Global Warming is not Anthropogenic

[Meksilon]

If anyone would like to debate me on this, here is your opportunity.

Here are the facts.

Human activity has contributed to the rise in CO2 levels over the last 150 years or so. This increase, however, is also somewhat attributed to nature as the ocean is no longer "absorbing" as much CO2.

CO2 is the "largest" of the minor greenhouse gases; the only major greenhouse gas is H2O. Let me qualify what I mean when I say "largest". It has a greater "warming" effect than any other minor GHG.

Most GHG's absorb solar radiation that is reflected from the earth on its way back out to space. O3 is an exception, where it absorbs UV radiation on its way in to Earth. Even though the O3 layer is so thin it actually absorbs the vast majority of the radiation that it is capable of absorbing. Just like O3, CO2 absorbs the vast majority of the radiation that it is capable of absorbing. So atmospheric increases can only absorb a tiny amount more since the majority is already absorbed.

The most sophisticated climate modelling in the world attributing the rise in temperature to greenhouse activity contributes 47% of it to the CO2 increase (NASA); in fact NASA has been telling us that Methane and Black Carbon are large contributors for well over a decade. It most certainly is not 100% CO2 according to any serious climatologist.

We're still coming out of an ice-age; temperatures should be rising some amount anyway.

There is strong evidence that in the Medieval Warm Period temperatures rose as swiftly as they are presently and achieved a substantially higher global mean temperature then is at present; especially evidenced by the world's melting glacier's which have not yet retreated to MWP levels, and the fact that Viking remains (land cultivation, graves, etc) from the MWP remain under permafrost on Greenland to this day.

I'm a "global warming sceptic". And like most GWS's, I believe that CO2 has increased temperatures over the past 100 years, we (sceptics) all do. Yes, that's right, we believe the same thing that most global-warming alarmist climate scientists do. Only difference is I believe CO2 to be responsible for between 10-30% of the trend (most likely about 15%); whereas your climate alarmists generally believe it's anything from 40%-100%. NASA's scientists seem to think it's about 47%, and politicians like Al Gore like to say it's 100% and "truth".

If you want to have a good-faith discussion please reply. Please don't troll, I've studied the science and followed it for about 7-8 years, and my favourite climatologist is Richard Lindzen, a well-respected "mainstream" climatologist who contributed to the IPCC papers and shares the same view that I do as to CO2's role in climate change.

[Peo]

Scientists present their case in peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Conspiracy nuts present their case to random people on a free webhosting forum.

[ace2010]

Scientists present their case in peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Conspiracy nuts present their case to random people on a free webhosting forum.

hahaha
good point

[Meksilon]

Scientists present their case in peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Conspiracy nuts present their case to random people on a free webhosting forum.I couldn't agree more, especially with the E-Cat scam. This is why anyone can clearly see there is no tangible science behind this, because the "evidence" for Anthropogenic Global Warming is purely based on computer modelling; and that isn't real science. It's certainly not peer-review. Try finding a scientific paper within the last 10 years discussing exactly how much effect the GHE has on the environment, or exactly how much effect individual GHG's have. They're pretty scarce because scientists don't have a confident opinion on it, and it's difficult to measure.

But also, the onus of proof isn't on me. I can't prove a negative that's impossible. The onus of proof is on the climate scientist making alarmist claims.

To quote Ivar Giaever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever):


Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.
That's his full email of resignation to the APS. You can see the policy he's talking about here (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm).

By the way, I have a history of being correct. I said quasars are not as far away as their redshift tells us while the scientific consensus was still that quasars are giant, distant, galactic objects. The consensus is now, surprise surprise, that they are not so far away. This violates a "scientific law", ie Hubble's Law. Why they (Hubble?) insisted it was a law and not a theory I have no idea, but Hubble's Law basically states that all galactic redshift is cosmological in origin; we now know that for quasars this is not the case, and their redshift does not indicate their position in space. In 2004 and again in 2005 on several forums I challenged anyone to prove to me that the quasar embedded in galaxy NGC 7319 is really "behind it". No one rose to the challenge. But they were pretty sure I was wrong and that I'm a crack-pot. The official line from NASA at the time was that it was due to gravitational lensing (despite it shining through an opaque area of the galaxy). NASA, and everyone else now think that quasars are actually embedded in galaxies and are not ancient far-distant objects. If you do a search on NASA you'll probably find the defunct article.

