Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

ANTIcarrot wrote:While not wishing to extend this thread any more than it already has been, perhaps some perspective should be restored. Why should we care what this Mann or any other individual thinks?
Because the political elite are using it as the basis to form a new world order and global government.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

ANTIcarrot wrote:
bcglorf wrote:Is Mann one of the denial bots these days???
While not wishing to extend this thread any more than it already has been, perhaps some perspective should be restored. Why should we care what this Mann or any other individual thinks?
Because the fact he has claimed to have the opinions he has promulgated to be scientific fact is being used an excuse for suicidal economic and regulatory policies.
I know three things in this area:
1) I am not an expert in climate change.
You're in good company, no one is.
2) The skeptics have failed to convince anyone who is an expert in climate change.
Since the people holding themselves out to be experts in climate change are generally partisan hacks, and none of them have any models which accurately reproduce the recent past from the older past with physical models, why should anyone attempt to convince them as opposed to being quite content to defeat them in their political efforts?
3) Globally peer reviewed research is generally correct in its findings.
Absolutely, Too bad that the AGW proponents were successful for decades in preventing it from happening.
In this case climate change is real,
Nothing new there.
we're causing it,
Not merely not proven, but in the way the AGW proponents claim, it doesn't pass the laugh test. Unknown new forcing gains via unexplained mechanisms with no pretense of an explanation why they suddenly exist now but not at other times in the planet's past, patchwork ad hoc models fit to the data to produce what they want as a result, and which do much the same with noise? That's the sum of the AGW "evidence".
it's probably going to be bad,
Cause desertification is the better thing, right?
engineering can probably mitigate and/or fix it, but the cost to do so will get exponentially more expensive unless we start soon.
The cost to do so is already disastrously, genocidally high. It should not be undertaken even if what the AGW proponents claim is true is real.
I'm not going to argue details with you, because as I've said I lack the education to properly evaluate anything you put before me, and because such minor points are irrelevent in comparison to your main 'leap of faith' behind the skeptic arguement...
To believe in AGW--that's your leap of faith--you have to among other things say there was no MWP, and that contemporary reports of what was grown where are hallucinations. That's just one fact you have to ignore for you to make your leap of faith. There's a long list of fact you have to ignore to believe human caused global warming is a problem for humanity. I'm uninterested to trying to convert you, I just want you to be unsuccessful destroying the 3/4ths to 9/10ths of humanity that has to die for the apocalypse the AGW are predicting to be averted.
You are not simply arguing against climate change, you're arguing that we should set aside the proven track records of the scientific method, rational skeptisism, and the peer review process. Why should we do that?
With respect to the notion either of human caused increase in the mean global temperature, or the more general scientific investigation of what are the known inputs to the mean global temperature and what physical model of the planet's mean temperature reproduces the known recent past from the known more distant past--let alone the question of what error bars are there on the known past--the scientific method has yet to operate towards any good degree of completion or certainty.

Believing in AGW is an act of faith, there is nothing of science about it but the skepticism--the "show me" attitude of the "deniers".

Mann is a fraud. Hansen is a fraud. The British bunch were frauds.

You have been defrauded, ANTIcarrot, and you're still sucking down the con.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

ANTIcarrot wrote:
I know three things in this area:
1) I am not an expert in climate change.

3) Globally peer reviewed research is generally correct in its findings. In this case climate change is real, we're causing it, it's probably going to be bad, engineering can probably mitigate and/or fix it, but the cost to do so will get exponentially more expensive unless we start soon.
It is ridiculous to claim both 1 and 3.

A lot of people disagree with 3b, that we are causing it, and 3c, that it is going to be bad.

When you look at the evidence for AGW, it is a lot thinner than you might imagine. Basically, the theory/research amounts to three claims.

1) It is getting warmer recently (instrumental temperature record).

Yes, but it has been getting warmer for several hundred years. This is most evident when looking at glacial melt which, despite Gore videos, did not start when CO2 levels started to rise, but rather started several hundred years ago.

Even in the instrumental record, when you look at warming pre significant levels of CO2 compared to post rising CO2 it is hard to find difference in the trend of warming.

2) The warming is unprecedented.

Evidence for this is based on proxy data and more specifically on multi-proxy data, most notably the work of Mann. You may say that this is a detail not worthy of discussion, but Mann's multi-proxies in particular are key to demonstrating that the warming is unprecedented. Mann's work is garbage when examined with any rigor.

In general, multi-proxies that show significant modern warming compared to a flat previous 2000 years, depend on tree ring proxies to get this shape. Tree rings are believed by many to be unreliable temperature proxy data. multi-proxies that do not include tree ring data generally show a pronounced Medieval Warm Period and a significant Little Ice Age.

