Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’


Walter
+1 / -1
#1
The left doesn't like facts but here they are anyway as laid out beautifully by Roy Spencer.

Roy Spencer, PhD (external - login to view)
 
Cobalt_Kid
#2
You're trying to re-write basic Physics, good luck with that.

CO2 does absorb long wavelength EM radiation of the kind emitted by the Earth's surface, we are emitting massive amounts of it every year, 10 billion tons or more the concentration of CO2 has increased significantly as documented by extensive research over 50 years, there has been equally extensive research into the effects of this forcing resulting in climate change. We know from real world evidence like delcines in the cryosphere, rising sea levels, changes in the timing of seasons, increases in average global temperatures, changes in the atmospheric temperature profile, satellite measurements of temperature and atmospheric absorption spectrum, and on and on.

On the other hand we have a relatively few "scientists" often funded by companies like ExxonMobil doing what they can to confuse the picture based on a media spin campaign first perfected by the tobacco lobby and using some of the same people like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. There is a scam going on here, and it's being carried out in the same fashion as what the tobacco lobby did for decades to try and muddy the link between its products and serious health risks. Only here the health risk is to the entire planetary system we all depend on for our survival.

Who knows how bad it will get, all we can say for sure is the people who are trying to tell us it isn't happening or that it's not us forcing it or that it's not serious are full of ****.
 
B00Mer
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The left doesn't like facts but here they are anyway as laid out beautifully by Roy Spencer.

Roy Spencer, PhD (external - login to view)


Walter, you post that from your bunker while hiding from another 2.6 mile wide tornado??

 
L Gilbert
+2
#4
Global warming a scam? Nonsense. It's pretty tough to argue with thermometers (thermometers are not models): NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
Global Land-Ocean Temperature, 1880 - present | Climate Change Science | Climate Change | Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology (external - login to view)

Wally, I think your beef is actually with the idea that there's been human influences on global warming. Or in the very least, that's Spencer's beef.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jun 12th, 2013 at 02:28 PM..
 
darkbeaver
#5
If we evacuate the earths atmosphere entirely for just a few minutes every year we could purge the toxic heavy metal CO2 into orbit and save the planet while still burning lots of completely natural oily hydrocarbons and save jobs to help pay taxes to make Canada green again, possibly even bring the dynosaurs back.
 
Zipperfish
#6
I think Spencer is right about one thing--climate sensitivity seems to have been too high. That has pretty huge implications. The climate sensitivity is basically a fudge factor. You have your predicted heating just due to the radiation physics (i.e. every doubling of CO2 leadds tot a temperature rise of about 1 deg C or so). But then heating up the planet causes a whole host of other things to happen some of which also affect the temperature (feedback efefcts). The IPCC calcualted that positive feedback effcts (i.e. feedback efefcts that make claimte change worse) would dominate and result in a temperature rise of around 3 deg C for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I've never been a fan of a high sensitivity factor, just because the uincertainty is so high. Cloud formation is still a crapshoot, as far as I can tell.

If they had have completely ignored the climate sensitivity fudge factors, their models would be way more accurate.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#7
In about twenty-five years when Canada is covered in ice for about ten months out of the year we will have a good laugh about climate change
 
taxslave
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

I think Spencer is right about one thing--climate sensitivity seems to have been too high. That has pretty huge implications. The climate sensitivity is basically a fudge factor. You have your predicted heating just due to the radiation physics (i.e. every doubling of CO2 leadds tot a temperature rise of about 1 deg C or so). But then heating up the planet causes a whole host of other things to happen some of which also affect the temperature (feedback efefcts). The IPCC calcualted that positive feedback effcts (i.e. feedback efefcts that make claimte change worse) would dominate and result in a temperature rise of around 3 deg C for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I've never been a fan of a high sensitivity factor, just because the uincertainty is so high. Cloud formation is still a crapshoot, as far as I can tell.

If they had have completely ignored the climate sensitivity fudge factors, their models would be way more accurate.

