NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

The keeling curve is total co2. We can measure mans co2 by its isotope. 4% is ours. Humans are responsible for 29 of 550 gigatons of co2 currently.

a reply to: mbkennel

originally posted by: ParanoidAmerican
Enough said IMO.....Science isn't very scientific anymore....or was it ever....

Ten now known scientific frauds...

Great Scientific Frauds

Ten Scientific Frauds that Rocked the World

I haven't read the whole thread yet, maybe someone beat me to it, but most of those hoaxes where exposed by actual science. So what you actually proved is that science works.

It really makes me laugh when someone thinks the world is heating up or cooling down, the real trend nobody knows FOR SURE, we might have some clues, readings, hot spots here and there, cold ones, more ice, less ice, lost glaciers growing ones... we think we are smart enough to say some gas will kill us all...
WHEN WE CANT PREDICT NOT 2 WEEKS INTO THE FUTURE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

You see there are tons of variables, all interacting and not all computer together can crunch the data, we only have monkeys trying to figure out the trends...

Lets say the earth temps go up 1 or 2 degrees average on a 10 year span, and then a big volcano spews 6 months and 1500 cubic tons of particles to the upper atmosphere, and the temps go down 4 degrees in 2 years, can you predict it? Ocean vents? underwater volcanoes, ocean currents? amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, cosmic rays and high particles hitting the upper atmosphere and causing clouds? Extra solar activity?

I rest my case ! the day someone tells me he or She can crunch all the variables and tell me exactly what is going on, then Ill believe in ACGW...in the mean time Il chug along in my car..thank you.

a reply to: raymundoko
Natural CO2 levels remain at equilibrium.
The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. Along with the lesser effects of deforestation, of course.

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos


As for you having no reason to believe otherwise, perhaps you should look into the plentiful allegations of tampering just within the last decade; if that doesn't give you pause, nothing will.

Allegations are ALLEGATIONS, and only that. Not evidence.


Personally I think we are in a warming trend, but that man-made factors are probably 10% or less of that. We should definitely make an effort to avoid any chemicals that deplete ozone or obviously anything that has a major systemic impact on the planet.

a reply to: Phage

NOAA earlier 2007 predictions weren't as accurate but their minimum plot many have just sneaked in ....

web.archive.org...://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/

But at least NOAA predictions were far better than NASA's...

wattsupwiththat.com...

Little Ice Age ....
"NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770"

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 but was preceded by the Sporer Minimum which co-coincides with the start of LIC. Sunspots even in 1770 were half that of SC23

Its possible that the sun has far longer cycles than that of our lifetime so are unknown to today's science. These cycles could have cause the downfall of past civilizations by continually changing the climate. Todays balmy weather is more the exception than the norm. If climate gets colder and world crops fail, we cannot fall back to game or fish as that can no longer support the earths population.

Hydrogen can help replace fossil fuels. Humans are good at exploiting the environment yet we are missing out on so much untapped energy with little negative impact to the planet. Here is a formula that can help us lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and maximize human well being.

www.politifact.com...

I'm just going to leave this right here.

I know, science has a liberal bias.

I'm sorry, but that is an inaccurate statement. Rising co2 levels are both natural and man made. The problem with mans part is we aren't creating carbon sinks, we continue to rip down forests.

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Lanisius
The problem with "science" is it is deemed correct fostering long held beliefs until it's proven wrong. Couple of examples are; flat earth...

The theory of the Earth as being flat was driven by religion, not by science. In this case, you are quite wrong. Stop repeating the nonsense that so many before you have claimed.

Science proved that the Earth was spherical back in ancient times. Look up Eratosthenes, who figured out a (vaguely) accurate measurement of the Earth's circumference some two centuries before Jesus was born.

Re: this continuing nonsense - this "Steven Goddard" guy who won't even share his real name has been shown time and again to be full of it in this very thread, and people ignore it. You are the true believers, not scientists.

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.
Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.

"Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.

In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

www.politifact.com...

Scientific data is directly observed. Estimated data is not observed data.

The believers don't have any directly observed, 200 years with all variables the same, time series data.

Does the weather report always predict the high or low temperature exactly right to the degree? According to the AGW believers, the forecaster predicts the high temperature exactly right every time.

The AGW believers fabricate, or at best, estimate, the AGW data.

