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

a reply to: stormson

Its awfully funny isn't it? How smoking and global warming got linked together.

The first I heard of it came from supporters of global warming. Their point was that anybody who didn't believe in anthropogenic source global warming was a denier as bad as those who deny that smoking causes lung cancer.

You wouldn't believe how I laughed. I have been studying the smoking fraud for about 12 years now. And exactly how it was planned, executed, funded and what scientists, academics, politicians, doctors, public health that all went along with it and had no problem committing fraud to support the movement.

Exactly like global warming! And for exactly the same reason.

Tired of Control

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
So, I guess you are the pot meeting the kettle then? If I'm profoundly ignorant, you are exceptionally arrogant, and it shows.

That I may be, but on this matter I am scientifically correct.

Aside from your obnoxious rant on the difference of weather versus climate, the rest of your post is idiotic. Being able to predict that it will be warm in summer and cold in winter based on recent history has nothing to do with climate over hundreds or thousands of years.

No, but it does refute the common assertion that because weather is not predictable more than two weeks this means that climate models are useless, because we don't care about measuring the same thing.

You know nothing about computer models, but I will tell you FIRST HAND, they are used for predicting both weather locally, hurricanes and global climate. They are ALL consistently wrong. Why do models "have to agree" with hurricane tracks? Because they have different variables and algorithms written into each model, and NONE of them are "truly" right unless all of the variables are the same and they "agree". Models are based on math. All a climate model is, is a long range weather forecast.

There are some significant similarities but also differences because weather models assimilate, in a fairly complex way, a large number of observed inputs (sea surface temperature, and other physical variables), important data which in a long-range climate model must be simulated and predicted. The intent and goals and the use of the models are different though some underlying principles are similar.

The same math is used, and models are combined to create larger models for global climate. If you'd like to get into specifics of how the models work, I'm happy to enlighten you, as I wrote the code for a few of them.

Oh, and just to punctuate your ignorance....


The primary reason it is warmer in Miami than in North Dakota in January is from it being winter, which is due to the tilt of the planet. That has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases. That is a fact as opposed to your ridiculous theory, and we don't need computer models to predict it because we know the earth tilts, as opposed to knowing how the climate works.

Yes I know that---and both are based on predictions from physics. You missed my point, which is that both effects are mediated through energy balance of EM radiation though the initial cause is different. But warm happens no matter the origin of the EM radiation.

The "theory" is not ridiculous, as it's been verified for decades with loads of empirical observational data. It's scientific fact. After all, the planet would be far cooler and probably freeze over the surface of the oceans were it not for the greenhouse gases which existed pre-industrially. It is impossible to explain the climate of the Earth without greenhouse gases, regardless of man's influence. And if you increase a known physical effect, the effect becomes larger.

As I said, the increase in electromagnetic radiation hitting the ground from increased greenhouse effect is an observed empirical fact every bit as the change in radiation from latitude and tilt of the Earth.

Like warming increasing more on the poles than the equatorial region, warming increasing more in winter than summer, warming increasing more at night than daytime. And stratospheric cooling. All empirical observations are explained by increase greenhouse effect.

a reply to: Pistoche

The Pro Climate change "Scientists" and I use the term "scientists" very loosely, have been caught LYING and presenting FRAUDULENT evidence a few times.
Only today it was reported in the news that a climate change skeptic didnt have his paper published because it "goes against" the climate change agenda. He found that climate change is going a lot slower than the proven inadequate climate models had predicted. The Pro camp is not only politically motivated, it is very sinister in its approach of the matter.

