Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1601  
Old 23.10.2013, 10:56
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Quote me.
Quote:
View Post
There is, however, a vast consensus due to overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening and that human activity... is a major factor.
Quote:
View Post
Indeed. Probably the most scrutinised science since Evolution, and faced with near identical detractors using near identical techniques.

Yet still the vast majority of evidence agrees with it (as it did with evolution).
Quote:
View Post
The science behind climate change is as settled as most science ever gets.
All your words.

You are probably one of the most massively blinkered positivists I've ever seen. Science is not objective- it is a subjective interpretation of what is around us; simply because one uses numbers or empirical methods does not and cannot completely remove the subjectivity. Once you understand that this subjectivity exists, you realize that science is a debate- the numbers can and do lie sometimes, especially when climatologists' funding, careers, and reputations ride on them. I've shown you evidence that AGW/ACC is NOT a proven theory, and you've been patently unable to look at any of it with anything approaching the objectivity you believe science to have.

All the scientific disciplines are engaged in massive debates all the time. Even when the numbers are agreed upon, there is massive debate about what they mean, and what we should do moving forward. Results are always open to interpretation, especially when statistical methods are used. Claiming otherwise just makes you a lunatic.
Reply With Quote
  #1602  
Old 23.10.2013, 11:08
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
All your words.
And not a single mention of "proven" amongst them.

Quote:
You are probably one of the most massively blinkered positivists I've ever seen. Science is not objective- it is a subjective interpretation of what is around us; simply because one uses numbers or empirical methods does not and cannot completely remove the subjectivity. Once you understand that this subjectivity exists, you realize that science is a debate- the numbers can and do lie sometimes, especially when climatologists' funding, careers, and reputations ride on them.
So we're back at decades of worldwide conspiracy, I see.

Quote:
All the scientific disciplines are engaged in massive debates all the time. Even when the numbers are agreed upon, there is massive debate about what they mean, and what we should do moving forward. Results are always open to interpretation, especially when statistical methods are used. Claiming otherwise just makes you a lunatic.
Indeed. Fortunately, I never claimed otherwise.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1603  
Old 23.10.2013, 12:57
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And not a single mention of "proven" amongst them.


So we're back at decades of worldwide conspiracy, I see.


Indeed. Fortunately, I never claimed otherwise.
Now you're hashing over words (proven) and claiming that I said "conspiracy"? I've never said conspiracy.

You've claimed all along that AGW is happening, when it most clearly is NOT. You've cited a small handful of sources, but primarily one limited source; I've offered over a thousand(none of whom you've actually been able to disprove, btw.). You are incapable of seeing how incomplete our understanding of global climate and global weather is; we cannot even accurately determine how much rain fell on Earth yesterday.

Climate science is one of the most extrapolated, assumption ridden disciplines. I've pointed this out several times and you've ignored it. This claim that humanity is "unnaturally" warming the planet through the release of greenhouse gases cannot even be discussed, because nobody has been able to define what "natural" warming is, or what the temperature of Earth should be. But, hey, it's warming... From what? What is the baseline here? Ask 10 climate scientists, you'll get 10 answers, all different. Just like all those predictive models that didn't actually predict global temperature change; if they were good and accurate, they would not only agree in direction, but also in magnitude, and would more closely agree with each other. Instead, we see models that are orders of magnitude off, which tells me two things: we don't know squat about our climate and that the priests of climatology are trying to scare us by magnifying the problem beyond what it actually is.

