New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

a reply to: bbracken677

You are assuming the 99.99999% is an accurate number.

Actually I never said anything about the reports accuracy I have kept that opinion to myself throughout the thread. My purpose with that post was to help those that had a hard time with the maths.

I can prove that the amount of co2 attributed to man is being misrepresented intentionally.

OK cool if you can "prove" that in conjunction with this study that would be great. The only link dealing with GHG emissions attached to the article was this one

Therefore the % listed is wrongo and your conclusion based on wrongo data is also wrongo by definition.

Again I have expressed no conclusion on the data within this thread so you would be wrongo.

(I like using wrongo in a sentence! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling... the word dastardly yields the same result when I use it in a sentence! )

Yeah it is kinda fun to use. But you know what else is wrongo? The article said it is 99.999% one in one hundred thousand chance not 99.99999% one in ten million chance.

Anyway I completely understand the abstract and discussion though reading further I admit there are places I am lost. So if you can show where things were misrepresented that would be great. Just in case you are looking for the paper here is the link.

originally posted by: Greven
For those of us who will probably be around in the 2030s - it's going to get rather a lot worse, between the climate changing, water crises, and cheap energy going away. But who am I to speak up? Sometimes the truth hurts, so it's not wanted.

Except I do not believe in your doom porn scenario and I will most certainly be alive in the 2030's.

I would find the whole debate much more believable if there were not a TAX attached to it. Once money gets involved the real science and substance evaporates.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In the United States there is no tax attached to it and how can research be done with no money?

a reply to: Kali74

I am not referring to that, I am referring to the proposed carbon tax/offset credits scam.

Here's some reference threads....

Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants


EPA Obama To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions

Get Ready.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Dang it! You used my word! lol

Dastardly thing to do!

I will have to get back to this when I have more time... I am working today, and have honey-do's afterwards

a reply to: Greven

For those of us who will probably be around in the 2030s - it's going to get rather a lot worse, between the climate changing, water crises, and cheap energy going away. But who am I to speak up? Sometimes the truth hurts, so it's not wanted.

True enough, except that the crisis in the 70s was the coming ice age. Not sure if you remember those predictions, but they were the fad of the period.

The water crisis is one that is real and presently dangerous. Man cannot continue to increase and not see strains on critical resources. The energy crisis as well, even though I have to admit we have hung in there longer than I would have thought. Back in the 70s (again) prognostications based on best estimates of available resources had us running out in the 90s. New reserves being discovered as well as the development of shale oil and fracking has significantly prolonged the carbon fuel era... We desperately need to put a full court press on fusion energy. Other alternate sources generally speaking, so far, are impractical and expensive.

Oh, and given that we are approaching the end of the current inter-glacial period, how do you propose we prevent climate change? We have not yet hit the high temps of the previous inter-glacial periods.

Perhaps everyone could turn on their a/c's and open their doors and windows. lol

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven

For those of us who will probably be around in the 2030s - it's going to get rather a lot worse, between the climate changing, water crises, and cheap energy going away. But who am I to speak up? Sometimes the truth hurts, so it's not wanted.

True enough, except that the crisis in the 70s was the coming ice age. Not sure if you remember those predictions, but they were the fad of the period.

The water crisis is one that is real and presently dangerous. Man cannot continue to increase and not see strains on critical resources. The energy crisis as well, even though I have to admit we have hung in there longer than I would have thought. Back in the 70s (again) prognostications based on best estimates of available resources had us running out in the 90s. New reserves being discovered as well as the development of shale oil and fracking has significantly prolonged the carbon fuel era... We desperately need to put a full court press on fusion energy. Other alternate sources generally speaking, so far, are impractical and expensive.

Oh, and given that we are approaching the end of the current inter-glacial period, how do you propose we prevent climate change? We have not yet hit the high temps of the previous inter-glacial periods.

Perhaps everyone could turn on their a/c's and open their doors and windows. lol

Though I respect your opinions, I must disagree with your Ice Age comment in the 70s. That was totally different in that it was only a small handful of scientists who posited that theory and of course the media ran with it. The Global Warming debate is different in that it is nearly every scientist on earth who things we're causing Global Warming.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Proposed is even pushing it, to date there's been no bill in Congress put forth about imposing a carbon tax. There will never be a tax on carbon at least on the federal level, in the US. It really needs to stop being a reason to refute science.

a reply to: bbracken677

They climate change model is defective. It is supposed to be able to predict 100 years into the future and yet somehow has failed miserably to predict 10 years into the future.

Yes, short term climate effects are difficult to model due to internal fluctuations such as ENSO. Long term models look at long term trends.

So, solar activity and the inability to block certain radiation has absolutely nothing to do with climate! Oh...wait...

You mean particle radiation? Because the magnetosphere has no effect on electromagnetic radiation. It is electromagnetic radiation which heats the Earth. How would an increase (if there were one) in solar particles in the upper atmosphere increase surface temperatures?

Ooops!? Ice age? 4400 ppm co2? How can that be??

The Sun was substantially cooler during the Paleozoic. The Sun is hotter than it was then, but not than it was 100 years ago.
www.columbia.edu...


You also seem confused about the role of CO2 in radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) prevent long wave infrared radiation from escaping into space. It absorbs, then re-emits infrared radiation.

Think about it like flipping a coin. There is a 50% chance that a given CO2 molecule will re-emit infrared radiation into space instead of back to Earth. Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.

Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.

Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.

With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance.

a reply to: amazing

That is true enough, but then again back then not everything was as politicized and "documentaryized" as it is today. This is the Information Age, and unfortunately that included misinformation that is politicized due to hidden agendas. Back then a documentary made an effort to be accurate.

