Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


Mongul
#631
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1 View Post

Well, removing glaciers in the Andes for the purpose of mining for gold could be considered destsruction/change due to human activity. It would melt anyway, right?

to say that humans make no impact on the environment would be ludicrous, every animal impacts the environment in some way. Its just too easy to blame every seemingly adverse change to the environment as the fault of man.

a better question would be "what would the consequences of displacing bits of Andean Glacier?"
 
Tonington
#632
Quote: Originally Posted by Mongul View Post

In the 60s-80s climatologists predicted an "inevitable" ice age.

looks like these quacks are wrong again

You brought that one out fast, perhaps you're not aware of the falseness in that meme?

You can read a great investigation which appeared in the American Meteorological Society, by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck, titled, The myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-89-9-1325.pdf
 
Mongul
#633
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

You brought that one out fast, perhaps you're not aware of the falseness in that meme?

You can read a great investigation which appeared in the American Meteorological Society, by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck, titled, The myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-89-9-1325.pdf

i'm aware that there was no concensus, but enough public attention was given to the theory to elicit the same response as it did to GW
 
Tonington
#634
So, then your original comment pertains to non-consensus, which would mean your corollary also pertains to the non-consensus today. I agree with your choice of the word quacks! Very nice.
 
Mongul
#635
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So, then your original comment pertains to non-consensus, which would mean your corollary also pertains to the non-consensus today. I agree with your choice of the word quacks! Very nice.

no my comments pertain to the fear-mongering of mass media concerning GW and the haste in which scientist declare a conclusion, despite mounting evidence that contradict the GW theory.
 
Tonington
#636
Do you even know how scientists declare conclusions? They aren't at all hasty, nor are they against any evidence. That is the antithesis of a scientific conclusion.

You haven't read much science, have you?
 
Mongul
#637
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Do you even know how scientists declare conclusions? They aren't at all hasty, nor are they against any evidence. That is the antithesis of a scientific conclusion.

You haven't read much science, have you?

oh yes i know. Proponents of GW disregard Solar Variant theory that shows a correlation of temperature with solar forcing, most disregard any possible natural factors that may come to play in aggravating or mitigating GW. it could very well be that scientist focused far too much on the anthropic nature of climate change and not the natural factors that also affect the climate. This is suprememly evident in their computer models predicting future climate trend. These same scientist advocate action in reducing CO2 emission based on a narrowly focused approach to climate research, focusing mainly on human causes, instead of adopting a more holistic approach to climatology.

Tunnel Vision is quite the problem with the scientific community, when you have a hammer you tend to try to make every problem a nail.
 
Tonington
#638
Which scientists are ignoring this?

It's been discussed extensively in the literature. Use google scholar, or if you have access use Web of Science, Science Direct, or Academic Search Premier.

Further, try to find a climate model from any of the major groups out there working on these projections into the future that does not factor in solar variability. You won't find any, because they don't exist. You've been sold a lie if you believe that.

Giss Model E certainly does. In fact it uses 33 correlated spectral intervals for radiation budget, including incoming solar...

How do you think any model could work if it didn't account for solar radiation? You don't think 1366 watts per square meter missing might make a difference??
 
Walter
#639
 
Mongul
#640
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Which scientists are ignoring this?

It's been discussed extensively in the literature. Use google scholar, or if you have access use Web of Science, Science Direct, or Academic Search Premier.

Further, try to find a climate model from any of the major groups out there working on these projections into the future that does not factor in solar variability. You won't find any, because they don't exist. You've been sold a lie if you believe that.

Giss Model E certainly does. In fact it uses 33 correlated spectral intervals for radiation budget, including incoming solar...

How do you think any model could work if it didn't account for solar radiation? You don't think 1366 watts per square meter missing might make a difference??

How do scientists account for flucuations in solar output? Solar strength varies from year to year, how can scientist predict future temperature change if the solar variability changes without scientists expecting it. In order for a climate model to work scientists can only assume that solar output is constant and does not flucuate.
 
Tonington
#641
Quote: Originally Posted by Mongul View Post

How do scientists account for flucuations in solar output? Solar strength varies from year to year, how can scientist predict future temperature change if the solar variability changes without scientists expecting it. In order for a climate model to work scientists can only assume that solar output is constant and does not flucuate.

