Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Maybe you can get answers to my questions ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Gee, I'm really struggling to think who's bottom line will be hit the hardest if there's a global push away from fossil fuels and towards the curbing of pollution-heavy industrial practices and cleaner energy sources.

here different theory on climate change

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As other posters have presented, and as I have presented in my post in my signature, there is overwhelming evidence being ignored, that shows that temperature rises occur before CO2 does.

Sorry you are completely wrong, it is not being ignored like you claim.

1: It is a well known scientific fact that temperature rises will warm the ocean, and cause the ocean to release CO2 that was trapped in it.

2: It is also a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs radiation and traps it in our atmosphere, which keeps Earth warm. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of radiation that is absorbed, and increases the temperature, which then causes fact 1 to take place again.

The two facts mentioned above can create what is called a positive feedback loop.

www.abc.net.au...

If you don't read your graphs and data correctly, it can appear that temperature comes before CO2 release, because it is a LOOP, sometimes temperature rises do come before CO2 rises. But what caused the initial temperature rise? A CO2 rise years before it.

Often times the graph below is read incorrectly by man-made climate change opponents. They read the graph left to right, and assume because the red line (temperature) often comes before the blue line (CO2) it means temperature comes first, which is not fully correct. Remember, temperature lags behind CO2, and CO2 lags behind temperature, in a loop, over and over.



The entire graph can be explained away when you consider the positive feedback loop, or runaway greenhouse effect. Ultimately proving man-made climate change.

All you did is prove what I said to be correct, not incorrect.

You said (emphasis mine):

1: It is a well known scientific fact that temperature rises will warm the ocean, and cause the ocean to release CO2 that was trapped in it.

You're saying the cause is the temperature rise, and the effect is the increase in CO2 released from the ocean. After I said:

As other posters have presented, and as I have presented in my post in my signature, there is overwhelming evidence being ignored, that shows that temperature rises occur before CO2 does. There are dozens of papers that show how CO2 as a gas making up .03% of the atmosphere can't possibly create the warming effect predicted.

How is that any different?

On your second point, do you have any experimental evidence to support that feedback loop? I'm not talking about one conducted in a lab where the variables are far fewer and more controlled than a planet's climate, because they are worthless and don't prove anything.

In the graph you posted, you can't determine the leading or lagging indicators because you are cramming 300,000+ years of data into a few hundred pixels.

Spread the same graph across an entire wall, or zoom in on any 1000-2000 year range, and it's very clear that in almost every single case seen in history, the CO2 rises as a result of temperature changes. Logically, that would make sense, since before humans were around, temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

But again, this isn't considered by those looking to advance political agendas.

The climate has changed all throughout history, before we were here, and we've had warmer periods of time in our recent history that didn't lead to some uncontrollable planetary devastation.

It's hard for me to believe that you would trust a forecast or prediction, given all of the past climate predictions that were completely false, given the inconsistent ability to predict weather in any localized area of the planet, and given the scandals that have already plagued the field of science around it.

There are mountains of papers written on this, and I tend to take in all arguments and form my own conclusions. They all point to climate change being a natural event, CO2 as the only ubiquitous gas that CAN'T be prevented or stopped and blamed on humans, making it an indefinite tax stream, and the entire debate being politicized.

Science is not based on consensus. The IPCC and governments of the world are, and that's not science, it never will be. Science is based on predictability based on experimentation and observation, and not one single authority or scientist has, nor can they, PROVE any claim on climate change made yet because there is no reproducible and verifiable experiments that can be conducted on a planetary scale to measure changes in our climate.

Water vapor and clouds make up most of the atmosphere, create the most profound impacts to temperature changes and create most of the feedback loops you are talking about, NOT CO2. Should we get rid of clouds and rain?

I used to put a lot of credit into papers that were written but have found them to be temporal in nature, and always contested by someone, somewhere, due to the sheer number of variables involved in climate. We should stop arguing about who is right or wrong, and just deal with the fact that our climate is going to change, and has, with or without our help, and we will always have to deal with the consequences. We could do everything "right" to not contribute to changes to the earth, but the earth will change all by itself, as will the sun. Why keep nit-picking at each other instead of preparing for what is inevitable?

~Namaste

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: GetHyped

Please explain your logic.

