Inhofe calls the goracles hand

[B. Max]

wow, you are so deep into your cognitive dissonance that when I say "I am right," you think I am saying, "I was wrong." That is not just sad, it is pathological.

Well you seemed to admit the numbers were right until they some how changed. So I'll take that back. You were never right.

[sunsettommy]

Graphic

That is a very stupid link.

The absurd fearmongering is also stupid.

The people who are doing most of this sort of fearmongering are the Environmentalists and the Media.

The Scientists themselves rarely do this.

The IPCC 5 year reports the last TWO TIMES has downgraded their PROJECTED estimates from the previous one.The ones that are outside of the scientific method.

LOL

Maybe you take note of this?

[sunsettommy]

Yes, I am right

John Daly died 3 years ago - and I don't care to figure out how old or flawed the numbers your biologist got from him are but I do know the guy was involved in land frauds somewhere in Australia or New Zealand maybe.

so you and John Daly and Gary Novak can take your land swindles and your insults to Einstein and your mushroom studies and pile them up in the middle of the room and they won't amount to a dustpile in the EPA's broom closet, let alone the scientific fact that the EPA was forced to admit to despite their dedication to the Buschistas disdain for science ---

if the EPA has lied at all it they have done so on the side of Global Warming denials and the oil company clowns who peddle them

get over it - you've lost

When people like you resort to smearing someone.It is a sign that people like you are not a honest debator.

John Daly was a good skeptic.

Your anger against oil companies is off base.

Try making a better argument will ya?

[sunsettommy]

Yes, I am right

John Daly died 3 years ago - and I don't care to figure out how old or flawed the numbers your biologist got from him are but I do know the guy was involved in land frauds somewhere in Australia or New Zealand maybe.

so you and John Daly and Gary Novak can take your land swindles and your insults to Einstein and your mushroom studies and pile them up in the middle of the room and they won't amount to a dustpile in the EPA's broom closet, let alone the scientific fact that the EPA was forced to admit to despite their dedication to the Buschistas disdain for science ---

if the EPA has lied at all it they have done so on the side of Global Warming denials and the oil company clowns who peddle them

get over it - you've lost

By the way you did not make a rebuttal against a Professor in the field.Dr. Heinz Hug

LOL

Here are the references to that guest paper:

1] Roger Revelle, Scientific American, 247, No.2, Aug. 1982, 33 - 41

[2] Jack Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 415 (1995)

[3] R.A. Hanel et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 77, 2629 - 2641 (1972)

[4] Hermann Flohn, Nachr. Chem.Tech.Lab, 32, 305-309 (1984)

[5] L.S.Rothman et al., Appl.Opt. 26, 4058 (1987)

[6] Heinz Hug, Chemische Rundschau, 20. Febr., p. 9 (1998) and: Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 23-26 (1998) 1/2 and: http://www.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm

[7] Paul S. Braterman, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 52, 1565 (1996)

[8] Keith Shine, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 1393 (1995)

[9] John Houghton, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 51, 1391 (1995)

[10] Richard S. Courtney, Spectrochim. Acta Part A, 53, 1601 (1997)

[11] Richard P. Wayne, Chemistry of Atmospheres, Oxford University Press, 2nd. Edition, 44-49 (1991),

[12] Murry L. Salby, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press, 198-257 (1996)

[13] Climate Change 1990. The IPCC Scientific Assessment, p. 49

[14] K.Ya. Kondratyev,N.I. Moskalenko in J.T.Houghton, The Global Climate", Cambridge Universitiy Press, 225-233 (1984)

[15] K.Ya. Kondratyev, N.I. Moskalenko, Thermal Emission of Planets, Gidrometeoizdat, 263 pp (1977) (in Russian)

[16] C.-D. Schönwiese, Klimaänderungen, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p. 135 (1995)

[17] Henry Charnock, Keith P. Shine, Physics Today, Dec 1993, p. 66

[18] Richard S. Lindzen, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, 94, 8335-8342 (1997) 8 and (in German) Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 3-8 (1998) 5/6

Try to be a more decent debator huh.

