In the spirit of making this debate become more transparent to others who care to read and learn, I am posting portions of the exchanges, but I removed the names. So readers, focus on the message and arguments, not the names. This is the original challenge by S:
Now that things are starting to normalize, I would like to hear anybody who would dispute that climate change is just a political ploy of "watermelon" (their words, not mine) environmentalists to ask more money, and demand more government intervention.
Nonoy Oplas Climate change is natural, warming-cooling-warming-cooling. We're in a period of global cooling, hence, more rains, more flood, and worse to come, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/05/climate-tricks-8-catastrophic-scare-for.html
S It's a natural cycle, yes. But it is being hastened by human behavior, especially now with increased industrial activities.
PM: we are not in a period of global cooling. ang mga sobrang rainfall ay dala rin ng global warming, tulad ng paglamig ng ibang lugar dahil natutunaw ang mga yelo. kaya lately ay mas ginagamit na ang "climate change" kaysa "global warming" para hindi na ma-confuse.
Nonoy Oplas It's obvious you did not check the paper I posted. Explain the following:
a. absence of causality, if any, between flat-lining global temp while CO2 concentration is rising.
b. rule out explicitly, the effect of natural factors like the Sun and GCRs on climate.
PM sorry, mr. oplas, pero i think you should submit your paper (though puro kopya lang sa kung anu-anong source) to the UNFCCC to prove your point. i've been to their sessions and intersessionals at laging durog sa diskusyon ang mga nagsasabi ng mga sinasabi mo.
Nonoy Oplas PM, explain (a) absence of causality, if any, between flat-lining global temp while CO2 concentration is rising.
(b) rule out explicitly, the effect of natural factors like the Sun and GCRs on climate.
Here's more, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/01/climate-tricks-2-solar-activities-tsi.html
PM i am not a scientist. i can't explain it fully. but i heard scientists of the UN and other institutions around the world during the UNFCCC events. unless, you can prove your point in front of those scientists, i won't give your opinion much importance. i checked and wala ngang nagbabasa ng blog mo eh.
Nonoy Oplas Me too, not a scientist, so I read the works of scientists like David Archibald, Wilie Soon, Roy Spencer, etc. If you cannot even answer those 2 questions in your own words, how can you refute natural climate cycles? But then again, AGW is religion, based on faith. No need for data, graphs and satellite photos that do not conform with the faith.
S May I be clarified: Are you saying that the UNFCCC is wrong? That all the data and information they have presented to the whole world is wrong? That the UNFCCC has hoodwinked everybody in the world?
PM pede kitang buhusan ng balde-baldeng patunay dahil ito ang pinag-uusapan ng mga lider ng mga bansa sa mundo. pero hindi ko gagawin dahil hindi ka naman relevant sa usapan. tanggap ng lahat ng bansa na totoo ang anthropogenic climate change. ang debate na lamang ay umiikot sa kung sino ang may kasalanan, paano sosolusyunan, at paano maiiwasan ang mas catastrophic na resulta.
you won't make any dent on the climate discourse, mr. oplas. not a bit. palakihin mo muna audience ng blog mo. baka sakaling makarating kay ban ki-moon.
by the way, balik lang muna ako sa relief ops para sa mga nasalanta ng bahang dulot ng climate change.
Nonoy Oplas S, you mean the UN IPCC, not FCCC. Yes, the UN through the IPCC, then FCCC, UNEP, etc. has hoodwinked the world. The goal is simple: more government, more carbon taxation, more environmental regulations, more climate loans, more climate bureaucracies, more global junkets. If they will admit that natural factors like the Sun, clouds, water vapor, GCRs, are the main drivers of climate (warming-cooling-warming-cooling) and not CO2, then all their grand designs will collapse.
PM do it. Show graphs, charts, of unequivocal warming in (a) air temperature, (b) land surface temperature, (c) sea surface temperature, preferably as of end-July 2012, not end 2000. Btway, my blog is a political blog, just dipping a few articles on climate.
