Global warming skepticism

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by Derek

Paul Ward wrote,
" Before it was discovered there wasn't a ozone hole, measurements have been taken since the 1950's: "

How the heck can you say, or know that. ROFLMAO.
(Unless you assume it is man made of course...)

Follow the link to the British Antarctic Survey site - here it is again (sigh):

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_ba...ory.php?id=171

I used to work for BAS - that's (partly) how the heck I know.

This is getting very dull now - you have your figurative fingers in your ears and are whistling - enough.

[Derek]

Talking of fingers in ears...
Quote,

" The amount of ozone overhead should follow a regular seasonal pattern. This is what occurred during the first 20 years of BAS measurements, but by the late 1970s clear deviations were observed. In every successive spring the ozone layer was weaker than before, and by 1984 it was clear that the Antarctic stratosphere was progressively changing."
This is presumably the referred to data.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html - bottom of page.

The "Hole"
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/history.html

From first link,
" The September 27th edition of Nature has a news item that calls into question existing theories that explain the formation of the ozone hole. The note details research which shows that the rate of photolysis of the chlorine monoxide dimer may be an order of magnitude lower than previously thought. Whilst this needs further investigation and verification by other groups, it does not invalidate previous work which shows an unequivocal link between the abundance of chlorine monoxide and ozone depletion. The news note does not mention bromine monoxide, which also plays a significant part in ozone depletion. "

It does seem that the whole situation is a lot more complicated than it at first appears, and is not as well understood as portrayed.

As with AGW and CO2 is driving climate, that is a massive oversimplification that simply can not be true for something as complicated as climate, or probably Ozone.
Natural processes have to be included to account for the observed variation. Root cause is what we need, not arbitrarily assumed homosapien guilt.
Much of AGW "theory" relies on magnification of known processes, by hypothetical processes that are simply guessed at. In some instances, particularly with modeling, even the signs are probably wrong.
Here, is a link that makes the point rather well about feedbacks that can appear positive, when really they could be negative. It could effect far more than climate models.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/...ncer-12302007/

To not include whatever caused past variation in climate models and AGW theory is a complete misnomer. But, simply this is what has happened with AGW, ignoreing or dismissal of natural processes and variation.
Is it any wonder there are, and should be skeptics..

[psr]

Well done Derek!!! Spoken like a true ostrich!! Now will you please get your head out of the sand honey??

I wasn't actually going to get involved but unfortunately the ex-scientist in me couldn't resist. Derek dear, people like you encourage exploitation and misuse of the world and consequently the environment. Now, this may offend you but I guess I can afford that privilege because...well because I can!

You have been on the defensive since you graced this site with your presence. I have nothing to do with this site other than being a mostly passive observer. However, I have read your charming tirade but I must admit that I am beginning to wonder whether you are indeed "reading" all that you are reading. Obviously the world does go through "seasonal" changes (yes, I know what that means so please don't trouble yourself with an explanation). However, the fact still remains that as humans we are doing the world irreparable damage. This damage may be "seasonal" but even you with your scholarly and peer-reviewed information from junkscience dot com etc etc cannot dispute this alarming and important information. Yes, there is evidence to suggest that the ozone hole is beginning to repair itself. However, not knowing your age I cannot judge how well acqunaited you are with the various campaigns that were designed to give the ozone hole a chance "to get better." Maybe, and this is just going out on a limb, the fact that as a planet, we have changed many of our ozone-layer depleting activities...... would suggest that yes the ozone hole is making an effort to repair itself. Besides, why take risks when either way we can benefit?? If we believe that the world is being damaged and we take care we will still have the world in better shape regardless of whether the ozone can take care of itself or the world is going through "seasonal" changes.

If this has offended you then please PM me. I don't think the rest of the international public should be privvy to your verbal tantrums. I don't mind reading them alone with a big bag of popcorn and a large coke.....for entertainment value!

psr

PS Thank you for brightening my Saturday morning! I'm beginning to shake off this summer cold and it's all thanks to your learned comments.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by psr

Well done Derek!!! Spoken like a true ostrich!! Now will you please get your head out of the sand honey??

I'm not surprised to see there is more than one prepared to lower the tone around here.
Taking a stance that the science is settled, is completely unscientific, and by far and away the WORST lowering of the tone possible.
That stance in itself is far, far worse than anything I can write (OK, type)
or insults that can be thrown at me. Hence I won't loose site of the bigger issue, the science.

To delete a link (as done elsewhere on this site) to
Jeffrey A. Glassman PhD - The Acquittal of CO2
plainly is not in the interests of expanding our knowledge or understanding.

The scientific method, as I understand it, is the proposal of a hypothesis,
that is then tested against empiracal data and / or observation.
The hypothesis either passes or fails these tests.
AGW has failed these tests.
The denial of this is anti-scientific.
Lord Keeling famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir."
Undeniably the science has moved on.

AGW and Climate change are also two completely different ideas, that in any real sense are actually mutually exclusive. ie It's one or the other, NOT both.
The recent change of phrasiology to Anthropogenic Climate Change is an obvious attempt to bridge this, (logically) unbridgable gap.

I am no oestrich, but I do seek the truth, that is THE truth, or at least a far better idea of what it might be,
not an unproven (and failed) hypothesis's version of the truth. ie AGW.

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by Derek

I'm not surprised to see there is more than one prepared to lower the tone around here.

Derek, you are just downright rude at times, I ignored some instances previously as it was in response to what may have been provocative comments by me. Take this as a warning for an imminent "holiday" from posting.

You don't discuss, you just attack.

Originally Posted by Derek

AGW and Climate change are also two completely different ideas, that in any real sense are actually mutually exclusive. ie It's one or the other, NOT both.

