HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 41/54  >  >>
Cassiopeia
User Rank
Silver
Re: CO2 is a minor constituent of Greenhouse gases
Cassiopeia   2/8/2012 3:36:33 PM
NO RATINGS
This is only 34 in the charts are we going to have to go through all of the 173 myths, are you going to be bothered to read them?

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
34 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"
Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse.


Ivan Kirkpatrick
User Rank
Platinum
CO2 is a minor constituent of Greenhouse gases
Ivan Kirkpatrick   2/8/2012 3:15:25 PM
NO RATINGS
By far the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor.  CO2  makes up a very minor portion of the total effect.  A few percent at best.

Once that fact is recognized one has to look elsewhere for the causes of "climate change".

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Re: Global warming: are the skeptics correct?
jeffbiss   2/8/2012 2:06:15 PM
NO RATINGS
Watashi,

Working engineers don't respect scientists? Wow.

What worthless and misguided research did you see? Where's the evidence? Why do you insist on making claims without any supporting evidence?

Have you ever contacted any othe climatologists with your "concerns"? Where can we read these, in what journal? Where is your work that refutes what they've shown? for example, you're claiming that their hard science isn't straight forward, so where have you found them wrong? Post your work that explains why you lost respect for climatologists.

Where have you seen that the process is "hostile" to outsiders? Where's the evidence?

Where is this data that supports your claim that there is raw data indicating that solar activity is heating all planets? I suggest that you read Global warming on Mars?.

Also, please explain your hypothesis and support it that global warming occurs while the sun was at an extended solar minimum (as posted previously). You'll find hany graphs to use for your correlation at the links provided.

We're waiting!

Watashi
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Global warming: are the skeptics correct?
Watashi   2/8/2012 12:04:40 PM
NO RATINGS

I will go look at those sites, albeit with my "skeptical" eye.  I found your declaration at the end very honorable, and I respect you for it.

My problem, and I think many others on my side, is that we don't respect climatologists.  Academic resumes are not nearly as impressive to working engineers as they are to other academics and policy makers.  Many of us saw a great deal of worthless and misguided research during our time in school and realize that just because a PhD or two have been part of it doesn't make it right.  Especially in a field where the application of 'hard' science is not necessarily strait forward. 

From a skeptic point of view it is sort of a 'perfect storm' in which the credibility of the source is questionable, the methodologies are suspect, the claims are over sensationalized, and all findings must be accepted without question or you will be branded a heretic.  It is not that all of those climate researchers are incompetent or even wrong in their findings.  But one cannot even question their methods, findings, or conclusions.  The climate "scientific" process is the only one I know of that is not just closed, but openly hostile to outsiders.

Like I stated in a previous post, I have seen raw data pointing to planetary heating and cooling cycles, solar-system wide (Earth, Mars, and, I think, Venus), correlating to solar activity.  I found the collection methods credible and pretty much made up my mind there then went on about my business.  The data available from "climatologists" back then did not come from actual measurements, but extrapolations and/or 'modeled' data, which is simply ludicrous, scientifically.  When respect is lost, it is very hard to earn back.


 

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Re: How about a timeout here?
jeffbiss   2/8/2012 11:14:26 AM
fatmanonabicycle,

So, the global warming industry is comprised of those who accept the strong scientifically derived evidence that human behavior has a negative affect and so develop and implement policies to mitigate that effect?

As for the "lie", see the discussion at The IPCC is not infallible (shock!). You really should do a little research on your own before you perpetuate right-wing talking points. Is this how you "engineer", not researching anything?

As for the emails, there's nothing there as nothing in the science that they performed has been refuted nor has any manipulation been shown.

Is this all you have? Where're the published refutations? Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? All I see are unsubstantiated allegations, which is easy to do and the modus operandi of the denier community.

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Re: The Endless Dither
jeffbiss   2/8/2012 10:14:38 AM
NO RATINGS
Charles,

What's your point?

