The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Belfry]

Solar energy has been fluctuating.

Your links didn't work for me, either, and unfortunately I'm not allowed to post links nor images yet (thanks to this forum's unusual rules), but solar activity fails to explain temperature rise since the 1980's. I'll see if I can post links in a way that you can paste them, but that will get past the forum's software (I think I got it, just remove all of the spaces from the URLs).

Here's a graph relating CO2, sunspot activity, and temperature:
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Here's a very recent paper on the topic (Lockwood and Frohlich, 2007: Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature.):
www . pubs. royalsoc.ac. uk/media/ proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Honestly, I just can't make it 15 posts without giving linked support to my assertions.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Since the scientists models do not predict that as possible, and because these models are 100% correct (they predict global warming after all, and there is global warming), therefore there is no limestone deposits there. Or perhaps someone put it there to mislead you.

It is possible and here are some site to prove it.

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/Blueanchor.htm

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/fossils/cotswolds-limestone.htm

http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/thesaurus_term.asp?thes_no=129&term_no=97999

http://geology.about.com/od/regional_geology/ig/gibraltar/gibraltar3.htm

http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/portbill.htm

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/tour/landmarks/ghost_ranch/home.html


Limestones have no problem forming in environments with higher CO2 levels.

Cold deep water will prevent the formation of limestone, but not warm shallow water

 

[TheBear]

Those links don't appear to work. Is this the article you obtained them from?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/

Yes. That's the one.

Regardless, though, it is of little relevance. Of course the Sun can affect climate here on Earth. But right now, human factors are dominating.

That's the part I'm not 100% sure of, either way.

It seems that you are also arguing that climate scientists are idiots who don't understand their subject. Why do you think they have not factored in the obvious?

You know, I'm still sorting through all this. I didn't make up the article. It came from NASA. There are many controversies in science. This is one of them. It doesn't mean that those on one side of a scientific controversy are idiots, and I don't appreciate being told that I think they are.

I think we're done here, Chalnoth. I'll engage with anyone who's methodology is open, neutral and addresses the topic. I won't be engaging with people who are emotionally attached to this, or resort to personal remarks.

 

[Tomk80]

Solar energy has been fluctuating.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/OldSunNewSun.mpg


Solar activity - 1975 to present

The problem is that according to the latest research on this, these fluctuations in solar activity do not correlate to the variations in climate.

 

[Chalnoth]

You know, I'm still sorting through all this. I didn't make up the article. It came from NASA. There are many controversies in science. This is one of them. It doesn't mean that those on one side of a scientific controversy are idiots, and I don't appreciate being told that I think they are.

I think we're done here, Chalnoth. I'll engage with anyone who's methodology is open, neutral and addresses the topic. I won't be engaging with people who are emotionally attached to this, or resort to personal remarks.

I don't think you're understanding my point here. The overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field of climate studies have concluded that humans are very likely responsible for the current warming, and that there is quite a lot we can do about it. This is simple fact. You can see this fact illustrated in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A particularly relevant graph can be found on page 7 of this report.

To push aside this fact with claims like solar forcing or cosmic rays can muck up these figures is the same as an accusation that these scientists are idiots. It's as simple as that. Remember, after all, we are not simply talking about one or a few scientists coming up with these figures. We are talking about a huge panel, with well over a thousand scientists going over the possible issues in the various models. To suggest that they will ignore or overlook such blatantly obvious contributions is to suggest they are idiots.

This is something that it took me a little while to realize. Before I really got into science, I was always highly skeptical of the status quo. When some scientific conclusion seemed off to me, I'd always doubt it until I heard the evidence. While I think this helped my education, in that this sort of attitude is an excellent one to have within one's own field in science, it's not terribly healthy when you're not willing to put in the work to discover the evidence for yourself. In short, the reality turns out to be that unless you have dedicated years of your life to investigating a particular field of science, you are very unlikely to be capable of finding any flaw in their scientific conclusions. And when you, therefore, see large panels of scientists from all over the world come together and agree upon something, unless you are prepared to investigate it in depth yourself, you would be wise to believe their conclusions.

 

[KCDAD]

The problem is that according to the latest research on this, these fluctuations in solar activity do not correlate to the variations in climate.

That is where you are wrong..they correspond directly with climate change, whereas carbon in atmosphere lags behind temperature change by up to a hundred years.

 

[KCDAD]

I don't think you're understanding my point here. The overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field of climate studies have concluded that humans are very likely responsible for the current warming, and that there is quite a lot we can do about it. This is simple fact. You can see this fact illustrated in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A particularly relevant graph can be found on page 7 of this report.