[Guthrie]

Yes, I am right

John Daly died 3 years ago - and I don't care to figure out how old or flawed the numbers your biologist got from him are but I do know the guy was involved in land frauds somewhere in Australia or New Zealand maybe.

so you and John Daly and Gary Novak can take your land swindles and your insults to Einstein and your mushroom studies and pile them up in the middle of the room and they won't amount to a dustpile in the EPA's broom closet, let alone the scientific fact that the EPA was forced to admit to despite their dedication to the Buschistas disdain for science ---

if the EPA has lied at all it they have done so on the side of Global Warming denials and the oil company clowns who peddle them

get over it - you've lost

When people like you resort to smearing someone.It is a sign that people like you are not a honest debator.

John Daly was a good skeptic.

Your anger against oil companies is off base.

Try making a better argument will ya?

Daly was a crook. It isn't a smear

Oil companies are spending millions spreading the lies you believe

I don't need a better argument than this:

...

As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “likely” to “uncertain.

What's Known

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

* A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

...

Environmental Protection Agency

[Guthrie]

Yes, I am right

John Daly died 3 years ago - and I don't care to figure out how old or flawed the numbers your biologist got from him are but I do know the guy was involved in land frauds somewhere in Australia or New Zealand maybe.

so you and John Daly and Gary Novak can take your land swindles and your insults to Einstein and your mushroom studies and pile them up in the middle of the room and they won't amount to a dustpile in the EPA's broom closet, let alone the scientific fact that the EPA was forced to admit to despite their dedication to the Buschistas disdain for science ---

if the EPA has lied at all it they have done so on the side of Global Warming denials and the oil company clowns who peddle them

get over it - you've lost

By the way you did not make a rebuttal against a Professor in the field.Dr. Heinz Hug

The way you guys shuffle and duck and change subjects, it's easy to overlook one of the clowns you present -

here's Hug's debunking:

Subject: RE: Spectroscopic sensation

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:46:55 -0500

From: "Spencer, Roy" <[email protected]>

To: [email protected], "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>

CC: (large mailing list)

Peter:

Thanks for making available the interesting paper by Hug. I certainly applaud any critical examination of even our most strongly held scientific beliefs. However, in this case, I think the conclusions of this paper can not be supported. Here is why:

It appears Hug bases his conclusions on the opacity of the whole atmospheric column in one of the CO2 absorption bands (around 15 microns). What he has neglected is the VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION of the change in radiative processes due to a doubling of CO2. For instance, the strong upper stratospheric cooling (peaking near 2 mb) in response to increasing CO2 would, by itself, require warming at some lower level in order to maintain radiative balance, even if the entire atmospheric column is essentially opaque. This upper level cooling (observationally documented by Kokin & Lysenko, 1994, J. Atmos. Terrest. Phys., pp. 1035-1040) and lower level warming is a common feature of all greenhouse atmospheres that are subjected to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The equilibrium temperature change at any specific level (including the surface) can NOT be determined by intuition. It requires time-dependent radiative transfer calculations throughout the entire atmospheric profile. This has been performed by many people (including ourselves).

Of course, the nature of the vertical distribution of temperature change also depends upon feedbacks, which are ignored in this whole discussion. I believe that feedbacks still remain the area of largest uncertainty about how the tropospheric temperature profile will change in response to CO2 increases.

-Roy

Roy W. Spencer

Senior Scientist for Climate Studies

NASA/MSFC/GHCC

977 Explorer Boulevard

Huntsville, Alabama 35806

Fax: (205)922-5788

Voice: (205)922-5960

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: CO2 Absorbance

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 06:31:52 -0700 (PDT)

From: Emma Daly <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Hi Dad,

Just read that paper you sent me.

Essentially the chemistry is correct.

The only major problem I have with the paper which wasn't really made clear was that the Beer-Lambert law which he used to determine the molar extinction coefficients is only valid up to 0.01M of CO2 or 440ppm. At higher concentrations it is not necessarily true.

Secondly this work was done in a lab in controlled conditions so Spencer's points are valid. You can not necessarily assume what is occuring in a 10cm glass vessel is valid in an atmospheric column. He is assuming a temperature and absorbance distribution in the atmosphere will remain constant. That is not a fair comparison between a static and dynamic system.

Emma

---

Emma Daly

Ian Wark Research Institute

University of South Australia

Adelaide, S.A., Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Spectroscopic sensation

Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 19:03:30 +0300 (EET DST)

From: Jarl Ahlbeck AT <[email protected]>

To: [email protected] (John Daly)

Hello John,

I read the comment of Roy Spencer about the spectroscopic sensation, he may be right.