It is clearly debatable whether, a) temperatures are historically high for the last 2000 years, or that b) temperature rise is faster than other times in the last 2000 years.

3) CO2 is causing the warming.

The historical causal relationship between temperature and CO2 is not well established. CO2 levels elevating lag behind temperature rising in ice core data, seemingly indicating a reversed cause and affect relationship where rising temperatures cause elevations in CO2 levels (ocean out gassing). AGW supporters agree with this. Except that they then claim that the released CO2 acts as a positive feedback to temperature rise, causing temperature to rise more sharply. But this claim is not well supported. It is certainly contested.

Additionally, the mechanism by which CO2 causes temperature rise is not as well demonstrated as one might think. Even AGW supporting scientists know that CO2 is near saturation at lower levels in the atmosphere. Current theory for CO2 causing additional warming rely on it doing so at higher atmospheric levels where temperature and the thin air allow it to absorb radiation with a slightly widened spectrum. Basically, it grows wings to allow it to absorb a few extra wavelengths to the left and right of what it absorbed before. Since the extra warming should be occuring at higher elevations because of this theory, we should see it there, but there is conflicting evidence on whether we actually do.

Consensus

Finally, claims of scientific consensus are exaggerated. There are actually very few climate scientists in the world. Among them, there is disagreement. Currently, only pro AGW papers are generally published. Then their are other scientists who take at face value what the published climate scientists are saying and base additional research off of it (ie, when global warming happens, this other thing will happen). Counting this second level of scientist is not a valid thing to do, but it is done time and time again to demonstrate consensus.

I think you should take some time to examine what you know to be true more closely. Yes, there is bad information and indescriminently published BS on both sides, but if you wade through the chaff, you will find that the arguments for AGW are a lot less convincing then we would want and that the arguments against it can't be as easily dismissed as claimed.

regards

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

chrismb wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote:While not wishing to extend this thread any more than it already has been, perhaps some perspective should be restored. Why should we care what this Mann or any other individual thinks?
Because the political elite are using it as the basis to form a new world order and global government.
Tongue in cheek? (Really, I can't tell.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Diogenes wrote:
chrismb wrote:Because the political elite are using it as the basis to form a new world order and global government.
Tongue in cheek? (Really, I can't tell.)
Not at all. The documents covering international carbon trading are, as far as I would hazard a guess, be the first in the history of mankind to actually use the words '...global government...', at least, that is what I have been told (and I can quite well believe it!).

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

More on the lack of evidence for CO2 being a leading indicator of warming.

HT QandO
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
Show me the peer reviewed journals demonstrating what percentage of recent warming is caused by mankind's CO2 emissions.

It's very easy to point out journal articles demonstrating earth is more than 10k years old. If catastrophic AGW is really so strongly backed by scientific evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find journal articles declaring the same. Go take an honest look, and you'll discover they don't exist.

Journals exist demonstrating that things are warming.
Journals exist demonstrating that humans emit CO2.
Journals exist demonstrating that CO2 causes warming.

After that, it's collective conclusion jumping and what if scenarios. There are NOT journals declaring that catastrophic AGW is undeniable, so stop acting like there is.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

"Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW?"

I'm saying and speaking for billions in saying that the consensus among some that AGW exists, in a provably net problematic manner, is a deliberate fraud. It is most notably one perpetrated by Mann and Hansen, and the East Anglia CRU gang.

If they chose unwisely to bring suit against me, I welcome the opportunity for discovery and deposition--they cannot shred enough to cover their tracks at this point.

Claiming that human released CO2 is causing demonstrable global warming is on a par with claiming--as notable truther Rosie O'Donnell has claimed--that fire doesn't melt steel.

When mathematically rigorous physical models exists which recreate the near past from the far past, and which are seen to predict the future within useful error bars, then two things will be true:

a) We'll have climate science that's worth something, and something useful in guiding democratic political debate.

b) Human released CO2 to date will not be responsible for as much as 5% of observed change in the climate--natural effects will utterly dominate the outcome.

Unless ANTIcarrot has an actual fact to bring to the table--such as provable lie told by Watt or some exculpatory fact with respect to AGW proponents--I'm done with this troll.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
That was really strange. You don't give a single reason why doubting significant AGW is like <name the conspiracy theory>. You just say that it is, give a list, and quote a nut job.

I don't want to insult you but I am wondering if you actually know any more about the subject than the phrase "global scientific consensus"?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
When this issue was first brought up, I believed that perhaps they had a valid theory and that C02 could cause the earth to get warmer. After reading an article that showed a spectral absorption chart of various gases, It became immediately apparent to me that the proponents of CO2 caused global warming were either idiots or liars. (or both.)

