Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7461 - 7480 of total 28493 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 10:02am PT
You guys misunderstand the Chief at your own peril.


Well if you understand him then perhaps you can explain him because he does an appallingly piss poor job of it himself as is evident by his latest post. He worst than most deniers assumes some sort of unexplainable mystical expertise that transcends anything that science can offer. Then to put the icing on the cake, he claims that one should never act based on a forecast that contains any element of uncertainty, and of this he is certain. Then he has the gall to obsess on the hypocrisy of smoking an occasional cigarette?

Rick, you are being extremely disingenuous to ascribe any degree of credibility to this man. There is a boat load of evidence that you misunderstand the Chief AT YOUR PERIL, not ours.

Much in the way that you misunderstand science at your peril
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 10:37am PT
It is all manipulation of data

hey Rick,

that is a pretty strong claim that the data is manipulated

and you state it as if is a fact and not just because it proves your agenda wrong

so prove it Rick, prove the data is manipulated, let's see your work .....

no bullsh!t trying to back out of your claim, prove your sh#t, prove it is manipulated


and WHEN you cannot, then you are a liar and ought to apologize to everyone here
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 10:57am PT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html





http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55088




http://www.infowars.com/?p=6009\






http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/18/new-study-shows-that-50-of-warming-claimed-by-ipcc-is-fake/




There Norton,, i could post about fifty more links if youd like.


Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:02am PT
Shirley you jest Ron.

Canada free press? Infowars?


I understand that we are now entering a period of global cooling


Global cooling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Global cooling (disambiguation).


Mean temperature anomalies during the period 1965 to 1975 with respect to the average temperatures from 1937 to 1946. This dataset was not available at the time.


ImageSource:SkepticalScience
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:06am PT
In 1977 YES INDEED it was "global COOLING" that was attempting to suck dollars into a fake industry. And as i said,, 50 (minumum) more links pointing out the various inconsistencies and falsified numbers.. EVEN Congress was going to run probes into it in 2010..
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 31, 2013 - 11:08am PT
bullsh!t, Ron

you did not reference what Rick was referring to

what is with you anyway?

You have said that you agree that the earth IS warming and that humans are likely responsible for weakening the ozone layer, too what degree cannot be said with certainty.

Now you appear to change your own mind and join the rank of those who say the opposite

make up your mind Ron, you can't have it both ways
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:11am PT
Havent changed my stance a bit Norton.

There are MAJOR not minor inconsistencies that go on Unexplained. The Flat line of temps for the lat 1.5 decades, and the fact that the ICE in the arctic has melted under FAR LESS CO2 being two glaring items.


edit: yeah doc another lefty insult good for you..Just keep attacking the messenger and HOPEFULLY no one sees the message right..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:17am PT
scroll backwards doc,, ive provided MORE THAN enough proof of this..

TEMPOS have been flatlined for 1.5 decades..

Ice in the arctic has melted under FAR LESS CO2 concentrations as PROVEN by ice core sampling. EVERYONE HERE knows this. it is fakt.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:21am PT
BUWWAHAaHAHAHAHAHAaaaa....


Heres some more FALSE flags waved by the GW crowd..



p-o-l-a-r b-e-a-r-s.....

p-en-n-g-u-i-n-s


s-p-o-t-t-e-d o-w-l



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:24am PT
In 1977 YES INDEED it was "global COOLING" that was attempting to suck dollars into a fake industry.

Yes indeedy and how much traction did it gain beyond some elements in the popular press? OK now compare that to the past few decades of climate science and how much traction has the theory of AGW gained? And you have the unmitigated gall to compare the legitimacy of our current understanding to something that rates as barely a hiccup in the science of the 70,s?


What are you, retarded?


