Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

1. Why are the glaciers retreating?

.

Because we have historical records that show they have been doing so since 1800, when the earth has recovered and naturally warmed since the Little Ice Age.

1. Look up the figures for Glacier Bay, and the retreat recorded since 1760:

A. At mouth of Glacier Bay in 1760
B. To Sitkaday Narrows in 1794
C. The Whitney Passage in 1845
D. To Muir Inlet and West Arm in 1860
E. To Upper West Arm in 1892
F. To Upper Tarr Inlet by 1912
G. To Upper Muir Inlet by 1949

This shows evidence of the "The Modern Warm Period", the natural earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Now look at the historic retreat record for Deming Glacier since the LIA to 1980.

Then look at the Gangortri Glacier retreat from 1780 to 2001.

Why do you think it is unusual for glaciers to be retreating? Why have you not investigated the natural earth warming processes that have brought The Modern Warm Period about, the warming of the earth since the LIA?

First separate out the natural variations and processes that influence earths temperature BEFORE pointing out what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere could be doing. You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?

.

 

[rambot]

.

Because we have historical records that show they have been doing so since 1800, when the earth has recovered and naturally warmed since the Little Ice Age.

1. Look up the figures for Glacier Bay, and the retreat recorded since 1760:

A. At mouth of Glacier Bay in 1760
B. To Sitkaday Narrows in 1794
C. The Whitney Passage in 1845
D. To Muir Inlet and West Arm in 1860
E. To Upper West Arm in 1892
F. To Upper Tarr Inlet by 1912
G. To Upper Muir Inlet by 1949

This shows evidence of the "The Modern Warm Period", the natural earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Now look at the historic retreat record for Deming Glacier since the LIA to 1980.

Then look at the Gangortri Glacier retreat from 1780 to 2001.

Why do you think it is unusual for glaciers to be retreating? Why have you not investigated the natural earth warming processes that have brought The Modern Warm Period about, the warming of the earth since the LIA?

First separate out the natural variations and processes that influence earths temperature BEFORE pointing out what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere could be doing. You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?

.

First off How come you feel comfortable quoting and providing data? You disregard the data that is presented against you as incomplete but then attempt to use the same data to justify your position. I'm not sure I understand how that is happening.
The Little Ice Age was a hemispheric occurance wasn't it?

 

[eclipsenow]

.

Because we have historical records that show they have been doing so since 1800, when the earth has recovered and naturally warmed since the Little Ice Age.

1. Look up the figures for Glacier Bay, and the retreat recorded since 1760:

A. At mouth of Glacier Bay in 1760
B. To Sitkaday Narrows in 1794
C. The Whitney Passage in 1845
D. To Muir Inlet and West Arm in 1860
E. To Upper West Arm in 1892
F. To Upper Tarr Inlet by 1912
G. To Upper Muir Inlet by 1949

This shows evidence of the "The Modern Warm Period", the natural earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Now look at the historic retreat record for Deming Glacier since the LIA to 1980.

Then look at the Gangortri Glacier retreat from 1780 to 2001.

Why do you think it is unusual for glaciers to be retreating? Why have you not investigated the natural earth warming processes that have brought The Modern Warm Period about, the warming of the earth since the LIA?

First separate out the natural variations and processes that influence earths temperature BEFORE pointing out what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere could be doing. You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?

.

Hang on, you can't have it both ways. One minute you're saying we don't KNOW the earth is warming, and are arguing till you're blue in the face that the data isn't complete enough (without defining how many temperature stations would ever be 'complete' enough for you), and now you're just accepting that the earth is warming.

Which is it?

 

[RealityCheck01]

....
You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?

A better question is who do you think you are fooling when all you have is endlessly repeating the unsupported assertion about AGW does not exist, Heissonear?

In the real world AGW has been observed to exist and the retreating of glaciers (that you agree is happening) is one piece of evidence for it !
97% of climate scientists say that the evidence supports AGW: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

 

[eclipsenow]

The current promotion that the earth-atmosphere system has been ALL negatively and catastrophically altered by CO2 GHG properties is all hype. It is a scam.

Trolls are out to inflame, not inform.

