Stop the Global Warming Scientist Conspiracy!

It only takes reading that and a minute of thought to realize its a bunch of crap. Most notable is the last section of another "oops, we had it all wrong" so could no longer call it "global warming" and had to shift to "climate change" so no matter what change happens - with "change" inevitable - they can claim they predicted it.

There is an impending ICE AGE!!!! For decades. "Oops, we were 100% wrong, it is the exact opposite. Global warming is coming!!!!" The next decade: "Oops, we were wrong about that too, its 'climate change!!!"

Then it is explained some areas will probably get more rain, and other areas less rain. Some areas will be a bit warmer. Other areas a bit cooler. Ice will grow in some placed and diminish in others. And from that, declare "OMG! CHANGE! WE ARE DOOMED!"

Ranting doom is nonsense. In Alabama USA there is a large statute to the bole weevil, an insect that destroyed the cotton industry. OMG, total economic destruction!!! Doom. Everyone ruined!!!

Until someone said "why don't we plant peanuts? And other crops. Bole Weevils won't attack peanuts. And, in this, also learned the agricultural benefits of crop type rotation, even able to return to cotton in cycles - an economic boom.

That is the final problem with the climate change zealots. They don't really know WHAT the effect of a 3 degree increase in the atmosphere will bring, other than "winners and losers," and then declare a mass panic attack for the potential losers - not even sure who those are.

There is another curious question of why don't they look down the road 1,000 years, not just 100 years? Could it be that, historically, higher earth temperatures HAVE BEEN FANTASTIC for life on earth? Florida is much warmer than Germany. We have 100 times, maybe 1000 times, the diversity of life forms, have so much land suitable for year round agriculture compared to Germany it is more than needed, and for LIFE our WARM climate is VASTLY superior to that of Germany.

Ultimately, if everything they assert of the future is accurate, they can not even make a case that climate change is a bad thing in the long run. It may be the best way to address the massively growing human population. It may have 1.) adverted another ice age with is a real killer on a mass scale and 2.) will change potential agriculture methods for massive increases in food production, while lessening needs for heat, meaning less energy usage. Will there be losers? Generally anything that happens causes winners and losers.

 

Not intending to be pontificating, but N2, O2 and Argon are IR-inactive and, thus, cannot be greenhouse gases. Basic Physical Chemistry, setting the record straight.

Second, just because something is present at low concentration doesn't mean that almost doubling its concentration has no effect. Just ask a sushi chef who is careless in preparing fugu. Doubling the concentration of tetrodotoxin from the desired low one (a few nM to start inhibiting Na+ channels) to cause tingling of the tongue, could lead to death of the customer.

Thus, scientifically speaking the "CO2 is present at low conc. and, thus, not important" is a BS argument.

 

Yep ... usual reaction of people who present crap to back their opinion, get a counter issue which destroys their crap and they do then what? Blaming is as crap too...

Facts stay facts no matter if you like them or not!

 

You're not a climatologist, nor am I. The scientific data is overwhelming, that AGW is real, and will be (is) a major problem. Do you actually believe all these climatologists have some ulterior motive?

In 2014, a report was drafted, called the National Climate Assessment. I'm attaching a link. I'm not going to reference any of the data from the report. You're welcome to look at that. What I am going to reference is the groups of people and organizations that authored the report. If you believe all these people have an ulterior motive, then I would suggest that a 9/11 inside job and a Flat Earth theory might be in the cards for you. The billions that the fossil fuel industry is spending on coordinated misinformation, is paying off for them.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

If I'm not mistaken the one on its way to Florida is the worst Atlantic hurricane in history.

 

I was going to respond with a very similar argument. You are absolutely correct. CO2 is heavier than air, and additional CO2 added to the atmosphere is analogous to a thin layer of plastic in a home. It does a great job of holding the heat in. This science has been understood for many years. Here's a newspaper article from 1912.

 

Well... yeah. As a matter of fact it is partially made of nuclear waste, in a sense. But it's just a regular computer.

Sorry. For some weird reason I got the impression that you were about to make a point. My mistake.

 

It is the largest in terms of cloud coverage which doesn't necessarily mean its the worst, but then again our knowledge base is rather limited as to hurricane sizes in the past pre-satellites.

 

The report is about a preconceived notion that CO2 controls the temperature. That is the reason they have poured billions into proving something that they have yet to prove. Another reason why virtually no money is put into studying natural variability. It is opinion.

 

Hopefully you enjoyed the last 12 years with virtually no hurricanes of consequence.

 

In science you don't disprove a hypothesis, you test and substantiate it and as if yet that hasn't happened. At that point it would become theory.

 

Doesn't change that there is no practical short-term solution. Just as you still come on the internet every day, people are still going to want their washer, dryer, stoves, fridges, heat/air conditioners, to be able to get in the car and drive hundreds of mile when they get the 3am phone call mom had a heart attack, etc. Alternative energy is still a free rider. As I just alluded to in another thread regarding Hurricane Irma and nuclear reactors, we cannot just switch standby power on and off at will. Most US energy, regardless of fuel source, is generated by high pressure steam. If the system loses heat, it can take days at the very least to get the systems back up to being able to generate electricity safely because the pipes are vulnerable to cracking if there is a temperature differential within their very thick walls. While your "free" solar during the day is awesome for you, that nuclear/coal/gas power plant still has to operate during the day if all its customers want electricity at night.