To push aside this fact with claims like solar forcing or cosmic rays can muck up these figures is the same as an accusation that these scientists are idiots. It's as simple as that. Remember, after all, we are not simply talking about one or a few scientists coming up with these figures. We are talking about a huge panel, with well over a thousand scientists going over the possible issues in the various models. To suggest that they will ignore or overlook such blatantly obvious contributions is to suggest they are idiots.

This is something that it took me a little while to realize. Before I really got into science, I was always highly skeptical of the status quo. When some scientific conclusion seemed off to me, I'd always doubt it until I heard the evidence. While I think this helped my education, in that this sort of attitude is an excellent one to have within one's own field in science, it's not terribly healthy when you're not willing to put in the work to discover the evidence for yourself. In short, the reality turns out to be that unless you have dedicated years of your life to investigating a particular field of science, you are very unlikely to be capable of finding any flaw in their scientific conclusions. And when you, therefore, see large panels of scientists from all over the world come together and agree upon something, unless you are prepared to investigate it in depth yourself, you would be wise to believe their conclusions.

There is a lot more money in man caused climate change than there is in natural causes... besides, what kind of crisis can you create if it beyond our control?

 

[Belfry]

That is where you are wrong..they correspond directly with climate change, whereas carbon in atmosphere lags behind temperature change by up to a hundred years.

That has apparently been true with many of the warming periods in the past, but it's not true from direct measurements in recent decades.

What that suggests is that warming in the past has not always been initiated by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, but there are feedbacks in the system - a warmer climate leads to more atmospheric CO2, which further warms the planet, etc.

Do you know of any scientists who actually claim that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

 

[Chalnoth]

There is a lot more money in man caused climate change than there is in natural causes... besides, what kind of crisis can you create if it beyond our control?

The implication that scientists have been "bought" to perform these studies is both insulting and laughable. There are, after all, vastly clearer money trails to be had on the side of denying global warming, since people are making money in industries (such as the oil industry) that are contributing to it.

 

[KCDAD]

That has apparently been true with many of the warming periods in the past, but it's not true from direct measurements in recent decades.

What that suggests is that warming in the past has not always been initiated by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, but there are feedbacks in the system - a warmer climate leads to more atmospheric CO2, which further warms the planet, etc.

Do you know of any scientists who actually claim that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

Recent decadess... you wnat o change the course of 10,000 years of human history because of a couple of decades... that is pretty much a knee jerk reaction. Sorry, I can't play htat game.

 

[KCDAD]

The implication that scientists have been "bought" to perform these studies is both insulting and laughable. There are, after all, vastly clearer money trails to be had on the side of denying global warming, since people are making money in industries (such as the oil industry) that are contributing to it.

Insulting, hmmmm... I'm sure all scientists and reseachers (mot to mention politicians) are above reproach... my humblest apologies.

 

[Belfry]

Recent decadess... you wnat o change the course of 10,000 years of human history because of a couple of decades... that is pretty much a knee jerk reaction. Sorry, I can't play htat game.

Not sure what you mean by that... large-scale fossil fuel exploitation is only a couple of hundred years young. And given that fossil fuels are a limited resource, destined only to become increasingly difficult to procure, it seems that it would be advisable to move away from them before it becomes a crisis, even without concerns about climate change.

But I repeat: do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

 

[Upisoft]

I believe it's something to do with their digestive system. Anyway, regardless of mechanisms, you don't have the data to show that GCR are responsible for recent warming.

Therefore, IPCC missed the pirates from their report, if you believe they are significant factor.

This means it's impossible to saturate the atmosphere with CO2 absorption, since adding more CO2 will always be increasing the absorption and emission. Do you have evidence to suggest that adding more CO2 doesn't make a significant difference? If not, then you're just making unevidenced assertions.

The absorption is impossible to be increased significantly, because it is already near 100%. And how you suggest that adding more CO[sub]2[/sub] is increasing the emission? The emission is temperature based, thus you postulate that temperature had increased.

 

[Upisoft]

Right. It's brand new technology. How many cars currently run on this new technology? What percentage of cars manufactured today, are geared towards this technology? Do you drive a biofueled or solar powered vehicle? If not, why not?

Manufactures are overwhelmingly producing fossil fueled vehicles. That's why they're much cheaper than alternative fueled vehicles. It will probably take another three decades or more, for the bulk of vehicles on the road to be alternative fueled vehicles. (I probably won't see it's full fruition in my lifetime. But it will be a good thing when it happens.) Are undeveloped countries supposed to sit on their hands for another several decades?

Here people tried to use bio-diesel. The problem was that any rubber pipes get damaged in mater of months. Only silicon pipes can handle it. Also the engine must be prepared to run with bio-diesel, because unprepared engine becomes craps in one year. So, making your old car (and here most of the cars are really old - 15+ years) will cost you more than the car. The people say that the price you have payed will never repay. Bio-diesel is cheaper here, but not by much.