Please show us that you're not just a troll by positing data and arguments, not just inflammatory statements.

The embodiment and works of the IPCC as the most clear example of the "Catastrophic Global Warming" scam!

More trolling

The ones in control of the IPCC are fraudsters. They have twisted the science to promote dire catastrophic predictions. They are Agenda rather than Science Driven.

More torlling

Those who do not think Global Warming is not scam can freely present their views and information on why they think Manmade Global Warming is not a scam.

We are, but you're not actually reading the data or accepting that it is real, or answering our questions with data! You just sidestep things you don't like, which is really immature.

For instance, WHY is the earth climate still warming 'naturally' and by what actual forcings or mechanisms? You didn't explain.

Why do you insist we can't trust the data that it's warming, but when confronted with a few photos of glaciers retreating just assert that it's natural warming?

Why do you just rely on mere assertions, not arguments based on evidence?

But I will add to the discussion, the statement "The Science is Over" is pure propaganda. The Science Is Not Over. We are learning more that shows the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere does not take over earth's climate, particularly to induce catastrophic events to come about.

The science is NOT over. It never is. There is heaps more to understand about the intricacies of feedback loops etc. But the consistent picture we have from CO2 measured in a Fourier Device through to CO2 concentrations through to feedback loops on the earth is that we're cooking this planet up.

Besides, those 8 million deaths per year?
Fossil fuels will run out one day anyway?
Oil wars & geopolitics?
Energy security?
Clean cities?
Buying oil off countries that don't like you much in the first place?
Funding terrorists?

Don't you think there are enough good reasons to quit this disgusting fossil fuel habit anyway?

 

[Heissonear]

I think for the first time a few GAGW promoters on CF have had to address the natural warming of earth since the Little Ice Age: when did it stop?

The CAGW posters sound confused in how to reply to the science of Natural Global Warming .

The repost below is to further expose how some can show "evidence of Manmade Global Warming through pictures of melting glaciers over modern time", but then be unable to differentiate such from the The Modern Warming Period ongoing since the Little Ice Age.

Once again, SUBTRACT OUT FIRST natural cycles and processes that have brought about The Modern Warm Period increase in earths temperature, then show clearly what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere has caused.

Why do some present the opposite, where pretty well all warming is now man induced?


Natural earth warming since the LIA


"Poster: Why are the glaciers retreating?

Reply: Because we have historical records that show they have been doing so since 1800, when the earth has recovered and naturally warmed since the Little Ice Age.

1. Look up the figures for Glacier Bay, and the retreat recorded since 1760:

A. At mouth of Glacier Bay in 1760
B. To Sitkaday Narrows in 1794
C. The Whitney Passage in 1845
D. To Muir Inlet and West Arm in 1860
E. To Upper West Arm in 1892
F. To Upper Tarr Inlet by 1912
G. To Upper Muir Inlet by 1949

This shows evidence of the "The Modern Warm Period", the natural earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Now look at the historic retreat record for Deming Glacier since the LIA to 1980.

Then look at the Gangortri Glacier retreat from 1780 to 2001.

Why do you think it is unusual for glaciers to be retreating? Why have you not investigated the natural earth warming processes that have brought The Modern Warm Period about, the warming of the earth since the LIA?

First separate out the natural variations and processes that influence earths temperature BEFORE pointing out what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere could be doing. You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?"


.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I think for the first time a few GAGW promoters on CF have had to address the natural warming of earth since the Little Ice Age: when did it stop?