It's called standard deviation. You can measure trends in things, in this case the trends are called Schwabe and Hale cycles. You can program a model with boundary conditions set by standard deviations, confidence intervals, etc. Then you initialize the model at some point, maybe it's 1950, and it goes from there. The model is only used if it can first accurately portray what we know of the past climate. It couldn't do that without accounting for changes in solar output...

Of course it won't get the conditions right if in one year solar output goes off the chart, but luckily the solar output doesn't do that, It looks like this:

 
Mongul
#642
this is basing off the assumption that this 30 year trend would continue for the enxt 100 years, but from what i see from the graph, solar flare activity declined at around the same time temperature reached 30 year lows, so naturally you can see why i think Solar Variations are more important in variations of temperature than CO2 emissions. How can you assume that solar activity would not change this century?
 
Zzarchov
#643
Quote: Originally Posted by Mongul View Post

this is basing off the assumption that this 30 year trend would continue for the enxt 100 years, but from what i see from the graph, solar flare activity declined at around the same time temperature reached 30 year lows, so naturally you can see why i think Solar Variations are more important in variations of temperature than CO2 emissions. How can you assume that solar activity would not change this century?

I think you are drastically missing the point. If you know how the sun affects the environment, and you know how the sun behaves (or even has behaved) you can then remove the sun from the equation and see how other factors affect the environment.

If you do this to each natural factor you can see the effect man has on the system.

If you can plan the impact of the sun's future behaviour, great, you know how things will look.

Even if you can't, you still know how much warmer its going to be from man, than it would have been otherwise.

So even if the sun IS spiking and raising temperatures, you can still tell if CO2 is increasing that further (throwing gas on the fire)

And if the sun is putting out less energy, you will still know how hot its going to be when the sun does spike next.


If you wanted to look at a really dumbed down version to illustrate the point


(Factors outside mans control) + (Man Made Factors) = The Temperature

Ignorin the other stuff in both cases that comes into play

(Sun) + (CO2) = 287 Kelvin (give or take)

Looking at past models we might find the arbitrary number of the sun being 285

So

285 + (C02) = 287
CO2 = 2

Thus we could see that man has made the earth 2 degrees warmer than nature.

I realise thats grossly oversimplified, as I am no expert.

But the concept that people just "forget" giant things like THE SUN in figuring out temperature is ridiculous, in the end the sun is the Source of almost all heat on earth.

Its like an accountant figuring out your yearly income and forgeting your Salary/Wages.
 
Mongul
#644
You're missing my point, We don't know the magnitude in which the sun affects the envrionment in relation to our carbon output. There is only evidence pertaining to the past 100 years, but how constant is the energy output of the sun? How can you say that solar output is constant in the next 100 hears when historically solar output has varied dramatically at different points in time? I think they underestimate the effect of sunlight in heating our planet
 
Tonington
#645
Quote: Originally Posted by Mongul View Post

this is basing off the assumption that this 30 year trend would continue for the enxt 100 years, but from what i see from the graph, solar flare activity declined at around the same time temperature reached 30 year lows, so naturally you can see why i think Solar Variations are more important in variations of temperature than CO2 emissions. How can you assume that solar activity would not change this century?

No, I just showed you a picture where the sun doesn't drastically spike. It goes up and down, quite regularly. That picture was to show you that the sun doesn't really behave as chaotically as you suggest. It is still bound by statistical measures...

What 30 year lows? The changes in the solar flares happened during the warmest part of the past 30 years... there was a decrease in the maximum flare index, and it is still higher than the minimum of the cycle, which hasn't changed at all.

This is a good example of why you shouldn't eyeball a graph. It will fool you.
 
Mongul
#646
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

No, I just showed you a picture where the sun doesn't drastically spike. It goes up and down, quite regularly. That picture was to show you that the sun doesn't really behave as chaotically as you suggest. It is still bound by statistical measures...

What 30 year lows? The changes in the solar flares happened during the warmest part of the past 30 years... there was a decrease in the maximum flare index, and it is still higher than the minimum of the cycle, which hasn't changed at all.

This is a good example of why you shouldn't eyeball a graph. It will fool you.

