Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

The CAGW hypothesis is in a scientific dilemma - it has not been proven true by observations.

As a hypothesis it should be able to be proven by verifiable observations. As a hypothesis, it should also have predictions that show it is real.

That is the dilemma. The predictions made in the 1980's and 1990's have not come true.

Those many "predictions" will be pulled up and presented in later posts. If the predictions do not come true than how can one state Global Warming by increased atmospheric CO2 is true? In reality they can't when predictions fail.

Beyond the predictions, if observations show natural factors are in control of climate, such as the many ocean circulation oscillations, and the timing of their heat to cool phases (since warm water is brought northward where near the poles the heat is released and the waters are cooled natural cycling), then observations show natural cycles control climate and not ppm levels of increased atmospheric CO2.

Known history shows the earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling, with the Midieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age being the most recent examples.

The earth has been coming out of the LIA through natural warming processes.

If the CAGW hypothesis is to be proven then it has to show by observations that the natural climate cycles have been overtaken and CO2 in the atmosphere is what is controlling the climate, particularly the first prediction - Global Warming.

Again, simply showing the earth is continue to warm is not evidence of Global Warming, but a continuation of natural factors still increasing earths atmospheric temperature.

Simply showing graphs that the earth is warming is not proof that CO2 is causing the warming.

Once again, if the natural can explain the observations then there is no proof of the CAGW hypothesis. On a scientific bases, so far the CAGW hypothesis has been proven wrong, not correct. No one can say scientifically Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming is a fact.

And changing the name to something that has always happened, like Climate Change, is incorrect in the fact that the climate has always changed, as is obvious from the earths recent past - the Midieval Warm Period and LIA.

.

 

[fargonic]

The CAGW hypothesis is in a scientific dilemma - it has not been proven true by observations.

As a hypothesis it should be able to be proven by verifiable observations. As a hypothesis, it should also have predictions that show it is real.

That is the dilemma. The predictions made in the 1980's and 1990's have not come true.

Actually you are wrong! Many HAVE come true! A study of climate predictions from the first IPCC report (FAR) in 1990 found that many have come true according to researchers at Lawrence Livermore!

The 1990 IPCC report estimate a 1.1 deg F increase by 2030 with a half-way point (in the year 2010) of 1 deg F, the study found the actual warming 0.6 to 0.7deg F. Pretty good it sounds like!

But the models in 1990 were much more crude than the current models so adjustments had to be made. Once that is taken into account the 1990 predictions fall in line with what is going on circa 2010.

Beyond the predictions, if observations show natural factors are in control of climate, such as the many ocean circulation oscillations, and the timing of their heat to cool phases (since warm water is brought northward where near the poles the heat is released and the waters are cooled natural cycling), then observations show natural cycles control climate and not ppm levels of increased atmospheric CO2.

Surely you know that no one who believes in human-caused global warming thinks it is ONLY CO2, right? In order to not be lead astray it is important to know what the side actually believes before you fight them!

If the CAGW hypothesis is to be proven then it has to show by observations that the natural climate cycles have been overtaken and CO2 in the atmosphere is what is controlling the climate, particularly the first prediction - Global Warming.

These things have been shown by scientists. They follow the natural cycles and factors and they understand how these can or cannot account for the warming we've seen the last half century.

And changing the name to something that has always happened, like Climate Change, is incorrect in the fact that the climate has always changed

On geologic time scales it has changed. But globally the changes we see now are the biggest changes since humans established civilizations thousands of years ago. And these changes started happening about the time we started industrialization.

 

[Heissonear]

The IPCC repetitively states if society continues to increase atmospheric CO2 content that with certainty the earths global temperature will go up.

This is promoting bad science. CO2 is not the Control Knob to earths temperature.

This bad science has been promoted since the 1980's and is still promoted.

With this they say "the science is settled".

The IPCC and others have promoted bad science. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the Control Knob.

This is all a hypothesis, and there is no real world data or observations for supporting this hypothesis.

Who said increasing atmospheric CO2 content will overpower all natural factors and will cause the earths global temperature to go up? Where is their proof?

Where is the baseline of what natural factors will (future tense) give us? Where is the baseline temperature from natural factors? Where is the data and observations to support the hypothesis?

Where is the data that shows what each major natural factor GIVES in the earths global temperature YEARLY? Where is each major natural factor understood on its contributions to the baseline?

Once we know what the natural weather and climate factors are - only then can we determine what real world influence extra CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute. Until then the CO2 issue is all hypothetical, still requiring observation based data. Science is based on observations, not speculation and conjectures.

 

[fargonic]

The IPCC repetitively states if society continues to increase atmospheric CO2 content that with certainty the earths global temperature will go up.