It never stopped, Heissonear !
It was overtaken by the "unnatural warming" of the CO2 we have emitted since the Industrial Age started (1850's).
We are still increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus temperatures.
The Sun still provides heat (constant for the last 35 years) !
Volcanoes still erupt!
etc.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.
...
Positive radiative forcing has a warming effect (so obviously, negative radiative forcing has a cooling effect).
•Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth's albedo - the planet's surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
•Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.
•Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.
•Volcanoes send sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. A strong volcanic eruption can have a radiative forcing effect of up to -3 Wm-2. However, the effect of volcanic activity is transitory - over several years, the aerosols wash out of the atmosphere and any long term forcing is removed.
•Aerosols have two effects on climate. They have a direct cooling effect by reflecting sunlight - this is calculated from observations to be -0.5 Wm-2. They also have an indirect effect by affecting the formation of clouds which in turn affect the Earth's albedo. The trend in cloud cover is one of increasing albedo which means a cooling effect of -0.7 Wm-2.
•Stratospheric Water Vapour has increased due to oxidation of methane and had a slight warming effect of +0.07 Wm-2.
•Linear Contrails from aviation have a slight warming effect of +0.01 Wm-2.
•Nitrous Oxide reached a concentration of 319ppb in 2005. As a greenhouse gas, this contributes warming of +0.16 Wm-2.
•Halocarbons (eg - CFC's) were used extensively in refrigeration and other industrial processes before they were found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. As a greenhouse gas, they cause warming of +0.337 Wm-2.
•Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Pre-industrial methane levels, determined from ice core measurements, were around 715 parts per billion (ppb). Currently methane rates are at 1774 ppb (eg - 1.774 parts per million). The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2.
•CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

We do not have to reply to a delusion about any "science of Natural Global Warming", Heissonear. There is climate science. It includes many drivers of climate change as above - natural and ours.

Lying about "unable to differentiate such from the The Modern Warming Period ongoing since the Little Ice Age" remains bad when you have been presented with the evidence of AGW, Heissonear.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think for the first time a few GAGW promoters on CF have had to address the natural warming of earth since the Little Ice Age: when did it stop?

The CAGW posters sound confused in how to reply to the science of Natural Global Warming .

The repost below is to further expose how some can show "evidence of Manmade Global Warming through pictures of melting glaciers over modern time", but then be unable to differentiate such from the The Modern Warming Period ongoing since the Little Ice Age.

Once again, SUBTRACT OUT FIRST natural cycles and processes that have brought about The Modern Warm Period increase in earths temperature, then show clearly what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere has caused.

Why do some present the opposite, where pretty well all warming is now man induced?


Natural earth warming since the LIA


"Poster: Why are the glaciers retreating?

Reply: Because we have historical records that show they have been doing so since 1800, when the earth has recovered and naturally warmed since the Little Ice Age.

1. Look up the figures for Glacier Bay, and the retreat recorded since 1760:

A. At mouth of Glacier Bay in 1760
B. To Sitkaday Narrows in 1794
C. The Whitney Passage in 1845
D. To Muir Inlet and West Arm in 1860
E. To Upper West Arm in 1892
F. To Upper Tarr Inlet by 1912
G. To Upper Muir Inlet by 1949

This shows evidence of the "The Modern Warm Period", the natural earth warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Now look at the historic retreat record for Deming Glacier since the LIA to 1980.

Then look at the Gangortri Glacier retreat from 1780 to 2001.

Why do you think it is unusual for glaciers to be retreating? Why have you not investigated the natural earth warming processes that have brought The Modern Warm Period about, the warming of the earth since the LIA?

First separate out the natural variations and processes that influence earths temperature BEFORE pointing out what ~150 ppm additional CO2 in the atmosphere could be doing. You have yet to do this. So far you present as if it is due to Anthropogenic Induce Global Warming. Who are you fooling?"

You're basically saying "Quick, look at this distraction over here and PROVE something that 5 minutes googling should do (if I could be bothered!) Dance through this NEXT hoop for me!"

But dude, you've again omitted:

HEALTH IMPACTS: 8 million avoidable deaths per year, but if we adopt clean energy we'll have better health and cleaner cities and no smog

FINITE: fossil fuels will run out one day anyway

SECURITY: Oil wars & geopolitics & energy security & buying oil from countries that don't like you very much & basically funding terrorists

 

[Heissonear]

It never stopped, Heissonear !
It was overtaken by the "unnatural warming" of the CO2 we have emitted since the Industrial Age started (1850's).
We are still increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus temperatures.
The Sun still provides heat (constant for the last 35 years) !
Volcanoes still erupt!
etc.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate


We do not have to reply to a delusion about any "science of Natural Global Warming", Heissonear. There is climate science. It includes many drivers of climate change as above - natural and ours.

Lying about "unable to differentiate such from the The Modern Warming Period ongoing since the Little Ice Age" remains bad when you have been presented with the evidence of AGW, Heissonear.