1998 was the warmest year in the past 30 years, afterwards temperatures continued a downward trend with its lowest being 2008. Perhaps cimatologists should start investigating just how much of the son's energy is stored in oceans/land and the general length of time it takes to release the energy.

however my main argument was that there are too many uncertainties and ambiguity in the science of climate study, case in point a paper was publish in 2007 claiming that the earth is going to cool in this century

Quote:

Zhen-Shan and Xian gathered temperature data for the globe, the Northern Hemisphere, and 10 regions in China from 1881 to 2002; the datasets they chose are the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They also gathered data for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations over the same 1881 to 2002 period, and again, they selected the data commonly used by climate scientists throughout the world. Anyone criticizing their conclusions would be hard-pressed to argue that Zhen-Shan and Xian used inappropriate data sets.

Quote:

Recall that the pair of scientists also decomposed the annual CO2 since 1881 and compared those IMFs with the global temperature reconstruction. Not very surprisingly, they discovered that “the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on global temperature variation is mainly the century scale trend. And CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has little effect on periodical variation on the rest of the timescale.” That makes perfect sense – the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases should explain the upward trend in the data but could hardly explain periodicities in the record. Through more statistical wizardry, they found “the contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is no more than 40.19%, or in other words, 59.81% of the weight of global temperature variation is caused by non-greenhouse effect.”
They report that “Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3 and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all in falling” and that “the effect of greenhouse warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate change in the coming 20 years. Consequently, we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”

 
Tonington
#647
Can you think of any reason why starting your trend with a strong El Nino, and ending with a strong La Nina, is not a valid method to analyze any trend? Maybe if you went from strong El Nino to strong El Nino, then that might be better, but even still, the time frame you've chosen is too small. For one, it doesn't capture the solar variabilty that you have just been bitching about.

So, what in that paper do you find that addresses the uncertainties, enough to claim cooling in the next 20 years, not for the next century? Did you read the paper, or just the blogroll?
 
Mongul
#648
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Can you think of any reason why starting your trend with a strong El Nino, and ending with a strong La Nina, is not a valid method to analyze any trend? Maybe if you went from strong El Nino to strong El Nino, then that might be better, but even still, the time frame you've chosen is too small. For one, it doesn't capture the solar variabilty that you have just been bitching about.

So, what in that paper do you find that addresses the uncertainties, enough to claim cooling in the next 20 years, not for the next century? Did you read the paper, or just the blogroll?

i would if it was free, unfortunately i do not have a credit card to buy an online version, nor would i expect to understand much of the scientific jargon that is generally used in science papers. However their proposal that only 40% of the warming of our planet is a result of GHGs is particularly interesting, considering that Water Vapour consists of most of the warming as a result of GHGs, one wonders if a change in the other non GHG factor is more instrumental in changing the climate, which raises the question, whats really at work changing our climate?
 
Tonington
#649
So, in other words, you're relying on someone else interpretting what that study is, and what it says.
If you don't have journal access at a library, you can still find quite a few of these articles online for free.

Here's the paper, from Crikey - Political news, US Election news, business news, arts, media and independent commentary served daily.

http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/...c263af1904.pdf

I'd be interested to hear what you think this paper does to address these uncertainties you mentioned.
 
Mongul
#650
thanks for that link, but i won't be able to respond anytime soon since i'm at work and i can't be bothered reading a 7 page document here
 
Stretch
#651
Sea Ice is Shrinking at the North Pole, But Growing at the South Pole

Tags: SCIENCE/HEALTH



Webmaster's Commentary:
Funny how Al Gore never mentions that second part!

George Washington's Blog: Sea Ice is Shrinking at the North Pole, But Growing at the South Pole
 
Tonington
#652
1. Al Gore is not a scientist.
2. The cooling in Antarctica requires a scientific explanation, and is predicted by even the oldest climate models.
 
darkbeaver
#653
Science is a human tool subject to human nature, I get the feeling it's sometimes adhered to faithfully like a religion, in fact that feeling of mine is shared by many bigtime eggheads, I could present some links if anyone was remotely interested in how the organization of science works, not science itself but the very human part of it.
By the way I is a scientist every hole is scientifically determined and every aspect is carefully considered, metalurgy, mechanical principal electrical laws all exhaustivly applied to obtain the perfect 1/2" hole in a sheet of steel plate all thanks to millenia of advancement in the art of drill bits.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:08 PM..
 