We are called to tell the truth. Yes increased CO2 will increase temperatures if all things remain equal. But they don't. The scientists do not focus solely on CO2. They look at the WHOLE picture. They know that some factors will cause a DECREASE in temperature and some will cause an INCREASE. Some are NATURAL and some are HUMAN-CAUSED.

This is promoting bad science. CO2 is not the Control Knob to earths temperature.

No one thinks that CO2 is the only control knob. It is important that if you wish to sit in judgement of others that you should know the whole story!

Remember, again, we are called NOT to judge lest we be judged!

This is all a hypothesis, and there is no real world data or observations for supporting this hypothesis.

Again, there IS a lot of real world data and observation to support the hypothesis. If you don't like that data that is another thing, but if we wish to serve Truth we must be willing to accede that others may not be hiding anything from us...that maybe we have a lack of knowledge.

Where is the baseline of what natural factors will (future tense) give us?

In all of the literature they rely on something called "CLIMATE SENSITIVITY" of a given factor. It is how much the temperature will change with a corresponding increase in that factor.

There is no "baseline" temperature for earth, there is, however a way to understand how the things that are going on will affect the temperture.

Think of it this way:

Is there a "baseline temperature" for your oven at home? No, but when you turn it on and adjust the controls or put things in the oven it will change the temperature in the oven.

The earth scientists are looking at how the temperature is CHANGING and how this affects the CLIMATE. We know of MANY control knobs. Perhaps not all, but many of them.

Where is the baseline temperature from natural factors? Where is the data and observations to support the hypothesis?

The Climate Sensitivity factors are freely available and easily found everywhere in the IPCC reports as well as the science they rely on.

Once we know what the natural weather and climate factors are - only then can we determine what real world influence extra CO2 in the atmosphere will contribute. Until then the CO2 issue is all hypothetical, still requiring observation based data. Science is based on observations, not speculation and conjectures.

Science is imperfect. No one can know all things except God himself. Humans do the best that they can with what information they have. We rely on this less-than-perfect knowledge to do everything in our daily lives. From crime scene investigators to the scientists who make your computer and your medicine. It is not perfect but it is as good as we can get.

To accuse others of being liars or very bad at their jobs is sitting in judgement. If you wish to sit at the Right Hand of the Father to come to Judge the Quick and the Dead it is upon you to know everything.

Perhaps you could dial back your invective a little bit. It would lessen your burden to have to know everything. And has been shown on some of these threads you don't always know everything.

Remember: you are merely a man. You do not have to carry the burden of the world alone.

 

[Loudmouth]

The IPCC repetitively states if society continues to increase atmospheric CO2 content that with certainty the earths global temperature will go up.

This is promoting bad science. CO2 is not the Control Knob to earths temperature.

The problem is that the other control knobs work over tens of thousands of years. They don't act quick enough to counteract the massive and sudden rise in CO2. For example, the Milankovitch cycles are the main natural forcer for glaciation, but ice ages only come around every 100,000 years or so.

Who said increasing atmospheric CO2 content will overpower all natural factors and will cause the earths global temperature to go up? Where is their proof?

What natural factors are you talking about, other than the Milankovitch cycles?

 

[Heissonear]

Here it is presented clearly - Global Warming causes record cold weather and and snow storms in the NE U.S.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/us/adjusting-the-tune-on-climate-change.html?referrer=

Cambridge, Mass. — For a week in November, people across the United States were complaining bitterly about the cold. Record low temperatures were experienced in 43 states; in some northern regions, residents had to dig tunnels to get out of houses engulfed by as much as seven feet of snow.

But there is one major problem, the earth stopped warming 18 years ago.

I thought Global Warming was, well, the Earth Globally Warming. When did it become where the earth for nearly two decades has not warmed and the focus now is extreme cold and snow storms?

Remember what the "climate computer models" projected?

 

[Heissonear]

"The Pause" is making everybody take a second look at Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, and who promote it.

 

[Mainframes]

BBC News - World on course for warmest year

Think this might upset your apple cart Heissonear....

 

[Heissonear]

BBC News - World on course for warmest year

Think this might upset your apple cart Heissonear....

You forgot to put things in perspective.

Look at the graph in Post #46. Where should the earth's global temperature be in 2014, according to hundreds of leading Climate Scientists and their modeling using Settled Science?

Of all of the CO2 mankind has placed in the atmosphere over time a total of ~25% of the manmade CO2 has been released since 1998!

Is a 25% increase a lot?

Now, tell me why The Pause.

And then tell me about the propaganda wording for the "hottest year" since 1998, which was 16 years ago.

When did CO2 take over the warming of earth after the LIA? No answer?

Why no answer for the natural climate factors baseline?

Why the promotion that all earth heating is now due to CO2?

 

[fargonic]

Why the promotion that all earth heating is now due to CO2?

Again it appears the only person who says this is you. No one on the science side believe it is solely due to CO2. It is due to a number of factors both natural and manmade but the manmade factors are now the majority of the reason for the warming since the middle part of the 20th century, perhaps even longer.