[Ben]

There is strong evidence that in the Medieval Warm Period temperatures rose as swiftly as they are presently and achieved a substantially higher global mean temperature then is at present; especially evidenced by the world's melting glacier's which have not yet retreated to MWP levels, and the fact that Viking remains (land cultivation, graves, etc) from the MWP remain under permafrost on Greenland to this day.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256


The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Meksilon]

That's a hockey stick graph (a simple exercise in data mining). How do I know instrumental data wouldn't have shown the same for the MWP? I don't. Therefore, you shouldn't use it.

Here's another graph:

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

The same graph is also on Wikipedia. Would it have some effect on Temperature? Well it should. Maybe not enough to account for the full trend, but certainly enough to not leave "everything" to the GHG. BTW, what do you think caused the MWP?

[Ben]

So you completely ignored that a study by faculty from several universities found the Medieval Warm Period was cooler on a global level than now, which negates a major point in your original post. As far as the rest, I don't really care; whether global warming is anthropogenic or natural is completely irrelevant; nothing's going to change. If it's anthropogenic, we're all going to keep doing the same ---- and the world's going to get hotter. If it's natural, we're all going to keep doing the same ---- and the world's going to get hotter. A narcissistic show of internet chest-beating is completely unnecessary; especially on a forum where everybody knows you're an -------. We all know you're a conspiracy nut. ----, we even tried to get you your own subforum created at one time so you could rap away at your keyboard and we wouldn't have to look at it.

As Peo said, you are a random nut on a forum trying to contradict scientific studies. You are not a climate scientist. Smoke a bowl, drink some beer, barbecue some burgers, and ----ing get over yourself. Or at least keep yourself occupied over at Alex Jones' web sites.

Do you still believe in magic sky people?

Here, I'll quote the study for you to make it easier:


Science 27 November 2009:
Vol. 326 no. 5957 pp. 1256-1260
DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303

Report

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

Michael E. Mann1,*,
Zhihua Zhang1,
Scott Rutherford2,
Raymond S. Bradley3,
Malcolm K. Hughes4,
Drew Shindell5,
Caspar Ammann6,
Greg Faluvegi5 and
Fenbiao Ni4

1Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
2Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809, USA.
3Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003–9298, USA.
4Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
5NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA.
6Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mann{at}meteo.psu.edu

Abstract

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.


Are you a professor at Penn State, Roger Williams, U Mass, U Arizona, or ----ing NASA? Obviously not. Now go spam another forum about this. Maybe try and link the global warming conspiracy to FEMA death camps or something.

[Seraphim]

Well let me present to you the one little fact that breaks any hope of proving with certainty if global warming has anything to do with human activity or not.

Thermometers accurate to within 5 degrees F have only been available for perhaps 100 years at most, with many areas not having access to them until only 50-70 years ago.

As such, any records older than perhaps the 1950s cannot be reliably trusted for accuracy. And any temperatures presented older than about 1700 or so are estimates based entirely on geological and historical evidence. They are not actual measurements of the temperature at those times, as no insturments capable of measuring that existed or were in widespread circulation.

Same thing with the solar irradiance chart. Up until the 1900s, they had no reliable methods of measuring solar irradiance, and would have had to dervive those numbers based on surviving evidence- which could easily have been incorrectly interpreted or could have been altered by the passage of time.

Altogether, there is NOT ENOUGH RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE THEORY. The historical evidence suggests cycle times on order of thousands of years. Because we do not have reliable evidence of similar age, all of the current conclusions are based on comparing estimates of historical conditions to present day measurements- which may not match exactly.