AGW/ACC is BULLSHIT. Period. Full Stop.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1604  
Old 23.10.2013, 15:46
PlantHead's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,686
Groaned at 65 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 2,702 Times in 1,015 Posts
PlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I haven't read 81 pages of this thread, however it strikes me that if you are saying that climate change is not anthropogenic, then how are you accounting for the GMST increase since the industrial revolution?
There is a fairly steady set of results dating back to the 1650's in the UK and they show a pretty pronounced increase in temperature of around 0.5°C per century from the mid-19th century. This is an increase 5x's greater than normal, which would suggest to me that there is something external affecting the climate.
Reply With Quote
  #1605  
Old 23.10.2013, 16:01
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I haven't read 81 pages of this thread, however it strikes me that if you are saying that climate change is not anthropogenic, then how are you accounting for the GMST increase since the industrial revolution?
There is a fairly steady set of results dating back to the 1650's in the UK and they show a pretty pronounced increase in temperature of around 0.5°C per century from the mid-19th century. This is an increase 5x's greater than normal, which would suggest to me that there is something external affecting the climate.
What results? And 5x greater than what "normal"? What is the "normal" temperature increase? What, even, is the "normal" temperature of the Earth? And who in the UK in 1650 (or the 1850's for that matter) had global climate data that could be used to determine this half a degree change?
Reply With Quote
  #1606  
Old 23.10.2013, 16:16
PlantHead's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,686
Groaned at 65 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 2,702 Times in 1,015 Posts
PlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
What results? And 5x greater than what "normal"? What is the "normal" temperature increase? What, even, is the "normal" temperature of the Earth? And who in the UK in 1650 (or the 1850's for that matter) had global climate data that could be used to determine this half a degree change?
Central England temperature records (available online if you want to read it all). Gordon Manley collected data going back to 1650 for central England, you could maybe call the data before about 1720 a bit sketchy, however from that date onwards the records are good to within 0.2°C. (and even previous to that date they are probably good to 0.5°C)
This does of course only show that temperature increase was a local thing rather than global but then you look at records from other countries and they all say the same thing, that the trend is upwards.

Normal for a certain area can be found by taking cores and looking at the vegetation that was present. Different pollen types = changing climate.
Gives us a pretty good idea of what a normal temperature change time scale should be. (The French have a pollen record going back 140,000 years)

I think it is proven that temperatures have been increasing at a greater rate than previously since around 1850. So if the change isn't caused by human activities what has caused it?


Last edited by PlantHead; 23.10.2013 at 16:33. Reason: For Graph
Reply With Quote
  #1607  
Old 23.10.2013, 16:20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

1850?

Hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1608  
Old 23.10.2013, 16:50
PlantHead's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,686
Groaned at 65 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 2,702 Times in 1,015 Posts
PlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?


relevant?
Reply With Quote
  #1609  
Old 23.10.2013, 17:31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
relevant?
Not sure if DB was getting at this, but measuring a temperature increase starting from an exceptionally cold period doesn't inspire me with confidence in the result; starting ten, or fifty, years before said little ice age, or indeed after it, might paint a very different picture.

It's called 'confirmation bias' where you look for data to support what you already suspect. Not often is it as obvious as this, but if people are still using it then clearly not everyone has yet realised.

And maybe the data taken from other points does still support the argument, I don't know, but by using stats so clearly compromised as this the position is significantly weakened.

Oh, and
Quote:
So if the change isn't caused by human activities what has caused it?
also sounds a little foolish. It's a good example of circular reasoning: we know (or claim) that temperatures have been rising, we hypothesise that maybe human activity is part of the cause, then because we can't think of anything else, we take that as proven. Not good science.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1610  
Old 23.10.2013, 19:23
AbFab's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 8,226
Groaned at 347 Times in 237 Posts
Thanked 11,995 Times in 4,115 Posts
AbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond reputeAbFab has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So if the change isn't caused by human activities what has caused it?
It's a mystery to me, as it was at the end of the Bronze age:

Changing Climate May Have Driven Collapse of Civilisations in Late Bronze Age
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank AbFab for this useful post:
  #1611  
Old 23.10.2013, 21:38
PlantHead's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,686
Groaned at 65 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 2,702 Times in 1,015 Posts
PlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Not sure if DB was getting at this, but measuring a temperature increase starting from an exceptionally cold period doesn't inspire me with confidence in the result; starting ten, or fifty, years before said little ice age, or indeed after it, might paint a very different picture.

