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

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by unityemissions

 

May point to the fact that the warm period before the little ice age let vegetation flourish making the land green.

Why not address the actual point that was made before regarding global cooling?
Little Ice Age

Read the linked paper and explain how humans caused the 'Little Ice Age'.

This is a strawman.

Climatic change occurs without regard to puny human endeavors.

Obviously it's true that climate change would happen if we didn't exist, but what has this got to do with the thread

The fact that you said "puny" really is quite telling!

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by TSZodiac

Tell you what, just as soon as your Climatologists (a glorified term for a Meteorologist) can tell me WITH ABSOLUTE certainty EXACTLY what the weather will do TOMORROW, I will start accepting some of the things that they say about things that will happen further in the future - deal?

Id10t "skeptic" in 1870: As soon as one of those Pasteurian "doctors" can tell me whether I will get an infectious disease TOMORROW with certainty will I start accepting what they say about this idiotic germ theory of disease.

A more valid analogy would be: As soon as the doctor can tell me with certainty that I will get an infectious disease tomorrow, I will start accepting that they tell me I will get one further in the future.

Originally posted by TSZodiac
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Really - please tell me with 100% accuracy if and WHEN it will rain tomorrow ! I won't be holding my breath for your answer.....because the SAME PEOPLE who are in charge of telling you that, are behind the Climate data !
BTW - the "chance" of rain tomorrow in my town is 30%....that's how accurate our science is.....but they can tell you FOR CERTAIN that you and I are the cause of climate change...BOLLOCKS ! Scam from the word go.....

The Dunning-Kreuger effect in full force.

The laws of physics govern climate change. The laws of physics govern weather. The laws of physics combined with the effects of the known fact of nonlinear dynamics (a system with a substantial and positive Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate) and the uncertainty in initial conditions from measurement explain fully why short term weather prediction is not possible.

Weather prediction is different from climate prediction. The things which are being predicted are different, obviously.

Start really simple (if you don't understand this example, you really aren't scentifically educated enough to comment informatively). You have a nonlinear classical system with a conventional Hamiltonian and hence at least one conserved quantity. Integrate forward the equation of motion, and assume you are in a regime with a positive Lyapunov exponent (i.e. chaos). What "predictive" certainty do you have about the specific coordinates in the future? Not too much, small uncertainties grow exponentially. That's weather. What predictive certainty do you have for the global invariants? Perfect, of course, since the energy doesn't change. So you can predict one thing extremely well even if something else is not predictable due to chaos. And physics has known this for ages. Climate change is as if you adiabatically changed some parameters in the Hamiltonian and then look at the slow (much slower than 1/Largest_Lyapunov_Exponent) dynamics.

Climate prediction is about effects of changes in boundary conditions and energy conservation along with dynamics of long term thermohaline circulation flows which have timescales of decades vs timescales of weeks for weather.

In practice weather is not highly predictable because we don't have full momentary knowledge of the sea surface temperature and atmospheric temperatures & winds to sufficient accuracy. It is not necessary to know the specific patterns years in the future for climatology, but the statistics and long term changes thereof.

Climatology is not predicting if it will rain on Christmas 2101. Climatology is explaining why it's very probable that Minneapolis on that day will be colder than Miami on that day. The most important physical change is that Minneapolis receives less electromagnetic radiation flux than Miami. Climate change from global warming is a result of the planet receiving more electromagnetic radiation flux from the upper atmosphere (and experimental fact, not opinion) because of the human addition of formerly fossilized (CO2) or nonexistent (CFC) greenhouse gases (an experimental fact, not opinion).

reply to post by unityemissions

The fact that you said "puny" really is quite telling!

The fact that you made something of this statement is more telling.

Not a straw man. This thread is about a group of people predicting a major event and blaming it on humans.

It is a theory, nothing more.

reply to post by unityemissions

Obviously it's true that climate change would happen if we didn't exist, but what has this got to do with the thread

If it obviously happens without human intervention, what causes it?

How can climate change be definitively tied to humans when the climate can change without human action?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Obviously it's true that climate change would happen if we didn't exist, but what has this got to do with the thread

If it obviously happens without human intervention, what causes it?

How can climate change be definitively tied to humans when the climate can change without human action?