Oh look, here's something about your credible scientist Fred Singer:


1975 National Academy of Sciences report [edit]

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research.[30] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), claims that "the NAS "experts" exhibited ... hysterical fears" in the 1975 report.[31]


So I look up The Science & Environmental Policy Project and look who we find:


Science & Environmental Policy Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is a research and advocacy group financed by private contributions based in Arlington, Virginia in the United States. It was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer.[1] SEPP disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change and ozone depletion. SEPP also questioned the science used to establish the dangers of secondhand smoke, arguing the risks are overstated.[2][dead link]



You are a rube. A sucker. Congratulations.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 31, 2013 - 11:26am PT
It is all, both pro and con papers, cherry picking of data, then skillful handling (manipulation) of said data. Hell, look at the papers, most of them list their methods. If after picking and handling the data sets the results of the equations went in a much different direction ,refuting their own ideas, then the originator of the excercise would feel much less urge to publish.This is my answer to both Norton and Dr. F.

You know, this merry go round is getting boring without some new material to cover. It is prone in times like this to degenerate into stupid fits of pointing and name calling. Somebody please dig up something new worth arguing about.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:30am PT
well Bruce,, im thinking that can be said of many. Now, WHEN they can explain why ice shelfs melted under FAR LESS CO2 and when the can explain flat line temps not matching their models, and when they actually get some real data on the fauna and STOP LYING about it all, perhaps ill start to swing the other way.. Ever wonder WHY the P Bear issues turned out to be rather FALSE!?? Its called "insufficient data" by scientists but that certainly DIDNT stop them from extrapolating "danger" for the bears now did it. They were listed as endangered over a GUESS as to what the future will be like.. UNPRECEDENTED in the listings of endangered species. Also as false as false gets. The very reason Canada said NYET to it..
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:39am PT
You know, this merry go round is getting boring without some new material to cover.


Excuse me Rickets, but there is indeed some material which we have yet to adequately cover:



1) If you were to be presented with solid evidence that AGW was a fact, would you change your mind? A simple yes or no answer is acceptable for now.

2) Can you explain how we differentiate between Intuition and prejudice? Is this relevant to the role of intuition in judgement?

3) Why exactly is there a strong trend within some organized religions to oppose AGW theory?





Now no one can dispute that the above forbidden questions are relevant issues and factors in the ongoing AGW debate. Or perhaps you can explain how they are not relevant?

There are other unmentionables but lets just cover these for now

Unless you are too chicken?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:44am PT
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.





http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Ron Anderson = Sarah Palin
monolith

climber
SF bay area
May 31, 2013 - 11:52am PT


Are you sure global warming has flat lined, Anderson?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:55am PT
better look at the evidence doc,, everything ive said is 100% fakkt.


But youll say "those are meaningless" .. UhHUH...



When in truth ,, this is all you have left is stabs at character..Now you ALSO say you wont click on any links i provide,, so WHAT exactly am i supposed to post? Again, you remind me of an ex GIRL friend who argued in that same pattern..She could be standing in quick sand and tell me its pavement too.


edit: Mono, YES im sure.. How many "links" would you like?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 31, 2013 - 11:57am PT
Is there anyone out there (besides Ron Anderson) who can address the "new " material at our disposal?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 11:58am PT
I have done so ALREADY.. And SInce you wont read a link why bother right?


But google it yurself,, type in "temperatures flatlined for over a decade"

then tell me im wrong.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 31, 2013 - 12:05pm PT


420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Man-Made
Share


420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Man-Made
February 8, 2013 by Joe Martino
The global warming debate is one of the biggest topics of the last few years. It makes it’s way into the political, financial, environmental, entertainment and social arena. While it appears as though the verdict is in and we are in fact responsible for the recent warming, we must take the time to really look at all the possibilities here.

Note: Please read the whole thing through before drawing conclusions.