Also, biofiuels emit CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere. The plus is that they use CO[sub]2[/sub] from the atmosphere when they're produced. But the problem is that we constantly increase the volume of fuel we use, and production speed depends on the CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration in the atmosphere. Also we use that same resource to grow more food faster. If you switch to biofuels only, then there is probability that the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere will begin to decrease, thus decreasing biofuel and food production. That can mean more deforestation for new biofuel plants and agricultural fields. That can mean erosion and more deserts. So, I don't think that biofuels are actually good for the planet. They are renewable, but that only means good for us.

 

[Upisoft]

Uhhh, they don't. But not only is it extremely unlikely that the low energy cosmic rays happened to coincide with the recent warming, but current climate models that include human factors are an excellent fit to the data. So not only is there no direct evidence for this effect, the observed warming is best explained by a combination of known natural and human factors. If there were some major natural factor that we were missing, we'd be unlikely to be able to reproduce the recent warming using climate models.

MODEL: Emissions included

MODEL: Emissions excluded

Source: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarming2.php

Now the red line shows the measured data, and the orange lines show predicted temperatures by the models.

Now they say the bottom does not fit... So... Let's see....
The orange line at upper picture starts from 57.0, but on the bottom chart it starts from 56.4 (0.6 difference). It ends at 57.7 on upper chart and at 57.1 at bottom, again 0.6 difference. So, what is going on? They just deliberately moved the whole orange line up, just to compensate... Hmmm, do they call that "including human activities"? Then I have to agree. Adjusting a curve to fit another is "human activities".

No. I believe the atmosphere is thin and diffuse. That is so.

The particles that create auroras do not think so. They actually find it thick at much higher altitudes (more than 80km upwards) than sea level.

 

[Upisoft]

The problem is that according to the latest research on this, these fluctuations in solar activity do not correlate to the variations in climate.

Probably the guys didn't adjusted their models enough....

 

[Upisoft]

The implication that scientists have been "bought" to perform these studies is both insulting and laughable. There are, after all, vastly clearer money trails to be had on the side of denying global warming, since people are making money in industries (such as the oil industry) that are contributing to it.

The problem is that those that don't want to be bought become "former climatology professors". There is an article from one former climatology professor: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

[Chalnoth]

Now they say the bottom does not fit... So... Let's see....
The orange line at upper picture starts from 57.0, but on the bottom chart it starts from 56.4 (0.6 difference). It ends at 57.7 on upper chart and at 57.1 at bottom, again 0.6 difference. So, what is going on? They just deliberately moved the whole orange line up, just to compensate... Hmmm, do they call that "including human activities"? Then I have to agree. Adjusting a curve to fit another is "human activities".

Wow, so now you're not accusing the scientists of being idiots. You're accusing them of outright lying. Tell me, in a field where honesty is an absolute necessity for the field to operate, how do you get hundreds of scientists to lie together about their simulations?

The particles that create auroras do not think so. They actually find it thick at much higher altitudes (more than 80km upwards) than sea level.

Different sorts of particles have different interaction cross sections. For example, the universe is very much transparent to visible light, is it not? It is also quite transparent to a lot of infrared light (depending upon the wavelength). That is what is important here.

 

[Upisoft]

Wow, so now you're not accusing the scientists of being idiots. You're accusing them of outright lying. Tell me, in a field where honesty is an absolute necessity for the field to operate, how do you get hundreds of scientists to lie together about their simulations?

Yes, I think they know well what they are doing. But obviously it is not hard to lie, when you protect your own interests. The fact is that I've never accused them to be idiots, so your allegation that I no longer do that is a lie.

Different sorts of particles have different interaction cross sections. For example, the universe is very much transparent to visible light, is it not? It is also quite transparent to a lot of infrared light (depending upon the wavelength). That is what is important here.

But we're talking about the atmosphere, not about the universe... And they have quite different properties.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, I think they know well what they are doing. But obviously it is not hard to lie, when you protect your own interests.

Clearly you don't understand science, then. It is very hard for a scientist to lie and get away with it. Your accusation is not only baseless, but is just plain absurd. Never ever has there been a case where you've gotten large numbers of scientists to lie. Always cases of fraud have been isolated situations with a small number of scientists mucking the numbers.

And besides, if you really think these people are lying, you can look at the original research, examine what they did, and see if they actually are lying. This openness is why it's so difficult to lie in science.

But we're talking about the atmosphere, not about the universe... And they have quite different properties.

I am aware of what we are talking about.