Water vapor is by far the dominant effect. CO2 and Methane etc. are irrelevant. If you still believe in man caused "global warming" I feel sorry for you.

Get a Spectral Absorption chart for water vapor, methane, oxygen, nitrogen and CO2, and see for yourself. Whatever effect Methane and Carbon dioxide has on the atmosphere is completely squelched by the effect of Water Vapor.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Q&O's on a bit of a roll about this:
And just so you true believers get your nose rubbed in it about what AGW was really always about:
For many who perpetrated the deliberate fraud called AGW, it was for no better reason than the most classic--why the witch doctor shook his rattle--he wanted control.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

Diogenes wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
When this issue was first brought up, I believed that perhaps they had a valid theory and that C02 could cause the earth to get warmer. After reading an article that showed a spectral absorption chart of various gases, It became immediately apparent to me that the proponents of CO2 caused global warming were either idiots or liars. (or both.)

Water vapor is by far the dominant effect. CO2 and Methane etc. are irrelevant. If you still believe in man caused "global warming" I feel sorry for you.

Get a Spectral Absorption chart for water vapor, methane, oxygen, nitrogen and CO2, and see for yourself. Whatever effect Methane and Carbon dioxide has on the atmosphere is completely squelched by the effect of Water Vapor.
Yes, water vapour is the greater warming agent. It has also the shortest residence time of all of the GHGs. This means that there is essentially the same amount in the atmosphere globally (there's also complications about feedbacks, but keep it simple at the moment). Where as CO2, methane, etc had massively longer residence times. This means that smaller changes have bigger effects.

As an analogy thing of electrical generation, water vapour represents baseload generation. It's the major component but doesn't change significantly (yet, and with various caviats about feedbacks). The analogy does tend to fall down a bit with CO2, etc because non-baseload electrical generation does have reaction times measured in decades or centuries.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

TDPerk wrote:"Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW?"

I'm saying and speaking for billions in saying that the consensus among some that AGW exists, in a provably net problematic manner, is a deliberate fraud. It is most notably one perpetrated by Mann and Hansen, and the East Anglia CRU gang.

If they chose unwisely to bring suit against me, I welcome the opportunity for discovery and deposition--they cannot shred enough to cover their tracks at this point.

Claiming that human released CO2 is causing demonstrable global warming is on a par with claiming--as notable truther Rosie O'Donnell has claimed--that fire doesn't melt steel.

When mathematically rigorous physical models exists which recreate the near past from the far past, and which are seen to predict the future within useful error bars, then two things will be true:

a) We'll have climate science that's worth something, and something useful in guiding democratic political debate.

b) Human released CO2 to date will not be responsible for as much as 5% of observed change in the climate--natural effects will utterly dominate the outcome.

Unless ANTIcarrot has an actual fact to bring to the table--such as provable lie told by Watt or some exculpatory fact with respect to AGW proponents--I'm done with this troll.
Please provide some evidence towards ANY of those points. You've made a number of claims there and not substantiated ANY of them. Your claims - your proof.

Mikemcc01
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 am

Post by Mikemcc01 »

bcglorf wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote:Is this possibly a joke thread, and I'm just missing the punch line?

Or are some people on this board truely disagreeing with the global scientific concensus on AGW? In the same sense that some people really believe the world is 10,000 years old, that the second coming will happen within our lifetimes, that evolution is a lie, that the moon landings never happened, that horroscopes and homeopathy work, that vaccines cause autism, or that 911 was a conspiracy by the american government?

911 truther 55:44 - I don't care what kind of [fracking] experience he has man. I don't care. He's a person in the system. Of course he's going to tell you those sorts of things.

Seriously?
Show me the peer reviewed journals demonstrating what percentage of recent warming is caused by mankind's CO2 emissions.

It's very easy to point out journal articles demonstrating earth is more than 10k years old. If catastrophic AGW is really so strongly backed by scientific evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find journal articles declaring the same. Go take an honest look, and you'll discover they don't exist.

Journals exist demonstrating that things are warming.
Journals exist demonstrating that humans emit CO2.
Journals exist demonstrating that CO2 causes warming.

After that, it's collective conclusion jumping and what if scenarios. There are NOT journals declaring that catastrophic AGW is undeniable, so stop acting like there is.
Utter rubbish

I can't be bothered, at this silly hour of the morning to try and go through all of those.

I'll boil it down to a link to a wikipedia article (I know not the best source, but this one is accurate. If you find a flaw in it please enlighten the rest of us) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

Post Reply