|
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist — This has been waiting to get posted. I thought everyone was in agreement? Hmmm.
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
#67 – Glenn E.,
I’m not sure what point you’re making with respect to Gore, (ties to oil and carbon credits, which side is he on?). So, I’ll just address the fact that you don’t know how to read a graph.
Here are the global average temperatures of record. These are actual temperatures, not proxies. This is the period for which we had thermometers and weather stations around the world recording temperatures.
http://tinyurl.com/86ezyy
Now, look at the graph. You’ll notice that the average temperature moves in spurts. There are peaks; there are valleys; there are plateaus. However, it is clear that the overall trend is very solidly up.
Our so called cooler years today are solidly warmer than at any time since about 1980.
Climate change/global warming (whichever you prefer) is not taking a break. It is just cruising right along as it has for 150 years. The path is not straight. But, the path has a definite direction.
Lastly, as for signing away your livelihood, a healthy biosphere provides to humanity free of charge over 30 trillion (with a T) dollars worth of services every single year. Want to sign away your livelihood? There’s no better way to do it than to destroy the environment and have to provide clean water and clean air and pollination services and all the rest of the things we get from the biosphere all with expensive and energy intensive technology.
More on graph reading. To take away the contentious nature of climate change in the discussion, let’s take a look at something everyone will likely agree on.
This is a map of the Mississippi River.
http://tinyurl.com/lrnkrv
Most people would agree that the river flows generally south.
But wait!! Here’s a little section where it has reached a southern maximum and has begun to flow north! Perhaps this means that the Mississippi River actually is flowing north after all.
http://tinyurl.com/ygh8x4m
This is very comparable to what people are saying about climate at the current bend in the graph.
People look at a short segment of the graph, in this case, a single decade, ignoring the trend of 150 years, and say that the climate is heading in the opposite direction now.
Unfortunately, unless that river reaches Chicago (or our temperatures go back down to where they were in the 1800s), it seems the trend is still obvious (south in the case of the river, up in the case of global average temperature).
So, please, stop cherry-picking your data.
Wow did this thread devolve into one big hissy fit.
I am still humoured by the fact that the pro-model faction in here seems completely blind to the fact that anything computer generated can been manipulated just like statistics, to show exactly the results required to support the desired rhetoric of the day.
If the data was created with any government funding, then it’s guaranteed to have been altered to produce the government’s desired outcome. -simple fact of life.
Aside from all that, the bulk of western science in regards to space and planetary processes is almost completely upside down and wrong to begin with. -mostly because it is extremely profitable to do so.
We live in an Electric Universe, not a Gravity Universe..
Since the 1920’s we have thrown away evidence based science for theoretical math based science. It has been so politically corrupted, it may as well be a faith based religion given how inaccurate it has become.
Not to fret, within the next two years the co2 hoax and many other “science hoaxes” will be revealed in finality.
Very soon, the real “evidence” that is stored in the cycles of time, will once again play itself out and forever change the text books of [western] science.
The Russians are about to school us back to kindergarten in this respect.
(this is what happens when one lets the vatican control our politics)
—-
anyway, the weather argument is moot. it’s controlled by the universe, magnetics, the sun and the various cycles the solar system goes through as it oscillates its way around the Milky Way.
not by anything humans do.
[well aside from the several countries that operate ionic heaters in part, for weather modification -i.e .HAARP and its associated technologies)
—
Oh and guess what kids..
Want to see just how “wrong” NASA et al got it?
The Electric Sun has been verified:
http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
If NASA screwed up the how the sun works, just how accurate do you think your precious models, co2 or otherwise, are now?
I’m tellin yaz..get a clue and learn the real science lest you feel *real stupid* when the news finally breaks..
In the end you will learn that, [Electro]Magnetics, Resonance, Plasma Physics and Consciousness are what make everything work..including the weather.
It’s a Mirror Image Universe we’ve been tricked into believing, you’ll see..
-s
You are never too old to learn new things. Just take the initiative and teach yourself.
Again, If I can do it at 45 with only a 9th grade education and a GED under my belt, so can you.
But first, you must turn off your tv.
Crap!! Tiny URL screwed up my map blow up. Here’s the direct link to the google map that was intended as my second link. I have no idea what tiny URL is doing with that nintendo page. I’m not even a gamer and certainly didn’t browse to that page at all.
