Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did some research. Interestingly, enough credible "evidence" can be found to support 1) Global Warming. 2) Global Cooling 3) Global Warming slowing. 4) Global Warming accelerating. 5) Global Warming exacerbated by humans. 6) Global Warming caused by external factors such as solar activity. You pays your money, you takes your pick. Apparently there have been six or seven rather large and rapid temperature perturbations in the history of life on this planet. Not all resulted in mass extinctions nor were they all caused by volcanism.
"Credible". It's an interesting word.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

IMO if we get to the albedo tipping point we will lose our civilization, and if we tip the clathrates we'll be lucky not to go extinct. Look on the bright side. You too can play the game.

http://www.holladownloads.com/games_download/67837-fate-of-the-world-tipping-point.html#.UWsqUL_mOgw

F4Jock said:
someday it may happen but for now it is not commercially feasible in an industrialized country and / or one located in a geographically unsympathetic area.
Oh. Well that's it then. I wonder how feasible commerce is going to be when everyone invades you.

Imagine being a passenger on a boat above Niagara falls which is being drawn toward the falls at an ever-accelerating rate. How long do you wait before you act? Is the speed of the water already faster than the top speed of your boat? If it is, you can relax.
 
So if it isn't in the article then it cannot be happening . . . I see . . . :)

No, the scientists quoted in the article provided a number of theories to suggest why the temps aren't increasing as expected. These theories still have to be proven. There is no evidence in this article or anywhere else that geoengineering is taking place.
 
No, the scientists quoted in the article provided a number of theories to suggest why the temps aren't increasing as expected. These theories still have to be proven. There is no evidence in this article or anywhere else that geoengineering is taking place.

They never considered it because no one has admitted they are doing it . . . . not because it is not possible. . . . and of course they would be discredited if they even suggested it . . .

The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Likely suspects are natural sources – smaller volcanic eruptions – and/or human activities, which could have emitted the sulfur-containing gases, such as sulfur dioxide, that react in the atmosphere to form reflective aerosol particles.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110721_particles.html

Content from External Source
 
They never considered it because no one has admitted they are doing it . . . . not because it is not possible. . . .

It is possible there are Vulcans living among us. There is no evidence to support this theory. The human activities you highlighted and put in red are described in the image below.

particlesfigure_300.jpg
 
It is possible there are Vulcans living among us. There is no evidence to support this theory. The human activities you highlighted and put in red are described in the image below.

particlesfigure_300.jpg

So . . . as I said . . . I admit the graph depicts the accepted and expected sources because no one has considered geoengineering as a potential human source of the unexpected increase of SO2 in the stratosphere . . .
 
So . . . as I said . . . I admit the graph depicts the accepted and expected sources because no one has considered geoengineering as a potential human source of the unexpected increase of SO2 in the stratosphere . . .
Vulcans on earth again GB. When you have evidence please provide a link.
 
The amounts of Sulfur compounds and SO2 specifically are all estimates and approximations anyway . . . there is no real fingerprinting of any compounds in the Stratosphere except for volcanic ash . . .Just some facts. . . .

Conventional wisdom indicates (SO2) in the stratosphere comes from the burning of fossil fuels. . . . aircraft is felt to contribute around 1% I believe. . . .



Page 2.40 http://ozone.unep.org/pdf/07-Chapter2.pdf


" The source for SO2 consists mostly of anthropogenic sources from fossil fuel use (~70 Tg (S) yr–1), with volcanic outgassing (including small eruptions) and biomass burning con- tributing 8-20 Tg (S) yr–1 (Graf et al., 1997; Andres and Kasgnoc, 1998) and 2.5 Tg (S) yr–1 (Hao et al., 1990), respectively. Note that portions of the latter sources are deposited directly into the free troposphere and can reach the stratosphere more efficiently. The amount of sulfur emitted by aviation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere was estimated to be 0.06 Tg (S) yr–1 in 1992 (see Fahey and Schumann et al., 1999). The Mt. Pinatubo eruption is estimated to have injected 20 Tg (S) directly into the lower stratosphere."




page 2.43


"Kjellström et al. (1999) estimated that aircraft emissions contribute less than 1% of the total sulfate mass in regions of high air traffic."
Content from External Source
Content from External Source
 
Because there is NO EVIDENCE that any is happening.

I have stated that what you just stated is the accepted wisdom of the atmospheric scientists presently . . . however, their position is based all on estimates and assumptions which do not allow geoengineering into the equation . . . that is all I am saying . . .
 