If climate change is happening and the only solution is to burn less fossil fuels, then the best way to reduce consumption is to raise prices.

If prices rise, oil companies make bigger profits for less work.

Why would they not support climate change?

Tired of Control Freaks

You don't really have a very good grasp of supply and demand, do you?
You don't think that energy companies are maximizing their profits right now? You think they are just being nice?

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Why keep nit-picking at each other instead of preparing for what is inevitable?

Preparing is what is primarily on the table right now.
Human activities are playing the major role in the current warming trend and, unless burning of fossil fuels were to be stopped entirely, the current trend will continue. However, the rate of change can be slowed. We can give ourselves more time to become prepared.

a reply to: Phage

Well - I don't know if I have a good grasp of supply and demand at all. Lets see - if you choke supply, then demand goes up and so do prices.

Is that about right?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You would make a terrible businessman.

a reply to: KrzYma

here different theory on climate change

EXACTLY.
Four pages of bickering about whether climate change is man-made or not, and nobody so much as mentions the subject of the thread, not even in passing.

What a joke this place has become.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

How is that any different?

I don't think you understood his post.

CO2 is a GHG. Increasing CO2 will increase temperature. Increasing temperature will increase the CO2 which will increase temperature. This will continue in a loop until some other negative feedback prevents further warming.

temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

Pretty sure foliage absorbs CO2.

We should stop arguing about who is right or wrong, and just deal with the fact that our climate is going to change, and has, with or without our help, and we will always have to deal with the consequences

Nice appeal to ignorance. If we can prevent the change so we don't have to deal with the consequences, then why shouldn't we?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

Well - I don't know if I have a good grasp of supply and demand at all. Lets see - if you choke supply, then demand goes up and so do prices.

Is that about right?

Tired of Control Freaks

You are contradicting yourself. You first said this:

If climate change is happening and the only solution is to burn less fossil fuels, then the best way to reduce consumption is to raise prices.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

There are a number of proposed ways to reduce CO2 emissions. Some are based on increased government research and development of alternative energy sources, direct government intervention, while others are based on a carbon tax (or similar).

Do you know how a tax works?

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

lmgtfy.com...

Fossil fuel companies would therefore not see the tax dollars obtained from the tax. At least, they shouldn't. It would increase the price of those using fossil fuels, making alternatives, whether that be from simply using fossil fuels more efficiently or other energy sources, more competitive. That reduces the demand for fossil fuels and therefore reduces revenues for oil companies. After all, oil companies have been caught funding think-tanks who lobby against efforts to curb global warming through the creation of fraudulent reports.

The government could then do a number of things with those tax dollars. They could reduce other taxes for example or give the money collected from the polluters back to the end users (i.e. households). Obviously since alternative energy is usually less competitive than fossil fuels (excluding external costs) overall economic efficiency is going to be somewhat reduced.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You spend most of your post straw-manning the argument by trying to dismiss the credibility of the people in the papers I cited, and not the actual science itself. You didn't provide any direct rebuttal for the claims made in any of those papers, only your own sources that provide no value to the discussion.

So let's look at the merits of your citations since you're so quick to dismiss mine, shall we?

First of all, your second link is 14 years old! Quite a bit has changed in the field of climate science in 14 years... It also talks about the ice-age cycle lagging behind CO2, temperature and the eccentricity of the planet's orbit, which changes the amount of sunlight hitting the surface at the poles. It has NOTHING to do with CO2 and it's impact on climate, and nothing that disputes CO2 lagging behind temperature changes. It is specific to how carbon (not even CO2) and eccentricity appear to be linked. Can you show otherwise?

Your first link talks about the LAST ice age ONLY, and has nothing to do with previous ice ages, or previous changes in climate and leading versus lagging indicators. Let's be very specific about wording because it matters in science:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages.

Of importance here, is that a close link is not a link. Suggests does not equal PROVES or PROVEN. The Pleistocene ice age was only one of many and doesn't paint all warming with a CO2 brush.

You have to be objective in light of subjective information.

Your last piece in the post, the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. It's convenient that it leaves out water vapor considering it is the leading contributor to change in climate. It's also convenient that the graphic comes from Skeptical Science, which is a known AGW proponent, and that the paper the graphic came from is almost 8 years old.

