Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Tonington]

Why on Earth should anthropogenic global warming explain past temperature fluctuations? That is the most ridiculous piece of crap I've read today.

There are many ways to perturb the climate, for those out there so convinced that they have stumbled onto something clever...it's radiative physics, it's not new, and it explains much of Earth's climate history. Albedo, insolation, greenhouse effects, solar irradience changes, carbon cycle feedbacks, dynamic ice sheets, oceanic annular modes, etc. etc.... they all produce a radiative effect on the atmosphere.

Glaciations are for the large part, induced by orbital changes, and then compounded by feedbacks. It's called Milankovitch cycles. And they look like this:

For reading, click any one of these scholarly articles (pdf's):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/users/polsen/cpcp/olsenandkent.1999a.pdf
http://leonardo.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/north/pdf/(56)ShortCycles.pdf
http://marineecology.wcp.muohio.edu...glacial_cycles/web/pdf/MilankovitchCycles.pdf
http://www.geographie.unibe.ch/leny...ionen/articles/kull_1998_climate_dynamics.pdf

 

[Slim Chance]

Why on Earth should anthropogenic global warming explain past temperature fluctuations? That is the most ridiculous piece of crap I've read today.

Generating a theory and supporting models that have the capacity to explain all forms of causation is the challenge isn't it?

If you are unable to explain past events then it is an absurdity to even attempt to define the phenomenon as being a problem let alone predict future outcomes.

 

[Tonington]

Anthropogenic climate change is caused by manmade alterations to the global carbon cycle, making our atmosphere opaque to long-wave infrared radiation. It's not a particular that is going to be able to explain past climate change, because dinosaurs never mined the Earth for hydrocarbons. But, greenhouse gases have caused climate shifts in the past. I posted a link to Richard Alley's talk at the AGU fall meeting, but you were too stubborn and closed minded to watch it. Well you'll find answers if you open up a bit and actually try to learn.

Slim chance that you'll do something as radical as learn....prove me wrong.

 

[darkbeaver]

The entire proposition of anthropocentric warming had two main objectives as far as I can see, neither had anything to do with ecological salvation. A/consolodation and control of remaining global assets in the hands of the bankers B/institution of the The New Worldly Order under the guise of global environmental crisis management.

 

[Slim Chance]

The question is if anthropogenic sources are the driver for overall, observable climate change.

If you are simply making the statement that anthropogenic sources actually exist (through modification of the carbon cycle) well, then no one can disagree can they? However, if you wish to extrapolate that this solitary factor is the "cause" of observable changes, then you have your work cut out for you.

This is where we get back to explaining past occurrences of glaciation (and the consequent warming cycles). If one can explain the cause of these phenomena accurately and consistently, then it should be a cake-walk when an additional variable is factored into the equation.

To date, those that claim to have the answers or knowledge in this area are incapable of explaining past events. Without having such an understanding, it is clearly a fools errand to rant and rave about anthropogenic sources.

 

[darkbeaver]

Anthropogenic climate change is caused by manmade alterations to the global carbon cycle, making our atmosphere opaque to long-wave infrared radiation. It's not a particular that is going to be able to explain past climate change, because dinosaurs never mined the Earth for hydrocarbons. But, greenhouse gases have caused climate shifts in the past. I posted a link to Richard Alley's talk at the AGU fall meeting, but you were too stubborn and closed minded to watch it. Well you'll find answers if you open up a bit and actually try to learn.

Slim chance that you'll do something as radical as learn....prove me wrong.

The cycle is not isolated to this globe. Every planet and free orbiting rock is experiancing the same changing environment. You got a lot of gall to ride someone for any perceivced reluctance to learn Tonnington.:smile:

 

[Avro]

The entire proposition of anthropocentric warming had two main objectives as far as I can see, neither had anything to do with ecological salvation. A/consolodation and control of remaining global assets in the hands of the bankers B/institution of the The New Worldly Order under the guise of global environmental crisis management.