Tonington
#654
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Science is a human tool subject to human nature, I get the feeling it's sometimes adhered to faithfully like a religion, in fact that feeling of mine is shared by many bigtime eggheads, I could present some links if anyone was remotely interested in how the organization of science works, not science itself but the very human part of it.

Now see, some people will read your religious part and twist that. Science is like a religion, in the way it's practiced. The scientific method is analogous to the rituals of a priest, but that's the end of it. Scientists disagree with each other all the time. They write letters or brevias as official disagreements in journals. Behind the doors, in the institutions where they work, they argue all the time. Some scientists blog about it, some email each other. The exchanges can be quite heated for disagreements over the minutiae of their respective fields.

The organization of how science works is a web of human resources hierarchies, and salesmanship to sell ideas to funding agencies and to the journals. It's nearly 4 years from the time the professor gets a request from the funding agencies for proposals, to writing the proposal, to acceptance of the proposal, to acceptance of the literature review, to hiring the grad student, to detailing the costs of the project, to running the experiment, to analyzing the data, to refining the product, to presenting it at conferences, and to finally publishing. It's not at all a quick turn around. That's just for small projects. Some projects are years long.
 
Stretch
#655
THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM …



… GORE’S MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday
The climate change lie has been in the preparation for decades and now has come the time to exploit it more than ever before. Obama said of his Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu:

‘His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action.’


If only. The fact is that facts are not the medium of the Global Warming Cult. It uses propaganda, constant repetition of an alleged and unquestionable ‘truth’, and control of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
This is said to be a scientific body, but that’s not true. It is a political organisation masquerading as scientific and it operates by quoting those scientists who sing from the song sheet and ignoring those who say its climate claims are nonsense.

This month the US Senate Minority Report on climate change featured 650 scientists challenging the alleged ‘consensus’ that global warming has been caused by human-generated carbon emissions.

By contrast only 52 scientists, together with diplomats and politicians, were behind the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers which has become the Bible of the Global Warming Cult that says ‘the debate is over’. Many of the ‘hundreds of scientists’ that are claimed to be connected to the IPCC are, in fact, sceptical or dismissive of the official fairy tale.
[IMG]http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/images/stories/newsletter%20pics/gorebull****.jpg[/IMG]
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAVID ICKE NEWSLETTER, GET IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HIS FANTASTIC NEWSLETTER LIBRARY ON A HOST OF SUBJECTS GOING BACK TO 2005, AND SEE HOURS OF VIDEO FOOTAGE OF DAVID'S INFORMATION, PLEASE CLICK HERE ...
 
JLM
#656
Quote: Originally Posted by Stretch View Post

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM …







… GORE’S MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday

The climate change lie has been in the preparation for decades and now has come the time to exploit it more than ever before. Obama said of his Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu:

‘His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action.’

If only. The fact is that facts are not the medium of the Global Warming Cult. It uses propaganda, constant repetition of an alleged and unquestionable ‘truth’, and control of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
This is said to be a scientific body, but that’s not true. It is a political organisation masquerading as scientific and it operates by quoting those scientists who sing from the song sheet and ignoring those who say its climate claims are nonsense.

This month the US Senate Minority Report on climate change featured 650 scientists challenging the alleged ‘consensus’ that global warming has been caused by human-generated carbon emissions.

By contrast only 52 scientists, together with diplomats and politicians, were behind the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers which has become the Bible of the Global Warming Cult that says ‘the debate is over’. Many of the ‘hundreds of scientists’ that are claimed to be connected to the IPCC are, in fact, sceptical or dismissive of the official fairy tale.
[IMG]http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/images/stories/newsletter%20pics/gorebull****.jpg[/IMG]

TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAVID ICKE NEWSLETTER, GET IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HIS FANTASTIC NEWSLETTER LIBRARY ON A HOST OF SUBJECTS GOING BACK TO 2005, AND SEE HOURS OF VIDEO FOOTAGE OF DAVID'S INFORMATION, PLEASE CLICK HERE ...