It's called 'confirmation bias' where you look for data to support what you already suspect. Not often is it as obvious as this, but if people are still using it then clearly not everyone has yet realised.

And maybe the data taken from other points does still support the argument, I don't know, but by using stats so clearly compromised as this the position is significantly weakened.

Oh, and also sounds a little foolish. It's a good example of circular reasoning: we know (or claim) that temperatures have been rising, we hypothesise that maybe human activity is part of the cause, then because we can't think of anything else, we take that as proven. Not good science.
The little ice age was a short term change in temperature which wasn't even experienced globally or during a specific time period. GMST was measured before and after and doesn't effect readings not in the northern hemisphere. The general trend is up. It was an irrelevant point.

I don't understand your reasoning. Temperature change has been, by scientists, accredited to human activity, this is the theory and is the accepted scientific stand point. This has then been supported by facts and figures and is totally scientific method. Theory supported by experiment and fact.
If you say that climate change is made up by scientists and actually isn't happening then you need to say why otherwise you have no argument, this is how you disprove a theory and prove your own.
I have no drum to beat, if you say the scientists are wrong then I am interested to hear why.

Abfab there are many theories for the bronze age collapse and climate change is one of them, however the time scales for the change are different and again not a global phenomenon, also it isn't proven.

Last edited by PlantHead; 23.10.2013 at 21:49.
Reply With Quote
  #1612  
Old 23.10.2013, 22:02
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Central England temperature records (available online if you want to read it all). Gordon Manley collected data going back to 1650 for central England, you could maybe call the data before about 1720 a bit sketchy, however from that date onwards the records are good to within 0.2°C. (and even previous to that date they are probably good to 0.5°C)
This does of course only show that temperature increase was a local thing rather than global but then you look at records from other countries and they all say the same thing, that the trend is upwards.

Normal for a certain area can be found by taking cores and looking at the vegetation that was present. Different pollen types = changing climate.
Gives us a pretty good idea of what a normal temperature change time scale should be. (The French have a pollen record going back 140,000 years)

I think it is proven that temperatures have been increasing at a greater rate than previously since around 1850. So if the change isn't caused by human activities what has caused it?
About "you could maybe call the data before about 1720 a bit sketchy, however from that date onwards the records are good to within 0.2°C. (and even previous to that date they are probably good to 0.5°C)"

Did you ever read the "Handbook of Climatology" published in 1903 & now aailable free here. It was written by Julius Hann.
He has some interesting observations on the accuracy of the recordings of mean temperatures.
Reply With Quote
  #1613  
Old 23.10.2013, 23:39
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Now you're hashing over words (proven) [...]
No, I'm highlighting that I never said anything was "proven".

"Proven" is a very strong word, even colloquially. It implies no other alternatives are possible. I have never taken that position, because that's not how science works.

Quote:
[...] and claiming that I said "conspiracy"? I've never said conspiracy.
One of your core arguments is that the vast majority of climate scientists, for decades, have been colluding to tamper with data and fabricate results.

There's a word for that sort of thing, it's "conspiracy".

Quote:
You've claimed all along that AGW is happening, when it most clearly is NOT.
I have stated the evidence shows global temperatures are rising. Which they are.

Quote:
You've cited a small handful of sources, but primarily one limited source; I've offered over a thousand(none of whom you've actually been able to disprove, btw.).
No, I've cited a source that goes on to references numerous other sources. Which for some reason you think is different from you citing one source that references numerous other sources.

Quote:
You are incapable of seeing how incomplete our understanding of global climate and global weather is;
No, I'm quite capable of "seeing" that. I simply disagree with your implication that an incomplete understanding of a system precludes any understanding of that system.

By your logic we shouldn't build planes. After all, we have an incomplete understanding of gravity.

Quote:
we cannot even accurately determine how much rain fell on Earth yesterday.
So ?