Why not talk about John Cook in the same regard as you did regarding my sources? At least in my post, I cite actual scientists who wrote real papers, disputed or not. John Cook is a CARTOONIST by trade. His entire site is ADMITTEDLY, devoted to destroying any credible argument or person presenting an argument, that opposes man-made global warming. He dismisses the 31K scientists in the OISM Petition on the grounds that they aren't "real" scientists and discredits their claims, even though there are chemists, biologists, physicists, etc which as long as they agree with AGW, he is perfectly willing to cite. Hypocrisy at its finest. If those experts should be dismissed, then by the same authority, so should anything Dr. Hansen has claimed as well as anything Mr. Cook has published.

See, I can dismiss your papers too.

He further argues that "97% of climatologists support AGW", which is in itself, a completely subjective and factually incorrect statement with no proof unless he has a registry of every climate scientist on the planet and a written affidavit from 97% of them. (good luck with proving that) The bigger issue with that statement, is that SCIENCE IS NOT DECIDED ON CONSENSUS! What was the consensus of the "experts" on the Earth being the center of the universe? What about the consensus of the "experts" just a decade ago on what causes ulcers? In both cases, the experts and the consensus was WRONG! This is exactly why science is not determined by consensus.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD has not been followed. When someone proposes a theory, it goes through the scientific method, which is a process to prove or disprove the theory. THIS HAS NOT EVER BEEN DONE BY AGW PROPONENTS, and it can't be, which is the major deficiency in the entire debate. Consensus does not trump the scientific method or process. Computer models do not show empirical and measurable evidence. This is junk science, plain and simple.

Until you can show that AGW, or climate change in general, follows the scientific method front to back, just as it always has for every other aspect of science, every theory put forth by AGW proponents is an UNPROVEN THEORY, and nothing more. I will not, and neither should anyone else, put faith into an unproven theory when your future, your wealth, your children's lives, may all depend on it.

This is why I will not give any credit to the climate consensus, but will give credit to individual proven theories that help pave the way to a proper scientific process for climate.

I will leave you with this more recent and relevant press release:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, a global warming skeptic, told about 70 Sandia researchers in June that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. He said their data and their methods did not support their claims.

“Despite concerns over the last decades with the greenhouse process, they oversimplify the effect,” he said. “Simply cranking up CO2 [carbon dioxide] (as the culprit) is not the answer” to what causes climate change.

In an effort to shed light on the wide spectrum of thought regarding the causes and extent of changes in Earth’s climate, Sandia National Laboratories has invited experts from a wide variety of perspectives to present their views in the Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series.

Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandia’s Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MIT’s department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (“Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks”) of the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

For 30 years, climate scientists have been “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” Lindzen said.

Source

I highly encourage you to read the entire release. It makes some very compelling general arguments.

I'm tired of engaging in these tit-for-tat debates on who has the most current or correct paper... they are all truly irrelevant in light of what I mentioned in my posts. We should be looking at how to deal with the consequences of climate, whether we determine we have a part in it or not, it's not going to go away and we have far less control over it than our arrogance would lead us to believe and we are bickering over unproven science so that someone else can profit from our ignorance, uncertainty and willingness to ignore real science in favor of consensus.

If anything is going to doom us, it will be that, not the climate.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
How is that any different?

My first sentence of my reply to you explained how you were wrong.

You claimed that CO2 is lagging behind temperature and "it was being ignored". Which is wrong. It is not being ignored. It is one of the main problems with man-made climate change, and it is only half of what is called climate change feedback.

en.wikipedia.org...

The fact you are unaware of this "climate change feedback" just shows you don't have a complete grasp of the main problem, because it is one of the main concerns.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
On your second point, do you have any experimental evidence to support that feedback loop? I'm not talking about one conducted in a lab where the variables are far fewer and more controlled than a planet's climate, because they are worthless and don't prove anything.

The runaway greenhouse effect (positive feedback loop) was believed to have happened on the planet Venus.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the temperature rises, it is not just CO2 releasing from the oceans we worry about, we also worry about increased water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, and even methane. That also causes temperatures to rise more along side CO2. Causing one really bad feedback loop.