What will be presented in this article is an in depth look at data from research done at the Vostok station in the Antarctic. Hardly new data, it still remains more of a quiet topic as it without a doubt diminishes the importance we put on man being responsible for global warming. The research was done over many years by a group of Russian and French scientists. Why it is important to know who did this research is because we can better remove the potential bias due to financial or political gain. Before we jump into the data, I want to make it clear that this is not false data, made up or hypothetical, it is very real. One final note, when it comes to the treatment of our environment I will be the first to say that I do not agree with the use of harsh chemicals, fossil fuels, clear cutting, dumping, toxic waste disposal, etc. I know that what we are doing to our environment is a serious issue, but is very overlooked due to the attention and distraction global warming creates. We need to change our ways, but global warming is not the biggest issue.



Vostok Data
The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels. The graph below indicates the approximate 110,000 year cycles that took place over the past 420,000 years, in which there is a clear relationship between higher temperatures and increased CO2.



Green line indicates CO2. Blue line indicates temperature. Red line indicates dust.

From this data we may question why the fall of CO2 after that fall in temperature? The reason is that cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. We see this if we were to leave fizzy beverages out in warm weather, it would lose its carbonation quickly. In nature terms, when the temperatures are cooler, the ocean water is able to hold much more CO2. As the temperature warms, CO2 is released into the atmosphere, hence the increase in CO2 levels during warmer periods in time.

What is very important to take from this data is that the rise and fall of global temperatures and the rise and fall of CO2 emissions is a completely natural cycle that the planet has gone through on many occasions. We can see that all increases and decreases correlate directly with the Ice Age minimus and maximus as shown in the graphs. This process has been happening for the past 420,000 years according to the data collected at Vostok. Also note the fact that the temperatures of today and the CO2 emissions of today are relative to previous peaks that occurred in the past. It is fair to say that 150 years ago we did not have the same level of industry and CO2 emissions as we do today, never mind 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. This tells us that regardless of the CO2 emissions we have sent into the atmosphere, it is not adding a great deal nor is it causing the warming.

It is believed that there is about 800 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and human activities release about another 27 billion tonnes per year, or 3% of the total. What is important to note is that CO2 in the air dissolves into the oceans and there is a lot more in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere. CO2 in the oceans is slowly gathered by limestone, chalk and other rocks. More than 100 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is locked up in these stones (The White Cliffs of Dover are largely responsible for sequestering CO2). How much CO2 that goes to the ocean versus into the atmosphere is not understood at this point. So regardless of the 3% of total emissions that humanity creates, it is very likely that a large portion of it doesn’t even make it to the atmosphere. Even if one were to assume that man is contributing large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, it will dissolve in the sea and then turn to limestone without any help from us. CO2 contributes 9% of the greenhouse effect. Industry currently pumps 3% more CO2 into the atmosphere each year, which is only responsible for a total of .27% of the greenhouse effect. The reality this creates is that if we were to cease all transport and industry right now, it is very unrealistic to assume that it would have any impact on global warming. Since this cannot be stated as fact, we can leave this point open to possibility. However it is important to note that the claims made by major pushers of global warming greatly rely on the assumption that humanity’s small addition to the CO2 levels is what is going to push warming beyond a point of return. As you can see from the previous data, this assumption is not backed nor sound.

The graph below shows the sources of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.


If we look to roughly 325,000 years ago, based on the Vostok data above, we see that Earth was at the peak of a warm interglacial period. At that time, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Currently, we are again at the peak and near end of a warm interglacial. Based on the cycle, it would suggest that we are heading into another Ice Age period of cooling where global temperatures will drop and ice will again form heavily at the poles.

The fact of the matter is, while the world is focused on anthropogenic global warming, warming induced by humans, what could potentially be a more serious and real matter is that of the coming ice age as the cycle suggests. 420,000 years of data has proven to us that we are not going to see a constant warming of the planet and that we are near the very end of a warming cycle -yet we seem stuck in the idea that we are about to cease our existence due to global warming. At this point, the data should speak for itself and completely nullify any belief that global warming is induced by humans, and that CO2 is the cause. We see very clearly that CO2 lags the temperature increases and has done so many times.

