Well meaning idiots

[OwlHoot]

WHS.
But let's put some science on the table:

1. The increase in CO2 cannot trap enough energy by itself to warm the climate above approx. 1 deg. C per century (max) at current rates of increase. Therefore the Global Warming theory is wrong.

Discuss.

It's not just CO2. Water vapour also absorbs energy, and so do the oceans by warming.

Also, at some point a vast amount of methane will suddenly be released from frozen deposits at the bottom of the oceans (methane hydrates) and the arctic tundra, and weight for weight methane is 20 times (not 20% but 20*) more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Give Charlie Boy his due, he's often ahead of the curve and he's right about this too. But I doubt many people are listening right now.

[EternalOptimist]

And another one. I do hope its poor education and not, as I suspect, a low IQ.

I refuse to rise to your bait or sink to your level. Except to note that the last time I saw a gob like yours, Lester Piggot was sitting behind it

[Foxy Moron]

I will be persuaded by the scientific research, by the scientific observations or by a watertight theory.
I will not be persuaded by hysteria, a majority opinion or by insults

I stand by what I said, you are insulting you own intelligence. No need to conduct any research, just see what is popular and go with that, that's how these guy work innit?

[sasguru]

May I suggest to ace, EO and Svallbard, that rather than make fools of themselves any further, they read the following (not to do with climate change, but with the scientific method):

Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Anything by Karl Popper.

When you fully understand the scientific method, you can come back and debate climate change. Until then, you're like a blind man flailing about in a dark room.

[OwlHoot]

May I suggest to ace, EO and Svallbard, that rather than make fools of themselves any further, they read the following (not to do with climate change, but with the scientific method):

Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
Anything by Karl Popper.

WHS, and there's also the precautionary principle.

If you demand watertight evidence or confirmation for some drastic outcome, then by the time you get it the outcome may be upon you and too late to do anything about!

Having said that, scientists are only human and need funding. So they do have a vested interest in people going along with their hypotheses and believing their conclusions.

[ace00]

It's not just CO2. Water vapour also absorbs energy, and so do the oceans by warming.

Also, at some point a vast amount of methane will suddenly be released from frozen deposits at the bottom of the oceans (methane hydrates) and the arctic tundra, and weight for weight methane is 20 times (not 20% but 20*) more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Give Charlie Boy his due, he's often ahead of the curve and he's right about this too. But I doubt many people are listening right now.

OK - almost a scientific response.

Question 4: If +ve feedback occurs in the atmosphere (through water vapor or out-gassing of methane) - why hasn't the atmosphere boiled off or frozen solid in the last 4 billion years ?

[dang65]

1. The increase in CO2 cannot trap enough energy by itself to warm the climate above approx. 1 deg. C per century (max) at current rates of increase. Therefore the Global Warming theory is wrong.

2. Models: Urban Heat Island effect is greatly understated in AGW models. As is natural climatic variability (you know, sun, orbit, oceans, that kind of stuff). The source code (Fortran I think) has been analysed and found to be ...tulip. Various "adjustments" used in models are un-substantiated. I could go on. Therfore the models are GIGO rubbish or in CUK speak TITO (Tulip in Tulip Out)

3. Peer review is not in any way equal to scientific method. Never has been, isn't now.

Maybe go and get a cup of tea and then have a read through this little list? (It answers your questions and many more.)

[sasguru]

Actually apart from a general undesratnding of the scientific method, which seems to be sorely lacking, some knowledge of statistical inference is also necessary.
So I don't expect the ignorant (for that is what they are) on here to progress any time soon.

[ace00]

Maybe go and get a cup of tea and then have a read through this little list? (It answers your questions and many more.)

Coffee thanks.
Took a look, here's a bit:

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous
United States: No Difference Found
THOMAS C. PETERSON
National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
(Manuscript received 26 May 2002, in final form 23 February 2003)
ABSTRACT All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can
lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant
data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural...

I think they're wrong. It's also a self-contradicting statement.

[sasguru]

I think they're wrong. It's also a self-contradicting statement.

DOn't worry your little brain over it. You don't have the capacity.

HTH.