Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure where you are going with that.

The data is there. ~280ppm to 400ppm~ are the observed CO2 concentrations. No manipulation, just observations.

except past data suggest CO2 increases occur after warming not before or during. so if CO2 is the cause it is a time traveler.

a reply to: jrod

Conclusion: fruit loops are fools and global warming is a scam to raise our taxes.

Ironically, an effective Global Warming strategy may well lower our taxes.

The Carbon Un-Tax

I'm not saying this is 'the way, the light, and the truth'; but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than a lot of other proposals.

a reply to: rnaa

Yup - it's a very simple revenue-neutral, or "fee and dividend" system where the money is refunded directly to the taxpayer, but still creates a strong incentive for carbon-free alternatives.

It's already been implemented in British Columbia, Canada with great success:

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works


But good luck explaining this concept to conservative cranks who desperately need to believe all the money goes straight to Al Gore's secret lair, so their delusional little conspiracy can still make sense to them.

Even the supposedly "political" climate scientists like James Hansen have been pushing this idea for a long time. Here's an op-ed he wrote for the NY Times, denouncing cap and trade in favor of fee and dividend back in 2009: Cap and Fade

All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs.

It would be nice if we could all just talk about good ideas like this -- but these good ideas happen to be very corrosive to Big Oil's business plan, so they go out of their way to make sure all the peons focus on totally made up climate scandals instead.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mc_squared

Remember kiddies, intellect is a tool of the devil.

Oh my he actually used air quotes...

LOL



I don't have time to "read facts" or "learn science". I'm just a humble skeptic "interpreter of interpretations".

a reply to: Kali74

First off, thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I am past thinking I am right, and am moving on to trying to learn more.

Since the data was manipulated and we understand why, my question is still why does the initial data look as if there is no warming overall, yet the adjusted data looks exactly as we might expect? As a conspiracy person, you have to admit, that's extremely convenient.

a reply to: network dude

Since the data was manipulated and we understand why, my question is still why does the initial data look as if there is no warming overall, yet the adjusted data looks exactly as we might expect? As a conspiracy person, you have to admit, that's extremely convenient.

Because to put it simply: this came from a skeptic blog, and they devote all their time to searching out and cherry-picking the sort of adjustments they deem to be “convenient”, while themselves conveniently ignoring all the other data that tells a different story, or at least gives the bigger picture more context.

If the raw data needs to be adjusted because it shows some sort of bias, there’s really only two results – it will either get warmer or cooler. These Breitbart-style hit pieces are always trying to push a one-sided dialogue that everything’s adjusted warmer, to promote the man made global warming “agenda”, but this is not true at all.

Here – I just went looking through some of the station data myself, and this is the 3rd one I landed on, from the same region as the Paraguay sites:

Raw data:

data.giss.nasa.gov...

Adjusted:

data.giss.nasa.gov...


The adjusted data took a big fat warming trend out. The fact is there’s been a lot of careful work done on these outliers to identify and eliminate ALL biases. NASA are not the only ones doing it – there’s also NOAA, Berkeley Earth, Hadley (UK), JMA (Japan), etc. They all use their own techniques, but they all get broadly consistent results in the end.

To imply that there’s something sinister going on is to therefore say that all these scientists and agencies are in on it together – even Berkeley Earth, which was the darling study of the denialists (originally funded by the Koch Brothers) until they produced results verifying the exact same warming trend as everybody else.

And again, this is on top of all the other natural world indicators such as rising seas, melting glaciers, polar migrations that back the story up completely. Furthermore, if it's all a big giant conspiracy - then why do they leave the raw data up for everyone to see anyway?

...
If you really want to consider this from the perspective of suspicious behavior, then just turn that microscope around and apply it to the so called skeptics – who are constantly cherry-picking, misleading, and distorting the evidence to promote their agenda.

This is the exact same thing that happened with climategate – thousands of emails were sifted through and then quote-mined out of context to present a sensationally dishonest interpretation. How come none of the websites screaming scandal ever bothered mentioning that the “decline” was actually a well-known and openly discussed anomaly called the Divergence Problem, and the scientists “hiding” it were simply splicing in more accurate data over top of the bad stuff?