Because we know something about the laws of physics which govern climate, and we have measured many things over decades and have developed fine techniques to distinguish all sorts of effects from others based on many internal consistency checks. This is what science has been doing since the 1960's at least. Pretty firm conclusions were made by the early mid 90's.

If people were able to see in the infrared there would not be any popular debate.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by TSZodiac

Tell you what, just as soon as your Climatologists (a glorified term for a Meteorologist) can tell me WITH ABSOLUTE certainty EXACTLY what the weather will do TOMORROW, I will start accepting some of the things that they say about things that will happen further in the future - deal?

Id10t "skeptic" in 1870: As soon as one of those Pasteurian "doctors" can tell me whether I will get an infectious disease TOMORROW with certainty will I start accepting what they say about this idiotic germ theory of disease.

A more valid analogy would be: As soon as the doctor can tell me with certainty that I will get an infectious disease tomorrow, I will start accepting that they tell me I will get one further in the future.

And still today a doctor cannot tell you with certainty if you will get an infectious disease tomorrow, but the doctor can tell you with certainty that if your community has an outbreak with Ebola and all of them drink their blood, there will be many bodies next month, but they don't know who.

reply to post by mbkennel

What your reply says is 'We know physics'.

What caused the Little Ice Age?

reply to post by unityemissions


I lol when I read this. You do understand that farmers release co2 in to a greenhouse to raise the amount to make the plants grow faster right? Plants are no where near peak co2 absorbtion. Matter of fact the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is barely above the minimum for plants to conduct photosynthesis right now. If it goes below 280 ppm they will shrivel and die as co2 is essential to them as food. They can no more livve without enugh than you can live without enough food air or water.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by mbkennel

 

What your reply says is 'We know physics'.

What caused the Little Ice Age?

Probably atmospheric aerosols from volcanoes, followed by changes in ocean circulation.

www.colorado.edu...

BTW the little ice age might not have been quite global. There is almost no information on the climate in southern hemisphere oceans.

If you accept that volcanoes can cool (because less electromagnetic radiation hits the surface) then more greenhouse gases can warm (because more electromagnetic radiation hits the surface).

And we are more secure about what is happening now during the era of nearly continuous scientific instrumentation and correct understanding of electromagnetism and atomic physics instead of the era prior to Newton.

reply to post by mc_squared


Yes, cow farts and SUV's are melting polar caps on Mars and changing the weather on Jupiter, it didn't need those bright pesky bands anyway, they were just decoration. Isn't it odd how all the planets in the solar system we can actively measure have new "hotter" weather patterns?

Admittedly, humans may be contributing by some fraction to "global temperature change" but I still go with the majority of the thermal change is being caused by the Sun in conjunction with the small tubular nebula in the spiral arm we are entering. More gas between the sun and the planets equals more thermal conductivity equals a proportional increase in temperature in the solar system. Obviously, we should do what we can individually to reduce waste whether that be by recycling or driving less, but none of us control the corporations who are providing the lion's share in polluting the planet.

BTW, I have done a lot of research based of course on public domain research. Carbon Dioxide and Methane increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around as the CARP prostitutes would have one believe. Anything, any BS to increase taxes so all the "little" people can pay for corporate greed eh...

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by nixie_nox


We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?


Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.

Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by mc_squared

 

I have a question for you and your group. If, in 5 years or so, we have not all been turned into small piles of ash by being cooked by the sun, and the planet starts cooling on a steady trend, will you admit that the global (whatever you want to call it today) has less to do with man and everything to do with the cycles of the earth?

No, any more than the fact that if a 3 pack a day smoker gets killed from drunk driving negates the unhealthiness of chronic smoking.

Climate change is due to natural and human influences. Quantities matter. If a giant asteroid hit the Earth and covered us with dust for 1000 years the effect would be larger than human greenhouse gases, but the human greenhouse gas physics would still be there.

So far, there is no evidence that the Sun is doing anything important---and if it were, there is just as much chance it would make things worse rather than better and add to a human problem rather than counteract it.

No scientist denies the effect of natural causes---and natural causes have quantitative physics. It's just that you can't turn off pieces of physics which are inconvenient economically. All laws of physics are always on, all the time, forever. Now, today, humans are causing enough changes which will likely turn out to be quite undesirable in many ways and possibly, very dangerous to continued prosperity of technological civilization. I'm not worried about the roaches, they'll be fine.

