$4 Million for Climate Change research

What a nonsense, typical capitalistic ideology.

What needs to be done is what needs to be done.

There is money for everything else, (*)(*)(*)(*)ing army and weapons, trillions for Monsanto, trillions for big and greedy companies, and they have what they shouldn't have, a voice in you.....

Regards

 

But as you have shown us time and time again, it does not matter how qualified and experienced the presenter is, or how academically referenced and correct the material is, if it is contrary to AGW Church doctrine you will find some way to dismiss it. On the other hand you have on numerous occasions held out the same sort of blogs, unreferenced opinions, graphs and material from extremist sites in support of your religious beliefs in agw.

 

So the list below is just a few blokes in the pub?

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.


2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2n the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

 

And here is the kicker that is never answers - what is currently causing THIS change?

 

Sorry - you have yet to present an academically referenced honest (one that does not cherry pick) source

And BTW = that is a personal attack the next one will not be answered but reported directly to the mods

 

You are not happy with these references from the 'blog' I posted?

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.


2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2n the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

 

Not references - bibliography - there is a difference

Most of your links are missing - the references themselves include only one that is within a ten year limit - most are far far older and the Co2 figures are from 2000
As for the actual "Dancing Graphics" well others have done the critiquing of this beautifully

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/09/planetologist-o.html

 

Chemistry and physics don't change over time. The fact that an experiment was done or observation made years ago does not make it invalid. It would be unscientific to even suggest such a thing. Once again you are not disputing the data but shooting the messenger by saying the message is invalid because it is 'old'. The alarmist certainly use data and scientific results that are 'old' but won't accept it from agw sceptics?

as for your reference;

"It's a blog

What is a blog - an opinion of sum bloke that has been uploaded (won't even refer to it as publishing) onto a website somewhere

Tell me - how is this more accurate than the classical

"Sum bloke in da pub who talked like dis tol' me dat waz what it waz"

 

You mean no warming? Possibly the same thing that cause the warming.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize that many scientists have started blogs because they cannot get published during the current religious persecution. Like Lomborg who believes in AGW but does not think the current environmentalist jihad is the right course got sacked because of the environmentalist jihad.

 

Hmmm, so doesn't the fact that seas were higher than now kind of undermine the whole CO2 thingy?

 

H8,
with all the evidence of soil and ice samples taken (density, depth, layer, composition) there was never a time in our Earth history, where our climate changed so quick in just over 150 years.
Why is it so difficult for you guys to admit we stuffed it up, and more importantly, to address our future behavior?
Regards

 

LOL, you evidently don't understand the timescale for proxies and how they do not give short timescales such as you suggest. The only thing we have showing 150 year time scales is actual temperature measurements so it is a lack of understanding to suggest that proxies can show the same thing. BTW, even in the proxy data, such things as rapid change are evident. You are also only talking about one scale, from the late 70's to the late 90's with no warming after. A short 20 year change does not show up in proxies.

 

What change?

 

Not evident to Bowerbird, but no warming.

Like IPCC lead author Professor Peter Thorne said of Lewandowsky's latest attack on science.

 

Actually they do change otherwise we would not be buying new texts

Yes the fundamentals remain the same - which is why we know CO2 is causing a greenhouse effect since that has been known since 1890 but it is the fine tuning - what bands of IR radiation? How does that occur?

As for your comments on a blog - mate I will answer blog with blog because BOTH are of equal value but if you want real science go to somewhere like the Garnaut report

 

Yes, the fundamentals in simple experiments but not in the wicked problem of the entire climate. You miss that point. You use blogs yet dismiss blogs. What does that say about you?

 

The ones you were talking of earlier

 

The changes that have been occurring since time began.

 

Yes those - what CAUSED them?

Volcanic activity - no outstandingly different volcanic activity happening just now so that cannot be the cause of the current change
Sun spot activity - we are in a low so ditto
Milankovitch cycles - do not correlate with current change
Alteration in CO2 - bingo! Correlation
And where is that Co2 coming from?

 

Since there is a known 10 to 15 year delay between sun activity and temperature changes on earth and since we are entering a lower period of activity, it is not telling that we are not showing warming now?

 

Nice to see some claims actually backed up

 

Selective data representation. Lets see some charts which go back further and you will see this rise looks a lot less signifigant compared to historical movements.

To me the biggest failing of the pro-human climate change crowd is the way they argue it, they always use data which does not tell the whole story - just the fragments of data which exaggerate their argument for them. Another example of bad science..... so when you get the hysteria like the UWA's reaction, it add's up to skeptics being really worried the scientists are no longer impartial. That is a failure of the scientists, not the skeptics.

 

Typical, take old data to make a point. Sun spots, solar cycle, magnetic activity all contribute to solar activity. For instance, it is hypothesized that the weaker solar magnetic field allows more cosmic rays to bombard earth which in turn creates more clouds cooling Earth.

 

Oh! That is rich - a denialist complaining about cherry picking!!!

Did it every cross your mind that solar sunspot activity pre 1860 is inferred data?

The chart has a time spread wide enough to disprove the contentions of those who simply throw mud at a wall and it hits something significant

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021916994000886



Your turn to back statements with facts

 

Hmmm Bb,
if people have decided to stay in the past, there is not much you can do, especially not with facts.
They are unwilling to move forward and to re-calibrate their thinking, I wouldn't say it is too much effort for them, more that there are fears involved for the necessary change.....
Those people are usually found on the right side of the fence, and have very conservative views about almost everything.....
Cheerio