When will people stop using the outmoded term 'global warming?' The anthropogenic angle should have been dropped by now as well. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at the historical data can see -- climate has never been static.

So many have jumped to the egocentric conclusion that humans are causing the changes, and that we must halt progress in order to survive. Instead, why don't we utilize every brain and tool at our disposal in effort to adapt to our ever-changing universe? Getting off this rock would be a good start...

Suppose I've got time to include a link, for those who limit their diet to published ideas:
www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I have said this in many other threads, and I think I am the only person here who actually holds an advanced degree in atmospheric physics.

Basically, not sh*t we can do, the climate is warming, man has little to no impact, all we can do is survive and adapt.

This is the part where most AGW people will part with me...I still think we should have taxes for the environment, just not under the fake pretense of man-made global warming. Botkin outlined 10 things that are FAR more important than taxes to reduce carbon footprints, and if you follow them, the carbon footprint of man becomes a non issue.

For example, in the USA 16% of our MAN MADE carbon is sunk into our trees. However, we have far less trees than we used to, and we aren't really handling our national parks in the best way. Below us, Central and South america are RAZING forests. If humans would get off coal for electricity, move to nuclear power and we could stop the deforestation of the world, that would basically end having to worry about a carbon footprint in the first place.

As nuclear technology progresses you could safely put it in planes again and further reduce the global carbon footprint.

Research needs to be put into LEGIT nuclear waste disposal, and real money and effort needs to be put into expanding the nuclear infrastructure of the world. We also need to get off nuclear fuel with the intent to make a weaponized product. There are safer forms of nuclear fuel.

That's all for another thread though...

a reply to: Phage

www.abovetopsecret.com...

science.house.gov...

Also, some good articles about the logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2:

wattsupwiththat.com...
wattsupwiththat.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
www.britannica.com...

originally posted by: Phage
2012 was the hottest year in North America on record.

I don't know where you live but I live in Florida and it was nowhere near hot or even close to a record. Some places are hotter and some are cooler, its climate change. The same climate change that has been happening since the ice age!!!

Also the U.N. scientist were also caught fudging the numbers big time when their emails were exposed for all the world to see right after they were blowing smoke up the worlds backside about Global warming. Just like Al Gore pointing to the U.S. in his video blaming the U.S. for being the biggest problem when half of South America was on fire. Its all B.S. to extort money from companies and the people. Earth can handle whatever we throw at it as long as they stop cutting the rain forest down. Plants and trees live off what we feed them.

Here's an idea. Why don't we start with...Science!

Not with talking heads, blogs, politicians, think tanks that don't contain any scientists, pundits, news anchors, radio personalities etc. Let's start with science. Now what does science say....

originally posted by: mbkennel

It depends on what the issue is. What's the consensus on conservation of momentum and lepton number? Hmm?

Do you know better than particle physicists the strength of the various conservation laws in various circumstances?

You are under the assumption I disagree that we have climate change, which I don't. What the issue seems to be is how much of a change and Al Gore is basically the reason for distrust on this subject.

It seems that there are other motivators involved a lot of the time in all if this than just the basic truth.

Then again, there was such a thing with tobacco. (One of the important parts of tobacco toxicity is radioactivity no less). Who was right and who was wrong?

Not sure what you mean who was right or wrong, I think back then even the scientist and doctors saw tobacco as ok.

So I guess today we can not be the same way anymore.

a reply to: amazing

Science is funded by governments and private companies (is there a separation today, think not) to push their agenda's. One of Australia's scientist admitted he had to leave the AGW gravy train because he couldn't stomach it anymore. Brave man as he isn't likely to get anymore funding anytime soon.

Similarly many scientist protested NASA stance on GW. It has been said by some insiders that NASA funding is based on their support of GW.

www.cfact.org...

The term climate change needs to be defined. Temperature goes up, it's climate change...temperature goes down it's climate change, that's not science, that's weather.

If you want to use global warming, OK. Problem right now is the scientists are releasing the results they are finding with their computer simulations, keeping the RAW DATA secret. Can't take any science serious that does not release the raw data, but only the results and says "trust us".

a reply to: raymundoko

That figure does not account for CO2 that now resides longer in the atmosphere as a result of less natural CO2 sinks that have been destroyed by human activity.

From 280 to 400ppm CO2 is the consensus from thousands of scientists around the globe. This figure will continue to rise...