Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
A skeptical group of scientists from BERKELEY? Berkeley isn't exactly known for wide raging points of view.

Berkeley = Cool aid drinkers

The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

Originally posted by boncho
Just because a skeptic changes their mind does not always mean they did. It could be simply a matter of a large sum of money being dumped in a bank account that they control.

This of course is coming from me, someone who is usually a skeptic.

Even on this story, about another person "seeing the light".

I'm not even discussing the key issue here. Just the behaviour of the people involved. After all I'm a skeptic... So if you would me to change my stance on this matter, simply deposit X amount of $ into numbered account 142-749503-B-7394 in Switzerland.

Oy vey. The entire article will be published in a scientific journal.

Sometimes actual facts and analysis matter to actual scientists.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by PvtHudson
A skeptical group of scientists from BERKELEY? Berkeley isn't exactly known for wide raging points of view.

Berkeley = Cool aid drinkers

The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

True. And, so? That excludes human effect, how exactly?

All of that had physical mechanism. Those physical mechanisms we understand now. We also know that human action is enhancing the effect of a known physical mechanism, and this has been quantitatively predicted and measured.

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by pasiphae
natural climate change that takes 41,000 years (milankovitch cycles) is not the same as what is happening now.

It is exactly the same as what is happening now. You have no proof otherwise and neither do any scientists.

That is entirely false. There is extremely strong evidence that the enhancement of the mechanism of greenhouse gases due to human influence is the primary cause of current climate change.

This is not a guess, but based on decades of interlocking observational, laboratory and theoretical evidence, just as in every other field of physical science.

Originally posted by munkey66
I do not know of any climate scientists who are going to deny climate change exists, scientists themselves are very clever people who know that good news never gets funding, and a scientist without funding becomes a very clever person looking for a job.

It is much much much much easier for a mediocre climatologist without scruples to get some BS money from right wing "think tanks" and lie that it is to apply for highly competitive grants and jobs in actual science where the required level of capability and knowledge is intense.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


My point on this whole thing is very simple. I don't deny climate change. Not for a moment. In fact, I quite readily agree. It's changing alright and God help us if it's changing even remotely close to how it has, hundreds of times before across the history of our planet.

I only disagree and always WILL....short of hard evidence that doesn't find itself contradicted in OTHER evidence....about Man being the CAUSE. Effect? perhaps...CAUSE? You have to be kidding me..

Why is it hard to believe? The exact physics behind this has been known for many decades. This is not a theoretical construct---the increase in infrared radiation due to enhanced greenhouse effect is an experimentally measured fact. It is physically impossible for the climate not to change as a result.

Do not underestimate what science actually knows about electromagnetism and chemistry. In reality, by the early 90's most of the scientific community thought the evidence for the primacy of human influence to be highly convincing.

The Global Warmers aren't kidding tho.....and I weep for the loss of Science education in the schools as if it mattered. Kids barely even get it now and so, have no way to even know what is right or wrong without being told their opinion by others.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Schoolchildren do not have the capability to "decide for themselves" about the product of hundreds of years of hard-won progress from the smartest people in human civilization.

reply to post by juleol


And what has been driving these" natural cycles".

I am just going to copy and paste this next part since I have to keep bringing up the same points over, and over,and over again with skeptics when they pull out the same tired responses from the skeptic 101 handbook.


And this is a simple way of looking at CO2.

The CO2 that is registered is an isotope, there are several of them. The CO2 burned from fossibl fuels is a different isotope than those in the atmosphere.

So when the CO2 from fossil fuels is mixed with atmosphereic CO2, the composition of the atmospheric CO2 is changed. Hence, how they know the carbon is from burning fossil fuels.

In tree ring records and ice core samples, never has the atmospheric Co2 been so low in thousands and thousands of years, And the rise of fossil fuel CO2 isotope has risen in the last....150, or the start of the industrial revolution.And change of atmospheric CO2 isotope has never been more than .03%, five times less than what we have seen in the past 150 years.

I am glad we could clear that up

reply to post by Eurisko2012


And what is driving these natural cycles?


I will end up asking this 10 more times and a skeptic won't answer.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by PvtHudson
A skeptical group of scientists from BERKELEY? Berkeley isn't exactly known for wide raging points of view.