Science has always, is, and will always be, corrupted for political reasons. Its not hard to control a scientist, you just control their funding, job done.
All these years after Galileo, nothing has changed. If anything, we are dumber now than we ever were, and we reap what we sow.

a reply to: Mary Rose

It is my belief that most people have not "heard" what many of the scientists are saying about climate change and this is what cuses the confusion.
Any reputable scientist will admit that our weather changes in cycles. Depending upon the activity of the sun as well as our positions relative to it at any given time of the year. It is the cumlitive effects of these changes in the weather patterns which effect the over all climate of the planet as time goes by. There is a natural progression from glaciers to deserts and back again over many thousands of years.
The "excessive" amounts of certain gasses introduced into the atmosphere over the past two hundred years or so are showing their effects on this pattern of the climates cycles, as well as the cutting of the trees in the rain forests. It is this disruption in the natural cycles which is being called climate change. The day to day weather may or may not show any relationship to the changes which are being discussed. It is the long term effect which will show the amount of disruption done to the climates cycles.
It is mentioned in the Bible of there coming a time when the trees will not know when to set their blooms and birds not knowing when to build their nests. This could be said to define the outcome of a change in the climate.

a reply to: OneManArmy

And you know for sure that given 'scientist' is not driven by corporation or whatever other political body or whoever pays for his research?

I would not be surprised if most of them, if not all are paid by Koch brothers... Let's see who would profit if nothing has changed...

To post paper in science world, you have to have data to back it up... guess what happens if you try to manipulate that data...

Bombshell.

Don't mess with the IPCC crowd. They are a jealous lot.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.

The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.

Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows

Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor

a reply to: Mary Rose

Denying climate change is a pretext to justify not discontinuing fossil fuels, which by the way are heavily subsidized by the govt to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars yearly. I wonder if you were to put the alleged "carbon tax" next to how much oil subsidies big oil rakes in, which would be bigger?



www.nytimes.com.../oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks

cleantechnica.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's an approximation Phage, not an exact number. Some plants give more, some take more. It' not a zero-sum gain.

Approximation or not, you said more plants means more CO2.
That is nonsense.

Just to clarify my statement Phage... I was talking about total emissions from plants and foliage, not just what they perspire.

Since plants and trees are carbon sinks, they absorb CO2 during the day and emit it at night when photosynthesis stops. More importantly, when the plants or trees die, all of that carbon that was consumed and trapped in the plant over time begins to be released back into the atmosphere when decomposition begins. If CO2 increases foliage growth (which it does), and more plants end up growing and consuming more carbon and therefore, also dying, over time, the CO2 will start to increase at a faster rate. It's one of many feedback loops in climate, but you already knew that. As temperature increases, so will the rate of decomposition as it is temperature that fosters the growth of the bacteria that break down the sugars from the plants and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Higher temps = more plants = more plant perspiration = more plant death = faster decomposition = increased CO2.

I know you could have inferred most of that from what I was trying to say in my post, but instead, in typical Phage fashion, you decided to semantically try to pick apart what I was saying.

That's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that temperature rises lead CO2 increases.

~Namaste

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Pistoche

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Isn't it better to have less evidence than outright scientific fraud?

Cheers - Dave

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't make it fraud. You were probably the type to argue the earth was still flat or that the earth was the center of the solar system when it was proved otherwise. May I know how exactly you've come to the conclusion that it is fraud?

Looks like fraud to me all things considered.....

here's a clue to your picture comparison....one word "thickness".....but of course that would be a scientific measurement, so that can be thrown out the window, right??

The sun goes through larger seasonal cycles like earth that's the reason for different climates on earth not c02.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
That's completely false since there was three fold co2 during the ice age.

a reply to: amfirst1

The sun goes through larger seasonal cycles like earth that's the reason for different climates on earth not c02.

True, the Sun does change slowly over time and there are also orbital/axial cycles that seem to affect climate. The thing is the current situation says things should be cooling, not warming. The output of the Sun is not increasing fast enough to account for the warming and we are in a downturn in the Milankovich cycle, which in any case, involves changes over thousands of years, not 100.
www.climatedata.info...

That's completely false since there was three fold co2 during the ice age.

During glacial periods atmospheric CO2 levels are very low. CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in 400,000 years.
simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com...
While it is true that CO2 levels were much higher millions of years ago, it is also true that the energy output of the Sun was lower.

originally posted by: Phage
CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in 400,000 years.
simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com...

More than that... 800,000 years.



www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Mary Rose

I totally agree with you OP. I've looked at all the "scientific data" and deemed it garbage long ago. These scientists get funding from people like Al Gore so they will create a fake panic to justify this 'TAX'. They know that the more they push it the more money they will get. It's a sham.