However, I have noticed a very interesting phenomena as of the past few years. Last week it was over 80F out, hottest temperature on record for April. Today? I woke up to 6" of snow.

Earth is an abnormality in space. We maintain a roughly constant surface temperature, with typical day/night cycles of no more than 10F swing and weekly highs/lows usually within 20F of each other. An entire year has only about 75F of temperature variation for most regions. Other planets? The moon's temperature is reported to go from over 500F to below 0F in a matter of minutes depending on if it is exposed to sunlight or not. Other planets that we have landed objects on to take measurements report similar findings- when they are hot they are extremely hot, and when they are cold they are extremely cold.

What I am seeing here is a situation where whatever has been changing in our atmosphere- be it something we were involved in, or something completely natural, it is causing a rapid increase in the Delta T- the difference between when it is hot and when it is cold, and the maximum rate of temperature change has shifted. This also produces more energetic storm systems, as evidenced by storm after storm of record-setting intensity.

[Ben]

I just remembered a smiley I made some time ago that was added to the official smiley list here at FWS

:gtfomeksi

[Meksilon]

So you completely ignored that a study by faculty from several universities found the Medieval Warm Period was cooler on a global level than now, which negates a major point in your original post.Not completely, no. I'm ignoring the instrumental data tacked onto the end of the graph. As for the rest of your post it doesn't deserve a response.

Well let me present to you the one little fact that breaks any hope of proving with certainty if global warming has anything to do with human activity or not.

Thermometers accurate to within 5 degrees F have only been available for perhaps 100 years at most, with many areas not having access to them until only 50-70 years ago.
Regardless, tacking the instrumental data onto the end of the graph is wrong. Al Gore, in "Inconvenient Truth" uses nothing but Antarctic Ice core data to measure GLOBAL historical temperature, and then tacks on instrumental data for the 20th century.

Same thing with the solar irradiance chart. Up until the 1900s, they had no reliable methods of measuring solar irradiance, and would have had to dervive those numbers based on surviving evidence- which could easily have been incorrectly interpreted or could have been altered by the passage of time.
Incorrect. The data is very reliable back to about 1700 or so. The graph I used goes back as far as 1611; the measurements for the 17th century are still reliable enough, but are not from so many different sources, etc, that the 18th and later century’s are. One thing that proves the data is pretty good is the fact that you can clearly see the 10-year cycle.

Altogether, there is NOT ENOUGH RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE THEORY. The historical evidence suggests cycle times on order of thousands of years. Because we do not have reliable evidence of similar age, all of the current conclusions are based on comparing estimates of historical conditions to present day measurements- which may not match exactly.
Sceptics don't need to PROVE anything, you can't prove a negative. Do you know how long we believed that the Egyptian pyramids were built by slaves for? About 2,000 years. And on what evidence did we believe this? One single piece of writing by a Greek historian written some 2,000 years after the last of the pyramids were built. You think sceptics could prove a negative? Of course not, but no one said they had to believe it, and so many theories were out there, until eventually we dug up the graves of the Egyptian workers who built the pyramids. Same with climate, I don't care whether or not I can prove what it's attributed to, the question for me is this: is the evidence for anthropogenic change sufficient, and I think not.

I just remembered a smiley I made some time ago that was added to the official smiley list here at FWS

:gtfomeksi
Oh, get out of my thread! Go bother someone else. Did I somehow force you to start posting nonsense in my thread? No. Go away.

You couldn't even answer my question. The general consensus is that it was probably an increase in solar activity at the time. Something that is automatically discounted from the possibility of this tend despite the graph I showed you.

BTW, as for Michael Mann and his sea level rises:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

When was the last time it WASN'T rising??

[Peo]

I've studied the science

You've "studied the science"? Ok, let's find out what that means. At what university? For how many years did you study climate science at the university? What degree do you have within this field of science? Any post-doctoral research? Have you published any research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about climate science?