In the stratosphere there is no water vapour, and the influence of carbon dioxide might be significant, as it can be in very dry regions, say Siberia at winter night (and Finland too at winter night). The diurnial difference has decreased, and that might be because of increased carbon dioxide. But no general warming has occured, and that points towards zero net feedback from vater vapour (I really cannot believe in significant positive feedback !) The stratospheric cooling would require a slight warming to maintain the energy balance, but this GW must be very small compared to that projected by significant positive water vapour feedback.

The "spectrospcopic sensation" is based on experiments performed in a tube containing a substantial amount of water. I think these experiments are OK, but the conclusions drawn may not be correct.

Regards Jarl Ahlbeck

---

Jarl R. Ahlbeck D.Sc.(Chem Eng.)

Research Associate,

Abo Akademi University, Finland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AW: Spectroscopic sensation

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:11:13 +0200

From: "Volz, Dr. Hartwig" <[email protected]>

To: "'John Daly'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]

CC: (large list)

Dear John,

please find attached my discussion of the Hug draft paper. For your information I attach excerpts of a letter which I wrote in a context similar to Hug’s publication in November 1997.

Greenhouse physics based on absorption considerations alone are meaningless and the corresponding conclusions are wrong. Funny enough, I learned only a few weeks after having written this letter of the corresponding contribution of Braterman (citation [7] in the Hug draft paper), who invented the same “perpetuum mobile” as described below and who uses the same physical arguments as in my letter,

though in different wording. Having had some correspondence regarding this subject already in the past, I am not overly optimistic that a “normal” natural scientist will ever understand greenhouse physics without

studying energy transfer by radiation. Nonetheless, this contribution is another attempt to put some

contrarians on a higher level of understanding on the learning curve.

As Braterman writes: “However one may view the debate over global warming, .... (my addition: Hug’s)

argument is not a useful contribution to that debate.” The radiative and anthropogenic forcing calculations in the IPCC reports have been verified by me and are basically correct. There do exist quite some good

physical arguments against established IPCC climatic science, but these arguments are more sophisticated than those put forward by Hug.

Quote

It seems to me that my understanding of greenhouse physics is completely different from yours. I would like to remind you of the well-known method to measure the temperature of flames. A zirconium dioxide lamp (black body radiator) is placed behind a flame and the black body radiance is measured by a spectrometer through the flame. If the temperature of flame is lower than the lamp's, you will see absorption lines in the black body spectrum. If the flame is hotter, you will see peaks on the black body spectrum at the same wave number positions; if the temperature of lamp and flame equal each other, you will see the ideal black body spectrum.

A similar experiment: in the spectrum of the sun you see Fraunhofer lines (absorption lines). During an

eclipse you see emission lines in the chromosphere at the very same wave numbers of the Fraunhofer lines. In both experiments thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are closely interconnected. If you replace the hot lamp by the black radiator earth and the excited states in the flame by the vibration/rotation of gases in the atmosphere, you are in the correct greenhouse physics.

...

[Guthrie]

Link

A Few Facts About the Funding of the Greenhouse Contrarians

Although this site normally restricts itself to the science behind climate change, a recent article in Still Waiting for Greenhouse presented such a distorted view of the funding behind the contrarian cause that some comment was deemed necessary. In January 2004, Still Waiting for Greenhouse carried the following passage, under the heading A Winter's Tale from Al Gore:

...

Lavishly funded by polluters? `Still Waiting for Greenhouse' is one of the few websites openly skeptical of the IPCC's scenarios of gloom and doom, and a primary source of what Gore regards as `disinformation'. His `lavish funding' accusation is not just disinformation by him, but also an outright lie. In the last 12 months, this website has received funding of - wait for it - $50. ...

If the `polluters' have really been dumping `lavish funding' on the skeptics, the cheques must still be in the mail.

Copied from Still Waiting for Greenhouse , 24 Jan. 2004 (part of article only)

John Daly wanted us to believe that the typical funding for Still Waiting for Greenhouse is only $50 per year and that, in general, the `skeptics' are `working on a financial shoestring'. Here are a few facts:

In response to a request concerning his funding, John Daly sent an email to the author of this site on 22 October 2001, which included the following statement:

In 13 years, my total earnings from book royalties, articles, seminar fees, reports etc. amounts to $44,300 Australian (equivalent to $22,150 U.S.). This works out at $3,407 Aust. per year, or $65.50 per week ($33 US).