I have stated that what you just stated is the accepted wisdom of the atmospheric scientists presently . . . however, their position is based all on estimates and assumptions which do not allow geoengineering into the equation . . . that is all I am saying . . .

They don't allow for a benevolent alien force putting stuff in the stratosphere to protect earth. No evidence for that though.
 
Vulcans on earth again GB. When you have evidence please provide a link.

So if the atmospheric scientists admit they are NOT sure of the reason for an increase in SO2 within the stratosphere . . . I am simply offering an alternative explanation . . . something which is done everyday on this FORUM . . . offering alternative explanations to things people may have misconceptions about . . . :)
 
So if the atmospheric scientists admit they are NOT sure of the reason for an increase in SO2 within the stratosphere . . . I am simply offering an alternative explanation . . . something which is done everyday on this FORUM . . . offering alternative explanations to things people may have misconceptions about . . . :)

It may be done everyday on this forum but the purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to remove bunk. Using geoengineering as a reason for a lack of temp rise is bunk. There is no evidence to support this. Bunk removed.
 
So if the atmospheric scientists admit they are NOT sure of the reason for an increase in SO2 within the stratosphere . . . I am simply offering an alternative explanation . . . something which is done everyday on this FORUM . . . offering alternative explanations to things people may have misconceptions about . . . :)
They don't. You have misconceptions about everything. What is wrong with Zeno's Paradox, George?

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

I take back my taking back.

SO2 is produced in copious amounts by the 1,500 active volcanoes on earth's land surface.

It is also a constituent found in the combustion products of ALL fossil carbon fuels, presently produced in amounts many times more copious.

Being soluble in water, it mainly washes onto land or sea. On land it reduces forest productivity, in the ocean it increases acidity.

If it gets above the mid-stratosphere, where there is virtually NO water, it can migrate to the poles where, in conjunction with nitrogen dioxide, it can increase the ozone holes.

We don't want it there, George, but there's no point cooking up a myth that "they" are geo-engineering with it right now, because that is untrue. And that makes you a liar.
 
It may be done everyday on this forum but the purpose of this forum, as I understand it, is to remove bunk. Using geoengineering as a reason for a lack of temp rise is bunk. There is no evidence to support this. Bunk removed.

In the attempt to remove Bunk . . . it is wise to address the existence of other possibilities . . . especially when those possibilities are on point . . . to dismiss out of hand the existence of an unexplained increased of SO2 in the stratosphere and the one potential method (the easiest and quickest) mankind could engineer such a change is IMO not the best strategy . . .
 
They don't. You have misconceptions about everything. What is wrong with Zeno's Paradox, George?

In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

I take back my taking back.

SO2 is produced in copious amounts by the 1,500 active volcanoes on earth's land surface.

It is also a constituent found in the combustion of ALL fossil carbon fuels, presently produced in amounts many times more copious.

Being soluble in water, it mainly washes onto land or sea. On land it reduces forest productivity, in the ocean it increases acidity.

If it gets above the mid-stratosphere, where there is virtually NO water, it can migrate to the poles where, in conjunction with nitrogen dioxide, it can increase the ozone hole.

We don't want it there, George, but there's no point cooking up a myth that "they" are geo-engineering with it right now, because that is untrue. And that makes you a liar.
You don't want it there . . . I don't want it there . . . that is not the argument . . . the question is . . . does someone want to use a man made volcano to increase the albedo (negative radiative forcing) of the stratosphere . . .
 
In the attempt to remove Bunk . . . it is wise to address the existence of other possibilities . . . especially when those possibilities are on point . . . to dismiss out of hand the existence of an unexplained increased of SO2 in the stratosphere and the one potential method (the easiest and quickest) mankind could engineer such a change is IMO not the best strategy . . .

It is more likely caused by the types of things that science is currently discussing. By more likely I mean no evidence to support geoengineering. Do you ever notice when you type geoengineering the word gets flagged by the spellchecker?
 
It is more likely caused by the types of things that science is currently discussing. By more likely I mean no evidence to support geoengineering. Do you ever notice when you type geoengineering the word gets flagged by the spellchecker?
Yes, geoengineering is usually flagged . . . geo-engineering is, however, not . . . as far as I am concerned there is no direct evidence to support the amount of SO2 in the stratosphere is from biomass burning, fossil fuels, etc. . . . the only direct evidence is SO2 comes from volcanic eruptions . . . because the volcanic ash can be fingerprinted along with the accompanying increase of SO2 from known eruptions as in Mt Pinatubo . .
 
