Comments on: Why I’m debating human-induced global warming deniers http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43 the ice and climate web log of Jason E. Box, Ph.D. Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:13:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: John O'Sullivan http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-594 John O'Sullivan Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:53:26 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-594 In the summer of 2007, there was less sea-ice in the Arctic than at any time since records began – but records began only 30 years ago, when satellite imaging of the entire ice-cap became possible. And by the winter, the sea-ice extent in the Arctic, like that in the Antarctic, was at record levels. It is known that there was no ice in the Arctic or in Greenland 850,000 years ago, when there were no humans to cause “global warming”. It is also inferred that the Arctic must have been free of ice in each of the past four interglacial periods, when temperatures were up to 5 degrees K (9 F) warmer than the present; that it was probably free of ice in the Roman, Mediaeval, and Bronze Age warm periods (the last of which endured for 2000 years); that the North-West Passage was open in 1903, when Amundsen sailed through it; that the Arctic was warmer than the present as recently as the 1940s; and, finally, that the reason for the extensive polar ice-melt in the summer of 2007 was southerly winds driving currents moving warm water from the tropics towards the North Pole – a feature of the current temperature-positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (NASA, 2007). In short, the “record” North Polar ice-melt, which arose from natural causes and not because of manmade “global warming”, has been replaced by record ice-formation at the North Pole this winter; and sea ice in the cooling Antarctic is already at record levels. In the summer of 2007, there was less sea-ice in the Arctic than at any time since records began – but records began only 30 years ago, when satellite imaging of the entire ice-cap became possible. And by the winter, the sea-ice extent in the Arctic, like that in the Antarctic, was at record levels. It is known that there was no ice in the Arctic or in Greenland 850,000 years ago, when there were no humans to cause “global warming”. It is also inferred that the Arctic must have been free of ice in each of the past four interglacial periods, when temperatures were up to 5 degrees K (9 F) warmer than the present; that it was probably free of ice in the Roman, Mediaeval, and Bronze Age warm periods (the last of which endured for 2000 years); that the North-West Passage was open in 1903, when Amundsen sailed through it; that the Arctic was warmer than the present as recently as the 1940s; and, finally, that the reason for the extensive polar ice-melt in the summer of 2007 was southerly winds driving currents moving warm water from the tropics towards the North Pole – a feature of the current temperature-positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (NASA, 2007). In short, the “record” North Polar ice-melt, which arose from natural causes and not because of manmade “global warming”, has been replaced by record ice-formation at the North Pole this winter; and sea ice in the cooling Antarctic is already at record levels.

]]> By: Todd Albert http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-557 Todd Albert Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:25:19 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-557 Dr. Wagner, You can try to argue this all you want from a political perspective and call climatologists "advocates". One problem that you are running against is science. Let's look at a few scientific facts that are as clear as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics (i.e. there is no political debate): 1) If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses in any layer of air, whether in the atmosphere or in a lab, you will increase the absorption of longwave radiation. (This was first published by Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1824.) 2) Burning of fossil fuels leads to a build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. (John Tyndall publishes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in 1861. Svante Arrhenius proposed the anthropogenic greenhouse effect due to burning fossil fuels in 1896.) 3) The Earth is now warming due to the build-up of greenhouse gasses. (This was first published in 1938 by G.S. Callendar.) Forgive me for not posting any cutesy YouTube videos like Dr. Wagner. And for the record, climatologists are taught to think analytically, deductively, and independently, not to all buy into some conspiracy. Sorry to burst any skeptical bubbles. Scientifically, Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist Dr. Wagner,

You can try to argue this all you want from a political perspective and call climatologists “advocates”. One problem that you are running against is science. Let’s look at a few scientific facts that are as clear as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics (i.e. there is no political debate):

1) If you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses in any layer of air, whether in the atmosphere or in a lab, you will increase the absorption of longwave radiation. (This was first published by Jean-Baptiste Fourier in 1824.)

2) Burning of fossil fuels leads to a build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. (John Tyndall publishes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in 1861. Svante Arrhenius proposed the anthropogenic greenhouse effect due to burning fossil fuels in 1896.)

3) The Earth is now warming due to the build-up of greenhouse gasses. (This was first published in 1938 by G.S. Callendar.)

Forgive me for not posting any cutesy YouTube videos like Dr. Wagner.

And for the record, climatologists are taught to think analytically, deductively, and independently, not to all buy into some conspiracy. Sorry to burst any skeptical bubbles.

Scientifically,
Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist

]]> By: Robert Wagner http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-140 Robert Wagner Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:12:18 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-140 Dr Box, here is a video that demonstrates that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This video is well worth watching. Be sure to forward it on to your friends. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjO-YRFaM-g Dr Box, here is a video that demonstrates that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This video is well worth watching. Be sure to forward it on to your friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjO-YRFaM-g

]]> By: Robert Wagner http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-126 Robert Wagner Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:33:42 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-126 Dr Box Says: "3.While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time." 1) That is all they are taught. That is like asking a surgeon to refer you to a chiropractic. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Climatologists are simply way too biased to be credible. Their political agands and funding depends on CO2 being the cause. 2)I agree, this debate is badly needed Dr Box Says: “3.While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time.”

1) That is all they are taught. That is like asking a surgeon to refer you to a chiropractic. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Climatologists are simply way too biased to be credible. Their political agands and funding depends on CO2 being the cause.

2)I agree, this debate is badly needed

]]> By: Robert Wagner http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-125 Robert Wagner Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:28:48 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-125 Dr Box Says: "2.I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science." 1) I would like to stress the GOVERNMENTAL in Intergovernmental panel on climate change. 2) Asking an environmental/climatologist is man causes global warming is like asking the Pope is Jesus is the son of God. 3) If I have a neck pain and read the surgery journal 100% will recommend surgery if it real the IM journal 100% will recommend pain killers and if I read the chiropractic journal 100% will recommend an adjustment. A consensus of advocates means nothing about the truth. Dr Box Says: “2.I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science.”

1) I would like to stress the GOVERNMENTAL in Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
2) Asking an environmental/climatologist is man causes global warming is like asking the Pope is Jesus is the son of God.
3) If I have a neck pain and read the surgery journal 100% will recommend surgery if it real the IM journal 100% will recommend pain killers and if I read the chiropractic journal 100% will recommend an adjustment. A consensus of advocates means nothing about the truth.

]]> By: Robert Wagner http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43&cpage=1#comment-123 Robert Wagner Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:17:10 +0000 http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=43#comment-123 Dr Box Says: "1.The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate." 1) I think that is still a debatable claim. 2) We will let the public decide once they see our event Dr Box Says: “1.The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate.”

1) I think that is still a debatable claim.
2) We will let the public decide once they see our event

]]>