Well thank you for at last revealing your hand and true beliefs. If AGW is true, then it leads to climate change? No? surely even you can see that?

[Derek]

In my first post in the "introduce yourself " section I opened with...

"I'll not hide behind owt, I'm a skeptic."

I'm not sure how that was concealing anything, it was there for all to see, if they wanted.
Well it would of been if you had not deleted the whole post.
I concealed nothing, you deleted it.

If AGW was true why does it not include natural variation......

I do discuss, it is here that flatly denies to accept or discuss anything that does not agree with your preferred hypothesis.

As for down right rude, as I said earlier,
" OK, fair enough, it's your site, but you've set the stage. "
I think you missed my point.
Let's be honest here, I'm the one who has got the thread "civil" again,
not yourself or psr.

By the way, as I'll no doubt be enjoying a "holiday" soon, why not copy and paste this link into a folder.
(You do not have to follow it now - but it would help - WINK...)
http://www.space andscience.net/id16.html - (Link broken - just copy and paste it to your address bar if interested.)
In 5 years follow the link and ask yourself, should I have discussed more.....

Einstein - "The mind works best when it is open."
Wise words.

[Paul Ward]

Too right the link was broken!

I've never heard of the "Space and Science Research Center" and it seems that neither has anyone else, this guy sums it up best:

Looks like a hoax to me


...Essentially every single aspect of that website looks bogus to me. No papers or other staff people are mentioned; "Casey's" email address looks bogus, etc etc.

.....

SSRC has on its staff of consulting scientists, some of the world's best known experts in the field of solar physics pertaining to the research into the matter of the coming major solar minimum.

If the above claim were true, doesn't it seem likely that the site would provide some actual names?

Doing some Googling, I found the alleged research center's address and fax number at an unrelated website for what's supposed to be an investment company. I also found that the "research center's" phone number matches that of an attorney at an unrelated address.


Update:Leif Svalgaard wrote:

The ?Space and Science Research Center? and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ?experts?. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/0...oax-to-me.html

You appear to have very limited abilities of discernment Derek and are happy to peddle any old spurious garbage that matches your preconceived ideas.

You claim I deleted an entire post of yours - not true.

You are at best misguided, at worst you know exactly what you are doing and revel in the rhetoric and banter regadless of truth/honesty or accuracy.

Have a nice vacation.

[psr]

Ahh, Derek,

You have truly given me much food for thought.......
"Hence I won't loose site of the bigger issue, the science"...this is your quote. Please make sure you lose and not loose site of the bigger issue.

Well, I guess I have become embroiled in this charming exchange of ideas and literary knowledge and my advice to you is that instead of quoting dead and semi-dead people why don't you get you own ideas???? Though, in all honesty, I must admit that I was grudgingly impressed with the information and quotes you have gathered. Perhaps it is an indication of the amount of time you spend reading in order to better educate yourself in which case I should commend you on your diligence. However, would your time not be better served in a more active role? For example, being such a seemingly learned person, you could use your indoubtedly superior intellect and research skills to enhance the knowledge of those less fortunate than you. I am speaking of the masses who are in denial about the dangers of such things as the ozone layer, and environmental devastation etc etc etc. Oh! Hang on! That means someone like you! Goodness me! Please forgive the transgression. I guess you are doing your job! Well carry on. May the force be with you and all that!

Before I forget, I must thank you Derek for providing me with a light-hearted diversion even if it is becoming a little tedious.

Love forever and until the ozone layer becomes completely depleted because foolish people want to stick their head in the sand,
psr

P.S. Derek, did you know that ostrich eggs are bigger than their brains?? And that is scientific!

[40BelowJoe]

Well I'm on the ropes!

I do believe that global warming is real and will have long lasting adverse effects on this world!

But in my humble research ventures I've discovered a great many things that go way beyond our ability to understand them especially when we are all fighting for special insterests and in our own ego maniacle ways we tend to take sides instead of taking action!

We know from the fossil records and through paleo climatology, that the earth has naturally gone through it's own climate shifts and warming trends.

In addition to this it has also undergone massive Ice ages as well as mini ice ages. For the most part all of these events took place naturally without human cause or intervention!

But when we compare the data from then and now it is appearent that this time it is happening at an exponentially faster rate than ever in the past!

I have no doubt that we as humans through industry have altered mother nature's natural cycles when it comes to these warming and cooling trends!

As a thermo-dynamic engineer, I'm forced to take into consideration the amounts of particulate matter we have added to the stratosphere since the industrial revolution untill now... some things we've put into earth's atmospere will not go away for hundreds of years.

There is a difference between ozone depleaters and green house gasses.

Ozone depleters are hcfc's, cfc's and hfc's as well as congregate aerosols and halyne gasses that we have pumped into the atmo for decades. They break down the O3 content in the upper stratosphere hence causing more direct solar radiation to reach the earth's surface! Adding to a global ambient temperature rise.

Green house gasses are different, they trap heat, the 2 most popular are water vapor and carbon dioxide. These gases prevent the earth from expressing the daily solar ratio of heart that it absorbs from the sun.

In my mind there can be no doubt that global warming is real and happening as we speak.

The only question is.... ...how much is a naturally occuring event, and how much of it is our fault? And how long do we have untill we reach point critical.
Have we not already arrived?

I tend to lead toward the latter.......... we as humans are poisoning our home, mother earth, in ways our children will only be abled to know for sure!

We should stop arguing about it, and do something!

Question: Would you trade a certain percentage of your lively-hood, for the well being of your grand children's and great grand children's future?

I would without a doubt.... ...but they're are people alive in the world today who would not!

How about you?