Glenn Tamblyn
User Rank
Silver
Re: How about a timeout here?
Glenn Tamblyn   2/8/2012 2:52:11 AM
NO RATINGS
So are you referring to the typo over declines in the glaciers of the West Himalaya - 2350 vs 2035? Or are you referring to the World Glacier Monitoring Service reporting declines in 80% of the worlds glaciers?

fatmanonabicycle
User Rank
Silver
Re: How about a timeout here?
fatmanonabicycle   2/8/2012 2:20:22 AM
My word. Can you see the rest of us from that high horse of yours? Self-righteous indignation is always a sign of groups that have lots to hide or no case to make, so thanks. LOL.

By global warming industry, I meen the loose agglomeration of people who, now the politicians have largely bought in on the grounds that it gives them extra control and excuses to raise taxes, can make a comfy living. Starting from the international climate change committee, working down to lots of QUANGOs (UK), University departments, people developing electric and hydrogen car technology when there is not the corresponding thrust to generate green electricity to power them and make them relevant. All those wonderful conferences. The list is long, and it's loose, but far more coherent than the old "military-industrial complex" we used to hear about.

To the examples- the blatant lie in the ICCC report exaggerating the erosion of glaciers. The chain of hacked e-mails from the English "University" demonstrating the suppression, selctuive publication and manipulation of evidence-read them, they're on the net. As an aside, in line with my obligations as a professional engineer, I have removed my name from reports for less. Finally, one I'm trying to make further headyway on understanding, the accusation that a positive trend was deliberately added into sea level data to give it a trend where there was none otherwise.

Reading your reponse makes the sceptics' case easier, and as I said, I'm not making a claim either way; when I support a cause, as I support the green actions we need to take here, I am always upset by dishonesty on the side of the cause.

 

 

Glenn Tamblyn
User Rank
Silver
Re: The Endless Dither
Glenn Tamblyn   2/7/2012 9:29:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Charles

How the dissenting scientists should be treated depends on the answer to a basic question. Are they engaging in honest science? Or are they engaging in a political campaign hidden behind a sham of science?

Difficult question to answer and we should apply the principal of innocent until proven guilty.

For myself, having followed climate science and the debate around climate science for quite a few years, including such things as contrasting how the statements made and positions taken by the 'dissenting scientists' differ significantly depending on the venue and target audience, I have come to the conclusion that very few of the dissenting voices are honest. They may be contrarians, delusional or mendacious, they may even being paid to say what they do - they certainly seem to be highly linked together through a network of think-tanks and advocacy groups around the world. To be honest, I have seen very few examples of honest skepticism.

For example, Richard Lindzen has testified before Congress that water vapour is 95% of the GH Effect. But even the most cursory examination of the Earth's IR Spectrum as observed from space by satellites shows a major section of that spectrum altered substantially by CO2. Lindzen is a Professor of Atmospheric Physics so understanding what that spectrum means is at the very heart of his discipline. So for him to get something this wrong, under oath, means that he is either incompetent, senile, or one of the other descriptions i gave above applies. Take your pick.

Glenn Tamblyn
User Rank
Silver
Re: Global warming: are the skeptics correct?
Glenn Tamblyn   2/7/2012 9:02:03 PM
NO RATINGS
Watashi

 

The following is a pretty good resource for climate data of all sorts. This page has links to a wide range of raw and processed climate data sources.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

http://www.realclimate.org is also a fairly technical but interesting blog run by some of thew major climate scientists. Read back through the articles and comments. Also lots of links to published scientific papers.

Try also http://www.skepticalscience.com which is better for a middle of the road technical level discussion of the science, again linking to the published papers.

Personal declaration. I am an occassional contributing author to http://www.skepticalscience.com and a part of it's author community.

<<  <  Page 41/54  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Samsung's fitness-oriented smart watch features a curved super AMOLED touchscreen display.
Stratasys is buying assets of a key player in materials testing and R&D for its FDM filament printers, and there's a new polypropylene material for the PolyJet series of 3D printers.
Cybathlon is an Olympic-style competition for those with bionic prosthetics.
Unlike industrial robots, which suffered a slight overall slump in 2012, service robots continue to be increasingly in demand. The majority are used for defense, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); and agriculture, such as milking robots.
Eric Chesak created a sensor that can detect clouds, and it can also measure different sources of radiation.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service