I wish people would just forget this stupid "global warming" debate and just act sensibly conserving fuel and money- after that WHO CARES?
 
darkbeaver
#657
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Now see, some people will read your religious part and twist that. Science is like a religion, in the way it's practiced. The scientific method is analogous to the rituals of a priest, but that's the end of it. Scientists disagree with each other all the time. They write letters or brevias as official disagreements in journals. Behind the doors, in the institutions where they work, they argue all the time. Some scientists blog about it, some email each other. The exchanges can be quite heated for disagreements over the minutiae of their respective fields.

The organization of how science works is a web of human resources hierarchies, and salesmanship to sell ideas to funding agencies and to the journals. It's nearly 4 years from the time the professor gets a request from the funding agencies for proposals, to writing the proposal, to acceptance of the proposal, to acceptance of the literature review, to hiring the grad student, to detailing the costs of the project, to running the experiment, to analyzing the data, to refining the product, to presenting it at conferences, and to finally publishing. It's not at all a quick turn around. That's just for small projects. Some projects are years long.

Look your helical reasoning seems to me to have confused the issue for yourself. Pure science (the method) is nothing like religion. The administration of science is religion, ask Brunni or Galelao or Velikovsky. Once you stray from the orthodox you must run the gauntlet of external interest. It is most definately true that nothing which threatens the establishment, even it's very benevolent to humans, will pass through the filters.Too many projects are corporate projects.
 
Dexter Sinister
#658
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The administration of science is religion, ask Brunni or Galelao or Velikovsky.

Bruno and Galileo were persecuted directly by the Roman Catholic Church itself, and you can't legitimately put Velikovsky in that group. To wear that crowns of thorns it's not enough to be persecuted, you also have to be right. Velikovsky wasn't.
 
Tonington
#659
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Look your helical reasoning seems to me to have confused the issue for yourself. Pure science (the method) is nothing like religion.

Have you not been to a Catholic service before? Stand up, kneel down, sit. Say amen. Turn to your neighbours and say Peace be with you. Take the sacrament, make the sign. All in the correct order, as has been done by thousands of practitioners before you did, or at least those you observed.

It's very rigid. Practicing science is very rigid. You can't just say any old thing you like. You must follow the recipe, or else you risk saying something that isn't true, finding something that doesn't exist. The rejected papers of many mad scientists are precisely because they didn't follow the procedure, and they were stark raving sure that they were right anyways, despite the lack of evidence.

Invoking Galileo's name is an appeal to emotion. That comparison is for a select few, and they are very few.
Last edited by Tonington; Dec 19th, 2008 at 06:02 PM..
 
Walter
#660
Dec. 21, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Cooling is 'not evidence that global warming is slowing'
My relatives in New England are fighting their way out from under a giant ice storm. Here in Las Vegas it's been snowing all week, several weeks earlier than our usual one-day-a-year photo op of snow and icicles sparkling one of our palm-bedecked golf courses before melting away by afternoon. The National Weather Service calls it "a rare snow event."
Why? It's getting colder. 2008 was the coolest year in a decade.

The American mainstream press seem to know "team players" don't mention such inconvenient developments, but in the U.K., the esteemed Guardian reports, "This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07."
How stupid does this make politicians such as Barack Obama and the other suckers who have fallen for the "global warming" hoax as they race to say, "Never mind"?
Actually, they haven't missed a beat. These guys are so "scientific" that the evidence of their own eyes and overcoats has become irrelevant. They now contend global cooling is just further proof of global warming. Honest.
So-called "climate scientists" insist "The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing," The Guardian reports.
Um ... Earth's cooling doesn't mean the Earth is cooling?
"Absolutely not," responds Dr. Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
You might want to pause and savor that for a moment. This is the gang who keep telling us, "The Debate is over! Dissent no longer allowed! Man-made global warming is going to ruin the Earth!"
Yet they now say cooling "is not evidence that global warming is slowing," and that, "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
If we are "going" to understand climate change? Like ... in the future?
Sure, the mean temperature may still go up for a few more years before it plummets. So? None of the great climate cycles of the past needed us to burn coal in our power plants to make them happen, and there's neither evidence nor any intuitive reason to believe the tiny percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide we now generate makes any substantial difference, either.