People are using bad logic. The success of the last 400 years of scientific development shows that "common sense" is not enough to understand the world sufficiently well, you need deep study and quantitatively predictive physical models backed with mathematics and experimental fact.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?


Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.

Also I would think that the giant( 1 million times the mass of earth) nuclear explosion you see overhead would have a lot to do with it. Or do you think it just gives us light?

Repeat. over and over. Scientists have not forgotten about the Sun. Obviously if it weren't there climate would be really cold, being in thermal equilibrium with microwave background radiation at 3K instead of 310K.

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

Examining the Sun as a driver of climate change was a good question in 1960's and 1970's---the pros thought of all of that, plus many more things, and set out to measure them. At some point with a large amount of effort they got an answer. The answer was not a few people wanted to hear because it conflicts with their political desires, but mother Nature doesn't care about politics.

By the way, look at the scale on the Y axis of the total solar irradiance since 1980. The size of the solar cycle is about 1.5 parts in 1366. There is a slight downtrend, and from 2005 through about 2008 (where the graph ends) an extended low point. Climate has been getting hotter during that time. There is little correlation of observed climate with solar cycles recently.

The second page gives reference to at least two studie (Foster/Rahmstorf,Lean/Rind) which quantitatively estimate effect of Sun on recent climate. Their conclusions are that the effect is negligible to slightly cooling. Observations show a significant warming which is consistent with the anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases and lowered aerosol pollution.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

We don't respond as the question is in and of itself ..hhmmm how do you say retarded but in a nice way?


Nature drives the natural cycle, that's the reason it is the root word of natural.

No, the question is spot on. "Nature drives the natural cycle" is a useless tautology. I'll replace it with Unicorn piss and it would make as much sense---wait no, it would be better, since it would be falsifiable conceivably if the smell of unicorn piss could be objectively measured.

reply to post by mbkennel


I love to hear a non sciece minded person argue science, this is better by the line.

The sun is doing a lot all of the time. Do you even know about the solar cycles? Do you know what the maunder minimum is? If your answer was no to either. STOP, go read, deny ignorance( not yours, not mine, ALL IGNORANCE) and inform yourself.

The sun is the key driving factor in our planets temperature gradient. Always has been always will be. Also comparing co2 in the atmosphere to the supposed greenhouse effect is laughable. You know a green house is all enclosed and cut off from the outside right? The earth is not even a close repesentation of a greenhouse, that is compairing apples to an X class solar flare, they are in no way related

Everyday our earth loses tons of atmosphere to space, a lot of these particles everyone is talking about get sucked away by the vacuum of space as the solar wind blows them away from the earths gravity well. The earth is not a closed loop system, it is open as evidenced by the fact that everyday we gain tons of mass from debris raining down, and lose tons of mass to the vacuum of space. That is also not accounting for the outside effects of celestial bodies and forces..ie gama ray bursts cosmic rays ..etc..

We know next to nothing about these phenomena except they effect us to a greated or lesser extent that we don't yet know anything about.

I summation, suffice to say that the only thing any intelligent scientist will tell is we don't know much about anything really. We just for the most part keep assuming we do only to find out the next day we know nothing.

Stop being so closed minded, the world isn't going to end anytime in the next 6 billion years. Man does not have the power or ability to destroy even a meteor much less an entire planet.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I lol when I read this. You do understand that farmers release co2 in to a greenhouse to raise the amount to make the plants grow faster right? Plants are no where near peak co2 absorbtion. Matter of fact the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is barely above the minimum for plants to conduct photosynthesis right now. If it goes below 280 ppm they will shrivel and die as co2 is essential to them as food. They can no more livve without enugh than you can live without enough food air or water.

Sure. So what? There's certainly no danger of humans or anything else getting CO2 below 280ppm.

In agricultural practice, plant growth is not limited by CO2, it is limited by H2O and temperature. Climate change will rapidly change patterns of rainfall and heat, disrupting successful planting patterns, practices, and infrastructure investments in irrigation which have been learned over the reasonably stable climate of the last 150 years. And as soon as people adapt, the climate will keep on changing even more.