.

"Evidence of AGW". Nice try claiming such exists!

All that can be presented is theoretical. With claims that are unsubstantiated.

Remember we are dealing with the science of earths weather and climate.

Theories must be proven before excepted - not the other way around as is the current pseudo-science presents.

We are observing a complex association of ocean-land-atmosphere INTEGRATED-PROCESSES.

Directing focus and weight to what ~150 ppm of additional CO2 in earth's atmosphere IS SINGULAIRLY DOING is a joke.

Presenting theoretical "forcings" information bears no weight in light of the weight of natural ongoing thermodynamic processes, including massive heat transfer polewards-equatorwards through ocean gyre cycles, like PDO and AMO, along with ocean and other water bodies magnitude and effects of evaporation-condensation-convection across the globe each day and year. The presence and processes of the oceans acted on by the constant spinning and orbital orientation of the earth dominate the natural processes-integration controlling earth's climate. First-order factors in natural variability dominant factually not theoretically.

Isolating what ~150 ppm additional atmospheric CO2 content will do clearly needs to be integrated not isolated.

And then SUBTRACT OUT the natural variabilities and first-order factors to what we observe BEFORE stating what a small amount of CO2 is doing!!! Is that clear?

Funny how the "science is settled" but the Bandwagon Experts have to resort to "Climate Change" events rather than true blue OBVIOUS GLOBAL TEMPERATUTE WARMING DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2.

Natural variability still stands until observations show differently. Glacial retreat, sea level rise, atmospheric temperature increase, precipitation patterns, etc. etc. etc.

So far you cannot present any observations that are not clearly explainable by natural factors which has controlled earth's temperature swings for eons.

And start with the oceans as the primary controllers in the integrated climate system - the oceans are the dog and the atmosphere is the tail - stop twisting the order in how natural processes have controlled earth's temperature for eons.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

"Evidence of AGW". Nice try claiming such exists!

All that can be presented is theoretical. With claims that are unsubstantiated.

Direct measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not theoretical.

Direct measurements of temperatures from around the globe are not theoretical.

Carbon dioxide absorbing IR radiation is not theoretical.

 

[eclipsenow]

.
"Evidence of AGW". Nice try claiming such exists!

Hey hey hey hey! Again with the inconsistency? Dude, look with your eyes not your denial gland?

On the one hand: "It's natural warming!" On the other, "Nice try proving warming!"

If climate science is so BAD, and all our measurements of this planet are so UNTRUSTWORTHY, how can you know you have enough evidence to say it is NATURAL and NOT AGW?

You've shot the discipline you need to make any statements about climate.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

"Evidence of AGW". Nice try claiming such exists!

.

That claim is a lie that I will blame on ignorance for now, Heissonear:
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming (basic version)

Less energy is escaping to space: Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming (intermediate version)

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Read the evidence of AGW that you claim does not exist, Heissonear, so that this claim does not become a lie.

Here is my drivers of climate post which you ignored for that rant, Heissonear :

It never stopped, Heissonear !
It was overtaken by the "unnatural warming" of the CO2 we have emitted since the Industrial Age started (1850's).
We are still increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus temperatures.
The Sun still provides heat (constant for the last 35 years) !
Volcanoes still erupt!
etc.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate

We do not have to reply to a delusion about any "science of Natural Global Warming", Heissonear. There is climate science. It includes many drivers of climate change as above - natural and ours.

Lying about "unable to differentiate such from the The Modern Warming Period ongoing since the Little Ice Age" remains bad when you have been presented with the evidence of AGW, Heissonear.

 

[Heissonear]

.

It shows scientific ignorance when someone states they present evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming induced by the CO2 GHG effect.

Interesting how many there are that cannot scientifically understand how natural climatic factors explain what posters have presented as "evidence for AGW"!

In part caused by lack of understanding the continuous natural variability of earth's temperature throughout history and by not grasping the first-order roles of lateral and vertical mass heat transfer systems regulating weather events and cycles over time on earth.

First SUBTRACT OUT natural factors and their effect BEFORE you specify what the tiny amount of CO2 is so-called doing Globally to Earth.