It cannot be said enough that one must always heed the 9th Commandment! I believe others have stated this on these various fora many times before, but no one says CO2 is the only cause of earth heating.

 

[Greatcloud]

Again it appears the only person who says this is you. No one on the science side believe it is solely due to CO2. It is due to a number of factors both natural and manmade but the manmade factors are now the majority of the reason for the warming since the middle part of the 20th century, perhaps even longer.

It cannot be said enough that one must always heed the 9th Commandment! I believe others have stated this on these various fora many times before, but no one says CO2 is the only cause of earth heating.

It's not man who has caused the warming, btw I willn only say we have caused 10% of this modern warming that is all at the most.
What I see is that we have two parts of a hill on the graph of this warming period. We have a rise in warming in the year 2000 then as Hessioner says 14 years of stagnant temps ; so now all we need is the down part of the hill with temps going down.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...z_Jydaq9jhk7O6g2lCqzeyV46Kg1M2wDdczMME4sAB-mQ

 

[Heissonear]

The severity of the three year drought in California has been claimed by CAGW Alarmists as due to CO2 induced Global Warming.

Well, they should first at what natural factors are applicable, since natural factors has controlled weather since the beginning.

A new report by NOAA tell such, that the California drought has been due to natural factors, particular Pacific Ocean climate cycles.

Nature, not climate change, blamed for drought - SFGate

As presented earlier, the science society has been changing since about 2013 on the papers published on earth's climate. More balance and inclusion of earth's natural climate cycles are being recognized as the major climate controllers. The publication trend continues.

 

[fargonic]

The severity of the three year drought in California has been claimed by CAGW Alarmists as due to CO2 induced Global Warming.

This does not surprise me. Very few people who are scientifically savvy make the claim that one particular event or another is solely due to AGW. It certainly seems reasonable to assume it may have a role because the drought is mostly driven by snowfall amounts in the Sierra's. But it does not surprise me, nor does it shake my faith in the AGW hypothesis, to find out that perhaps this record drought is driven more by Pacific patterns.

Well, they should first at what natural factors are applicable, since natural factors has controlled weather since the beginning.

Obviously as noted in the article you cite, the paper has yet to pass peer review, so to jump on this as a proof point against AGW is as hasty as using a single event as a proof point for AGW.

I am a believer that science is an ongoing process. It zeroes in on the most likely truth. It usually doesn't arrive at it right from the very start.

As presented earlier, the science society has been changing since about 2013 on the papers published on earth's climate. More balance and inclusion of earth's natural climate cycles are being recognized as the major climate controllers. The publication trend continues.

You keep acting as if natural forcings have never been considered until recently. This could not be more wrong! Our understanding of natural factors grows just as our understanding of human factors grows. Science grows and learns.

Please do not use your biases to denigrate the good work done by others simply because you don't like the answers it is showing.

Even though NOAA published this, I bet that the NOAA scientists still believe in AGW. They are simply being good scientists.

The reason so many scientists don't like talking to people like you, Heissonear, is because you tend to select only those pieces of information that fit your personal crusade and avoid all the others. You shout and scream about how bad the scientists are (even after being shown they don't say or do most of what you claim they do).

If the scientists tell you a complex, scientifically subtle story it appears you will twist and turn the words and cherry pick the information to ensure the "doubt" remains in hopes of destroying all the solid science.

That isn't a rational approach. Perhaps you should walk a mile in the shoes of a scientist.

 

[Heissonear]

Scientists must not put policy before proof | The Times

We have over two decades of Warnings published about CO2 induced Global Warming, per changed to Climate Change during The Pause.

The reason is to promote an agenda, not good science. ClimateGate and other information has exposed those who promote bad science for personal gain.

Environmental researchers are increasingly looking for evidence that fits their ideology, rather than seeking the truth

As somebody who has championed science all his career, carrying a lot of water for the profession against its critics on many issues, I am losing faith. Recent examples of bias and corruption in science are bad enough. What’s worse is the reluctance of scientific leaders to criticise the bad apples. Science as a philosophy is in good health; science as an institution increasingly stinks.

 

[Michael]

It's not man who has caused the warming, btw I willn only say we have caused 10% of this modern warming that is all at the most.
What I see is that we have two parts of a hill on the graph of this warming period. We have a rise in warming in the year 2000 then as Hessioner says 14 years of stagnant temps ; so now all we need is the down part of the hill with temps going down.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...z_Jydaq9jhk7O6g2lCqzeyV46Kg1M2wDdczMME4sAB-mQ

FYI, I have followed your various threads for some time now and I respect your skepticism of some of the "hype" related to "global warming". What I don't really "grok" however is your skepticism towards C02 (and various carcinogens) that are being constantly being pumped into the atmosphere without any regard to the volume of material that is going into our common air supply.