 

A blink of earths eye means nothing and proves nothing and ultimately correlation is not causation

 

[QUOTE="JakeJ, post: 1067975465, member: 68447"
I have learned that most liberals absolutely are terrified of ANY change, it doesn't matter what kind of change. Any change in policy, any change in law, any change in weather absolutely terrifies them. Change is horrific, unthinkable, terrifying..[/QUOTE]

That's why Obama won with his slogan 'change'. Whether he caused it or not doesn't matter. 'Change' was the magic word. God some people are stupid.

 

History? How long does your history go back ? Was there larger hurricanes before your history started ?

 

So first of all, let's separate something here. Climate models are fed data and are just that, models, that need to be verified and adjusted. No one created a model FIRST and then used it to say that humans impact the climate. Here's how we know, beyond any doubt, that humans can impact the climate. And you won't disagree with any of these because they are literally middle school science, a tie-in to your article which I will address when I get down to the link so don't worry.

1. The Earth retains most of it's heat from the named greenhouse gases. The small percentage of these gases in our atmosphere add almost 30 degrees in temperature to our planet, so they are significant contributors.

2. CO2 and H2O are green house gases. They are also two of the main chemical resultants of any and all combustion reactions, among other chemicals some of which are but most are not greenhouse gases.

3. Human being combust a lot of stuff. Not really proper English, but almost every industrial and every day process we engage in results in CO2 and water being given off. Given there are roughly 7 billion people doing this to various degrees, you and me WAY more so than say someone living in the Congo, it adds up.

4. An increase in greenhouse gases with no corresponding mechanism to reduce them results in an increase in concentration, which we can easily measure. We can also measure past concentrations of greenhouse gases trapped in ice cores and know we have increased greenhouse gases. We can also account for natural phenomena, volcanic eruptions for example, and estimate their impacts so we can get a really good estimate of human's impact.

5. Conclusion, greater greenhouse gases will contribute to warming in parts of the globe.

That said, weather is an energy balance, which means as certain parts warm, other parts work to absorb that increase in energy and thus cool. It's this greater gradient of hot and cold that can then impact the weather, which is all the weather is, nature's reaction to temperature, aka energy, difference and as nature does, it tries to work towards equilibrium.

So that right there clinches it. Nothing you say, no article you link can disprove or undermine any of that. And for the record, the same climate models you are picking on are the ones that have been used to by and large predict the paths of hurricanes and other weather, so you can't say models are good for one thing and not the other. And yes, it's largely the same data used for both as all the variables matter.

They are considered and ruled out, in particular solar activity. In the big picture, the sun is only outputting less and less and more of it's hydrogen is converted to helium during the fusion process. On a smaller scale, solar activity changes have accounted for 0.1 degree C change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Tell me the known unknowns please. And as for the unknown unknowns, no, there are very few if any of those. This isn't rocket science, it's basic chemistry and physics taught in middle and high school.

Oh yes, the essay. Polar bears dying off is not any measure used by scientists. It's a way to explain the impact the school children, but the idea that such things impact the hard data and conclusions from it are silly. I'm sorry but this essay is nothing more than a blog. It offers no scientific evidence to disprove anything. And don't worry, there are plenty of scientists working to disprove global warming, they just haven't succeeded yet. If they do, then the rest of the scientific community will go along with it. Science has shown that it's willing to challenge itself.

Yes, it has been politicized but not by scientists, but rather by politicians. All things said by politicians are politicized. So what? And no, the science is still sound. The political decisions come down to how much tax dollars do we spend on the problem now and what are the various impacts of such spending. Do we spend a bunch now to save as much as we can? Do we spend as little as possible for the largest possible benefit? Do we spend nothing and put our children and grand children at risk? Science won't answer those questions. Those are political policy question that can only be answered by politicians. So yeah, it's politicized. Everything is.

 

The weather and global climate trends are 2 very different things. If you don't understand that, it will be impossible for you to discuss this topic soundly.

 

First of all, getting out of the Paris accord went against logic and all sound science.

Policies like reducing greenhouse emissions and how to do them. Do you do them by fiat? By economic incentive? Do you subsidize industries and solutions that reduce them or not? If you really can't see the possibilities than I'm not sure why you would bother entering the discussion.

 

What point? Taht's like debating with someone that the world is flat.

 

Great point. Swante Arrhenius, Nobel laureate, has worked on the CO2 greenhouse effect even earlier, before 1896:

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

The idiotic claim that scientists just invent these facts because of funding is blown out of the water by this, since no funding is mentioned on the paper, and this was long before AGW became a political hot button. Arrhenius did this work out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Of course, his findings support the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and surface temperatures.

 

Quite simply, the models model a world, just not earth and they have never been verified because they are unfalsifiable.