So, on his own admission, John Daly's average annual income (over a period of 13 years) for his contrarian activities was $Aus. 3,407 (nearly 70 times as large as the $50 he wanted us to believe).

But this is small fry. It is more enlightening to look at John Daly's previous associates and the amount that they spend on promoting the contrarian agenda.

The 2000 Annual Report of Western Fuels Association Inc. contains the following passage:

Where does our advocacy stand, today? Based on work by our newest science advisor John Daly concerning the fatal flaws of the ground-based temperature record and revelations concerning agreement among ground-based thermometers, instruments onboard satellites, and carried aloft by weather balloons, Western Fuels is now prepared to argue that no reliable record exists to show a warming globe, and second, to establish the lack of warming, apocalyptic or otherwise.

So, John Daly was an influential science advisor to Western Fuels Association Inc.. What is this organisation and what does it do? According to its web site:

Western Fuels Association, Inc., operates on a not-for-profit basis to provide coal for the generation of electricity by consumer-owned utilities throughout the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, and Southwest states, and in Louisiana. We are a cooperative. Our 19 member/owners are rural electric generation & transmission cooperatives, municipal utilities, and other public power bodies.

It also engages in what it calls `advocacy' (i.e. contrarian propaganda), funding a network of contrarian organisations, including:

* The Greening Earth Society, for whom John Daly wrote a number of articles (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

* fossilfuels.org

* CO² & Climate

* New Hope Environmental Services Inc. which publishes the grandiosely-named World Climate Report (no, this is not an IPCC Assessment Report!)

And how much does Western Fuels Association spend on this `advocacy' activity? An indication of the answer to this question may be gleaned from their 1998 Annual Report, which stated:

We lost $583,000 in 1997, even though coal deliveries were substantially over 20 million tons. 1997's `red ink' was not due to adverse operational performance either in coal deliveries or by management. ..... On an ongoing basis, Western Fuels is operating substantially `in the black'. Our half-million dollar shortfall is due entirely to our advocacy in the area of climate change.

In summary, although John Daly claimed that he only received $Aus. 50 funding during 2003 for Still Waiting for Greenhouse, and that the `skeptics' are `working on a financial shoestring':

* over a 13-year period, he earned considerably more than $Aus. 50 per year (nearly 70 times as much), and

* he was also closely involved with a company (Western Fuels Association) who, on its own admission, has spent over $US 500,000 in a single year on contrarian propaganda.

As an addendum to this article, here is a chillingly self-serving, yet surprisingly frank, tribute to John Daly, written shortly after his death by Fredrick Palmer, one-time General Manager and CEO of Western Fuels Association, and President of the Greening Earth Society (posted to the Yahoo group climatesceptics on 2 February 2004):

The media ignored John but he was effective nonetheless. It is now 16 years since the drumbeat for regulating the production and use of fossil fuels started in the United States. Even though the US signed the Rio Treaty itself, no laws have been enacted for the regulation of CO2 and Congress has rejected the proposition on the several occasions since that it has been presented.

It is the work of people like John Daly that has made that happen. In the meantime, we have a new 500 pound guerilla in the form of China that has come on the scene. China's compound growth rate for fossil fuel consumption moots not only Kyoto, it moots Rio as well.

Rest in peace, John.

(Incidentally, the 1998 and 2000 Annual Reports of Western Fuels Association make interesting reading if you want to try and understand the mindset of the fossil fuel industry - in particular, read page 7 of the 1998 report and pages 8-11 of the 2000 report.)

...

The Strategies of the Greenhouse Contrarians

When you read `anti-greenhouse' material such as Still Waiting for Greenhouse, you should bear in mind the various strategies used by the greenhouse contrarians to reinforce their case. Here a a few of them, with examples (our apologies that many of these are related to sea level rise, one of the interests of the main author - in future, we hope to include a wider range of examples):

1. Use False Data

Sometimes the data quoted is just plain wrong. Here are two examples:

Example 1: The August Heatwave in the U.K.