[Ben]

Here you go Meksi: http://www.infowars.com/

There you can talk about how the climate change conspiracy was orchestrated by the Bilderberg group as part of a plot to secure the future of a Neo-Green-Marxist New World Order designed to send every single person in the world to FEMA death camps for mass extermination while the Reptilian overlords lead us into a free market paradise where Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ

You'll fit right in with that crowd

[Meksilon]

You've "studied the science"? Ok, let's find out what that means. At what university? For how many years did you study climate science at the university? What degree do you have within this field of science? Any post-doctoral research? Have you published any research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about climate science?No, however I've debated successfully against friends of mine who studied it at length at university. My favourite question is this: given CO2 already absorbs the vast majority of the solar radiation in the wavelength that it absorbs - and remembering that even O3, thin though the O3 layer is, also successfully absorbs the vast majority of the UV solar radiation in the wavelength that it absorbs, what tangible evidence is there that CO2 will continue to have a greater greenhouse effect on the environment, when it already absorbs "almost all" of its solar radiation already? It's my favourite because it's original research, I didn't copy others and just ask the same questions that they ask like what you see with the alarmist crowd.

Serious sceptical scientists aren't so much interested in that particular point, they're more interested in what evidence there is, or isn't, for positive-forcing from water vapour.

And just recently I watched Lateline the other night with Michael Mann rattling on about how "sea levels are rising because of global warming", and defending his hockeystick graph. It's actually pretty slick if you listen to him "well the tree ring data is accurate up to a certain point..." Which of course is nonsense, it's not even a consensus view or anything, it's just something that climate alarmists like to say and then they'll hide behind the so-called consensus that they have. Given the "scientific consensus" is purely politically based, influenced by active politicians and put in place by a political body, the IPCC, if you come to me and tell me you are a qualified active climate scientist and try to tell me that the GHG is driving climate change, I'll say almost exactly what you said Peo, except like this: Well what qualifications do you have regarding politics, because this isn't really a scientific issue?

Yes I have an answer to that too, I am a member of a political party and I've read many of the climategate emails (they're still sitting on my PC); so I know when Mann says things like "well they took that out of context" I know it's untrue because I read all the other emails leading up to it. Even if I agree that "Mike's Nature trick" was potentially taken out of context, there's still way more in there. They talk about threatening scientific journals if they publish "sceptic's work" and also talk about what to do about the journals currently publishing "sceptical" peer-review-papers: "we'll just say that we don't read those papers because they're not really peer-review", etc. They clearly talk about manipulating the evidence. Cheerypicking. Also, peer-review is way overrated anyway. You think Einstein ever posted a single peer-review paper? Well he did actually, he wrote about 300 scientific papers, but he only sent ONE that we know about to peer-review. And he couldn't even say he was qualified since he couldn't even get an academic position and was a clerk for the patent office, well at least at the time that he came up with his most significant work anyway.

Science advances by falsification. So peer-review is not helpful if you're trying to stop people from falsifying current theories, then you're just essentially stagnating science from advancement or development or any real positive future.

[stuffradio]

I read weather data, weather discussion, models, graphs, etc. every day for hours. I'm not knowledgeable enough one way or another to debate for or against though. I'm a skeptic until I can understand what Scientists believe and why they believe what they believe.

Let's all pretend though that GW is caused by man. We aren't going to do anything about it. Even if we started doing something about it, it would probably take centuries to get some results.

[Seraphim]

It is amazing how the people who are the most vocal about global warming also happen to be the same people with the largest individual carbon footprint- be it a large fancy house, an exotic fuel-wasting vehicle, or something else.

Of course there excuse is "Oh I buy carbon credits."

So? That still doesn't excuse the fact that America contains only a fraction of the world's population, yet produces a vast majority of CO2 released every year.

The only way that is going to change is a combination of government and economic forces teaming up to trigger a lifestyle change.

Because in these parts at least, you essentially can't earn a living without owning a car or having a reliable friend who happens to be going the same way.

