Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yet they are great changes. One fall back argument you guys always like to revert back to is that human impact is not significant enough to change our climate and how we should not be so arrogant to think such. Now when one can see the great changes we have made to the terra, we can make the logical connection that something like changing the carbon cycle will have a butterfly effect in terms of changes in this planet's climate.

To understand all this, one has to understand the concept of things like radiant forcing and residence time. It is obvious that those of you who act as cheerleaders of doubt to the overwhelming scientific consensus do NOT understand such concepts.

And the normal fall back for people so rabid in its support , is exactly what you did here

"youre stupid so you wouldnt understand, therefore your argument against MMGW is invalid"

Typical, ego driven, narcissistic drivel

a reply to: Simmderdown
Way to twist my words around to make me look bad and your side look better.

Don't you find it odd that almost no one with a formal science education challenges the scientific consensus regarding climate change?

this thread took a nasty sideways turn...as they always do.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Thanks to those who make emotional and political arguments versus bringing in actual science.
That is cute how you have trashed this thread with silly graphics and then complain about this thread being trashed.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Simmderdown
Way to twist my words around to make me look bad and your side look better.

Don't you find it odd that almost no one with a formal science education challenges the scientific consensus regarding climate change?

I didnt have to wist anything, the very last paragraph of that post you said exactly that

It is obvious that those of you who act as cheerleaders of doubt to the overwhelming scientific consensus do NOT understand such concepts.

We dont agree, therefore we must be stupid

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Thanks to those who make emotional and political arguments versus bringing in actual science.
That is cute how you have trashed this thread with silly graphics and then complain about this thread being trashed.

People did bring in actual science, Marion, Persv and many others posted data, and continued the debate on it , until you started getting personal. I find that hypocritical

Don't you find it odd that almost no one with a formal science education challenges the scientific consensus regarding climate change?

what I find odd is that anyone with a formal science education , that challenges the Scientefic consensus, is either fired, de-funded, labeled a loon or otherwise made a target and utterly destroyed, to make them keep their mouth shut.

Thats what I find odd

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Climate change is a very broad term, you need to be more specific. If you are talking about man-made global warming then I would have to say it's very unclear whether human activities actually have a large impact on the average global temperature.

That hasn't been the case since around 1990. It's clear now.

Even you have explained how certain particulates in the atmosphere reflect light back into space and cause a dimming effect. We are also seeing increase sea ice around the Antarctic and as a result of the increased carbon dioxide levels we are actually seeing increased greenage around the planet.

There's a lot of evidence that the numbers are being manipulated anyway,

No there isn't, there's actually evidence to the contrary.

this guy isn't the only untrustworthy scientist in the field. Global warming is only one specific type of climate change and not even experts can agree that it's actually happening or that it poses a real problem for us.

To the contrary: the experts do agree about both.

We should be worrying more about things such as oil leaks, overfishing, toxic waste dumps, nuclear disasters, hardcore deforestation, etc. Those things really change our climate in a tangible and observable way.

Why do those count? Where is the evidence that toxic waste dumps change the climate in a tangible and observable way?

originally posted by: Simmderdown

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Thanks to those who make emotional and political arguments versus bringing in actual science.
That is cute how you have trashed this thread with silly graphics and then complain about this thread being trashed.

People did bring in actual science, Marion, Persv and many others posted data, and continued the debate on it , until you started getting personal. I find that hypocritical

Don't you find it odd that almost no one with a formal science education challenges the scientific consensus regarding climate change?

what I find odd is that anyone with a formal science education , that challenges the Scientefic consensus, is either fired, de-funded, labeled a loon or otherwise made a target and utterly destroyed, to make them keep their mouth shut.

Thats what I find odd

He's playing right out of Saul Alinski's playbook "Rules for Radicals" :

Rule #5 to be exact. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."

Good thing I don't believe in his "rules"

Insult me all you want, I have thick skin and can take it. Then hit you back with pure logic.

a reply to: Simmderdown
No they did not post any data. A YouTube vid that makes emotional and political talking points is not evidence, neither is wattsupwiththat. You guys are living in Lala land if you think that is evidence against human induced climate change.
Bring actual data to this forum and we can have an intelligent discussion about the science. Right now this has become a circle jerk full of ignorant opinions.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Thanks to those who make emotional and political arguments versus bringing in actual science.
That is cute how you have trashed this thread with silly graphics and then complain about this thread being trashed.

what I meant is...we drifted off topic. The topic was about a man from EPA that got fired for skipping work.

edit:

sorry..not just fired...but sued for it.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
To understand all this, one has to understand the concept of things like radiant forcing and residence time. It is obvious that those of you who act as cheerleaders of doubt to the overwhelming scientific consensus do NOT understand such concepts.