That and the puff of smoke behind the grassy knoll.:roll:

 

[Avro]

The cycle is not isolated to this globe. Every planet and free orbiting rock is experiancing the same changing environment. You got a lot of gall to ride someone for any perceivced reluctance to learn Tonnington.:smile:

Really?

The same....all of them?

Prove it please and don't incude your trippy dreams induced by LSD and shrooms.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm an agrologist technically, and I think I happen to have a pretty good beat on the information that is relevant. You don't really need to be a climatologist to grasp what's going on, though it will obviously help to give the individual more insight into the nature of the dynamic systems involved. Einstein was a clerk before he was a great scientist.

And Jesus was a carpenter (supposedly). I guess he didn't have a clue about Biblical things because he was a carpenter. Asimov wrote about a lot of things like a guide to physics, a guide to the Bible, a chronology of science, astronomy, maths, etc., but what did he know? He was only a biochemist.

 

[L Gilbert]

You still don't get it do you? I left a hint for you below.




Just as expected. Hollow explanations and no answers.

Where are the graphs to explain the historical periods of glaciation, hmmmm? Seeing how you are reluctant to apply your logic to my question, I'll answer for you. You are entirely unable to explain, in any way shape or form, that anthropogenic global warming exists. The sole relationship that you can point to is that the mean global temperature is increasing on a minuscule annual basis and this relationship is the only "proof" you need... Sadly, this does not provide any form of explanation about previous global temperature fluctuations.

Although there is no one person or group that has a definitive understanding in this area, you are in way over your head and it shows.

And you are an expert in climate? roflmao I'm amazed you actually even know how to spell "climate". Especially after needing someone to explain averaging to you.
I didn't think it was possible anyone could be as obtuse as you seem to be. Nor as confused about the topic of this thread. But here, anyway:

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/frank10nat.pdf

 

[JLM]

And Jesus was a carpenter (supposedly). I guess he didn't have a clue about Biblical things because he was a carpenter. Asimov wrote about a lot of things like a guide to physics, a guide to the Bible, a chronology of science, astronomy, maths, etc., but what did he know? He was only a biochemist.

Yeah, I wonder if Jesus' job as a carpenter would be considered to be "worthwhile":lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

Generating a theory and supporting models that have the capacity to explain all forms of causation is the challenge isn't it?

:roll: We already know causes of climate change. I posted them a while back. To discover enough to be able to predict the effects of the causes would be in the plan.

If you are unable to explain past events then it is an absurdity to even attempt to define the phenomenon as being a problem let alone predict future outcomes.

I think you are, in the very least, extremely confused. How could AGW explain temperature fluctuations before humans were even wandering around the planet? Humans are only the cause of one of the reasons why climate changes. There are 6 others, as far as I know. Do you think that scientists are saying we are the ONLY cause of climate change? That's just laughable.

 

[Slim Chance]

And you are an expert in climate? roflmao I'm amazed you actually even know how to spell "climate". Especially after needing someone to explain averaging to you.
I didn't think it was possible anyone could be as obtuse as you seem to be. Nor as confused about the topic of this thread. But here, anyway:

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/frank10nat.pdf

Funny, really, particularly in light that your condemnation comes on the heels of your argument that the ideas of the journalist were supposedly as valid as that of a zoologist... Of course, the catch here is that they were the same person.

Thanks for the info on averaging. Too bad it still doesn't offer a concrete explanation on what's happening today nor does it answer anything about what happened in the past. I suppose that this is why you believe me to be obtuse I guess, I've been asking the two of you to provide anything that can accurately describe the present, account for the past and potentially predict the future.

Until that time comes, all of the pretty little graphs and skewed statistics are quite meaningless, aren't they.

 

[AnnaG]

Funny, really, particularly in light that your condemnation comes on the heels of your argument that the ideas of the journalist were supposedly as valid as that of a zoologist... Of course, the catch here is that they were the same person.