This being said, I'm all for holding all people to a higher standard when it comes to being environmentally responsible. We have to keep the pollution down for obvious reasons.

What's happening is totally natural, -the sun is fluctuating. It's done this since the beginning of time. Science hasn't had a long time to study the sun so they're still very ignorant and full of assumptions when it comes to this. There is some things that is known, however, and credit goes to where it's deserved.

Other than nuclear testing(and other big bomb tests), I don't think that anything us humans do can harm the earth. The earths natural filtration process will work it out. This is just my uneducated opinion and it means nothing so don't get your panties in a bunch. Again, like OP stated correctly, this is about a TAX. A world tax that will generate trillions on fear and BS.

Ice ages are predicated by Earth Wobble.....

For more than a century scientists have known that Earth’s ice ages are caused by the wobbling of the planet’s orbit, which changes its orientation to the Sun and affects the amount of sunlight reaching higher latitudes, particularly the polar regions.

Source

The thing is, this "wobble" is predicated, in result of the moons distance from the planet. Now given the amount of distance the moon has moved away from the earth, since the last Ice Age. Their in effect is that amount of time in relation to the next Ice Age.

It would be great if we could place another object in orbit (like Ceres). Or even create an artificial structure that because of its mass could do the same thing.

Another alternative would be to warm up the planet.

Any thoughts?

A summary of the sequence of events for the last 130,000 years ('real' years);

Phases about as warm or warmer than the present are marked in bold.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world

around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)

130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.

(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)

?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).

105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.

95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.

93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.

75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)

60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)

25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')

(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)

9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's

Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

(except; about 2600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas)

Source

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne
That's completely false since there was three fold co2 during the ice age.

That's wrong.

originally posted by: OneManArmy
a reply to: Pistoche

The Pro Climate change "Scientists" and I use the term "scientists" very loosely, have been caught LYING and presenting FRAUDULENT evidence a few times.

Where? Where is there serious FRAUDULENT evidence in peer-reviewed publication?

And since the evidence is comprehensive over thousands of investigations by people all over the planet, (not just one or two, like most scientific frauds, limited to one person in one laboratory), are they all fradulent? That's completely preposterous and wrong.

And the scientists are as "Pro Climate Change" in the same way a doctor is "Pro Cancer". They think it's disgusting to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence because some economic actors (just like a tobacco seller or industrial polluter) are inconvenienced because of the obvious consequences of the scientific facts.

originally posted by: Fylgje
Other than nuclear testing(and other big bomb tests), I don't think that anything us humans do can harm the earth. The earths natural filtration process will work it out. This is just my uneducated opinion and it means nothing so don't get your panties in a bunch. Again, like OP stated correctly, this is about a TAX. A world tax that will generate trillions on fear and BS.

The "Earth" will be fine. The sustaining capacity to support 8 billion people in an intensive, prosperous and peaceful technological civilization won't be.

You admit to an uneducated opinion and then claim it's "fear and BS".

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
If CO2 increases foliage growth (which it does), and more plants end up growing and consuming more carbon and therefore, also dying, over time, the CO2 will start to increase at a faster rate. It's one of many feedback loops in climate, but you already knew that. As temperature increases, so will the rate of decomposition as it is temperature that fosters the growth of the bacteria that break down the sugars from the plants and release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Higher temps = more plants = more plant perspiration = more plant death = faster decomposition = increased CO2.

Except that the growing of the plants takes CO2 out of the atmosphere because plants can't mine coal, and their decomposition puts them back in. Without humans digging up and burning fossils, it was in rough equilibrium.

More CO2 and more plants will be larger seasonal grow/decomposition cycles which will increase the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations, but that doesn't do anything for the long-term secular increase.

It's only if plants grow and do not decompose in a way which releases CO2 (or CH4) to the atmosphere will CO2 levels go down (which is how the coal & oil was made in the first place).



I know you could have inferred most of that from what I was trying to say in my post, but instead, in typical Phage fashion, you decided to semantically try to pick apart what I was saying.

That's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that temperature rises lead CO2 increases.

~Namaste