Berkeley = Cool aid drinkers

The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

True. And, so? That excludes human effect, how exactly?

All of that had physical mechanism. Those physical mechanisms we understand now. We also know that human action is enhancing the effect of a known physical mechanism, and this has been quantitatively predicted and measured.

Peace & tranquility will replace fear and deception spread by Al Gore and other left wing

loons.

99.9% of Global Warming is caused by normal solar wind, solar flare activity and

geothermal warming aka el nino effect - the warming of the Pacific Ocean.

There is direct link between the weather on our sun and the weather on Earth.

Global warming is natural.

They should teach a new course at Berkeley. - The Anatomy of a Hoax -

How to get it started. How to keep it going. (death threats to the deniers)

How and why the Hoax eventually comes to an end.

- The truth shall set us free. -

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by boncho

 

He wasn't initially funded by the Kochs. This project, which finds that global warming is real and man-made, was (partially) funded by the Kochs. It kinda goes against the idea that they were just suddenly funded to say AGW is real (unless someone wants to make the claim that this was the Koch's end-game all along - I seriously can't wait to see that). And there is no paper that Muller read that convinced him. He wrote it.

In any case - it will be available tomorrow on their website:

berkeleyearth.org...

All their methodologies and data are already publicly available there for anyone to analyze for themselves.

Enjoy.

Mueller originally thought that the data analytic techniques used by the climatologists were sloppy and were flawed, and he set out to do them better. OK, good. That's how science works.

The point was that even if the statistical and analytical techniques might have been flawed, the flaws had sufficiently negligible effect that the overall physical picture from the climatologists was completely correct. It was not surprising to me.

This is completely normal in science: you always make some approximations which you have to justify. In many cases it can't be done quite so formally and there is insufficient technical knowledge at the time, and yet good scientists have what's called "physical intuition" that leads them to the effectively correct answer even before the formal or most rigorous justification. This happens endlessly in experimental physics.

Now the answer should be even more secure: a more rigorous and sound procedure has backed up the approximate procedures typically used previously.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by PvtHudson
A skeptical group of scientists from BERKELEY? Berkeley isn't exactly known for wide raging points of view.

Berkeley = Cool aid drinkers

The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years.

True. And, so? That excludes human effect, how exactly?

All of that had physical mechanism. Those physical mechanisms we understand now. We also know that human action is enhancing the effect of a known physical mechanism, and this has been quantitatively predicted and measured.

Peace & tranquility will replace fear and deception spread by Al Gore and other left wing

loons.

99.9% of Global Warming is caused by normal solar wind, solar flare activity and

No, changes in solar output would have the largest changes in climate. Ionospheric effects from solar wind and flares are small to zero.

geothermal warming aka el nino effect - the warming of the Pacific Ocean.

This is wrong. The el nino effect changes turnover in the pacific and warms surface temperatures in some places vs another. That is not global warming.

There is direct link between the weather on our sun and the weather on Earth.

This is truth, and the experimental evidence measured for decades has shown conclusively that changes in the Sun are NOT responsible for the observed climate change.

Scientists have been looking into this for many decades with quantitative calibrated instruments.

Global warming is natural.

And unnatural if humans do certain things which they are doing.

reply to post by TSZodiac


Please look at the response I was addressing to realize your points are all entirely off base.

Everything you adressed failed to see the bigger picture. That being, co2 is continuing to rise in the atmosphere. I kept it simple and focused on trees, as this was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to.



Btw, Al Gore does not AGW make!
Carbon taxation does not invalidate scientific data.

Look deeper, my friend.

reply to post by mbkennel


Put down the bong and step away from the keyboard.

Man made Global Warming is a myth.

You've been deceived.

- Heliophysics -

-----------
Also, Geothermal heat effects our weather.

The center of the Earth is very hot.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
I've never seen it explained how humans can be the cause while only releasing ~5% of total CO2 (the rest released by nature). Anyone got info on this?

Keeling curve.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the size of the yearly fluctuations. Those are caused by the summer/winter cycle much larger Northern Hemisphere vs Southern Hemisphere land masses. See how small they are relative to the trend.

The total CO2 absorbed and released in the yearly growing cycle for the entire planet is of a magnitude which equals a decade or less of human emissions.

