwellers of a lower economic standing. They want all the supposed benefits of them but only if they don't actually have to look at them from their seaside villas or their Aspen retreats. What a bunch of hypocrits!
I will stick to burning petrol for as long as it is legal because it is put there by God for our use, and when that is all gone it is back to whale oil for me.

[troy2000]

Hoyt, I think the wind was put there by God, too. And it doesn't get used up, or harder and harder to access. And if you think wind farms don't get built where rich people have to see them, you haven't driven through Palm Springs anytime in the last forty years.

Nor do I think we'll ever manage to cover the deserts with enough solar panels to make any noticeable difference in their overall reflectivity--even if that were a legimitate concern, which I doubt. Solar panels are measured in square feet, and the desert I live in is measured in thousands of square miles.

[hoytedow]

Who said the wind gets used up? Don't try to put words in my mouth. So who has the right to decide which part of the desert or seaside is "ugly" enought for a crap farm?