Well actually to be fair some media sources did, eventually, fess up to their knee-jerk sensationalism:
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done

…just not the Breitbarts and the FOX News' and the denier blogs…wonder why…

the announcement that last august/year was the hottest on record turns out to have been within the margin of error and should have just as easily said the cooling trend continues. they went with "hottest on record."

a reply to: Entreri06

Lol your post is just a pearl of absurdity. I mean its not even that so many scientists cant lie, its the number that is important. "97%" and where does this number come from? Did you talk with each of these scientists that are part of these 97%? Did it never occur to you that the 97% thing was a lie? I bet some random journalist threw the number to the gullible people like you throw a bone to a fatty dog and it was adopted since then. Same way the bull# Big Bang theory got its name. To comfort the masses and make the main lie easily swallowed.

Censorship is heavy within scientific community. Or is it too hard to swallow? You do think all the new tech you see today are the most recent advancement? Really? What about medicine? Western medicine or allopathy is the best example of how screwed things really are. Why do you think ayurveda, chinese medicine or any form of medicine that is not western is seen as pseudo medicine? Because they are all wrong? Chinese have survived for years using THEIR way to heal the body and it seems to have worked. Same for ayurveda and yet, they dont get the recognition they deserve because they are in contradiction with the corrupted western approach. A whole culture over millenias learnt and mastered how the inner energy work and how to use it to heal, their way is much more intuitive and it should be seen as inferior just because it cannot be measured? In truth many things have been invented that could have changed the face of the world but were injustly burried because it didnt fit in for a limited slave society.

You are an example of someone building his life.. on a pile of lies, like many many many. Really disappointing.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

CO2 causes radiative forcing....more CO2 more radiative forcing. That link is a simple one to figure out.

a reply to: _damon

The 97% number comes from no less than 3 independent, peer-reviewed studies:

Doran et al 2009 – 97.4% consensus
Andregg et al 2010 – 97-98% consensus
Cook et al 2013 – 97.1% consensus

It also comes from the fact that every major scientific organization across the planet endorses that consensus:
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing

More than anything it comes from the fact that the physical scientific basis is extremely well proven. It’s been understood for almost 200 years, and any reasonably intelligent person can investigate it for themselves. Heck children do it for science fair projects:



But you go ahead and keep telling yourself what a gullible moron everyone else is for believing such easily demonstrable facts. It’s obviously all a big lie, and you are clearly just more enlightened, with your secret Chinese medicine and all, than the rest of us poor souls who still subscribe to silly things like science.


I wonder if any of them magic Chinese herbs make a decent chill pill…

originally posted by: _damon
a reply to: Entreri06

Lol your post is just a pearl of absurdity. I mean its not even that so many scientists cant lie, its the number that is important. "97%" and where does this number come from? Did you talk with each of these scientists that are part of these 97%? Did it never occur to you that the 97% thing was a lie? I bet some random journalist threw the number to the gullible people like you throw a bone to a fatty dog and it was adopted since then. Same way the bull# Big Bang theory got its name. To comfort the masses and make the main lie easily swallowed.

Censorship is heavy within scientific community. Or is it too hard to swallow? You do think all the new tech you see today are the most recent advancement? Really? What about medicine? Western medicine or allopathy is the best example of how screwed things really are. Why do you think ayurveda, chinese medicine or any form of medicine that is not western is seen as pseudo medicine? Because they are all wrong? Chinese have survived for years using THEIR way to heal the body and it seems to have worked. Same for ayurveda and yet, they dont get the recognition they deserve because they are in contradiction with the corrupted western approach. A whole culture over millenias learnt and mastered how the inner energy work and how to use it to heal, their way is much more intuitive and it should be seen as inferior just because it cannot be measured? In truth many things have been invented that could have changed the face of the world but were injustly burried because it didnt fit in for a limited slave society.

You are an example of someone building his life.. on a pile of lies, like many many many. Really disappointing.

The 97% was from a study where they checked all published papers and tracked which ones assumed that climate change was man made. In the study 97.2%of them were studies assuming climate change was man made. That got extrapolated into 97.2% of scientists... I think a fair analogy. It can't be far off that any way.


No other modern country doubts we are jacking the planet up...left wing media isn't good enough to win over the world..

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the announcement that last august/year was the hottest on record turns out to have been within the margin of error and should have just as easily said the cooling trend continues. they went with "hottest on record."

We haven't had a real winter in years in the south.. (MS)

a reply to: Entreri06

It's a math issue really.

400 ppm CO2 is 0.04 % of the atmosphere.

Climate alarmists cry that 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to heat up the planet by absorbing 8% of the ambient (i.e. room temperature) heat.