Quote:
Climate science is one of the most extrapolated, assumption ridden disciplines. I've pointed this out several times and you've ignored it.
You have provided neither argument nor evidence that climate science carries any more "extrapolation" or "assumptions" than other fields of science.

Quote:
This claim that humanity is "unnaturally" warming the planet through the release of greenhouse gases cannot even be discussed, because nobody has been able to define what "natural" warming is, or what the temperature of Earth should be. But, hey, it's warming... From what? What is the baseline here? Ask 10 climate scientists, you'll get 10 answers, all different.
"Unnatural" warming would be, for example, attributable to "unnatural" causes (eg: digging up and releasing millions of years worth of stored carbon in a couple of centuries), or well outside of historical trends.

Quote:
Just like all those predictive models that didn't actually predict global temperature change; if they were good and accurate, they would not only agree in direction, but also in magnitude, and would more closely agree with each other. Instead, we see models that are orders of magnitude off, which tells me two things: we don't know squat about our climate and that the priests of climatology are trying to scare us by magnifying the problem beyond what it actually is.
All it tells me is that you don't like what people are telling you, and have to make up a whole bunch of reasons why they're all wrong.

Quote:
AGW/ACC is BULLSHIT. Period. Full Stop.
Then why doesn't the evidence agree ?

Last edited by drsmithy; 24.10.2013 at 00:22.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1614  
Old 24.10.2013, 06:49
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
No, I'm highlighting that I never said anything was "proven".

"Proven" is a very strong word, even colloquially. It implies no other alternatives are possible. I have never taken that position, because that's not how science works.


One of your core arguments is that the vast majority of climate scientists, for decades, have been colluding to tamper with data and fabricate results.

There's a word for that sort of thing, it's "conspiracy".


I have stated the evidence shows global temperatures are rising. Which they are.


No, I've cited a source that goes on to references numerous other sources. Which for some reason you think is different from you citing one source that references numerous other sources.


No, I'm quite capable of "seeing" that. I simply disagree with your implication that an incomplete understanding of a system precludes any understanding of that system.

By your logic we shouldn't build planes. After all, we have an incomplete understanding of gravity.


So ?


You have provided neither argument nor evidence that climate science carries any more "extrapolation" or "assumptions" than other fields of science.


"Unnatural" warming would be, for example, attributable to "unnatural" causes (eg: digging up and releasing millions of years worth of stored carbon in a couple of centuries), or well outside of historical trends.


All it tells me is that you don't like what people are telling you, and have to make up a whole bunch of reasons why they're all wrong.


Then why doesn't the evidence agree ?
Quiet, child. The grown folk are talking.
Reply With Quote
  #1615  
Old 24.10.2013, 08:03
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Central England temperature records (available online if you want to read it all). Gordon Manley collected data going back to 1650 for central England, you could maybe call the data before about 1720 a bit sketchy, however from that date onwards the records are good to within 0.2°C. (and even previous to that date they are probably good to 0.5°C)
This does of course only show that temperature increase was a local thing rather than global but then you look at records from other countries and they all say the same thing, that the trend is upwards.

Normal for a certain area can be found by taking cores and looking at the vegetation that was present. Different pollen types = changing climate.
Gives us a pretty good idea of what a normal temperature change time scale should be. (The French have a pollen record going back 140,000 years)

I think it is proven that temperatures have been increasing at a greater rate than previously since around 1850. So if the change isn't caused by human activities what has caused it?