Already the heat is starting to negatively affect crops---the excessively high night time temperatures lower crop yields.

repository.ias.ac.in...

In particular, night temperatures during winter matter the most biologically, and those are the specific areas where increased greenhouse gas forcing will make things worse.

More CO2 might increase yields, all else being equal, but all else is NOT equal.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by mbkennel

 

I love to hear a non sciece minded person argue science, this is better by the line.

The sun is doing a lot all of the time. Do you even know about the solar cycles? Do you know what the maunder minimum is? If your answer was no to either. STOP, go read, deny ignorance( not yours, not mine, ALL IGNORANCE) and inform yourself.

I know about that. What is the point?

The sun is the key driving factor in our planets temperature gradient. Always has been always will be.

Why is that statement more powerful than actual quantitative research?

Why does changes in electromagnetic radiation from the Sun have an effect, but changes in electromagnetic radiation from the atmosphere have no effect?

Of course, both have an effect.

What matters are changes. What are the sizes of changes from the Sun vs consequences of changes in the atmospheric gases? This is a quantiative and experimental question.

Also comparing co2 in the atmosphere to the supposed greenhouse effect is laughable. You know a green house is all enclosed and cut off from the outside right? The earth is not even a close repesentation of a greenhouse, that is compairing apples to an X class solar flare, they are in no way related

Yes, everybody has known since the beginning that it is not literally like a greenhouse used for vegetables. It was an imprecise popularization but everybody doing research knows what the mechanism really is.

The atmosphere shines more in infrared and some of this hits the earth again and therefore increases the temperature. There has been a natural 'greenhouse effect' since the planet had an atmosphere. Increasing a known effect will have an effect.

reply to post by mbkennel


You have a real issue about stating things that ARE NOT facts as fact. You and the anthropogenic climate change crowd believe it will do these things. They are not facts, say anything to the contrary is fail.

I didn't even read the rest of your post nor will I consult any further with anyone on this subject that doesn't have the faculty to know the difference.

It is a fact, that we don't know really, as we still can't even put aerosols into out models correctly or it will completely change the data output to somthing that dooesnt even resemble today. Even though we know they are there in real life. We don't know enough of the variables to even run a sim that includes what we do know and make it look like today with todays info. This has been from the start one of the biggest and most desturbing problems with the climate models.

It is also a fact that you can't prove won't happen what hasn't happened, so trying to tell people that they need to prove global warming wrong is false logic. It is on the party making absurd claims that the burden of proof falls solely. As every single thread of proof for anthropogenic climate change I have read has either not been peer reviewed or was run through without due diligence and scientific scrutiny that one in the sciences would expect to see. This is the reason for the controversy.

No reliable irrifutable proof has ever been given. Nobody in their right mind questions Einsteins theories anymore, because he said X must happen or I am wrong. X happened exactly like he said , bam proof.

This has never happened with APG, LITERALLY everything that happens they claim proves it. Yet at no time has a criteria for establishing proof been set. This is alarming in science as every theory must have a set standard of criteria that if not met make the theory invalid. With APG, the only thing they promise is to see with clear perception what "will" happen in a long off future that never comes. As evidence of this, I grew up in the 80s, in the 90s they said that we would see the signs right now and all would see it to be true. Well where are the signs? I don't see them!

reply to post by mbkennel


Where does the heat that sustains us all come from? From within? Does the earth warm us from its internal heat, with our atmospheric blanket keeping us warm? NO, if that were the case we wouldn't have seasons. We have seasons because our planet rotates on a 23 degree axis. This fact alone should have let you know how much the sun effects our climate.

Now I have just established a known fact that the sun controls climate at a grand scale that only involves earths orbit around it correct?

I will assume you agree and move on.

Ergo we know the earths climate is controlled primarily by the sun. I in my first paragraph established another known fact, the suns output is not steady, it changes at least in a 11 year cycle.

Would you agree with these facts?

Once again I will assume so and move along.

So is it that hard of a stretch to make the connection for you that the sun has ups and downs and that as the primary controller of our climate, has the most effect above anyother factor on our climate?

Now having established the fact that the most likely source of any supposed "global warming" is easily identifiable and outside our ability to effect, what's the big deal besides greenies/ econazis trying to tax us for their own gain?