Crap!! Tiny URL screwed up my map blow up. Here’s the direct link to google map that was intended as my second link. I have no idea what tiny URL is doing with that nintendo page. I’m not even a gamer and certainly didn’t browse to that page at all.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.9279,-90.640984&spn=0.228089,0.528374&t=h&z=12
69, I missed something. Is anyone claiming that the way the Mississippi flows man-made? Or a result of nature?
Guyver,
I was merely commenting on ability to read a graph.
I think you aremisunderstanding the skeptic label. It is placed on people who argue against any part of the global warming agenda. Roger Pielke Jr and Sr get labeled as skeptics and deniers. Are they funded by big oil too? For that matter, do you have any evidence that Steve McIntyre doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming?
#75 – MikeN,
Pielke Jr. has no science background at all. From his wikipedia page:
Pielke Sr. is a meteorologist, which has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. From his wikipedia page:
So, I do not care about their opinions any more than about McIntyre’s.
Please cite something peer reviewed from a scientist in a climate related field.
BTW, You do still owe me the link the the Lindzen Choi 2009 article. I have found lots of mention of it as a peer reviewed article on the various blogs but have not found any actual article in any peer reviewed publication.
MikeN,
Also, what label would you prefer? What moniker can I use to denote someone who does not accept mainstream climate science? I thought skeptic was the politically correct term and that denier was offensive. Now you seem to think even skeptic is offensive. What term would you like?
74, I know but I was sarcastically playing your analogy to the full extent.
77, Depends. The alarmists tend to put people who question whether global warming is man-made into the same group of people who say global warming isn’t happening.
Many times, when people cite a scientific consensus they’re implying the IPCC reports. Problem is many of the people associated with the reports don’t have a scientific background and are nothing more than bureaucrats.
Heck, one of the lead scientific authors for the IPCC reports has spoken out against the IPCC. Does that carry any weight?
I have yet to see anything conclusive that global warming is in fact man-made.
Prehistoric jungles thrived when average global temperatures were 3 to 5 degrees hotter: http://tinyurl.com/ylsqdfw
#78 – Guyver,
74, I know but I was sarcastically playing your analogy to the full extent.
There was no full extent. I was merely pointing out the way to read a graph since many people seem to think that it’s cooling now when it’s actually warmer than any point in the last 650,000 years.
77, Depends. The alarmists tend to put people who question whether global warming is man-made into the same group of people who say global warming isn’t happening.
Yes. Is there a correct term to differentiate the progression of this group? It is actually the same group.
Years ago it was “global warming is not happening.” Then the skeptics changed to “global warming is not human caused.” Then the skeptics changed to “global warming is good for us.” Then the skeptics changed to “global warming is not as bad as the alarmists make it sound.”
As far as I know, this is one group’s progression through various stages. BTW, this is also the same group that accuses mainstream science of being fickle for choosing the more accurate term climate change over the less precise term global warming. So, perhaps this group is really just interested in burning fossil fuels because they are actually ExxonMobil. This is actually the case. The problem is the huge number of Americans who believe them.
So, what term would you like? How about stage 2 climate skeptic?
79. No they’re not the same group. If you want to use “skeptic” then use the following labels:
“Man-made Climate Change Skeptics” vs. “Climate Change Skeptics”
There have been people questioning whether any of this is man-made along with people who say it isn’t happening.
Until I see conclusive evidence that the “problem” is man-made, then I’ll just chalk it up into the same group of alarmists who thought the hole in our ozone was man-made (until we discovered Mars had the same thing).
#80 – Guyver,
Sorry Guyver, if you want me to be politically correct, you can’t give me full sentences to type. I’ll keep using skeptic as the general term for all four stages of the dysrationalia.
As for your ozone layer issue, it is the same group. It’s the same group who actually believe in science. And, the ozone hole is man made and has been healing, albeit far slower than expected, since we banned CFCs. I apologize for not realizing the level of willful ignorance with which I was dealing.
http://tinyurl.com/yzztrv8
As for your silly link about the richness of life during warm periods, quite the contrary. Warm periods on earth are associated with extinction events and low biodiversity.
http://tinyurl.com/yhfwxu5
Abstract:
The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming. However, no consistent link between these variables has yet been demonstrated. We analysed the fossil record for the last 520 Myr against estimates of low latitude sea surface temperature for the same period. We found that global biodiversity (the richness of families and genera) is related to temperature and has been relatively low during warm ‘greenhouse’ phases, while during the same phases extinction and origination rates of taxonomic lineages have been relatively high. These findings are consistent for terrestrial and marine environments and are robust to a number of alternative assumptions and potential biases. Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. Our findings may have implications for extinction and biodiversity change under future climate warming.