Yes, geoengineering is usually flagged . . . geo-engineering is, however, not . . . as far as I am concerned there is no direct evidence to support the amount of SO2 in the stratosphere is from biomass burning, fossil fuels, etc. . . . the only direct evidence is SO2 comes from volcanic eruptions . . . because the volcanic ash can be fingerprinted along with the accompanying increase of SO2 from known eruptions as in Mt Pinatubo . .
Continued efforts to update the ability (because it is inadequate) to distinguish between man made and natural sulfur compounds is demonstrated by the following:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/

"Unique sensor capabilities help to reveal the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate


Raytheon’s Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor was designed to collect global aerosol data for climate scientists during NASA’s 3-year Glory mission. It is the most advanced polarimeter ever to fly in space — and the only instrument able to distinguish various types of natural aerosols from the man-made black carbon and sulfate aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere."

Content from External Source
On March 4th, 2011, the Glory satellite was unsuccessful in its attempt to reach orbit due to a failure with the launch vehicle. For more information, visit the NASA Glory Web site: http://www.nasa.gov/glory
Content from External Source
 
It is possible there are Vulcans living among us. There is no evidence to support this theory. The human activities you highlighted and put in red are described in the image below.

particlesfigure_300.jpg

And yet there is evidence of 'alien life' living amongst us which may or may not have originated or at come from another planet. In fact life as we know it could have originated elsewhere.
 
And yet there is evidence of 'alien life' living amongst us which may or may not have originated or at come from another planet. In fact life as we know it could have originated elsewhere.
I said Vulcans. Do you have any evidence or are you crawdading?
 
Because there is NO EVIDENCE that any is happening.

Just because you are unaware, (I deliberately refrain from using debunker terminology such as 'ignorant' because i think although it is factually correct, it carries connotations) of evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Far from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/apr/14/shadow-biosphere-alien-life-on-earth

However, by the same token, if it turns out we have failed to realise that we have been sharing a planet with these shadowy lifeforms for eons, despite all the scientific advances of the 19th and 20th centuries, then we may need to think again about the way we hunt for life on other worlds.

That is why unexplained phenomena like desert varnish are important, she says, because they might provide us with clues about the shadow biosphere. We may have failed to detect the source of desert varnish for the simple reason that it is the handiwork of weird microbes which generate energy by oxidising minerals, leaving deposits behind them.

Ways need to be found to determine whether or not the shadow biosphere exists, says Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. "If you want a clue you can count up the amount of carbon that is emitted by living things – cows, sheep, grass, plants, forests and all the planet's bacteria. When you do, you find there is a discrepancy of around 5% when you compare the amount given off from Earth's standard biosphere and the amount you find in the atmosphere."
In other words, there is slightly too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than can be explained by the emissions of standard lifeforms on Earth. There could be an error in these calculations, of course. Alternatively, the shadow biosphere could be responsible for this excess, says Sasselov. "There is plenty of room for a shadow biosphere. That is clear. Certainly, it is not true, as some allege, that we have strong evidence to show that it does not exist. In fact, the opposite is true: we do not have good enough evidence to dismiss it."


Content from External Source
Don't tell Jazzy about them because he may go and nuke them to stop them producing the extra carbon :)
 
My response was to geo engineering, not to alien life forms. Why did you think I was commenting on alien lifeforms?
 
Just because you are unaware does not mean it does not exist. Far from it.
we do not have good enough evidence to dismiss it
Content from External Source
Don't tell Jazzy about them because he may go and nuke them to stop them producing the extra carbon
Gibberish.

There is a finite amount of carbon on earth.

It is being neither created nor destroyed. It isn't being "given off".

It is not possible to "nuke" carbon away, except when exploding supernovae do it.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

All mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe.


The thing is Dodgson was a serious and accomplished writer, and put that in a book. Why don't you follow his example?
 
I don't know what crawdading is. However, what planet do Vulcans come from?
Crawdading is, I believe, coined by someone on this forum's daddy, as someone who when confronted with an obstacle backs up and tries to go around. My point is GB and I were in an exchange where he was trying to assert that geoengineering could have led to upper atmosphere aerosols. It was his belief and he did not want have any evidence. My point about Vulcans was to suggest that there is no evidence to prove they are not helping us cool the planet and that was not a good position. But you should know all that if you read the thread. If you would like to start a thread regarding alien encounters or any other thread not currently covered then start one.
 