You say skeptics don't understand things like radiative forcing and residence time. Do you understand them? Just out of interest, what do you think the radiative forcing from CO2 is now above the radiative forcing CO2 was at its pre-industrial level assuming the pre-industrial level was 280ppmv and now it stands at 400ppmv? And what is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere?

a reply to: Nathan-D

They do not, at least what I can gather from this thread. I wrote radiant forcing instead of radiative forcing and none of the active deniers picked up on that.

It's been over a decade since I actually studies this formally and really do not have time today(have to go to work soon) to really re-learn and then break down the numbers. But I can give some answers to the questions you demand.

The residence time of CO2 is deceptively short about 5 years and this is something that wattsupwiththat runs with and pretends like the excess CO2 is not a big deal. The reality is most atmosphere merely interacts with the oceans and this feedback effectively gives CO2 a residence time of centuries.
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

Calculating the increase of radiative forcing of CO2 is over my head, I will have to devote sometime to figure it out. However there are plenty of sources out there that have estimated it.

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bronco73

I just posted a link with a plethora of evidence that suggests that human are causing the climate to change.

Unless you provide some actual evidence, your one liner that suggests humans are not causing climate change is nothing but a smelly opinion.

smelly? Opinions are thoughts, ideas, beliefs. How can opinions exhibit any form of smell?

www.express.co.uk...
www.plantsneedco2.org...
www.post-gazette.com...
joannenova.com.au...

I could continue but we both know neither will concede. For the time being this debate will not end. Just like when the "scientists" screamed from the rooftops that the next ice age was coming in the 70's and every susceptible minion jumped on board, you man-caused global warming cultists will not give up until you realize that decades have passed and nothing has changed, whereupon your cause will have over the years just quietly slipped into silence.

a reply to: bronco73
You are wrong, most scientists did not tell us that we were heading toward an ice age in the 1970's. That is a myth the deniers and doubters will not let go of.

skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D
Calculating the increase of radiative forcing of CO2 is over my head, I will have to devote sometime to figure it out. However there are plenty of sources out there that have estimated it.

Calculating the radiative forcing from CO2 (as it's generally done by the IPCC) isn't actually that hard. If anyone is interested I'll just give a quick run-down and you can use it in future debates.

The change in radiative forcing from changes in CO2 is often calculated with the following formula:

deltaRF = In(C1/CO)x5.35 (see the 'Radiative Forcing' Wikipedia page).

Where In is the natural logarithm of, C1 is the final CO2 concentration, CO is the initial CO2 concentration and RF is the change in radiative forcing.

A good online calculator to use in my opinion is the 'Web 2.0 Scientific Calculator' (Note: The natural logarithm or In in the formula on the Web 2.0 Scientific Calculator appears when you hover over the Log symbol. Don't just write In. You have to actually click on the ln symbol on the calculator).

So all you would need to do is this:

ln(400/280)x5.35

= 1.9 W/sq.m of radiative forcing (The / is divide by the way).

The study you mentioned said they found an increase of 0.20 W/sq.m in radiative forcing between 2000-2010 from CO2 which coincided with a 22ppmv increase. The CO2 level in 2000 was about 368ppmv and by 2010 it was about 390ppmv (i.e. a 22ppmv increase). So the formula above gives us:

ln(390/368)x5.35 = 0.17 W/sq.m which is close enough to their supposedly measured value of 0.20W/sq.m. In which case, the formula underestimates the radiative forcing from CO2 by a tiny bit.

To convert their value of 0.20W/sq.m into a temperature increase we can apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law re-arranged into the following formula:

deltaT = (T^4+deltaRF/0.000000056704)^0.25-T

Where deltaT is the temperature change, deltaRF is the increment of radiative forcing, T is the absolute temperature of the body in Kelvin to the 4th-power and 0.000000056704 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The average surface temperature of Earth is 288K (T) although the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) temperature of 255K is often used instead.