#17 Bobbo
Maybe someday you’ll understand that even the things that the most wise take for granted, are based on other things they take for granted. Science makes theories and then searches for theories to prove the previous ones. An effective but not fool-proof system. Some theories held as truth are the result of the distortion inherent in human perceptions. Planetary atmospherics is rather a collection of theories and models, and as a science barely in it’s infancy.
It’s like the infamous Higg’s Boson, a wonderful theory that conveniently patches the holes in other theories that don’t quite coincide with observable phenomenon.
I have great respect for science, and continue to believe that human curiosity and desire to understand may yet be a saving grace. I doubt being clever will be enough.
81, No need for apologies. Instead of thinking so highly of yourself, try to be a bit more persuasive on your stance. If you have no proof that the problem is in fact man-made, then eat a little humble pie.
Try to grow up and be a little intellectually honest by understanding that you’re talking to two different audiences. There are some who cannot be persuaded (deniers) and there are those who are open-minded but waiting for proof (skeptics). You choose to label those asking for proof to somehow be a denier (as though no scientific peer-reviewed proof is necessary). How so? You make denier synonymous to skeptic.
I’ve never questioned (nor cared) if global warming was in fact happening. The problem with partisan hacks such as yourself is that you’re so self-absorbed in your own world that if someone isn’t 100% onboard with you, that you resort to all sorts of labels to make yourselves feel better.
As for Wikipedia, I don’t bother using that as a credible source of information for any topic that is politically hot. The ozone hole isn’t talked about anymore because the primary cause wasn’t CFCs. It lost credibility when people saw the same stuff happening in the Martian atmosphere. BTW, if you go overseas, McDonald’s still uses styrofoam packaging for their burgers. Why no outcry from the enviro-nuts about this and all the CFCs McDonalds alone is releasing into our atmosphere?
As for my “richness in life” article, the point is the scientific community isn’t in a consensus of sorts. I could care less one way or the other. If you make a universal claim, I only need to provide one example to shoot your theory down.
But I got it. You believe “A Man-made Hole in the Ozone Skeptic” == “Ozone Hole Skeptic”. Just because someone isn’t convinced something is man-made must also mean they believe the problem doesn’t exist at all. Meaning in your twisted world that if someone isn’t convinced global warming is man-made, that somehow this translates into those same people believing global warming isn’t occuring.
Either show me proof, or quit your belly aching and let me eat my Japanese-imported Kobe beef while I make lots of children.
@soundwash i downloaded the video clips – when exactly is the “wallop” and in which of the 4 screens should i see it? tried reading up and trying to understand what your writing about. If you could give me the exact timing it would be greatly appreciated!
#83 – Guyver,
81, No need for apologies. Instead of thinking so highly of yourself, try to be a bit more persuasive on your stance. If you have no proof that the problem is in fact man-made, then eat a little humble pie.
Precisely and completely wrong. It is not I who am thinking so highly of myself. This is why I do not second guess those who know what they’re talking about. It is you who think you are smarter than the thousands of climate scientists on the planet.
You could start with reading some of the basic evidence on climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You make denier synonymous to skeptic.
Precisely backward. I am calling deniers skeptics. Perhaps some are merely being skeptical and, like you, have not read and processed the evidence, so instead of actually being adamantly against the idea of climate change simply do not believe it is proven, just as you do not believe it is human caused. Both of you have a lot in common. Neither has any clue what evidence exists.
I’ve never questioned (nor cared) if global warming was in fact happening. The problem with partisan hacks such as yourself is that you’re so self-absorbed in your own world that if someone isn’t 100% onboard with you, that you resort to all sorts of labels to make yourselves feel better.
No. I resort to labels to avoid typing even longer sentences than I already do.
As for Wikipedia, I don’t bother using that as a credible source of information for any topic that is politically hot.
I find it to be fairly balanced and at a level that most lay people can read. What do you disagree with and I will try to find the source of the data? Generally, wikipedia has good footnotes. Feel free to check up on them.
Would you happen to have a link to some real data that the CFCs were not responsible for the ozone hole? No blogs please. Real data only. I think you’ll find none, but would like to read it if you have some real data.