Therein lies the problem. Computer projections based on faulty data and/or a preconceived outcome.
 
L Gilbert
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

In about twenty-five years when Canada is covered in ice for about ten months out of the year we will have a good laugh about climate change

If Canada is covered in ice for 10 months of the year, it'll take a lot longer than 25 years to happen at this rate.
 
Zipperfish
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Therein lies the problem. Computer projections based on faulty data and/or a preconceived outcome.

Well, to me, it doesn't mean we stop with the computer programs and the models altogether. Hurricane forecasting, for example, is a success story, mostly due to better models (and better computers to run them).

Advocacy science is a huge problem.

That said, myself I believe anthrpogenic global warming is real and serious. Just not as serious as the IPCC thinks it is.
 
L Gilbert
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Therein lies the problem. Computer projections based on faulty data and/or a preconceived outcome.

Erroneous data maybe. The whole idea behind the models is to predict, so "preconceived outcome" doesn't enter the picture. That is what leads to the ideas of fearmongering and whatnot. I think there are more variables than we know, so that is why models may be a bit off now and then.
Either way, like I said, it's pretty tough to argue with thermometers, so some data is quite accurate.
Another problem is interpretation of data, and that's a problem because of the variables, as well.
 
Cobalt_Kid
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

I think Spencer is right about one thing--climate sensitivity seems to have been too high. That has pretty huge implications. The climate sensitivity is basically a fudge factor. You have your predicted heating just due to the radiation physics (i.e. every doubling of CO2 leadds tot a temperature rise of about 1 deg C or so). But then heating up the planet causes a whole host of other things to happen some of which also affect the temperature (feedback efefcts). The IPCC calcualted that positive feedback effcts (i.e. feedback efefcts that make claimte change worse) would dominate and result in a temperature rise of around 3 deg C for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I've never been a fan of a high sensitivity factor, just because the uincertainty is so high. Cloud formation is still a crapshoot, as far as I can tell.

If they had have completely ignored the climate sensitivity fudge factors, their models would be way more accurate.

One thing we can say with a fair degree of certainty is that atmospheric carbon dioxide plays a very important part in forcing the global energy equilibrium, unlike water vapor it's a persistent component of the atmosphere. It's unlikely there would even be life and certainly not complex life on Earth without the ability of CO2 to raise global temperature averages.

By increasing the atmospheric concentrations of such a key component of the global climate system it's almost guaranteed to have a significant effect on climate, how much is left to many factors that often have lag times and can be temporarily offset by things like solar activity and air pollution. We've just come out of a period of historic low solar activity and there is still significant air pollution that acts to reflect sunlight back into space. And we're still setting temperature records.

There are also feedbacks like cloud formation which can be a positive or negative forcing depending on the type and altitude of the clouds, release of methane in huge reservoirs, changes in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, surface cover changes, release of CO2 from warming oceans and more.

It's impossible to say with certainty where the global system is eventually going to end up all we can say with certainty is that the relatively stable period of global climate that has persisted for about 10,000 years is now gone. And how far and how fast things will change is up to factors that are still unfolding.

It's almost certainly a good idea to restrict positive forcing like increasing atmospheric CO2, that have already thrown the global climate into a state of flux.
 
petros
+1
#13
Did the ice age end or something?

You all know we are in an ice age don't you?

How did man end an ice age?
 
Zipperfish
#14
Would you disagree, Petros, that human emissions are quite measurably raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
 
petros
+1
#15
Maybe but we still don't live in a jar.
 
Zipperfish
-1
#16
So it's the so-called Greenhouse Effect you don't like?
 
petros
+2
#17
No, just the lies.
 
Zipperfish
#18
Would you say those lies are coordinated, or just a number of individuals who see their own interests furthered by lying?
 
petros
+1
#19
All I "see" is confused people being milked. People who don't realize we are still in an ice age in an interglacial period that is going to crash down hard after a temperature spike (which we are currently experiencing) like it has been doing repeatedly for eons.