TS: a. absence of causality
Science can never be explained with causality when time is factored in. We have to use models, like the Big Bang and Evolution. Fortunately for us, CO2 emission is quantifiable and we know what's causing it. Hindi lang CO2 pero kasama narin lahat ng incomplete combustion products. CO2 kasi is a product of complete and clean combustion, even for living things (cellular respiration).
b. rule out the effect of natural factors like the Sun and GCRs on climate
Who said anything about ruling out? They've been there forever, but we have (or at least had) good ozone to protect us. Ozone to oxygen is a reversible process. The presence of GHGs block the conversion of O2 to O3 (or sequesters O2, thus shifting the reaction towards formation of O2 from O3. Le Chatelier's Principle for reversible reactions).
Climate change is inevitable from a scientific standpoint, pero ang stand point as to how the human race will adapt should be summarized in three simple points:
1. Ano gagawin natin para bawasan na natin ang pagbilis ng pagsira ng ozone (clean living)
2. Ano gagawin natin para ayusin yung ozone (S&T)
3. Rethinking how we should view industrialization. Kung fuel-based parin ang pananaw natin ng developement in the future, magiging puro responsive solutions ang iisipin ng mga anak natin.
PM mr. oplas, ayan na si TS. scientist po siya. asan ka na?
Nonoy Oplas PM, nasaan na ang balde-balde mong data? Am still waiting for it. Show unequivocal warming in those 3 areas: air/tropospheric temp, land surface, and sea surface. Show that AGW is not religion, based on hard data, not faith.
TS, it was the UN IPCC and other warming gurus like Al Gore, WWF, etc. who made that causality: more CO2 emission, more global warming. Hence, to limit or fight AGW, drastically regulate and control CO2 emission. That is why I challenged that so-called causality because there is none.
And it was the UN IPCC along with Al Gore, who ruled out other natural factors. See here, the summary of all radiative forcing: (RF) anthropogenic 1.6 W/sq.m, solar forcing 0.12 W/sq.m, implying that solar forcing is so small and negligible, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/05/climate-stupidity-10-sun-and-gcrs-dont.html.
How about GCR? clouds and water vapor? volcanoes? Zero, nada, not in the UN summary of RF. Meaning there is deliberate evasion, deliberate ruling out, of those natural factors, aside from deliberate deminution of the role of the Sun.
TS You cancel out constant factors for both sides of an equation. It was not a deliberate diminution of factors. Again, GCRs, clouds, water vapor exists now and existed then. I'm not a fan of Al Gore, but here's a better way to relay how to quantify CO2 concentration and where it came from. Imomodel muna yung CO2 production from organic matter (based on population growth for all organisms) + CO2 from volcanic eruptions and other gas emissions from the Earth (inorganic). Meron accepted approximations naman as to how to model this from Geol people. From this, subtract all natural ways of how CO2 is broken down or assimilated once more into organisms and how CO2 can go back in to the Earth as minerals. Masyado parin maraming CO2 in the atmosphere. Which means, there are non-natural factors contributing to it. Tama naman na may effect ang mga sinasabi mo, pero since anjan siya dati pa, hindi talaga siya factor in determining what makes our environment different now from then, rapidly. It is the man-made production of all things now that destroy our atmosphere. Regarding how to pinpoint the time of CO2 explosion, hypothesized to be during the industrialization boom, model lang siya which remains to be proven or disproven. Pero we will use this model to observe China. Hindi kasi siya parte ng unang industrialization, at ngayon lang yan nagbubuga. At this point in time though, from a developmental (and not scientific) standpoint, we don't have the luxury to observe while we are affected by calamities.
TS Anyway, sorry pero ayoko na pahabain pa dahil papatol lang talaga ako ng papatol. One question nalang po sir. Lets say what IF what you say is true, about all it being natural. Tutal its also debatable na human technology is part of the world's evolution and we are just out to destroy ourselves, thus making bacteria the most fit kingdom in this planet. What would be your proposal to save the human race?
Nonoy Oplas Thanks for the inputs TS. I maintain that the UN IPCC, a political, government organization (InterGovernmental Panel on CC) and not a scientific org as misunderstood by many deliberately avoided other natural factors in their analysis. If they did not, why of the 8 contributors to RF, 7 were anthropogenic and only 1 natural, and only limited to the Sun? Why they did not include GCRs, water vapor, clouds, volcanoes, etc. and show that RF from them is zero W/sq.m, if ever?