Climate science is not a well developed science. Only the first principles are sound but how they work in a coupled non-linear chaotic system is what the real question is. AGW is sold by fear when there are plenty of reasons both past and present that show warming is more beneficial to man.

The known unknowns? A very large one is how solar activity affects the climate and which is not taken into account in the models. Only recently has it been shown in a lab that cosmic rays actually do create clouds. Another one associated with that is cloud formation and the inability to model that along with the unknown mentioned above. The unknown unknowns are the ones that are newly or recently being discovered like the multitude of volcanoes just found under western Antarctica or the fact that coral, when bleached, does not stay that way due to the multitude of coral species that retake the bleached coral and that coral is growing in areas previously thought to be unable to support coral. Oh, and the polar bears are not dying out.

There is a reason that most of the scientists that are speaking out against the political dogma of AGW are retired or no longer rely on government funding. They no longer have the real science deniers to worry about forcing them out of work.

 

Swante Arrhenius also claimed CO2 will be beneficial for mankind. Something the true believers like to ignore.

 

The thing that kills me about climate 'skepticism' is that it's not only a denial of science, but of common sense as well.

A successful scam requires you to sell a promise that people want. A pyramid or ponzi scheme is based on the promise of wealth; phone and email scams play on peoples' fear of immediate loss, curiosity, or greed; books which predict mythological apocalypses hold the promise of vindication and reward for the faithful; and so on.

As a scam, global warming would be awful, because it's predicting something that nobody wants. It's a prediction of a non-immediate non-dramatic erosion of our living environment that no one person can feel all that good about averting; it doesn't hold the promise of wealth, wonder, or any other reward. Climate science is already being vindicated by flooding and hurricanes and other phenomenon, but at the terrible expense of innocent lives -- deniers and realists alike.

If you want to make money in science with government money, you build weapons. Prove that you're good at one-upping Kim Jong Un, that you can find new and creative ways to kill or spy on people, and they'll throw money at you! If you want to make money with 'science' and scams, you go private sector and promise people something they want. Hey we have the science to build you a personal robot, just fund us $1M. Hey, we're working on it but costs are a little more than anticipated so give us another $5M and we'll program the robot to do your taxes. Hey we made you a sketchy video of our progress, so front us another $10M and your robot will do your housework and change your car oil! Hey we're almost done, as a one-time offer give us another $25M and your robot will look like Halle Berry and give you blowjobs while she cleans your house! Don't forget the prestige you're going to enjoy for being the first person with a personal android...

 

The flaw in your post is that fear sells. Anyone that says the science is settled knows little of science and is the true science denier.

 

So again, here is how a model works. You build an algorithm, you feed it data, then you take the results of the model and compare it to measured values. You then adjust your algorithm until it matches, or in most cases conservatively matches, what you are seeing in measured data. That's how the climate models work. Promise. So when you say they are unfalsifiable, I'm not sure what you mean. A model is iteratively improved on accuracy over time. If one finds the results are completely erroneous, then one adjusts the model until they are accurate. So as they stand, the climate models of today are more accurate than they were five years ago.

That's funny you say this. First of all, science hasn't worked in a linear, ordered system ever. Take measuring temperature. Do you know what temperature is a measure of? It's the measure of random movement of molecules. The more they move, the higher the temp. There is nothing linear or non-chaotic about it. Climate science is as well developed as any science. Science doesn't need to be hundreds of years old to be well developed. In fact, you say that but the theory of gravity as we understand it today is not even 100 years old. Is that a well developed science? Newtonian physics, what we used to send people to the moon, is maybe 350 years old. The science utilized to power the computers we are using right now, some of that is less than 20 years old. No, there are sound scientific conclusions behind climate change. If some people fear those conclusions, well that's natural. If it drives their decision, that's irrational behavior on their part.

It's known. I sent you the link.

The idea has been around since roughly 2007.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation

From the article:

So you feel we should hold off doing anything about our contribution to the warming of the Earth based on a yet unquantifiable variable? And yet you claim that climate scientists are the ones not doing science right? Let me put it another way, if I were King in the North and told you that an army of the undead was coming south to kill you, would you call all your banners and follow me? Or would you ask the obvious question, wait a minute, how many undead are we talking? What are their capabilities? In other words, what's the quantification of the risk. So while I agree, there's a possibility that this contributes to the temperature of the Earth, it doesn't disprove man made climate change in the slightest.

Again, we can measure our output without knowing all the volcanoes on Earth. We know the CO2 levels prior to the industrial era. Are you telling me all those volcanoes became active since 1860? Nope. I know they haven't and we know they haven't. So you are grasping at straws.

Oh and polar bears aren't anything I care about. I don't find them cute. I hope they don't die out, but it's not going to make me cry if they do. I care about how we produce our food, which we grow in the ground you know out in the climate. I care about the billion or so people who live in coastal areas that will be flooded that you and I will have to pay to help them when that comes. Get off the polar bears. It's one thing to use a bambi issue to gain support, it's quote another to ignore the practical consequences that will cost trillions as well as the sound science that supports it.