That's why this is important. Human emissions really are globally significant.

In reality, about 50% of the fossil carbon emitted by humans is being absorbed by the oceans, so it would have been worse otherwise. There is some evidence that this ability to keep on absorbing CO2 could decrease, so things will get even worse even faster.

If water vapor is included humans release only about 0.28% of total GHG emissions. I have a hard time believing that the balance is so sensitive that we are the straw that broke the camel's back.

]

Actually it is. The changes in solar radiation patterns from the ten-thousand year Milankovitch orbital cycles are also pretty small, like small fractions of a percent, similar or smaller to the change in greenhouse effect that humans cause from their emissions path.

Turns out that small change can cause an Ice Age.

In the last Ice Age, New York was under a mile of ice. We are heading to a Heat Age of similar magnitude.

reply to post by surfnow

But we are building bigger and bigger tools to cut the trees and they can't help us if they are gone.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Put down the bong and step away from the keyboard.

Man made Global Warming is a myth.

You've been deceived.

- Heliophysics -

-----------
Also, Geothermal heat effects our weather.

The center of the Earth is very hot.

Quantitatively, what is the magnitude of Solar forcing?

What is the magnitude of geothermal forcing?

How would it have been changing over the last 50 years?

reply to post by mbkennel


Really? That MAY be true - but we already KNOW FOR SURE that the "scientists" who are behind the "science" were on the take and skewed the numbers to help support the POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
scam that is AGCC (formerly AGW) - witness please: www.huffingtonpost.com... ...maybe you just "conveniently" FORGOT about that little scandal....so very sorry for adding some "Inconvenient Truth" to the discussion !

reply to post by Eurisko2012


You have yet, to bring up any scientific data to support your claim.

reply to post by mbkennel


The Carbon Credit markets are a joke.

Run away from this hoax while you can. It's over.

Originally posted by winnar

Originally posted by mc_squared


I don't know where you're getting your information from. Most of the evidence shows that CO2 is a very major player in the planet's natural climate past.

I dont know where youre getting YOUR information from but co2 is only responsible for like .03% of warming and water vapor plays a much larger role, 80%? You can try to claim water vapor is nothing because it condenses but has it all condensed? Is the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere higher or lower when its warmer or cooler?

I also dont know why you keep calling things on the opposite side of your argument memes. Is this some strategy to make the other arguments look like theyre less than yours? To somehow denigrate them? Is it your brain maybe just doing this unconciously?

Because they are sayings passed along without factual basis. It's a nice word for "myths".

If all this warming is man made then why has co2 been higher in the last 420000 years multiple times, temperature been higher multiple times and Earth has still plunged into ice ages?

Because of orbital changes which reduced the effect of solar radiation. And during that time all the fossil carbon was still locked up in rocks.

Why do you believe indirect evidence for paleoclimate which has to be processed and interpreted by expert physical scientists, and not the much stronger current data about current climate (where we can put global measuring devices)?

Why has it been continuously warming for the last 18000 years but suddenly its mans fault?

Because man suddently did something to make it stronger and faster. It's like asking whether it's man's fault that there are 747's if birds have been flying.

Because it has accelerated and humans have started to inject gases into the atmosphere which had been previously locked as rocks long long long before any of those ice ages. (like 100,000,000 years at least and not 420,000 years.)

And all the patterns of currently measured climate are explained very well by including the effect of human fossil fuel extraction, and explained poorly without including that effect. Note, there is much more than just "getting hotter", such as the patterns in the stratosphere, polar vs equatorial, night vs day, summer vs winter etc etc etc.

Why is this meme of yours ongoing in spite of the climategate emails, and the IAC saying the IPCC needs to fix its science? And why do you stand behind this meme in spite of the fact that warming and cooling has been shown to be a cycle that has happened numerous times without the intervention of man?

If you are an ER doctor and you see 5 patients die from heart failure, write down "natural causes", and then one more comes in with a warm slug and a hole where his chest used to be, do you write down "natural causes" on the death certificate?

If a beaver troop can fell a tree, does this mean a chainsaw can't?

Scientists think humans are responsible for recent climate change because the observational and experimental evidence points them to be so and natural causes do not. Yes, they've looked. Over and over, for decades.