In August 2003, the following article appeared in Still Waiting for Greenhouse:

A Cracked Record (13 Aug 03)

The hottest temperature ever recorded on the surface of the earth runs to thousands of degrees celsius. How is that possible, one might ask? Easy, place a thermometer into a blast furnace and presto. You have a temperature which would vie for `hottest temperature ever recorded'.

...

This report was so sloppy that it did not even note the day to which the temperature observations referred - this was later ascertained to be 10 August 2003. Where did John Daly get his figures from? It transpired that he had simply copied the figures from a slightly longer table posted by a Wilson Flood on the Yahoo discussion group climatesceptics on 11 Aug. 2003:

...

Notice how John Daly did not even copy Wilson Flood's numbers correctly - he interchanged Birmingham and Bristol!)

Unfortunately, Tudor Hughes (U.K.) queried the original source of these figures, prompting John Daly to ask Wilson Flood on climatesceptics (18 Aug. 2003):

Do you have a source for your figures?

to which Wilson Flood replied (19 Aug. 2003):

The figures I quoted are from the weather page of The Times of London. ....... Please contact Tudor Hughes and ask him to obtain the newspaper for the 11th of August (I think) and he can see for himself.

presumably indicating that Flood had not even kept the source of his data, and didn't even know the date of the newspaper!

The situation gets even more bizarre with Wilson Flood claiming in another posting on the same day that the prominant contrarian, Chris de Freitas, had apparently lifted chunks of Flood's original posting (including the errant figure for Hastings) for use in a discussion published in the Guardian on 16 August 2003.

So what exactly was the original data and how trustworthy was it?

The temperature values were indeed copied from the Times of 11 August. Unfortunately, one crucial figure (the temperature for Hastings) was incorrectly given in the newspaper - it should apparently have been 33 deg C instead of 23 deg C - an error which could so easily have been revealed by simply looking at the web site of the U.K. Meteorological Office. So here is a repeat of the table showing John Daly's and the (most probably) correct figures:

...

In summary:

* The source of John Daly's data was a posting on the Internet discussion group, climatesceptics. He clearly made no atttempt to independently validate this data.

* Wilson Flood's original posting of the data was copied from the Times newspaper. Flood apparently made no note of the date of that paper, nor kept a copy.

* Of the four temperatures quoted by John Daly, one was given incorrectly in the Times and was not independently validated by Daly, and two were transcribed incorrectly by Daly. So, at most, only one in four of his data points was correct!

* Chris de Freitas apparently put sufficient trust in data derived from a posting on an Internet discussion group to have it included in an article published in the Guardian.

Does this indicate something about the quality of data presented by the contrarians (for example, in Still Waiting for Greenhouse)? Would you not expect more care to be taken, and more checks to be made, prior to `publishing' such results on the web?

...

[B. Max]

Link

A Few Facts About the Funding of the Greenhouse Contrarians

Although this site normally restricts itself to the science behind climate change, a recent article in Still Waiting for Greenhouse presented such a distorted view of the funding behind the contrarian cause that some comment was deemed necessary. In January 2004, Still Waiting for Greenhouse carried the following passage, under the heading A Winter's Tale from Al Gore:

...

This is total smear and nothing but an attack on the people who create the wealth and our standard of living. Who do they think they are. In total they take billions and billions from taxpayers and companies alike, and produce nothing of any real value. For them to talk about someone else's funding is in conflict at the very least and since they get government money is most likely political interference.

[B. Max]

The way you guys shuffle and duck and change subjects, it's easy to overlook one of the clowns you present -

here's Hug's debunking:

For your information at the top of the article it said the paper was controversial. However since Hug is not here to defend his paper the claim of being debunked can not be proven.

As for the broken record a correction was noted and made and has no real bearing anyway.

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie:

Daly was a crook. It isn't a smear

Oil companies are spending millions spreading the lies you believe

I don't need a better argument than this:

It is smear unless you can prove alleged crimes.

You need to do a better than this childish stuff.

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie:

The way you guys shuffle and duck and change subjects, it's easy to overlook one of the clowns you present -

here's Hug's debunking:

Thanks to John Daly.

(Reactions to Dr Hug's controversial paper (downloadable zip file) here)

It's right there at the top of Dr. Hug's guest paper page.

LOL

ZAP!