No experimental evidence is required for this one... It's just a matter of fact. Raise temperatures, you increase water vapor, and CO2, and methane, which then raises the temperature more, and creates a loop.

It has happened in the past...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Spread the same graph across an entire wall, or zoom in on any 1000-2000 year range, and it's very clear that in almost every single case seen in history, the CO2 rises as a result of temperature changes. Logically, that would make sense, since before humans were around, temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

Like I said, you are reading the graph wrong. It doesn't matter if you change the scale of the graph. You need to look at what CO2 change caused the initial temperature change, then take into account the feedback loop. If you see a temperature increase, look at the CO2 change that happened the year(s) before the temperature change, not after.

Also, your graph should include water vapor and methane changes too... which it does not. You will then see a more complete picture. The main idea though is to take into account the feedback loop, then the graph you claim everyone is reading wrong and ignoring will start to make sense for you. You will see the real problem scientists have been seeing since the year 1859.

...and trees, plants, etc. remove CO2, not just create it.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: GetHyped

Please explain your logic.

If climate change is happening and the only solution is to burn less fossil fuels, then the best way to reduce consumption is to raise prices.

If prices rise, oil companies make bigger profits for less work.

Why would they not support climate change?

Tired of Control Freaks

Is this not what OBAMA did? He even told us fuel prices would go up. I forgot about this. When he took office the nation's average was about $2.00 a gallon for fuel. He did more for the fuel industry than anyone and at the citizens expense I might add. Low and behold it didn't work. Why isn't the cult of global warming accepting this?

So it didn't help C02 levels and now it cost double to fill your vehicle. Last year we burned 6% less than the all time record. I think the cultist of global warming need to take their complaints to the White House. I guess it's just another successful policy of the OBAMA administration. Making us pay more for less.

So in order to make the 11/22 year cycle work in electric universe theory, as far as predicting climate, surface temperatures have to be measured 6 feet off the ground? And initiating this new measuring height produced a decrease in temperature of 5/100 of a degree between 2002 and 2012?

Piers Corbyn seems to imply that this and the precession cycle are enough to throw the Co2 loop out the window and further to imply, in some vague sort of way, that they have something to do with an electric universe.

Co2, one small aspect of anthropogenic climate influence, has, imho, currently come under fire because there are carbon sequestration fortunes to be made waiting in the wings.

There doesn't seem to be a hands-on way to predict climate using these cycles even if they could be tied to electric universe theory.

Interesting thread, though, and brings up the point that whatever theory is eventually settled upon will have to include the pole reversals of the sun.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

The government did not increase fuel prices. Federal fuel taxes have not changed since 1993. Oil markets determine fuel prices.

Last year we burned 6% less than the all time record.

But we drove about the same distance. A decline of about 2% in vehicle miles from 2007. Interesting that it's been pretty steady since the recession but, as you point out, fuel consumption has declined.
www.fhwa.dot.gov...

I believe that the grist.org series "How to Talk to A Climate Skeptic" offers rebuttals to nearly all common arguments against man-made climate change.

grist.org...

a reply to: Mary Rose

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down from the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council.

He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former chancellor of the exchequer who founded the think-tank because of his belief that the risk from global warming has been exaggerated, condemned the treatment of Professor Bengtsson.



www.thegwpf.org...





A prime Example of the Shackled Scientific Community's inability to Deal with just Facts and not Politics . Freedom of Thought has today turned into Freedom from Thought . Praise BIG BROTHER , Praise Him ! ................

First of all how exactly would these U.S. scientists pressure a British scientist? Unless these scientists control the funding or control the ability to monitor these scientists and make their lives difficult, the pressure they may exert is mainly in the scientific field, which isn't exactly what you call intense. From my experience, it has been the opponents of anthropogenic climate change that exert the pressure in the form of political smearing, unjustified survallieance, and manipulation. Since energy production is the largest industry, they have the most capital, which they use to manipulate the government to do, quite literally, whatever they want. The last 20 years of war attest to that.

Second, didn't the British threaten to pull funding from British Scientists who supported anthropogenic climate change? Third, what proof does he have of this "intense pressure". Fourth, even if the pressure is intense, it doesn't necessarily affect the predictive power, or lack thereof the theory.

grist.org...