[Peo]

No

So, you have no education within climate science at all. None. And still you're trying to convince yourself you're smarter than NASA scientists and on top of that compare yourself to Einstein. Typical politician. :biggrin2:

[Meksilon]

I'm completly self-taught PHP, HTML, JAVASCRIPT, VBSCRIPT, CSS, VisualBasic too Peo, that doesn't mean I don't know my stuff.

[Meksilon]

Like I said to begin with, I'm not arguing that CO2 hasn't had some effect. I've already disproven QM as a definitive model of the microworld as posted on my blog (http://blog.aractus.com/?p=119) using a simple thought experiment. Unlike Schrödinger's Cat, there is no error in my thought experiment and unlike Schrödinger I don't believe the answer could possibly be "hidden variables", I'm no crackpot I can see that can't possibly work, it would be a Bell inequality. A friend of mine who is a mathematical physicist saw no flaw in it. He was of course insistent that neutrinos don't travel faster than light, and I said well you're not saying that GR is a complete understanding of the universe are you? And he said "no, of course not". The neutrinos are a moot point, the fact though is even physicists don't believe their theories are definitive, my friend doesn't believe any theory (string theory, etc) can ever unify QM and GR. If Einstein knew what we know today his theory would have bee different; and on that point we certainly agree upon. We also agree that QM is a lot easier to understand because it's closer to classical physics than GR is.

I also know what a straw man argument is, and that I didn't claim to be smarter than Mann let alone smarter than NASA scientists. NASA at least are lot more open about the rest of the so-called EGHE, whereas Mann and all his minions are not.

[Peo]

If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.

Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread, let me try again. I'm a strong supporter of education and I'm a strong supporter of science. So, I don't exactly appreciate a conspiracy nut posting random bs here claiming to be some expert when you're clearly not. If you truly would like to challenge the science within this field with your 0 years of education, I guess it would make slightly more sense to post on science forums than on a webhosting forum.

[Seraphim]

Peo, I think he's alright in trying to at least learn about it.

But presenting the topic like some kind of educational material while being yet another armchair expert on the subject with no real experience in the field or credible sources to back it up ends up producing what amounts to nothing more than speculation on the topic.

There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.

Also, although experimental devices to measure temperature have been around for a long time, none of them were repeatably accurate because without mass production methods each one had to be individually calibrated and were vulnerable to losing that calibration if handled roughly. Combine that with unreliable recordkeeping and scientific practice, and you effectively lose any evidence older than the 1900s as being unreliable in terms of accuracy of insturmentation and recordkeeping practices. The most accurate thermometer until the mass-produced mercury glass was the Gallileo thermometer, and that required extreme care in construction or it would not be accurate.

Same thing with the solar input situation. Prior to the invention of devices that could directly convert solar energy to electrical energy- which could be quantified reliably and accurately using electrical insturments, the only way to measure solar energy input was to use optical devices to gather sunlight upon a target and then measure the change in temperature of that target. Again insturmentation and methods would vary widely from experimentor to experimentor, the resulting data cannot be trusted for accuracy.

But unless this forum happens to contain somebody with an on-record college degree in Meterology who can accurately account for all of the processes involved, the best we can hope to agree upon here is a highly limited awareness of the subject and speculation of what is happening.

Now I can say without needing any college degrees or anything that the past few years have seen an increase in severe storm intensity and frequency, and there are weather records showing tendancies towards temperature extremes with a reduction in the amount of moderate periods. That's something that could be related to global warming phenomena, but it gives no clue at all as to the underlying cause of it.

Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.

[Dominatos]

It's a myth! Climate is changing all the time on EARTH! Why do you think climate changed before making dinosaurs and later species died?:lol:

[Ben]

It's a myth! Climate is changing all the time on EARTH! Why do you think climate changed before making dinosaurs and later species died?:lol:
I read your name as "Doritos" at first.