Are you going to try to deny that and claim it's man and CO2?
 
Zipperfish
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

All I "see" is confused people being milked. People who don't realize we are still in an ice age in an interglacial period that is going to crash down hard after a temperature spike (which we are currently experiencing) like it has been doing repeatedly for eons.

Are you going to try to deny that and claim it's man and CO2?

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
 
petros
+1
#21
Of course you don't think. That's why you only believe what you are told to believe.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

All I "see" is confused people being milked. People who don't realize we are still in an ice age in an interglacial period that is going to crash down hard after a temperature spike (which we are currently experiencing) like it has been doing repeatedly for eons.

Are you going to try to deny that and claim it's man and CO2?

Where's your evidence for that?

We are in an interglacial period and as the transition to a glacial phase of the cycle is a cold dry process that takes thousands of years to develop from a relatively tiny forcing of about -0.2 w/m^2 then I seriously doubt that as long as we're pumping any meaningful amount of GHGs into the atmosphere there will another glacial cycle.

We're already at a +4 w/m^2 human created forcing or more and have overwhelmed natural forcings a long time ago.
 
petros
#23
My evidence? is this going to be another stupidityfest where you deny reality like the shale?
 
Zipperfish
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Of course you don't think. That's why you only believe what you are told to believe.

Actually I'm probably more of the ones who are telling people what they should believe. And I'm telling them they should believe in anthropogenic global warming.
 
petros
+1
#25
So you're one of the liars?
 
Zipperfish
#26
Hmmm...kind of Catch-22, that question. How about "Yes, every statement I make is a lie"?
 
Cobalt_Kid
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

My evidence? is this going to be another stupidityfest where you deny reality like the shale?

From what I recall of that discussion you ended up talking about your personal BS after you ran out of your "facts".

If you don't even understand the mechanisms that produce the glacial cycles, which seems doubtful seeing as how you think we're for heading a glacial period now, then how can you comment on this?

Makin' up **** is fun I know, but that's really not science.
 
petros
#28
I ran out of facts? The facts from the links you posted but didn't bother to read that I already knew were facts?

Milankovitch? What do you want to know about him and his theory?

Do some poking around and save me from embarrassing you again.

How far are the scammers willing to go?

Human Carbon Emissions Seen by Researchers Holding Back Ice Age - Bloomberg (external - login to view)

Holding back the next cycle eh? That's ****ing rich!
 
Cobalt_Kid
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I ran out of facts? The facts from the links you posted but didn't bother to read that I already knew were facts?

Milankovitch? What do you want to know about him and his theory?

Do some poking around and save me from embarrassing you again.

One again, it's a discussion not a game.

The Milankovitch Cycles involve three separate components.

Eccentricity- The Earth's orbit around the sun varies from nearly circular to more elliptical. This is the most important forcing as it leads to a slow buildup of snow and eventually ice cover in the northern hemisphere in a process that takes thousands of years. It begins as a relatively tiny forcing of around -0.2 watts per meter squared that allows more snow cover to remain progressively changing the surface albedo of the land surface reflecting more sunlight back into space which resulting in further negative forcing. At the same time the colder atmospheric conditions means less water vapor in the air and cooler seas can contain more CO2. In constant feedback cycles more and more snow and ice cover are created and there is less and less CO2 in the atmosphere, it is one of the strongest feedbacks of the process and large scale glaciation wouldn't be possible without a significant decrease in CO2.

The other components of the Milankovitch cycles are Axial tilt and Precession which have an influence on how severe and prolonged a glacial period is.

As I said, it's the first component, the eccentricity of orbit that's the most important factor and the negative forcing associated with that is tiny compared to human generated positive forcing now being created.
 
petros
+1
#30
Why would you bother telling a geologist what the Milankovitch Cycle is? Boredom? Stupidity?

It was man that caused the 30 prior interglacial periods?
 

Similar Threads

1676
2910
12
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Jan 24th, 2008
no new posts