Just because you are unaware, (I deliberately refrain from using debunker terminology such as 'ignorant' because i think although it is factually correct, it carries connotations) of evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Far from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/apr/14/shadow-biosphere-alien-life-on-earth

However, by the same token, if it turns out we have failed to realise that we have been sharing a planet with these shadowy lifeforms for eons, despite all the scientific advances of the 19th and 20th centuries, then we may need to think again about the way we hunt for life on other worlds.

That is why unexplained phenomena like desert varnish are important, she says, because they might provide us with clues about the shadow biosphere. We may have failed to detect the source of desert varnish for the simple reason that it is the handiwork of weird microbes which generate energy by oxidising minerals, leaving deposits behind them.

Ways need to be found to determine whether or not the shadow biosphere exists, says Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. "If you want a clue you can count up the amount of carbon that is emitted by living things – cows, sheep, grass, plants, forests and all the planet's bacteria. When you do, you find there is a discrepancy of around 5% when you compare the amount given off from Earth's standard biosphere and the amount you find in the atmosphere."
In other words, there is slightly too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than can be explained by the emissions of standard lifeforms on Earth. There could be an error in these calculations, of course. Alternatively, the shadow biosphere could be responsible for this excess, says Sasselov. "There is plenty of room for a shadow biosphere. That is clear. Certainly, it is not true, as some allege, that we have strong evidence to show that it does not exist. In fact, the opposite is true: we do not have good enough evidence to dismiss it."


Content from External Source
Don't tell Jazzy about them because he may go and nuke them to stop them producing the extra carbon :)
I love it . . . pure speculation at its best . . . Me thinks geo-engineering at least has some serious computer modeling and SIMULATIONS :) accomplished to promote its speculative validity . . . (SIMULATIONS :) . . . the favorite method utilized by NIST to prove their most important theories and widely accepted without serious scientific debate . . . . except they don't share their data :) )
 
Just because you are unaware, (I deliberately refrain from using debunker terminology such as 'ignorant' because i think although it is factually correct, it carries connotations) of evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Far from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/apr/14/shadow-biosphere-alien-life-on-earth

However, by the same token, if it turns out we have failed to realise that we have been sharing a planet with these shadowy lifeforms for eons, despite all the scientific advances of the 19th and 20th centuries, then we may need to think again about the way we hunt for life on other worlds.

That is why unexplained phenomena like desert varnish are important, she says, because they might provide us with clues about the shadow biosphere. We may have failed to detect the source of desert varnish for the simple reason that it is the handiwork of weird microbes which generate energy by oxidising minerals, leaving deposits behind them.

Ways need to be found to determine whether or not the shadow biosphere exists, says Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. "If you want a clue you can count up the amount of carbon that is emitted by living things – cows, sheep, grass, plants, forests and all the planet's bacteria. When you do, you find there is a discrepancy of around 5% when you compare the amount given off from Earth's standard biosphere and the amount you find in the atmosphere."
In other words, there is slightly too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than can be explained by the emissions of standard lifeforms on Earth. There could be an error in these calculations, of course. Alternatively, the shadow biosphere could be responsible for this excess, says Sasselov. "There is plenty of room for a shadow biosphere. That is clear. Certainly, it is not true, as some allege, that we have strong evidence to show that it does not exist. In fact, the opposite is true: we do not have good enough evidence to dismiss it."


Content from External Source
Don't tell Jazzy about them because he may go and nuke them to stop them producing the extra carbon :)

But Doctor Cleveland is speculating there. She's a philosopher, according to the piece, and she's merely positing that microbial lifeforms we are unaware of might be responsible for something science hasn't yet explained. So saying "Just because you are unaware, of evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Far from it. " is hardly proving anything. Far from it.
 
But Doctor Cleveland is speculating there. She's a philosopher, according to the piece, and she's merely positing that microbial lifeforms we are unaware of might be responsible for something science hasn't yet explained. So saying "Just because you are unaware, of evidence, does not mean it does not exist. Far from it. " is hardly proving anything. Far from it.
Hmmmm . . . so when does speculation become credible for inclusion in scientific debate. . . ? As when is NOAA allowed to SPECULATE on what has increased the Sulfur Aerosols in the stratosphere . . . ?
 
Speculation would only have value if it was based on well documented scientific data. That's what separates speculation from science, data.
 
Speculation would only have value if it was based on well documented scientific data. That's what separates speculation from science, data.
NOAA admitted they had no data which explained the increase of SO2 in the stratosphere. . . that is why they were speculating . . .
 
Puts this in perspective a bit.

The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast

Content from External Source
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top