So we get:

(288^4+0.20/0.000000056704)^0.25-288

You can basically just copy-and-paste that into the Web 2.0 Calculator and you'll get 0.037K of warming. That would be the warming from CO2 at the surface without feedbacks from the 0.20 W/sq.m of radiative forcing. Using the TOA temperature instead gives us slightly more warming.

To find out the temperature increase from the feedbacks you just need to multiply the amount of radiative forcing from CO2 by 0.8 (see the 'Climate Sensitivity' page on Wikipedia). So 0.20x08 would give us the temperature increase from CO2 after all the feebacks (i.e. slow and fast feedbacks).

Hope you found that somewhat useful. If you're going to believe in something you may as well fact-check it independently for yourself.

The residence time of CO2 is deceptively short about 5 years and this is something that wattsupwiththat runs with and pretends like the excess CO2 is not a big deal. The reality is most atmosphere merely interacts with the oceans and this feedback effectively gives CO2 a residence time of centuries.

Residence time is defined as how long on average a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before being absorbed by sinks. Skeptical Science are talking about the 'adjustment time' at the end of the article, which is not the same as the residence time. The adjustment time is how long it takes for CO2 to return to pre-industrial equilibrium levels after a given perturbation.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bronco73
You are wrong, most scientists did not tell us that we were heading toward an ice age in the 1970's. That is a myth the deniers and doubters will not let go of.

skepticalscience.com...

Don't you tell me they were not preaching that. Most likely unlike you, I was around in the 70's. I saw it, I heard it, and I was spoon fed that crap all the time. Yes they did claim the ice age was coming in the 70's, I was there. It was no fallacy, it's the MMGW cultists like YOU trying to belittle the claims made in the 70's. They blamed it all on pollution majorily from exhaust... just like you dopes are doing today with MMGW.

This page alone lists dozens of reputed news and information papers that ALL took the claims from the climatologists at the time and reported that the ice age was coming, starting from 1970 and running right up until 1979:
wattsupwiththat.com...

We were fed this in the 70's:
www.populartechnology.net...

"July 1975, the worlds climatologists agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age"
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bronco73
You are wrong, most scientists did not tell us that we were heading toward an ice age in the 1970's. That is a myth the deniers and doubters will not let go of.

skepticalscience.com...

Don't you tell me they were not preaching that. Most likely unlike you, I was around in the 70's. I saw it, I heard it, and I was spoon fed that crap all the time. Yes they did claim the ice age was coming in the 70's, I was there. It was no fallacy, it's the MMGW cultists like YOU trying to belittle the claims made in the 70's. They blamed it all on pollution majorily from exhaust... just like you dopes are doing today with MMGW.

This page alone lists dozens of reputed news and information papers that ALL took the claims from the climatologists at the time and reported that the ice age was coming, starting from 1970 and running right up until 1979:
wattsupwiththat.com...

We were fed this in the 70's:
www.populartechnology.net...

"July 1975, the worlds climatologists agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age"
stevengoddard.wordpress.com...

Agreed. I was there as well. I don't think I had a science class in school that didn't give us films, and media that showed scientists talking about the imminent ice age.

It was on the news (back when you were LUCKY if you had 4 channels) and in magazines, and newspapers.

But now, everywhere you look, it's denial that it happened.

a reply to: bronco73

Yes they did claim the ice age was coming in the 70's, I was there.

I was there too. Ice Age? We are in an ice age. Do you mean a glacial period?
A few scientists did claim that there was a cooling trend (and there sort of was, for a little while), and the media jumped all over it. Meanwhile, they (the media) ignored the other climatologists (far more) who were warning of the effects of greenhouse gasses.
scholar.google.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bronco73

Yes they did claim the ice age was coming in the 70's, I was there.

I was there too. Ice Age? We are in an ice age. Do you mean a glacial period?
A few scientists did claim that there was a cooling trend (and there sort of was, for a little while), and the media jumped all over it. Meanwhile, they (the media) ignored the other climatologists (far more) who were warning of the effects of greenhouse gasses.
scholar.google.com...

LOL I love reading your replies. You are really good at picking nits it keeps people on their toes lol! Anyways I merely (incorrectly) used it in my reply to keep the flow going as it were. The point was that in the 70's they were screaming that the globe was going to be cooling, substantially at that and that we were metaphorically going to be living on an ice cube within decades.