.0004 x .08 = 0.000032 of the energy released from the surface of the Earth.

The average earth surface temperature is 14.0 C or 273 + 14 = 287 K (Kelvin is absolute temperature, aka energy, measured from absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature, same units as Celsius.)

287 x 0.000032 = .009184 C at 400ppm CO2.

400ppm CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere something like .009184 degrees Celsius, compared to no CO2 in the atmosphere at all. So the fraction of heat put in the air by man is even less than that.

Once the heat is absorbed by CO2 it becomes motion. The heat is passed on to other gas molecules in collisions, after which the hottest molecules will evolve into higher altitudes by convection. Finally, the heat is lost by the phenomenon of black body radiation, which all matter is doing all of the time, into space.

Only an alarmist, or fascist opportunist, would see a threat in that.

Please explain otherwise if you can.

If you can't, why do you believe in global warming?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Once the heat is absorbed by CO2 it becomes motion. The heat is passed on to other gas molecules in collisions, after which the hottest molecules will evolve into higher altitudes by convection. Finally, the heat is lost by the phenomenon of black body radiation, which all matter is doing all of the time, into space.

It seem you know your stuff... I'm even inclined to think you worked with CO2 laser! If I remember well, the principal interaction due to similar energy level is between nitrogen and CO2.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Once the heat is absorbed by CO2 it becomes motion. The heat is passed on to other gas molecules in collisions, after which the hottest molecules will evolve into higher altitudes by convection. Finally, the heat is lost by the phenomenon of black body radiation, which all matter is doing all of the time, into space.

It seem you know your stuff... I'm even inclined to think you worked with CO2 laser! If I remember well, the principal interaction due to similar energy level is between nitrogen and CO2.

No lasers, I have been thinking about how to use sunlight through a magnifying glass to improve chemical reactions.

Like breaking water down to get Hydrogen. You could store energy as Hydrogen longer than you can store it as a charge on a battery. Storage of chemicals would be a way to take in energy in the summer and use it in the winter.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Like breaking water down to get Hydrogen. You could store energy as Hydrogen longer than you can store it as a charge on a battery. Storage of chemicals would be a way to take in energy in the summer and use it in the winter.

Nah... Hydrogen is a nasty stuf. One nice way to store Sun energy is hydroelectric power, rain is the product of Sun energy, you accumulate it in a lake and open the valve toward a turbine when you need it.

Check hydrogen embrittlement, no joke this stuff is a nasty nightmare...

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Climate alarmists cry that 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to heat up the planet by absorbing 8% of the ambient (i.e. room temperature) heat.

No. Climatologists do not say that increasing levels of CO2 will heat the planet by absorbing heat. Climatologists (and physicists) say that increasing levels of CO2 will heat the planet by reducing the amount of energy sent back into space.

The way it works is this; The problem isn't the "heat" that CO2 absorbs, the problem is that it absorbs infrared radiation. For a little while. When it does this, it causes an electron to jump to a higher energy level. But that electron returns to its orginal state after a bit and when it does it releases a photon of infrared radiation (just like what it absorbed). The problem is, where does that infrared radiation go?

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. (above the horizon or below it). 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 "tails". 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. Increasing GHGs means that more infrared radiation stays in the atmosphere and less leaves. The concept is called radiative forcing, not heat absorption.

Ever notice how on an overcast night it is often warmer than on a clear night? That's because the clouds are reflecting infrared radiation back to the surface. Same principle except that clouds are a bit more directional than CO2 molecules.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah that's right but what happen with the increased emissivity due to CO2 at around 10um, you know radiative cooling?

And are you sure pre-industrial level of CO2 were not already at "opacity" saturation level?

Just saying.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Yeah that's right but what happen with the increased emissivity due to CO2 at around 10um, you know radiative cooling?

What increased emissivity? The CO2 spectrum has a few spikes (not at 10 microns), but what does that have to do with the amount of infrared trapped within the atmosphere?

members.casema.nl...

And are you sure pre-industrial level of CO2 were not already at "opacity" saturation level?

Yes. And at 400ppm we are still far from any sort of "opacity" saturation level (satellites measure outgoing infrared) but high enough to increase retained energy levels.

a reply to: Phage

What increased emissivity? The CO2 spectrum has a couple of spikes (not at 10 microns), but what does that have to do with the amount of infrared trapped within the atmosphere?

You're not aware of 'Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation'? You know Emissivity = Absorptivity = (1- Reflectivity).