Actually, it sounds to me like you just have a really hard time believing that humans cutting down most of the forests on the planet, killing most of the fish on the planet, dumping 575 million metric tons of CO2 into the oceans, turning 10% of the formerly arable land on the planet to desert, removing literal mountains of coal and burning them, etc., etc., etc., could possibly be having any affect on the planetary ecosystem.
Strange belief system you have there.
Here’s the info on the ozone hole:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html
PDF Link on Ozone Theory: http://tinyurl.com/yfjcjq8
Notable quotes:
“If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.”
“If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes”
““Our understanding of chloride chemistry has
really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an
ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of
Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.”
BTW, if you’re old enough you should recall about the announcement of the hole in the Martian atmosphere (unless you were pooping in your diapers).
#87 – Guyver,
The IPCC is what everyone talks about when they discuss a scientific consensus. Here’s the IPCC’s lead global warming author speaking out against the IPCC’s reports and gives sobering explanations why:
Meanwhile, you aren’t exactly citing peer-reviewed papers contradicting anthropogenic climate change.
As for the lead author of the 2001 assessment report, then why did he write what he wrote? Did you know that if one scientist doesn’t agree with the statements, they don’t get made? So, this guy agreed that we were at least 90% sure that humans are causing climate change. And, then he writes this? Strange man.
As for the politics of the IPCC, they mostly tone down what is said. Remember, yes, they are picked by their governments. Saudi Arabia, China, Australia, and the United States are in the IPCC. These are the largest oil exporter, coal burner, coal exporter, and oil importer, respectively. All have an interest in toning down the report and making climate change seem less bad than it is.
Global Warming Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong:
Um … did you actually read this article??!!? It says that the predictions may be wrong. It says that we don’t understand all of the feedbacks. It says that there may be much more warming than we expect as additional warming comes from other sources as yet unknown. From the abstract to the article this paraphrases (linked at the bottom of the article you cite):
Get it? More effects than we know about will have to be taken into account. We must understand why a mere 70% increase in CO2 caused a 7 degree warming. When we do, we will very likely have to dramatically increase our forecast for warming.
Harvard astrophysicist says Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change:
Odd. This is an ExxonMobil employee I had not previously heard about. Thanks for pointing me at another shill. I know. I know. You don’t really care about the source of his funding. And yet, why does it always come back to ExxonMobil? What a coincidence! At what point do we admit that it’s no coincidence at all?
http://tinyurl.com/yf3zezv
BTW, once you’re in denial how is there ANY sort of skepticism? Denial is hardly objective while a skeptic is willing to humor you if you’re persuasive.
Interesting. One may deny something without being in denial. But, since you’ve just characterized the way in which you have failed to read/consider a thing I’ve posted, OK, you’re not a skeptic. You’re a human-caused global-warming denier.
As for my “belief system”, it sounds like this is your admission that you have no scientific proof that your crisis is man-made?
As I said, failed to read or consider …
There was a link to the evidence back there. Here it is again since you obviously flatly refused to read it, being in denial.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
#88 – Guyver,
Read your own article again. Check the conclusion.
89, LOL. Good grief. I’m not denying global-warming. I’m asking you to prove that it’s man made. You don’t understand English very well do you?
You’ve got a very limited understanding of how someone can humor the global-warming concept yet question that it is man-made. That’s your prerogative. You can’t come up with proof so you label me as a denier. Yeah, whatever.
And you’re not citing anything peer-reviewed that MAN-MADE global warming is a scientific fact. But I get it, your theory must somehow be disproven even though there is no fact to support it.
If you read the IPCC article, Christy gives you reasons for why the IPCC do what they do. It’s not in the name of science. And people’s work have been cited but twisted to push a different agenda (much like a Wikipedia article). Christy is rather insightful since he’s not on the outside looking in.
Ummm, yes I did read the Global Warming Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong. This is what you’re referring to but omitted:
“The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something OTHER THAN CARBON DIOXIDE CAUSED MUCH of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the SAME ONES USED BY the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”
In pure partisan style, you tried to twist the comment. Climate change models are bunk and self-serving. Computer simulations are not science. The IPCC’s models are pushing an agenda without factoring in everything. If you’re going to be intellectually honest, please try to use the whole comment in context rather than cherry pick.
Interesting how you question my skepticism and then say I’m denying something without being in denial. Sounds like you don’t have any proof that your crisis is man-made.
Give me a reason to jump on your bandwagon. Prove to me without a doubt it’s man-made.
Much of your banter is an appeal to authority while you claim a scientific consensus. All I keep finding is a lack of consensus. I can find opinions both for and against.