What would be my proposal to "save the human race?" First, recognize that this is global cooling, not warming. Hence, anticipate more rains, more flooding, more snow (in temperate areas). Second, spend more public money on dredging and dredging rivers, creeks and lakes, shrink or abolish those useless climate bureaucracies, do not spend on those useless global climate junkets, do not enrich further climate racketers WB and ADB with their idiotic climate loans.
PM, nasaan na ang balde-balde mong data? Repeat: show graphs, charts, of unequivocal warming in (a) air temp., upper or lower troposphere, (b) land surface, (c) sea surface temp (SST), average for northern hemisphere + tropics + southern hemisphere to show really a global picture, as of end-July 2012, or even end-2011. These data are freely available, updated monthly or even daily. You may add (d) Arctic temp and (e) Antarctica temp. as these polar regions are often cited by the bleeding heart earth savers as experiencing "alarming ice melt/loss."
Ang alam ko, there are only balde-baldeng fiction and deception. But I am open to the possibility of being disproven, so show the data, that unequivocal warming is not fiction and AGW is not faith-based religion.
Additional reading for those open-minded enough to see if the UN IPCC, Al Gore, WWF, Greenpeace, etc. are honest or dishonest and scammers. About cloud feedback to initial warming of introducing CO2. Cloud feedback is among the holy grail in climate research, is it positive as assumed by the UN? Or it is negative? Also data on global land surface + SST, Had-CRU data, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/03/climate-tricks-5-co2-clouds-and.html
TS Global warming po talaga siya. We might not feel it here in the Philippines because temperatures are dropping, but the average global temperature is rising. Like from below zero -70 to -80C temperatures (in the 1920s) in the polar regions to melting temperatures (above zero), that's a big change. Compared to the small cooling drop we feel here in the tropical regions. There is more snow and rain everywhere because there is more water, and less ice.
Kumbaga sa isang equation, you cancel out constant factors on both sides. The left side being the past, the right side being the present. GCRs, water vapor, clouds, volcanoes are present dati pa. Ang wala lang naman dati na andito ngayon ay human development.
Nonoy Oplas Sige TS, ikaw na lang mag produce ng graphs or charts, showing such warming trend. Pick any or all five areas (air to land to sea temps, Arctic and Antarctica). Pakita mo na data kesa gagawa lang ng storya, salamat.
Intellectual Dishonesty through Odd Stats by Global Warming Deniers | Irregular Times
The movement of global warming denial has left me pondering that question. Two ...
Nonoy Oplas Nice, ypo gave.land surface temp data fr hansen giss. I have a commenr on those data. And its enc 2000. Where are ypur air temp, sea surface temp,arctic temp, antarctica temp data? As of auguat or juy 2012? Theae areipublicly available data, free, updated daily,
Primo, bat ka nagtatago? Asam balde baldeng data? Maski fiction and imaginary data Iabas mo.
Nonoy Oplas Wala pa ring data? Even fictional and imaginary data?
The article posted by Titus is idiotic from the title alone. "Global warming deniers", similar to "climate change deniers". I am a skeptic of AGW. But I believe in CC, it's true, climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless, natural cycles centuries upon centuries. So global warming was true, it did happen, during the medieval warm period, and during the past century. But global cooling was also true, during the little ice age (LIA) that followed the MWP, and before the past century's warming. Cooling also happened after WW2 in the 40s, then in the 70s, and is happening now. So the terms "GW deniers" and "CC deniers" are wrong and idiotic because skeptics amd non-climate religionists recognize the occurrence of GW and CC, they are part of nature. What is simply denied is the "humanity caused" aspect.
The author used James Hansen's GISS data, which refer mainly or only to land surface temperature data. And it is this kind of data that is most prone to human cheating especially for groups who are too intent in showing warming. GISS data are often manipulated to choose temperature stations that show warming, like stations in airports and near pavements and air-con exhaust, while ignore temp stations that show cooling or flat trends.
Better use HadCRU data, this is a combination of land surface + sea surface temp data. There is an interactive site, one can choose the years, plot the data or get a linear trend.
Since you cannot produce various global temp data at the most recent period available, here's one reference for you. Zero discussion, zero interpretation, just plain facts and 100 percent data, you can make your own conclusions and imagination after seeing the data. There are global SST data as of last week, global troposphere and stratosphere temp data as of end-July this year, or August this year, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/.