I read the "debunkings" YEARS AGO on that website.I was one of the early readers of that good skeptic website.So I know how fair Daly can be.

The "debunking" was not actually proven.

What was shown that several people had differing positions on what Dr. Hug wrote.Some in sharp disagreement and some in support.

You really need to distinguish the difference between a rebuttal and a debunking.

You claim: "The way you guys shuffle and duck and change subjects, it's easy to overlook one of the clowns you present -..... "

Did I mentioned that your inability to be a honest debator is a growing legend?

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie gets hot over a measly sum:

In 13 years, my total earnings from book royalties, articles, seminar fees, reports etc. amounts to $44,300 Australian (equivalent to $22,150 U.S.). This works out at $3,407 Aust. per year, or $65.50 per week ($33 US).

So, on his own admission, John Daly's average annual income (over a period of 13 years) for his contrarian activities was $Aus. 3,407 (nearly 70 times as large as the $50 he wanted us to believe).

Meanwhile AGW scientists gets a few BILLION $$$ a year for research over a demon gas.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

And how much does Western Fuels Association spend on this `advocacy' activity? An indication of the answer to this question may be gleaned from their 1998 Annual Report, which stated:

We lost $583,000 in 1997, even though coal deliveries were substantially over 20 million tons. 1997's `red ink' was not due to adverse operational performance either in coal deliveries or by management. ..... On an ongoing basis, Western Fuels is operating substantially `in the black'. Our half-million dollar shortfall is due entirely to our advocacy in the area of climate change.

In summary, although John Daly claimed that he only received $Aus. 50 funding during 2003 for Still Waiting for Greenhouse, and that the `skeptics' are `working on a financial shoestring':

* over a 13-year period, he earned considerably more than $Aus. 50 per year (nearly 70 times as much), and

* he was also closely involved with a company (Western Fuels Association) who, on its own admission, has spent over $US 500,000 in a single year on contrarian propaganda.

I fail to see any crimes.

Where is it Guthrie?

What is a the freedom of speech to you?

[sunsettommy]

I will just pass over the EPA link.

Not worth my time.

[Guthrie]

Yes, the debunking of those guys was proven --- they never followed any of the rules for scientific research -

as far as the EPA - they hate worse than anybody to have to admit it but there it is and they don't say, 'this is what's probably true,' nor, 'here's what a lot of scientists now think,' they say "What's Known" --

Scientists know with virtual certainty (do any of you understand this phrase) that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

* A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

...

[sunsettommy]

Yes, the debunking of those guys was proven --- they never followed any of the rules for scientific research -

as far as the EPA - they hate worse than anybody to have to admit it but there it is and they don't say, 'this is what's probably true,' nor, 'here's what a lot of scientists now think,' they say "What's Known" --

Scientists know with virtual certainty (do any of you understand this phrase) that:

* Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

* The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

* A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).

* The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

* Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

...

I have read all this stuff all over for years now.

CO2 is a proven minor greenhouse gas.It is but one of many forcings and this one has already spent most of its logarithmic molecular warming power.

Why are you so infatuated over it?

The Solar Warming connection is growing stronger scientifically.Maybe you look at this much better cause of the observed mild warming we see?

[sunsettommy]

Climate CO2 sensitivity

...and editorial policies

See also:

CO2 - temperature relationship is the other way around

EXCERPT:

Climate sensitivity is defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 0.028% in the pre-industrial era to the future value of 0.056% (expected around 2100).

Recall that the contribution of carbon dioxide to the warming is expected because of the "greenhouse" effect and the main question is how large it is. The greenhouse effect is nothing else than the absorption (of mostly infrared radiation emitted by the Earth) by the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor - but in this case we are focusing on carbon dioxide, one of the five most important gases causing this effect after water vapor.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

[sunsettommy]

CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations

EXCERPT:

Abstract

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C02 greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future.

The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO2 but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO2 as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-d...atures-ice.html

Maybe you realize why there are so many skeptics these days.We know that CO2 has a limited role in warming.

[Guthrie]

CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations

EXCERPT:

Abstract

The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C02 greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future.

The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO2 but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO2 as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-d...atures-ice.html

Maybe you realize why there are so many skeptics these days.We know that CO2 has a limited role in warming.

except these guys are not climatologists nor have their lightweight speculations ever been considered serious studies

...