You choose one side and whine that if I don’t agree with your partisan viewpoint, that I’m a denier. Whatever.
90, Yes I read that. If you take his article into context, he’s basically covering his a55 in case he gets flamed by the scientific community.
Still, polluting the planet is a bad thing and just plain stupid. But so was the fear mongering and making the BS connection to Global Warming the Morons promoting that garbage did more damage to their cause than they’ll ever know by lying and getting caught.
Here’s a Junk Science link that cites the same Nature article: http://tinyurl.com/yvno3z
Last paragraph says it all about a consensus: http://tinyurl.com/yzw5chr
I’m not saying I find the word ‘skeptic’ offensive. You are just using it wrong. I gave you an example. Can you provide evidence that Steve McIntyre does not believe in AGW? For that matter, the Pielke’s? Skeptics can be skeptical about different parts of climate science. In McIntyre’s case, that would be the hockey stick. Perhaps he disagrees with other parts as well, I don’t know.
I don’t care to put you in any sort of political correctness straightjacket.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/show_all_pubs.html?sortBy=author&showAllRecords=true&action=Search#Pielke,%20Roger
Has a list of Roger Pielke Jr publications. I would say he is definitely a climate scientist. I even see some RealClimate contributors among his coauthors.
He is another example of someone who is labeled a skeptic, but who believes that CO2 causes warming.
I would expect that oil and gas companies would want to fund attacks on global warming science, unless they have arranged for big payoffs from cap and trade. So people funded by them, their statements are suspect. If Steve McIntyre or Richard Lindzen just said trust me, I wouldn’t. I would want to see details that I or someone I trust can confirm.
When a proxy is used upsidedown,I can see that. When I ask RealClimate or Tamino about it,they delete the question.
As for the link, I told you how to get it.
The title was available in the original post.
#97 – Lyin’ Mike,
Before I catch up on the rest of this, let me address what your final paragraph.
Don’t deliberately act like an asshole please.
I told you that I did exactly what you said and saw no peer-reviewed article. Now, as far as I can tell, you are admitting that your previous instructions don’t work for you either. Perhaps you too looked at the links more carefully and realized that not a single one was a peer-reviewed journal.
dumbledorf said, on October 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@soundwash i downloaded the video clips – when exactly is the “wallop” and in which of the 4 screens should i see it? tried reading up and trying to understand what your writing about. If you could give me the exact timing it would be greatly appreciated!
#93 – Guyver,
Proof that warming is human caused? Absolute proof? Presumably, you will next want proof that the next time you drop a ball, it will fall to the floor. You won’t find any proof of that until you drop the ball. That is not how science works.
However, what I will give you is this.
Due to the higher albedo of Venus, despite its shorter distance to the sun, less sunlight actually gets through to the surface of Venus than gets through to the surface of Earth. Venus absorbs just 25% of the sunlight that hits it; Earth absorbs 70% of its sunlight.
Without the effects of greenhouse gases the average temperature of the surfaces of the two planets would be Earth: -18 Celsius Venus: -41 Celsius. With greenhouse gases, especially CO2 in the case of Venus, the average temperatures on the surface of these planets are Earth: +15 Celsius and Venus: +430 Celsius.
So, if CO2 is enough to cause Venus to go from -41 Celsius to +430 Celsius and Earth to go from -18 Celsius to +15 Celsius, I think it is incredibly obvious that doubling our CO2 will cause severe global warming. Do you see it otherwise? If so, how?
These numbers were taken from the climate science text book ‘Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming’ by S. George Philander.
http://tinyurl.com/ykw4tyd
I think what you have done is set for yourself a non-falsifiable hypothesis that warming is not human caused. Being non-falsifiable, it is an irrational and unverifiable position. There is quite literally nothing that anyone can say that would ever change your mind. You may as well hold the hypothesis that God is turning Earth into a living Hell to punish us for our transgressions. That would be equally unfalsifiable.
If your position is not of this nature, deliberately and inherently not falsifiable, tell me what conditions I would need to meet for this to be sufficient proof to you? What would constitute your proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit?
As for Christy’s position, you are not reading it carefully at all. First, it is thoroughly and completely editorial opinion, far from the proof you demand of me. Second, the politics described would literally ALL serve to reduce the severity of the warning from the IPCC rather than increase it. All of the politics involved would actually tone down any strong statements that might otherwise be made by the scientists.