Thanks for the info on averaging. Too bad it still doesn't offer a concrete explanation on what's happening today nor does it answer anything about what happened in the past. I suppose that this is why you believe me to be obtuse I guess, I've been asking the two of you to provide anything that can accurately describe the present, account for the past and potentially predict the future.

Until that time comes, all of the pretty little graphs and skewed statistics are quite meaningless, aren't they.

It looks to me like you simply can't understand what data and evidence has been posted to date. Or else you simply didn't bother to look at it or read it. So, you seem to be just a more verbiose version of Walter.

 

[Slim Chance]

Oh, I understand the data alright. In fact, I'll as far to say that I also understand that just because someone produces a graph or attaches the word "statistics" to a study does not necessarily mean that the information is worth anything... I read more than the stats or conclusions. I carefully consider the underlying assumptions and do my best to consider how that affects the results.

Take a look at the recent scandals and admittances by the (former) "authorities" who are now recanting their positions. Many have admitted to selective choosing of data and others have admitted to outright fraud (the modeling examples). Add to this the corrupted peer review process that essentially lead to only those "scientists" that held the approved views had the opportunity to submit.

The big picture in this discussion is very ugly and many have lost any confidence that they may have had in the past.

 

[AnnaG]

The whole idea behind averaging is to give an indication of trend. Each point on the graph is constant. Average the constants (in this case all the temperatures per year for a series of years averaged to a single constant demonstrating the mean average for a year) and the results indicate a trend.

So there was a few people fudging results. Does that mean everyone was? No. Does that mean that they will continue to fudge results (especially after being caught)? No. Did their fudging have any effect on the actualy data? No, just on people's interpretation of what was said about the data. The data can only point to what the data points to regardless of who explains the data.

People seem to love politicizing everything they can, and all that does is muddle things up. Believe me, there are just as many people fudging things against the GW idea as there is fudging things for GW.

 

[petros]

The earth is alive and it has a parasite and is merely trying to shake it off with a fever.

 

[petros]

Sol looks pretty mellow for being in near solar max as cycle 24 draws near end in 2 more years.

 

[Slim Chance]

The whole idea behind averaging is to give an indication of trend. Each point on the graph is constant. Average the constants (in this case all the temperatures per year for a series of years averaged to a single constant demonstrating the mean average for a year) and the results indicate a trend.

So there was a few people fudging results. Does that mean everyone was? No. Does that mean that they will continue to fudge results (especially after being caught)? No. Did their fudging have any effect on the actualy data? No, just on people's interpretation of what was said about the data. The data can only point to what the data points to regardless of who explains the data.

People seem to love politicizing everything they can, and all that does is muddle things up. Believe me, there are just as many people fudging things against the GW idea as there is fudging things for GW.

The biggest losers in this circumstance are those scientists that are sincere and legitimate. Unfortunately, when a high profile organization that was considered the authority on the subject falls prey to unethical and fraudulent practices, it destroys any credibility that they ever had.

One of the concerns that exist relates to the aforementioned legitimate, ethical scientists. Many have relied upon the corrupted data or models in order to pursue their studies. As you can imagine, the effect is exponential.

Certainly, we could split hairs all day and provide ample evidence of improprieties that condemn all (both) points of view in this debate. The reality is that these are the consequences that must be dealt with before any forward progress can be made.

 

[petros]

The biggest losers in this circumstance are those scientists that are sincere and legitimate. Unfortunately, when a high profile organization that was considered the authority on the subject falls prey to unethical and fraudulent practices, it destroys any credibility that they ever had.

Get the corporate chairs the **** out of the labs and we'll have wonderful amazing science that would boggle the most knowledgeable noggins.

Never before in the known history of man has there ever been more minds focused on getting answers.

The problem is 60% of the best minds are working for military, 35% corporate leaving only 5% for true research but that 5% is funded on bottle drives and bake sales and continually releases information and discoveries that the other 95% can't benefit or profit from.

Pure science is getting screwed royally and there is no one to blame but you and I for allowing that to happen.