Quake3World

losCHUNK wrote: Every scientist may agree that Global Warming is natural but there's plenty of debate about who's causing it

losCHUNK wrote:The IPCC report was released in 07, it was deemed bullshit :], which is what I am arguing against and have provided information about. I offered to provide information from NASA that predicts a new cooling cycle. The 2nd source contained signatures from reputable sources even if you chose to single out certain ones and dis crediting, of which the IPCC has been accused of the exact same things.

losCHUNK wrote:Wanna talk about methane ?

losCHUNK wrote:Oh please I can throw mud too

Boring reports don't sell, so what's the incentive for funding ?

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Transient wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:The IPCC report was released in 07, it was deemed bullshit :], which is what I am arguing against and have provided information about. I offered to provide information from NASA that predicts a new cooling cycle. The 2nd source contained signatures from reputable sources even if you chose to single out certain ones and dis crediting, of which the IPCC has been accused of the exact same things.

The report I'm referring to is the most recent one that was leaked this month. Why would I suddenly start talking about a 2007 study? I'm talking about the one you quoted. It can't be deemed bullshit until it's actually published. The Mail got a leaked copy. How can you pass judgement on a report that hasn't been released yet, based solely on the reporting of a biased news source?

Transient wrote:I singled out nobody in the 2nd source you provided. I started with the first name on the list and went to the 2nd and then 3rd. Each time I found information which undermined their authority on the matter. Sensing a trend, I stopped looking at them independently and looked for a review of the article, and discovered that it was biased and none of the sources were legitimate.

losCHUNK wrote:Wanna talk about methane ?

Transient wrote:You mean methane from the hordes of cows we use for beef? Cows that wouldn't be alive if we didn't need them to eat? We introduced all that methane and now it contributes to global warming more than all the cars in the world do! You're doing a pretty good job of making my point for me.

losCHUNK wrote:

Transient wrote:You mean methane from the hordes of cows we use for beef? Cows that wouldn't be alive if we didn't need them to eat? We introduced all that methane and now it contributes to global warming more than all the cars in the world do! You're doing a pretty good job of making my point for me.

Yes that, all from 1 shite report thats got more holes in than swiss cheese

losCHUNK wrote:And my point is that the same flaws are within the IPCC

losCHUNK wrote:Is bullshit :]

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rong.html#

Can we all stop worrying about global warming? According to a recent rash of stories in the media, the "climate sensitivity" – the extent to which temperatures respond to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – is lower than expected, and thus that the world won't get as hot as predicted. One story, in The Economist, based on leaked information from a draft of the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claims the IPCC will revise its sensitivity estimate downwards when they release their official report this September.

The bottom line is that there is no new consensus that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought, says Knutti. The observed trend points to lower values because of the recent slowdown, but other evidence continues to support higher values.

The last IPCC report stated that equilibrium climate sensitivity was between 2 and 4.5 °C, mostly likely 3 °C. The Economist claims the IPCC's next report will give a figure between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with no most likely value. The IPCC won't confirm or deny it, but it's not a huge change if it is true.

"What matters for avoiding dangerous climate change is the upper end, and that hasn't changed," says Knutti. Ward makes the same point. "We can't afford to gamble on sensitivity definitely being low," he says.

But will it all be a huge waste if sensitivity does turn out to be low? Far from it. If we don't cut emissions, Knutti points out, all low sensitivity means is that it will take a decade or two longer for the planet to warm as much as it would if sensitivity was high. "It doesn't get away from the fact that emissions have to be reduced," he says.

Transient wrote:It's full of holes? Show me.

losCHUNK wrote:And my point is that the same flaws are within the IPCC

Where? What are the flaws?

Also, where is that NASA article you keep talking about?

A methane molecule does not have a warming ability that is 20 times that of a
carbon dioxide molecule since the GWP is based on comparing equal masses. In
one kilogram of methane there are 2.75 times the number of molecules that there
are in one kilogram of carbon dioxide. Molecule for molecule, the warming
ability of methane compared to carbon dioxide is 20/2.75 i.e. a more modest 7.3
times. This increased warming ability is mainly due to there being much less
methane in the atmosphere in the first place coupled with the fact that absorption
of energy diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases.

The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core: the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change. The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood. It has appointed a panel to review its statements, assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing CO2 levels

In fact this review has been forced on the Society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded last January that the pamphlet Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to take a less aggressive stance in support of AGW and respect climate change “agnostics”. In such partisan activities the Royal Society has form: in 2005 it published “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, which denounced 12 “misleading arguments” which today, post Climategate and the subsequent emboldening of sceptical scientists to speak out, look far from misleading.

This development does not, of course, mean that the Royal Society is embracing climate scepticism. On the contrary, it is very reluctantly modifying its stance to accommodate some of its Fellows who take the very scientific position that a degree of agnosticism is good practice when hypotheses remain unproven. Yet this retreat from absolutist global warming orthodoxy will deeply dismay the AGW lobby. For years, there was no fiercer proponent of the AGW theory than the Royal Society. Its previous president Lord May notoriously stated: “The debate on climate change is over.”

losCHUNK wrote:Dr Wilson Flood, who has no peer reviewed work and works in some university drafted a report about the potency of Methane as a greenhouse contributor. Not a good source but you would think it would be easy to debunk any of his figures which I have yet to see

Transient wrote:Every scientist agrees global warming exists. Every scientist agrees humans play a role in its acceleration. This isn't a debate like it was 10 years ago when not many people knew about global warming. It's real. Get your head out of the sand and join me in reality.