Thread: Positive effects of Global Warming?

Originally Posted by Gaar

I did in fact, care to address it?

I didn't say the summary Article was peer-reviewed, I said the Science they use to come to their conclussions is, and it is documented in the Report they offer at the site. You are free to go read it any time you like, but I am not going to post it here because of how long it is.

You care to address it, be my guest! I would love to see you address any of it.

You actually said it was peer reviewed but that aside - which article in particular do you want me to address?

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

You actually said it was peer reviewed but that aside - which article in particular do you want me to address?

I said they used peer-reviewed Science to come to their conclussions.

No need to address anything by you, I know your answer already.

You will simply attack the source rather than address ANY of the Science.

That is all you seem able to do.

Originally Posted by Gaar

I said they used peer-reviewed Science to come to their conclussions.

No need to address anything by you, I know your answer already.

You will simply attack the source rather than address ANY of the Science.

That is all you seem able to do.

I am giving you an opportunity here - pick an article you say is peer reviewed from there and present it - I will then debate it.


I am not going to trawl through a mountain of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to try and find the one fractured diamond you insist is there only to have you throw it away and insist that there is a better one in there somewhere

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

I am giving you an opportunity here - pick an article you say is peer reviewed from there and present it - I will then debate it.

As I have said, it is the Science that is peer-reviewed, but I don't expect that you will address it...

Originally Posted by Gaar

Really?

Then please explain the following...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/...fessor-plimer/

The history of CO2 and temperature shows that there is no correlation.

Ask your local warmer:

1. Why was CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation?

It wasn't. Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that says it was? In fact, since the Hirnantian glaciation lasted less than a million years, do you have any reference at all for paleo-CO2 levels that hits that tiny window?

Originally Posted by Gaar

2. Why were both methane and CO2 higher than now in the Permian glaciation?

They weren't. CO2 levels in the Permian were considerably lower than they are today. There was a high-methane episode at the end of the Permian, but that's associated with the end-Permian extinction event, a.k.a. "The Great Dying". I assume you agree that wasn't a good thing?

Originally Posted by Gaar

3. Why was CO2 5 times higher than now in the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation?

It wasn't. CO2 levels were up and down like a yo-yo during the Cretaceous-Jurassic period, but the only confirmed glaciation occured when CO2 was low. (See Royer 2006, figure 3.) So if we look at the actual science instead of denier websites, CO2 seems to be a driver of paleoclimate, just as it is today.

Originally Posted by Gaar

The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years,

If you want to go back billions of years, you also have to account for the fact that the Sun was considerably dimmer back then. Without a lot of CO2 in the air during those times, Earth would have been a permanent iceball.

Originally Posted by Gaar

we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).

Geological processes remove CO2 from the air at a rate thousands of times slower than humans increase it. (As shown by Walker et al. 1981. By the way, Walker et. al. 1981 also discusses the faint-young-sun issue for the remote past too. So it is clear that you didn't actually read it.)

Originally Posted by Gaar

The literature on this subject is large yet the warmers chose to ignore this literature.

Psychologists call this "projection". It's when you imagine that other people have the problem that is in fact your own.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

I am giving you an opportunity here - pick an article you say is peer reviewed from there and present it - I will then debate it.

Again, it is not an article, it is the Science they used to suipport their assertion and you have been given a link to it many times...

Let's try again:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ticle_HTML.php

Originally Posted by Gaar

Again, it is not an article, it is the Science they used to suipport their assertion and you have been given a link to it many times...

Let's try again:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ticle_HTML.php

This isn't the biggest piece of peer-reviewed crap I've ever read. But it's up there. Here's the first important question we need to ask:

Why does a scientist submit a climate paper to a medical journal?

Think about that question as we review the contents.

1. Deceptive graphs. RRS refer to figure 1 in the text as an example showing the Earth's average temperature. But the figure itself shows only the proxy temperature of the Sargasso Sea: it's local data, not global data. They even have the gall to claim that the Sargasso data is "illustrative of most locations." Gee, if you actually wanted to illustrate most locations, why wouldn't you use global data? Global data is easily available, but RRS don't use that, because global data does not reinforce the lie that they want to tell and the deception they want you to believe. Disgraceful.

2. Glacier shortening. RRS post a graph showing glaciers started shortening around 1800, coinciding with the beginning of widespread use of coal for steam engines. That's because when you burn coal you get soot, which is black, and when soot falls on a white glacier it absorbs a lot of heat. RRS say this means glacier shortening is unaffected by CO2. If you cannot see the non-sequitur, you need to go back to school.

3. Strawman arguments. Figure 3 shows Arctic air temperature compared to fossil fuel emissions. (Once again, as in Fail #1, why not use global temps? They're certainly available. Answer: global temps don't have the same deceptive effect as cherry-picking, so RRS do the cherry-picking instead.) But why are we comparing to fossil fuel emissions rather than CO2 fraction in the air? It's the CO2 in the air that causes global warming directly, while emissions only cause warming to the extent that those emissions are not absorbed by the oceans and soils. The CO2 air fraction is easily available, and RRS again do not use the data. Reason? They're being deliberately deceptive again.

4. Non-Science disguised as science. Referring to figure 3, why are RSS using this bizarre solar proxy composed of things like solar rotation rate? In what way can solar rotation rate possibly affect Earth's climate? Answer: it can't. But if it correlates with Earth's climate, the statistics are enough for RSS, and (*)(*)(*)(*) the physics. Of course, actual reconstructions of the Total Solar Irradiance are easily available, and TSI is the only known mechanism by which the Sun warms the Earth.

Of course RRS know this, so in figure 5 they falsely claim that the red line in figure 3 is "total solar irradiance". It's not. They're lying.

That's just the first page and a half. I could go on, but you get the idea. If you want to defend these lies and deceptions, Gaar, I await the opportunity to debate. If you don't, I'll understand. But in the latter case I would expect you not to refer to this crap again.

Oh, and why would a scientist submit a climate paper to a medical journal?

It's because he wants to avoid meaningful peer review. I wonder how many climatologists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has on its editorial board?

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

It wasn't. Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that says it was? <Snip>.

Sure he does. People know that. If somebody doubt he can search Inet.

Originally Posted by Gaar

As I have said, it is the Science that is peer-reviewed, but I don't expect that you will address it...

What peer reviewed science. Are you referring to that mix of Astrology and claptrap you posted from Tallbloke?? Because i hate to break the news to you but Astrology is not science.


Thank-you to Poor Debater for the masterly analysis of the paper - it was well worth reading

Now are we going to go down the road of "It wash't the paper itself but the science they used" crap again?

The analysis is flawed and even if it wasn't these are only a tiny handful of people out of tens of thousands who HAVE looked at the science very very carefully and come to an opposite conclusion.

And before you query "tens of thousands" I will remind you this is a GLOBAL scientific endeavour crossing multiple disciplines

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

Sure he does. People know that. If somebody doubt he can search Inet.

I've searched and haven't found one. Perhaps you could rush in to fill the gap.