Problems With Current Belief
At this point we may wonder how could organizations studying global warming miss data like this? How could Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize for his film? How can the IPCC continue to push global warming if this data explains everything? The reality is that most of what is presented from those sources is more political than it is anything else. The science that they use to draw claims relies on a belief that substantial global warming is critically dependent on the assumption that the climate system never changes by itself naturally. This, as we know from the Vostok data, is false. Drawing this conclusion negates what the IPCC and Al Gore claim regarding global warming, CO2 being the cause and that humans are responsible.

Politically and financially, the western world has a lot to gain if they can push the world to believe global warming is seriously the cause of humans. This allows them to heavily tax other countries who are producing large amounts of goods at low costs like China and India. Forcing them to increase their costs would create a more level playing field for western countries who currently have increased costs due to the demand for higher wages.

We must also take into consideration the simple fact of uncontrolled human ego. Many scientists today have built a great deal of wealth and status over their claims and assumptions on global warming. Some of them have built complete careers around the belief and any threat to what they have done is not simply an acceptance of new science but also an admittance that there previous belief was incorrect. For many, this is not easy to face when so much has been built. Global warming is hardly the one and only area of study that new science has proven incorrect, yet it still remains due to the lack of open minded and ego-less scientists.

There have also been many scientists in the field who have lost their positions in credible companies, lost credibility within the field and have been shut down due to their understanding on the truth about global warming. This keeps a lot of scientists who know the truth very quiet.

Is global warming at all caused by man? This cannot be substantiated at this point and given the negligible contribution from humans, it would be difficult to say we play a big role, if any, but the verdict is still out that we may contribute in some way.

A Few Added Key Points

1. Four times in the period, (ie, roughly every 100,000 years) the temperature has quickly shot up to 2°C – 3°C above today’s and then slowly slipped back to about 8°C below today’s temperature. It looks as though the Earth’s non-linear climate system has two stable states and flops rhythmically from one to the other.

2. We are currently at the top of a cycle and an ice-age seems to be in our near future. It is important to note that comparing today’s position with the 4 previous peaks, the temperature should have reached 2°C or more some 10,000 years ago, but it hasn’t. If anything, the world is now somewhat colder than what we might have expected.

3. CO2 and temperature correlate to each other very well based on the data well. When temperature goes up, so does CO2. When temperature drops, so does CO2. CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 800-1000 years.
4. We normally think that causes come first and consequences come after. Hence the belief that CO2 creates the temperature increase. Looking over long periods in this data, it is temperature that comes first and by a thousand years or so (except for a short period about 340,000 years ago). Al Gore seems to overlook this important detail in his film.
5. Global Warming is an area of science where experiments are very hard to perform, but nature has given us 4 repetitions to show us what we might expect. The Vostok core clearly indicates that when the temperature reaches 2°C a mechanism kicks in which sets the temperature falling again and initiates an ice-age. Since this mechanism has repeatedly worked well after 100,000 years of disuse, it seems to be an expected cycle.
6. We know that the sun and its increased/ prolonged radiation over the past years is a very big driving force of global wamring right now. We also know that when heated, greenhouse gases become lighter and ascend into the atmosphere only to give absorbed heat away. We don’t know what happens next and science has not substantiated this. I do recognize the importance of addressing the possibility of global warming being caused by humans. But the fact is, we do not know that CO2 causes it. We do not know if the negligible amounts of CO2 we create can even have an impact on warming either. These are all assumptions at this point. Solar radiation appears to be the number one cause. Natural cycles would probably be number 2. Beyond that it is difficult to say because we cannot perform scientific experiments very easily.
6. One final fact that is very often overlooked is that the amount of heat radiated by the earth into space varies as the fourth power of the absolute temperature. Simply put, if we see an increase of 1.4% in radiated energy, we see a strong stabilizing effect on global temperatures. (If the average temperature of the atmosphere rises from 20C to 21C (293K to 294K or .3%), the radiated energy increases by 1.4%.)
Sources:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-1/
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab10_Vostok/Vostok.htm
Messages 7461 - 7480 of total 28493 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews