The left doesn't like facts but here they are anyway as laid out beautifully by Roy Spencer.
Roy Spencer, PhD
Roy Spencer, PhD
Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
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 ****.
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 ****.
Walter, you post that from your bunker while hiding from another 2.6 mile wide tornado??
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
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.
Global Land-Ocean Temperature, 1880 - present | Climate Change Science | Climate Change | Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
Therein lies the problem. Computer projections based on faulty data and/or a preconceived outcome.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You all know we are in an ice age don't you?
How did man end an ice age?
Would you disagree, Petros, that human emissions are quite measurably raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Would you say those lies are coordinated, or just a number of individuals who see their own interests furthered by lying?
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?
Are you going to try to deny that and claim it's man and CO2?