[Meksilon]

If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.
Peo, if you really think that I’m not entitled to an opinion – at least politically (if not scientifically) than why not tell Al Gore the same? He’s certainly no scientist. He has ZERO understanding of science; yet they allow Inconvenient Truth to be taught in schools (here in Australia)! Is there a difference (HTML to Climate Science)? Yes; but did you think to ask is there a similarity? All it comes down to is reading – law, history, or just about anything else so yes there’s a difference, obviously, but there’s also similarity.

Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread
Peo, I take resentment when people construct straw man arguments. I never claim to be anything that I'm not. If I've made an error point it out, otherwise don't insinuate that I’m an idiot, I don’t do it to you. The sceptic doesn't have to PROVE anything. Look what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis when he went against the clear scientific consensus of the time without being able to back up his theory with science. I don't have to PROVE that SensaSlim is a hocus-pocus product with no provable benefit - but what happened to Ken Harvey who was brave enough to say it? SensaSlim threatened to sue him if he didn't retract his statements, which he didn't so they went ahead and sued him. And since their shonky product was nothing more than an exercise in - that's right - datamining I'm sure, guess what product can no longer be legally sold in Australia? That's right - SensaSlim. Seemed their lawsuit backfired on them. BTW, my heart goes out to Harvey because I’ve been saying the same about BioMagnetic for about 3 or 4 years (or however long they’ve been in existence).

And yes I have posted on science forums before.

There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.
See, here we have an understanding. Yes we have very good and reliable data going back a few hundred years; but what we don't have is global thermometer data. The fact that the instrumental data varies quite significantly from the proxy data NOW tells us more than likely it would also have in the past - or in other words, that the proxy data is not a complete picture of global mean surface temperature but is useful in indicating overall trends, etc. This is why no serious scientist will come out and give an actual estimated global mean surface temperature for the MWP or even a single year within it. So when I say there's strong evidence that it achieved higher temperatures than today - the evidence being glacial (glaciers that haven't yet retreated to MWP levels) not to mention land cultivation, etc - I'm not claiming that the MWP was warmer; I'm simply refuting the assertion made by some scientists that there's "no reasonable reason" to think that the MWP was anything more than "localized" or that it was "actually not all that warm".

Do you want to know another fact? Raw whether station data is not used, nor should it be used. It is always standardised to account for errors in the readings and other anomalies; and to account for when the stations gets moved. This is all fine and good, except that for a very large number of these the raw data has been discarded or destroyed so it cannot be scrutinized by third parties. Am I claiming this to be a serious issue? No – I’m claiming it to be poor scientific method when the original data is no longer available.

Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.
Their consistent message, however, for over 10 years is that CO2 is only part of the EGHE. As early as 2001 or maybe earlier they’ve been talking about the role Methane and Black Carbon have playing a significant role reducing CO2’s responsibility to around half. And it’s all on their website.

[Peo]

Peo, I think he's alright in trying to at least learn about it.

That would be great, but that's not what he's doing here, if you've been paying attention.



Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either.

Obviously NASA is in on the conspiracy too... LOL

I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here but I advice anyone with true concerns about science to instead post your questions to a scientist, possibly at a science forum. This is not the place for you to post conspiracy theories claiming it as fact.


Peo, if you really think that I’m not entitled to an opinion – at least politically (if not scientifically)

Ah, you've now changed your tune, saying you're just posting your political opinion. That's clearly not what you've been claiming in your bombastic ramblings to this thread. If you stop posting your conspiracy theories and limit your posts to what politicians should do about global warming then I don't have a problem with it. After all you're a politician and not a scientist. I hope you can see the difference otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

[Meksilon]

Ah, you've now changed your tune, saying you're just posting your political opinion.No that's not what I said. That's another straw man argument. I have a political opinion, which (obviously) is that we should do nothing. I know people who are equally sceptical on the science who's political opinion is to do a "token effort". And I'm not a politician, I'm a member of a political party. Which is as much as being a politician as being a subscriber to science magazine is to being a scientist. Al Gore has his views taught in schools, and he is no scientist.