So that we up into the 1970ies were victims of the GLOBAL FREEZING, and that in spite of all those cars on the roads, cars which were far more polluting than those around now
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #1616  
Old 24.10.2013, 12:29
PlantHead's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 1,686
Groaned at 65 Times in 49 Posts
Thanked 2,702 Times in 1,015 Posts
PlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond reputePlantHead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So that we up into the 1970ies were victims of the GLOBAL FREEZING, and that in spite of all those cars on the roads, cars which were far more polluting than those around now

I don't think you have understood what the graph is showing. That isn't absolute temperature readings. A temperature anomaly is measured against a reference value or long-term averag, in this case a period from the 60's. The graph is designed to show trends.
Reply With Quote
  #1617  
Old 24.10.2013, 12:50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The little ice age was a short term change in temperature which wasn't even experienced globally or during a specific time period. GMST was measured before and after and doesn't effect readings not in the northern hemisphere. The general trend is up. It was an irrelevant point.
My only point was that you undermine any credibility the graphs/figures may have had by choosing as a starting point a period known to have had lower temperatures that the periods immediately before and after. I'm not saying the theories are wrong, but why use supporting data that are subject to such criticisms?

Quote:
View Post
I don't understand your reasoning.
Good, as I wasn't making any. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
Quote:
View Post
Temperature change has been, by SOME scientists, accredited AT LEAST PARTIALLY to human activity, this is the theory [YES] and is the accepted scientific stand point [What does that even mean? ].
See amendments in bold. Extrapolating from the actual position and claiming a universal acceptance of a theory as if it's been proven is another mistake in you arguments. And again, it doesn't make you wrong, but it weakens your case considerably.

Quote:
View Post
Abfab there are many theories for the bronze age collapse and climate change is one of them, however the time scales for the change are different and again not a global phenomenon, also it isn't proven.
Hey, just like the current theories then!
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1618  
Old 24.10.2013, 20:51
Mark75's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: by the lake (either one)
Posts: 2,510
Groaned at 45 Times in 39 Posts
Thanked 3,136 Times in 1,363 Posts
Mark75 has a reputation beyond reputeMark75 has a reputation beyond reputeMark75 has a reputation beyond reputeMark75 has a reputation beyond reputeMark75 has a reputation beyond reputeMark75 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
[...]but why use supporting data that are subject to such criticisms?
Maybe, just maybe, because a different reference point might not lead to the results desired...?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Mark75 for this useful post:
  #1619  
Old 23.11.2013, 19:41
FrankZappa's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France, near Geneva
Posts: 868
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 2,775 Times in 727 Posts
FrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond reputeFrankZappa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I have not contributed to this errr "debate" until now, due to the shrill tone of much of it. I'm sure it's great fun if you enjoy mud wrestling , which I don't.

I just finished a beautiful article in the American Institute of Chemical engineers journal*. A publication that can hardly be accused of hidden finance by Greenpeace. Many of the articles are about how to optimize oil refineries.

The author's conclusions are clear and his explanations are straightforward, for someone with a degree in a numerate subject. To cut things short: global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 rise is due to burning fossil fuels.

End of the abstract: "That the Earth has warmed and that Green House Gases are responsible is unequivocal. The Earth's climate sensitivity and the effect of aerosols complicate answers to the question: how much warming and how soon?".

* "Insights on global warming", J.H. Seinfeld, AIChEJ, 57, 3259, 2011
__________________
Whatever works
Reply With Quote
  #1620  
Old 23.11.2013, 22:09
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I have not contributed to this errr "debate" until now, due to the shrill tone of much of it. I'm sure it's great fun if you enjoy mud wrestling , which I don't.

I just finished a beautiful article in the American Institute of Chemical engineers journal*. A publication that can hardly be accused of hidden finance by Greenpeace. Many of the articles are about how to optimize oil refineries.

The author's conclusions are clear and his explanations are straightforward, for someone with a degree in a numerate subject. To cut things short: global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 rise is due to burning fossil fuels.

End of the abstract: "That the Earth has warmed and that Green House Gases are responsible is unequivocal. The Earth's climate sensitivity and the effect of aerosols complicate answers to the question: how much warming and how soon?".

* "Insights on global warming", J.H. Seinfeld, AIChEJ, 57, 3259, 2011
I see you did not quote the sentence " Climate sensitivity is determined by the strength of feedbacks, of which cloud feedback is the most uncertain "
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0