In this case, Lubos has taken a very complex issue with many different variables, and condensed it into a very simple red herring: if A comes before B, B could not have caused A. The other problem with Lubos’s argument is that he is trying to debunk established scientific fact with conjecture and research that doesn’t even support his argument. So, I hope to set things straight here.

...

Link

don't get me wrong, as a string theorist, I like Motl fine, but he should stick to his field and only enter into debates he has actually researched

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie is not a climate scientist.

Lobos Motl is far better qualified than YOU on this topic.

LOLOLOLOLOL

When are you ever going to make a rebuttal?

Here again is this section you must not have read:

The direction of the causal relationship can be shown in many ways: for example, it is not just CO2 but other gases such as methane that follow temperature. The hypothesis of CO2 as the primary reason wouldn't explain why these other gases are correlated, too. Also, we understand how oceans react to temperature changes by releasing gases. Finally, the gas concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years, see e.g. this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

This is but one of a number of PUBLISHED CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER showing the Temperature rises and then CO2 follows centuries later.

It is not being disputed by the AGW camp.

How about this section? From the link is another link:

The Association of British Drivers

CO₂ — Cause or Effect?

Over the last 5 years a significant body of scientific research has concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal it is made out to be by self-proclaimed 'environmentalist' groups and opportunist politicians.

Below is a summary of this research evidence, with links to a review of each, demonstrating clearly that hysterical demands for carbon dioxide emissions reductions — together with the fuel duty hikes and climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands — are an environmentally pointless 'King Canute' exercise designed purely to restrict individual mobility, and exercise corporate energy control, through extortionate levels of taxation.

http://www.abd.org.uk/co2_cause_or_effect.htm

In the link are a number of published papers to read.

Reasic argues that Motl uses RED HERRINGS on the CO2 lag.

Well Guthrie you can believe that all you want but the facts have been well astablished that CO2 in the past LAGS behind temperature.

You and Reasic did not rebute it.

That is a fact.

[Guthrie]

Guthrie is not a climate scientist.

Lobos Motl is far better qualified than YOU on this topic.

sunsettommy is not a climate scientist

yes, lobos motl is a far better mathemetician and a better string threorist than I will ever be

but no, he is not a climatologist and the rebuttal I c&p'd did rebut him, not just a little but entirely - and just because some folks choose to ignore the facts and the real science, has no reflection on the reality of GW and the necessity to deal with it

and no, making your screed long and nasty doesn't earn you any points, sst

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie is not a climate scientist.

Lobos Motl is far better qualified than YOU on this topic.

sunsettommy is not a climate scientist

yes, lobos motl is a far better mathemetician and a better string threorist than I will ever be

but no, he is not a climatologist and the rebuttal I c&p'd did rebut him, not just a little but entirely - and just because some folks choose to ignore the facts and the real science, has no reflection on the reality of GW and the necessity to deal with it

and no, making your screed long and nasty doesn't earn you any points, sst

Then you accept the fact that YOU and Reasic can not rebute what Lobos writes.

Thank you.

[sunsettommy]

Guthrie is not a climate scientist.

Lobos Motl is far better qualified than YOU on this topic.

sunsettommy is not a climate scientist

yes, lobos motl is a far better mathemetician and a better string threorist than I will ever be

but no, he is not a climatologist and the rebuttal I c&p'd did rebut him, not just a little but entirely - and just because some folks choose to ignore the facts and the real science, has no reflection on the reality of GW and the necessity to deal with it

and no, making your screed long and nasty doesn't earn you any points, sst

Meanwhile Milton Humason was not an Astronomer.

Meanwhile Alfred Wegener was not an Geologist.

Meanwhile Albert Einstein was a Patent Clerk.

You getting the drift?

Educational and professional credentials are good to have but not essential to make cogent debate.

John Gribbin with a Doctorate in Astronomy wrote a very stupid book about earth being doomed because a line up of the sun and the planets would destroy earth.He wrote this stupid book thinking he knew what he was talking about.

HE was stupid despite that big education.

Meanwhile I fail to see that rebuttal you claimed to have made.

Where is it Guthrie?

By the way who wrote this?

don't get me wrong, as a string theorist, I like Motl fine, but he should stick to his field and only enter into debates he has actually researched

my emphasis

Why are you still talking?

He he he