Extreme is the New Normal

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

In this thread you haven't refuted what I've said.

You are free to post most relevant excerpts from your sites as answer to my objections posted in past posts. Please refute in this thread what I've said.


I've tried to read your website. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Your site states this:
"a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C."

Prove that.

Experience have shown something else:


According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate. http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Explain that, Kim!

Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How can above be?

CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Refute the radiative heating physics:
"Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Extreme weather" was even prior to industrialization:
Scientists also agree – for it is a matter of record – that floods of similar severity have struck the east coast of Australia before: twice in the 19th century and most recently in 1974. These earlier floods could not have been caused by manmade “global warming”, because there was not enough of it to make any difference at that time."
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi ... loods.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... floods.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Human factor is not needed to explain warming and cooling of the planet. Climate change was happening for 4.5 billion of years, and today's 390ppm is nothing extremely high compared to as much as 7,000ppm of CO2 that nature produced by itself. Even when humans were using lots of factories, there were times when the temperature have gone DOWN. This is contrary to AGW proponents claim that humans cause temperature to rise.

Today's "rise" in temperature is no different from rise in temperatures that have occured multiple times within the past 400,000 years. Moreover, during time of the dinosaurs the average global temperature was MUCH hotter than today. This shows to us again, that humans are not required to raise the temperature.


Current temperatures have nothing to suggest that they have to be caused by humans to be so high as they are now.
co2Alex.JPG
co2Alex.JPG (58.25 KiB) Viewed 2654 times
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
I asked you a question a while ago and said that I would ignore anything else you posted until you answered the question.
So far, I'm ignoring. Until we know why you reject the weight of genuine climate science, debating individual facts and factoids will get us nowhere.
:namaste:
Kim
I asked the same question in a slightly different way, too:
Why do you choose to believe one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?

I am not going to pay any attention until you answer either or both of those questions, and I doubt that anyone else here will do so.
At the moment you are not asking questions, let alone smart questions. You are repeating other people's pseudo-questions and pseudo-science.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

Kim O'Hara wrote: I asked the same question in a slightly different way, too:
Why do you choose to believe one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?
Kim, why do you choose to believe one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara »

Kim O'Hara wrote:n of science.
Alex wrote: And why do you, Kim, believe one lot of people rather than the other lot?
There's no need to shout - especially since I have already given you my answer: I follow expert advice where my own expertise is inadequate.
In climate science, expert advice equates to the consensus and approximately equates to the IPCC report, RealClimate, Spencer Weart ... basically the resources I have been directing you towards.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara »

Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.
If I had all the time in the world (and I don't), the best reason would be one which is an automatic result of the fact that I am not an expert myself but rely on experts, i.e. you would be getting second-hand information rather than the real deal.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Kim,
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.
So you can't refute my points. How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?
Kim O'Hara wrote: If I had all the time in the world (and I don't), the best reason would be one which is an automatic result of the fact that I am not an expert myself but rely on experts, i.e. you would be getting second-hand information rather than the real deal.
:namaste:
Kim
Since you are not an expert yourself, how do you know that your people are not making any mistakes?


For example, another pearl from your website:
"CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is incorrect that human produced CO2 has caused accumulation of heat in our climate.
1st)
CO2 makes about 0.0387% (in 2009) of atmospheric volume. A tiny amount of which we contribute less than <5% .
5% of 0.0387% = 0.05 * 0.0387% = 0.001935% of human contribution to the atmosphere. Near Zero!
Natural processes contributes, the rest, 99.998065% to the atmosphere.

2nd)
Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3rd)
According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to predictions of Global Warming believers, the temperatures had to continue to rise. But they didn't. Despite the rising of the CO2 levels (as it naturally has occurred) the temperatures have not followed up. It is contradictory to say that global warming (warming!) causes some temperatures to cool...



CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara »

Alex123 wrote:Hi Kim,
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.
So you can't refute my points.
Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.

Then you go on to attack 'my' experts with 'your' experts which brings us back to the question you keep avoiding.
There is only one sensible question in your last post and I will answer it if you can identify it to me.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

Kim O'Hara wrote:Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.
So you can't. And I suspect neither can your "experts".

Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_a ... hor2108263" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't trust such experts, who themselves admit the lack of scientific proof. This I hope answers your question, as to why I choose experts.



With metta,

Alex
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Kim OHara »

Alex, you have just called me a liar.
Please apologise.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

If you can answer my questions, then please do. You've been calling my science "junk science" and lied when you said that I've ever said that "CO2 significantly heats up the planet"
Kim O'Hara wrote:I'm sorry, but you did say it. You also said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Please apologize for claiming that I've said what I didn't say.



In quote below, you have called my statements to be junk science.
Kim O'Hara wrote: Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p112503" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Of course I understand what you meant. I was deliberately being dishonest as an example of of how easy it is, and I said so.
You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, andstill showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.Over to you.
:namaste:
Kim
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118370" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(underlines are mine)
Please apologize for calling my responces "bullshit"
In the posts below that post of yours, I've given answers.




Kim, please answer:
How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?
CO2 doesn't cause GW:
Please answer my post:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118616" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


You can use quotes from your experts if you don't want to type answer yourself.
If you have read the site of your own experts, and understand it, you should have no problem refuting what I've said point-by-point.
If you haven't read that site with "expert" opinion, or have not understood their reply, then on what basis do you trust them? This may explain your unwillingness to engage in a rational dialogue and refute what I've said in my posts point-by-point.


I guess when you can't rationally answer, you attack the messanger or claim lack of time. This is page #14 and you still haven't proven AGW.


If you have answered my questions about AGW in this thread, please repost them or give links to those pages in this thread where you have. "Junk science", "bullshit", "I trust the experts" is not an appropriate and convincing answer.

The reason I don't blindly trust AGW "experts" is because they themselves admitted their lack of certain scientific proof and trying to scare us.
See bottom of this post:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p118364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Your yourself have said:
Kim O'Hara wrote: Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p117724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Prove that!
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4039
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
'Hot Politics' by James M. Sheehan (July 1996)

As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.

The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review.

Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed.

The IPCC's explanations bolster the impression that the revisions were politically motivated. Santer cites a November State Department memo to the IPCC advising "that chapter authors modify the text in an appropriate manner." According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists.

The IPCC had a rather different response to earlier efforts to modify its report. During peer review, Britain's Global Commons Institute (GCI) took issue with a finding in Chapter 6 that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may exceed the predicted economic damage from global warming. Demanding that the damage be calculated in a way which showed that richer countries owe "compensation" to the Third World, GCI orchestrated an effort by delegates from Cuba and the Alliance of Small Island States to rewrite the report, replacing all damage estimates with warnings about "the loss of unique cultures." In response, senior IPCC official James Bruce insisted that the proper time to make revisions under IPCC rules was during two prior rounds of peer review: "At this stage [the October 1995 Montreal working group], the authors can make a few editorial changes for clarity of reading, but not changes to the meaning or substance of the report" (italics added).

Perhaps IPCC officials should consult one another regarding their contrasting interpretations of IPCC procedures. Both environmentalist groups, like GCI and Greenpeace, and industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition, are having great difficulty understanding how the IPCC conducts itself with regard to peer review. What is clear, however, is that the UN panel is so thoroughly politicized that its integrity and objectivity cannot be taken for granted.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by andre9999 »

Seeing that this is a discussion only between the two of you, why don't you just take it private? Once you reach the point of demanding apologies from each other, the discussion has devolved awfully far.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19948
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by mikenz66 »

:coffee:
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by nathan »

Congratulations to both of you, I no longer care what either side thinks about anything about these issues.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
Locked