Global Warming Debunked
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:59 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Thirty years ago, the cry was that the earth was cooling and that we
were pushing it back into an ice age.

We wouldn't want you to be fooled by appearence...
Nor would we want you to be, despite the fact that you have been.

Max

The fact is that man is the primary reason for the increase in carbon in
the atmosphere. We need to deal with it asap.


Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that the
conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is one
of the specific documents under dispute.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Jeff wrote:
* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the
reason for increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even
more in question as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of
GW. So your statement is not founded in FACT, but rather in
CONJECTURE.


According to you...


Show the numbers.

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of
the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.


This particular article has been disputed and the results have been
questioned. They changed the math to meet their anticipated results.

Sorry, read the appendices.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:37:52 -0400, Jeff wrote:

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 5/31/2007 4:28 PM:
...
Fact? Really? Its been proven without a doubt that man is the reason for
increased CO2 levels? That's in question. And its even more in question
as to whether CO2 is the cause of the result of GW. So your statement is
not founded in FACT, but rather in CONJECTURE.

According to you...

Show the numbers.
Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.

I don't think the 10,000,000,000 odd tons of carbon/year are in much
doubt at all, or the levels of atmospheric CO2 or even the 1.2 W/m2
CO2 radiative forcing (fig2). The doubt is mainly in the
clouds/aerosol contribution and the sensitivity of temperature to
radiative forcing. Just a big coincidence, I suppose, that it all
seems to fit..


If not otherwise so widely disputed, the researchers' guess might be a
little more credible.

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:01 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that the
conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is one
of the specific documents under dispute.

Wow! Talk about your fast moving fields. That paper was only
published a week ago!

In fact, its only a portion of a report that won't be complete until
later this year. It is intended to be the up most up to date
collection of all of the latest research and is the basis for the
current policy planning. Its fascinating that your personal research
is so advanced that you've made this all obsolete.

Global Warming Debunked
 

Jeff wrote:
* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:01 PM:
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

Fig2.3 etc.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf


Document was written before there was much study. Now it seems that
the conclusions drawn in that work are under reconsideration. This is
one of the specific documents under dispute.

Wow! Talk about your fast moving fields. That paper was only published
a week ago!

In fact, its only a portion of a report that won't be complete until
later this year. It is intended to be the up most up to date collection
of all of the latest research and is the basis for the current policy
planning. Its fascinating that your personal research is so advanced
that you've made this all obsolete.





My mistake. I read the Exec Summary, scanned through a lot of the body.
It just read like an earlier study that has been so torn apart that it
no longer has any value. I need to go through the references to see if
the results of that bogus study (or others similarly criticized works)
have been used.

Global Warming Debunked
 

* Cessna 310 wrote, On 5/31/2007 9:08 PM:
Jeff wrote:
The AR4 just doesn't cut it. They are only willing to say that "since
1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial
warming influence on climate" and "For the period 1950 to 2005, it is
exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance
plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that
of the combined anthropogenic RF."

This is a far cry from the 100% certainty that Cess is looking for.
Clearly, it isn't worth doing anything if its only "extremely likely"
that we have a problem. And since the scientists can only say its
"exceptionally unlikely" that natural influences equal the human
influence, that leaves a huge possibility that the warming was really
caused by a volcano that we didn't notice.

And obviously, if Global Warming was real, the President Bush would be
calling for setting goals on greenhouse gas emissions. Until that day
comes, nobody has anything to worry about.


This particular article has been disputed and the results have been
questioned. They changed the math to meet their anticipated results.


You're thinking of the minor controversy about one chart in the Third
assessment, TAR. This version has only been out in its preliminary
form for a few months. It is a massive document, pretty unequivocal
in its support for the basics of Human causes of Global Warning. Are
you seriously claiming they would publish this huge report, including
the portions of the "executive summary" I quoted above, and then tuck
a "just kidding" in some appendix?

Sorry, read the appendices.

I found nothing like you describe. Perhaps you'd like to show your
supporting documentation.

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:25:09 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max

Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM


Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started
having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and salaries
didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job when the
industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max


Factory job? PLEASE elaborate! Before I retired, I was corporate VP of
operations for a publically traded company that included manufacturing,
but it
was a LOT more complex than just that. I got an obscenely huge bonus for
being
instrumental in launching a very successful IPO. I've never heard of
anybody
referring to that business as a "factory", regardless.

Okay, Bubbles . . . er, BB. Take your pill and head off to bed. The
delusions will be gone by morning.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM

Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and
salaries didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job
when the industry turned into a nightmare?

Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max

Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Yeah. It's rather sad, actually. He's insanely jealous of those of us
who've been successful. He attempts to denigrate our work and
accomplishments.

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:


I had an eye problem that kept me from flying airlines. It was minor,
but with hundreds of high-time turbine pilots coming out of the military,
there was no need to take me. It was no issue for flying corporate, but
I just couldn't get my arms around that at the time. I did fly cancelled
checks in a Lear 24 for a while, but that was as far as my "corporate"
career went. Talk about boring work.

Max
Lear? deep sigh

My envy is beyond words. ;)

Don't be envious. The Lear 24 is, IMO, a death trap. There have been a
number of tuck-under accidents--i.e.--loss of control. Fly by the numbers
in good weather and you'll be okay. Push it toward its operational limits
and it can bite. To its credit it was nimble and relatively easy to get
into shorter fields. Two friends died in 24s, albeit one was simply a
navigational error (read: side of mountain). I've flown right seat in a 35
Longhorn, which is, again IMO, a superior airplane in all respects. Very
stable and forgiving, right up to the edge of the envelope.

Have you ever flown a Beech Duke?

Max

Global Warming Debunked
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Cessna 310" wrote in message
...
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:12:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:

Most of my flying was building time for an airline career that never
materialized.
Max
Just one disappointment after another for poor failed Maxpoop...


CWM
Many of us were heading down that path before commercial airlines
started having serious problems. Employment opportunities dried up and
salaries didn't go anywhere. Why would anyone want to go after a job
when the industry turned into a nightmare?
Charlie, better known as Binary Bill (BB) would be willing to do almost
anything other than his current factory job.

Max
Factory, eh? Poor thing.

Yeah. It's rather sad, actually. He's insanely jealous of those of us
who've been successful. He attempts to denigrate our work and
accomplishments.

Max



What a shame. So he's not in the Smithsonian? What a shame.