Again though, I have a history of being right. I said that male circumcision prevents HIV infection just months after the first two studies were released. It is now a WHO recommendation (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html). One forum I discussed it on were quite open, but the others were very insistent that I was ignorant and had no idea what I was talking about (I actually don't think anyone else on those forums actually looked at the studies). I also said that Quasars violated Hubble's Law from 2005 on; and I'm proven correct in the sense that it is now (essentially) the scientific consensus that quasars are not the distance objects they thought they were in 2005. NASA even said at the time that the NGC 7319 quasar was distant and the observation due to lensing. Do you want to hedge bets on whether biomagnetics has any therapeutic benefits? I've also said, repeatedly, that E-Cat is a scam; and in a year or two from now I'll be proven right on that too. Either that or the world's energy needs will be forever satisfied by cold fusion. And for the record I defend Pons and Fleischmann. Not because they contributed something of vital importance to science, but because they felt they had to embellish the details of their experiment for funding; and it backfired big time. Yet you have Mann and his minions talk about things like "sea level rises" and no one even bats an eye.

[Seraphim]

But your history doesn't mean you are correct now, as none of those other topics have any common scientific concepts with what is being discussed at the moment. Otherwise people would be more inclined to believe me when I point out issues that will come up in the future that should be addressed in the design phases of current projects. Trying to remind them of that later on and you rub them the wrong way because it comes off as "I told you so". Predicting the future is more difficult than finding and following a pattern, and anyone that tries it will also conveniently forget to mention that more often than not they only predict things that could eventually happen without specifying a time period for it.

Cold Fusion research has slowed down because we haven't yet found a way to produce the Muons that catalyze the process using less energy than we get back from the resulting fusion. They are also notoriously short-lived and hard to contain, and there are far too many problems in making and containing the muons for that technology to be considered usable any time soon. I'm actually partial to the straight up 'hot' fusion in the polywell type device, but again the reason we aren't using fusion power is because to date it has always required more energy to get fusion to take place than the energy we can get back from it. Although not at all an expert on the matters of nuclear physics, I at least know enough of what is involved to know that it's not so easy to make things like that work right. They will of course eventually find a way to do it, but no way of knowing how long it will take to do. But that all aside, it's been revealed that Fusion actually does produce dangerous radiation. The entire reactor assembly and shield becomes radioactive after even short periods of operation due to neutron bombardment. Though it is still safer than Fission reactors as it does not appear to produce any exceptionally long-lived isotopes.

It's fine to armchair expert these things when you at least know enough about what is going on to correctly present it as an awareness thing, but trying to preach these topics like you know it all only makes you look like someone who needs to wear a tinfoil hat. Maybe Ben is right, we almost should have a conspiracy theories subsection somewhere on the forum just for keeping all of this stuff out of the way of people who find it annoying. I'd gladly debate the finer points of astrophysical phenomena with you, armchair expert to armchair expert.

[Peo]

I see why they couldn't stand your ignorance at the science forums. That doesn't mean we have to put up with it here. Again, post at a science forum and choose a slightly more humble approach considering your lack of education within the area and someone might be willing to explain things to you.

[Ben]

Meksilon are you also into AIDS denial?

[Meksilon]

I see why they couldn't stand your ignorance at the science forums.My "ignorance"? Really? So anyone who thinks global warming is not anthropogenic is, by definition, ignorant? And Al Gore, is he ignorant too? Or is it because he says what the "consensus is" that he isn't?

I'm not currently active in science forums, but I do talk to scientists regularly and debate our views; and not one of them would dare call me "ignorant" - we have a mutual respect for how we come to our scientific viewpoints, I certainly don't come to mine through "ignorance".

(edit) And another thing - "can't stand me"??? Hardly, it’s been my experience that on science forums you are more than welcome to post such topics and engage in discussion and debate.

[Peo]

Well...


were very insistent that I was ignorant and had no idea what I was talking about.

[Meksilon]

Yes, the one forum that had an active participation from scientists didn't have a problem with it. The other forums the news fell on deaf ears. I grow tired of this Peo, you didn't even attempt to bring anything substantial to the conversation here.