|
Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/21/2013 10:30:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Funny.
First mention of global warming Aug 8, 1975.
And he used 1975 as his baseline -ie., used the co2 emissions from 1975 and assumed growth of 3%.
Good enough for the guy that invented the term I suspect its good enough for you.
Actually the firs scientist to predict global warming from human released CO2 is Arrhenius in 1896.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/64/10/10.1063/PT.3.1295
Surprising how wrong the deniers are all the time.
Well someone got their feelings hurt. And so now I must repost absent characterizations about comprehension.
Did I say the person that coined the term "global warming" was the first person to propose it?
No. Nor did I mean it. For the record, arrhenious wasn't the first to propose it, either. His work, although brilliant, was derivative of Tyndall.
And for the record - arrhenious thought global warming was a good thing as he (correctly) noted that food production increased and he thought it would make it easier to feed the teeming masses.
No, I said the man that coined the phrase - global warming. What I said is what I meant.
You claim is as usual full of shit. The first use of the term is irrelevant. The fact is that people have been theorizing on what effects the burning of fossil carbon would have for more than a century. And Arrenhius thought the temperature would rise gradually over thousands of years not several degrees C in a century which has already happened.
Although this does show the troubling obsession of right wing science deniers with the founders or pioneers in a field. Is it simply the RW authoritarian streak or some other personality quirk that makes right wingers focus on some individual in a field and act like that person defined the entire field forever?
Lets recapitulate the argument:
DomKen said - (paraphrased) no real scientists based global warming on 1975.
I said (paraphased) the man who coined the term, and who has authored more than 400 papers used 1975 as the basis.
I think he qualifies as real.
DomKen then said (sputter sputter): Well he wasn't the first guy to propose global warming. Along with the usual nonsense about attacking deniers in a cult of personality or some such idiocy.
To which my reply is: So?
As usual you just made shit up. You claimed no scientist used the 20th century average as a baseline. I pointed out, rightfully, that it was the standard. You then tried to obfuscate the matter by claiming some guy who you have yet to identify did not in 1976 and tried to claim he was the person who discovered that burning fossil carbon would affect the Earth's climate. I then proved that wasn't true. You then tried to make this all about some, still unidentified paper by an unidentified scientist. Since I'm sure you got this nonsense from some dumbass denial site I give it no credence.
To further rub your face in the fact scientists were thinking about global warming long before 1976:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-message-in-bottle-arctic-20131219,0,1177299.story#axzz2oAiFoRFL
Making things up again.
1. Quote me where I said "no scientist used the 20th century average as a baseline".
Never happened.
2. Quote me where I said that he was the person that said he was the first person to postulate that burning fossil fuel would affect earth's climate. Never happened.
For the record, since I believe that burning fossil fuel *does* affect earth's climate, it seems highly unlikely I would say that, now doesn't it.
It just doesn't (and won't) cause the AGCC climate warming that alarmists proclaim.
3. I previously identified the scientist as broekner (sp) and his paper was one of the papers that got me interested in global warming. Can't blame me when you complain and get the posts pulled. As for some 'denier' source - the rag is called Science. You *might* have heard of it.
4. I haven't bothered to read your link - since I have no doubt that this idea has been suggested dozens of times. IIRC it was pushed in the eisenhower administration, it was pushed around 1904, and it was pushed around the time of the dustbowls pretty heavy.
But for the record - when arrhenious proposed the idea (what, around 1890?) another scientist published a rebuttal saying that all the infrared emissions were already absorbed by already existing carbon in the atmosphere. And that therefore any additional carbon loading wouldn't increase net reradiation to the earth.
5. I will say it again - for the about zillionth time.
My quibble with AGGW springs from several sources:
a). Science does not operate by trying to shut down research that contravenes evidence. So when Hansen said in congress that deniers should be taxed - it is an attack on the scientific method. When east anglia destroyed its data rather than release it for examination - thats fraud. When NASA falsified data points on no less than three occassions - Fraud. When Mann adds an arbitrary correction factor to generate 'the hockey stick' - and doesn't admit it - thats fraud.
Science doesn't operate by trying to deny opponents publication and funding.
Science doesn't deny data to people that want to verify results.
b). My second opposition comes because the IPCC said - we will see temperatures increases of this much by 2013. And they were wrong. Not one of IPCC's 44 models are anywhere near accurate in predicting the current temperatures - and haven't been for years.
So a scientific theory that doesn't explain the results *is useless*.
My opposition stems that NASA, and the IPCC have said - our model for the net absorption of IR by CO2 *is wrong*. They have also said their model for cloud formation by aerosol particles - is wrong.
They have FLAT OUT said they are wrong.
So who are you to say they aren't?
C. My third opposition to AGCC springs from most peoples lack of knowledge of history. I have shown where the earths temperature have cycled the same way as currently at least 5 times on a period of 425,000 years. If you can't explain why that cycle occurs, (and indeed causes temperatures greater than we are now experiencing) then you bloody well can't say its global warming.
If you can't explain the warming period in the middle ages - you can't claim to understand global warming.
If you can't refute the science of Svenmark and Cern - then you can't claim to have an unalloyed understanding of the causes of temperature change.
D. My fourth opposition to AGCC springs from alarmist crap. When alarmists such as yourself bruit global warming as the cause of more hurricanes, the himalayan glaciers melting. When you promulgate policies that put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and induce misery and poverty then it becomes a religion and not a science.
When Princeton (no slouch that institute) publishes a study that says EVEN if global warming is occuring the best action would be do nothing for 50 years - and you blithely ignore it then you no longer operate in the realm of science.
So frankly, son, your attempts to portray me as ignorant on the issue of global warming is ridiculous. My views on global warming are more informed and more nuanced than your own. You haven't done 1/10 the study on this that I have.
For example - have you compared ground station data sets and seen the error in the correction factor? No.
Have you seen where the groundstations recording sites were altered. No.
Did you download the origianl satellite data? No.
Did you find where Nasa doctored the data. No.
Did you read the entire climate gate records. No.
Have you read all of the IPCC reports over the years. I doubt it.
Do you read any items from people that aren't alarmists? Probably not. For example - why did the head of the american physicist society resign? I've given you the website of the NGCCC publishes more than 11,000 articles that do not support global warming. Have you read any of them?
I guarantee you I've read more science that shows in support of global warming than you've read opposed to global warming. I even happen to think a lot of it is damn fine science.
When the IPCC (or someone else) puts forth a theory that explains the data, with a convincing replicatable model, then I'll go. Huh. Cool science. For example Cern's science. Good stuff. Svennies - brave guy. Nasa's research on CO2 radiation in the upper atmosphere - solid stuff.
Till then, its just a chicken little gravy train for leftist political hacks sucking at the government tit.
|
|
|
|