Is this clear? You have yet to do this.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Lay the Extremism propaganda down and make observations yourself!

Robert Austin on February 16, 2015 at 11:29 pm

Microwarmer! Hey, I like that. My estimate is that warming from man’s emissions of CO2, while theoretically factual, lies somewhere between immeasurably small and effectively trivial. “Trivial” warming, by the way, is not my appellation, I got it from Dr. Lintzen. Henceforth, I shall identify myself as a “microwarmist”.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.

 

[RickG]

.

It shows scientific ignorance when someone states they present evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming induced by the CO2 GHG effect.

Interesting how many there are that cannot scientifically understand how natural climatic factors explain what posters have presented as "evidence for AGW"!

In part caused by lack of understanding the continuous natural variability of earth's temperature throughout history and by not grasping the first-order roles of lateral and vertical mass heat transfer systems regulating weather events and cycles over time on earth.

First SUBTRACT OUT natural factors and their effect BEFORE you specify what the tiny amount of CO2 is so-called doing Globally to Earth.

Is this clear? You have yet to do this.

.

You know Heissonear, for someone who professes to have a background in geochemistry and stratigraphy, you sure go out of your way to demonstrate a complete IGNORANCE of both fields, not to mention your knowledge of Climatology is even more lacking.

Yes natural factors are considered, climate scientists aren't stupid like you make them out to be. And anyone who has even only an introductory course in climatology, knows the chemistry and effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Why don't you actually start discussing the science and stop demeaning the people who do it.

 

[Heissonear]

Some trot down the CAGW trail defending the incomplete science it's based on.

One needs to step back from "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" and re-examine their position as a follower, like the fellow listed below.

GaryW on February 15, 2015 at 3:34 pm

I started out at a firm AGW believer. As an engineer though, I began looking for facts to prove my AGW claims to others. I researched real world met and historic climate data and found AGW not recognizable in those records. I researched the theoretical sources of AGW and found, for the most part, that science was vague and inconsistent. Where specific claims or predictions were made, those turned out to be failures. I began to realize my original assumptions about the truth of AGW were based upon nothing by a gut feeling. Gut feelings are handy in some situations but proved false in the case of AGW.

Denizens II | Climate Etc.


.

 

[RickG]

Some trot down the CAGW trail defending the incomplete science it's based on.

And some even refuse to discuss the science, rather only denigrating those who actually know something about the science . Hmmm, wonder who that might be?

 

[eclipsenow]

.

It shows scientific ignorance when someone states they present evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming induced by the CO2 GHG effect.

Interesting how many there are that cannot scientifically understand how natural climatic factors explain what posters have presented as "evidence for AGW"!

On the one hand: "It's natural warming!" On the other, "Nice try proving warming!"

If climate science is so BAD, and all our measurements of this planet are so UNTRUSTWORTHY, how can you know you have enough evidence to say it is NATURAL and NOT AGW?

You've shot the discipline you need to make any statements about climate.

 

[Heissonear]

It is easy to investigate and find the error in CAGW.

GaryW on February 15, 2015 at 3:34 pm

I started out at a firm AGW believer. As an engineer though, I began looking for facts to prove my AGW claims to others. I researched real world met and historic climate data and found AGW not recognizable in those records. I researched the theoretical sources of AGW and found, for the most part, that science was vague and inconsistent. Where specific claims or predictions were made, those turned out to be failures. I began to realize my original assumptions about the truth of AGW were based upon nothing by a gut feeling. Gut feelings are handy in some situations but proved false in the case of AGW.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.


Why are some on CF sternly defending the easy to see "Climate Mess" the Bandwagon has produced?

.

 

[RickG]

On the one hand: "It's natural warming!" On the other, "Nice try proving warming!"

If climate science is so BAD, and all our measurements of this planet are so UNTRUSTWORTHY, how can you know you have enough evidence to say it is NATURAL and NOT AGW?

You've shot the discipline you need to make any statements about climate.

Yeah! Interesting how he claims it isn't warming then says its natural warming. Nevertheless, a Geochemist would know that atmospheric 13C/12C ratios would decline if the CO2 increase was from anthropogenic sources.