Temperature: Global – Ground and Sea Surface Temperature Global Surface Temperat...
Did you notice the immediate reaction by PM? If you are a non-believer of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and you question the AGW religion, you are "irrelevant to the discussion", "you won't make any dent on the climate discourse, not a bit", "no one even reads your blog".
These are all personal attacks and insults. Those are the among the marks of cowards: shoot the messenger, not the message. Attack and denigrate the person, not the ideas being argued by that person.
I did not return the favor of stooping to personal attacks. I have to focus on the issue and data, that is why I kept asking PM to show his "balde-balde" or "containers upon containers" of data to prove that AGW is not fiction and a scam. So far, he never produce any data, an indicator that he was just bragging hot air.
Climate Tricks 10: Demonize CO2 as a Pollutant and Evil Gas, July 03, 2012
Climate Tricks 11: Coal and James Hansen, RE Law and the WWF, July 18, 2012
Climate Tricks 12: More Flooding is Caused by Warming, July 21, 2012
Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public, July 25, 2012
Manila Flooding, August 2012, August 07, 2012
Climate Tricks 14: Flooding, El Nino and Arctic Ice, August 08, 2012
why have a graph ONLY for the past 40 years?
shouldnt you have temperature/CO2 graphs over 100+ years? why not show that?
also, sun cycles can and do supplement antro climate change. there is NO contradiction:
"The other significant finding is that solar forcing will add another 0.18°C warming on top of greenhouse warming between 2007 (we're currently at solar minimum) to the solar maximum around 2012. In other words, solar forcing will double the amount of global warming over the next five to six years."
Actually, I would think establishing a link between ozone increase and global warming would be a lot more 'doable.' But the concept is wrong from the get go : you do not assert certain conclusions as inevitable and then search to confirm them.
Rather there are at least two basic problems with the 'public debate' as presently constituted.
Firstly, disbelief to anthropogenic global warming is demonized as 'unscientific.' By definition, however, contention is the basic driver of Scientific Method. No debate, no progress.
Another is the idea of a model foretelling trends. Yet a model which does not accurate predict by extrapolation is useless. It's impossible to make one without unavailable data. You certainly can't reverse engineer from trends and then claim your computations have been fixed. You do not know and have not measured the variables, let alone established the utility of the model. Fortunetelling always falls on the unavailability of confirmation. Predicting the past does not count. You can hedge your bets to 'make it work.'
Here's one interesting note about how and why the UN would mandate that 'science shall show thus and so.' http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/18115/
My variety of articles does not seem to show people instantly that the idea of consensus is invalid. Positing all alternative thought into one channel merely poses a Strawman Argument where both 'sides' in a preselected 'debate' may be controlled. That's politics and debating : not science open to all possibilities. See how this fellow suggested by a science writer / physicist has described the ongoing process.
Based on your understanding, what exactly is the AGW Hypothesis???
Based on the discussion posted by Nonoy, S and PM don't have any clue what AGW is all about. AS for TS, he is a very confused scientist based on these daft statements:
TS: Science can never be explained with causality when time is factored in.
Response: Science and time are not mutually exclusive.
TS: We have to use models.
Response: Models are not used to correlate Science with time!!!
TS: You cancel out constant factors for both sides of an equation.
Response: The factors you're trying to cancel out are not constant, they vary with time. Thus, the method you're suggesting is wrong!!!
TS: Imomodel muna yung CO2 production from organic matter (based on population growth for all organisms) + CO2 from volcanic eruptions and other gas emissions from the Earth (inorganic).
Response: What??? Use modelling results in place of real data and then treat them like they're factual data. Why not gather actual CO2 data in the first place? Modelling results are very subjective. These can be manipulated to give any result the modeller wants. Factual data, on the other hand, are facts (as long as they're collected properly).
TS: Masyado parin maraming CO2 in the atmosphere. Which means, there are non-natural factors contributing to it.
Response: Rather than attribute it to non-natural factors, there is a simpler explanation as to why your approximations don't tally. Your approximations are wrong!!!
TS: Tama naman na may effect ang mga sinasabi mo, pero since anjan siya dati pa, hindi talaga siya factor in determining what makes our environment different now from then, rapidly.
Response: The factors you mentioned change with time. Thus, they determine the changes in our environment.
Post a Comment