Classic example is Al Gore's piece which was full of holes and misinformation. Being a geologist, when he started talking about pre-historical levels of co2 I knew it was baloney at that point. His chart conveniently started at the current (geologically speaking) lowest levels of co2.

Levels of co2 in the past have been as high as 7000 ppm and yet, somehow, life flourished. Levels of co2 have been higher during periods of glacial growth during the current ice age. I am not going to profess being an expert on meteorology, however what I know tells me that there is something very odd regarding the whole co2 GHG thing as presented. Why does there seem to be some correlation between co2 and temps in medium range periods and yet zero correlation in short term and long term periods? Is it just coincidence that we can pick out a medium range period and see apparent correlation, and yet when we expand it to double or triple the time frame we see zippo for correlation? Or, for that matter, shorten the time frame and see very little if any correlation... There are indications that co2 increase may, indeed, be a symptom (so to speak) of increases in temperature.

By the same token, solar activity and a couple of other variable show a much higher correlation than co2.

Most recently I have been reading what physicists write about the IPCC claims and they have a low opinion of the science used. I will be starting a thread based solely on that when I get the time. Quite interesting points they make regarding standard accepted science vs the science employed by the IPCC. Seems that, at times, claims made by the IPCC violates certain aspects of both laws of thermodynamics. That is huge... I am still digesting the information, but I am a huge believer in the laws of thermodynamics. What I have seen come from the IPCC, particularly regarding their climate model, does not inspire a whole lot of confidence. They seem (my opinion) to be violating basic rules of the scientific method.

a reply to: Phage

I respect your opinions hugely, however this particular statement I will address sometime this weekend. I do not have the time, right now, to poke a hole in it, but I will give you a hint.

You also seem confused about the role of CO2 in radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) prevent long wave infrared radiation from escaping into space. It absorbs, then re-emits infrared radiation.

Gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics. The claims made (or some of them) by the IPCC and a good many meteorologists violate the laws of thermodynamics in subtle yet meaningful ways. It appears that the GHG affect is not what it is presented to be. I have not thrown in completely with the data presented, I am still digesting, but the violations, as presented, would explain much. Bear in mind that, as you stated, there are limits to how much radiation can be emitted into space... (upward) there is also a limit, a smaller limit to what can be irradiated downward, to oversimplify... this is where the laws of thermodynamics comes into play. Another hint: The maximum energy a body can reflect is the maximum it can receive, given 100% reflectivity.

The rest of your post I will take into consideration, but you are not telling me anything, yet, that I was not already aware of.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Proposed is even pushing it, to date there's been no bill in Congress put forth about imposing a carbon tax. There will never be a tax on carbon at least on the federal level, in the US. It really needs to stop being a reason to refute science.

There's a big push however....

Carbon Tax Center


get your affairs in order !!

a reply to: bbracken677

The claims made (or some of them) by the IPCC and a good many meteorologists violate the laws of thermodynamics in subtle yet meaningful ways.

All of the laws of thermodynamics? One of them? There are only three. How so are any of these laws violated by the IPCC or a good many meteorologists?
www.kids.esdb.bg...

The rest of your post I will take into consideration, but you are not telling me anything, yet, that I was not already aware of.

Awareness is not the same as understanding. From what I can see, your understanding is lacking.

originally posted by: Kali74
Proposed is even pushing it, to date there's been no bill in Congress put forth about imposing a carbon tax.

The fact it is even being discussed at all is absurd.

There will never be a tax on carbon at least on the federal level, in the US. It really needs to stop being a reason to refute science.

The reason I question the data has been pointed out in this thread by others.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why is it absurd? It works in other countries and has worked here in the US with other things. Personally I don't advocate it because the science is already absurdly politicized, same as it was with tobacco and largely with the same players but that's another issue. I think pushing solar and other renewable innovations is the better avenue to take. Though certainly met with equal absurd force.

As far as questioning the data... it's good to remain skeptical with everything, we should always question effectiveness of methods and proofs of anything but that too has gone to the absurd. Homogenization has not been proven ineffective and remains accepted practice within science and in the case of CO2 induced global warming, we can throw out Mauna Loa data completely and still know what is happening to our climate and why it is happening.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I find this study truly shocking.

I mean...is there anyone left on this planet, after learning of all the buried data, the CRU withholding decades of data and then claiming to have lost the data that most of the prominent AGW studies are based off of, and of course the relatively few, but hard core scientists supporting AGW theories that have been caught out both falsifying data, issuing scare stories 'to galvanise politicians' and other examples of outright, bare faced lying through their teeth, that still actually believes in the AGW scary fairytales?

Really?

Gullible isn't the word for it...it's much worse than that.

Pollution? Environmental damage?

YES...in heaps...and THAT most certainly needs to be addressed and tackled head on and right now...but AGW?

Come off it, pull the other leg..it's got bells on.

originally posted by: Kali74
Why is it absurd? It works in other countries...

Because our taxes are high enough and what other countries do to further abuse their citizens is irrelevant.

I think pushing solar and other renewable innovations is the better avenue to take. Though certainly met with equal absurd force.

I have no issue with solar. I just do not want to see the government using tax payer's money to fund industry. Any industry.

As far as questioning the data... it's good to remain skeptical with everything, we should always question effectiveness of methods and proofs of anything but that too has gone to the absurd. Homogenization has not been proven ineffective and remains accepted practice within science and in the case of CO2 induced global warming, we can throw out Mauna Loa data completely and still know what is happening to our climate and why it is happening.

As Son pointed out in his posts there are some questionable tactics being used. If it were truly and totally settled these deceptive methods would not be required.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They aren't deceptive methods, that is the point. They are methods widely, almost exclusively used in data presentation.

a reply to: MysterX

Except that isn't what happened with the CRU.