Cities in China today have pollution problems that rival Pittsburgh prior to air quality control laws here in the US. Just the number of additional cancers alone should get you "up in arms" IMO over the amount of carcinogens that come along with burning fossil fuels. That's not even mentioning the water table damage that's being done as a result of fracking, the number of human beings that die in coal mines each year, etc.

I get your resistance to some of the hype, but I also realize just how damaging and dangerous it is to rely so heavily on fossil fuels, particular as China, India and Africa continue to grow. The amount of pollution is simply unsustainable IMO.

 

[Heissonear]

Judith Curry is a Professor of Climatology at Georgia Tech.

Judith has been one of the leading scientists in the earlier UN IPCC science workgroups.

Then came ClimateGate.

And since ClimateGate Judith now has firsthand information of agenda driven climate scientists.

The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later | Climate Etc.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday in 2009, in the midst of extensive email discussions with Andy Revkin and Joe Romm (!), I penned my essay An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research. Which followed my essay (published at Climate Audit) On the credibility of climate research. In February 2010, I wrote an article Towards rebuilding trust. The main themes of my writings were concerns about:

1. lack of transparency – need to make data and documentation publicly available tribalism among scientists and circling the wagons strategy: attacking skeptics with ad hominem attacks, appeal to motive attacks, isolating skeptics through

2. lack of access to data, manipulation of the peer review process to reject skeptic papers

3. the need for improved analysis and communication of uncertainty

Seems like motherhood and apple pie issues? Well maybe from the perspective of 2014. But in 2009/2010, this was heresy. One of the story lines from Climategate became me, and my engagement with skeptics:

Discover Magazine: The big battle over climate science (profile of JC and Mann) April 2010
Scientific American: Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues (Nov 2010)

Some "scientists" and commenters want to "Whitewash" Anthropogenic Global Warming. Whitewash is what someone uses to coverup what someone has exposed before others. Here comes "whitewash" posts!

Or dare we face the problem and address it like Judith?

 

[Greatcloud]

FYI, I have followed your various threads for some time now and I respect your skepticism of some of the "hype" related to "global warming". What I don't really "grok" however is your skepticism towards C02 (and various carcinogens) that are being constantly being pumped into the atmosphere without any regard to the volume of material that is going into our common air supply.

Cities in China today have pollution problems that rival Pittsburgh prior to air quality control laws here in the US. Just the number of additional cancers alone should get you "up in arms" IMO over the amount of carcinogens that come along with burning fossil fuels. That's not even mentioning the water table damage that's being done as a result of fracking, the number of human beings that die in coal mines ea

I get your resistance to some of the hype, but I also realize just how damaging and dangerous it is to rely so heavily on fossil fuels, particular as China, India and Africa continue to grow. The amount of pollution is simply unsustainable IMO.

Yes I do believe we need clean air in our cities these days.

 

[Heissonear]

FYI, I have followed your various threads for some time now and I respect your skepticism of some of the "hype" related to "global warming". What I don't really "grok" however is your skepticism towards C02 (and various carcinogens) that are being constantly being pumped into the atmosphere without any regard to the volume of material that is going into our common air supply.

Cities in China today have pollution problems that rival Pittsburgh prior to air quality control laws here in the US. Just the number of additional cancers alone should get you "up in arms" IMO over the amount of carcinogens that come along with burning fossil fuels. That's not even mentioning the water table damage that's being done as a result of fracking, the number of human beings that die in coal mines each year, etc.

I get your resistance to some of the hype, but I also realize just how damaging and dangerous it is to rely so heavily on fossil fuels, particular as China, India and Africa continue to grow. The amount of pollution is simply unsustainable IMO.

Michael,
I fully agree with the detrimental effects of gas and coal energy pollution. It has become severe for millions again, with the developing economies of India, China, and others.

What to do about it not simple. I wish it was.

I have a close friend who grew up under Communist China, and we have submitted about 30 patents together, and he has told me of the mass population move from mostly rural to urban because of finding work. The China infrastructure was not ready to handle such a massive change. Pollution is just one massive problems. People who did not grow up driving are now on the roads and it isn't pretty. We need to pray for China, the many peoples lives and well being. They have been building one coal-based powerplant PER week. It is adding up on the health if the people. Figures show the usage of coal may double by 2030, by IEA stats. A few more decades of increasing the amount of pollution within China.

 

[Heissonear]

It is called moving the goal posts when clear predictions by Alarmists do not come true and they "adjust" the date - this being an ice free September in the Arctic by 2015 to 2016.

Almost time to move the goal posts.


"Peter Wadhams is a Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge and an expert on Arctic sea ice and waves. He has studied the Arctic since 1970. In the last few years he has predicted that the Arctic will be ‘ice-free’ no later than September 2016."

Daily Telegraph – 8 November 2011
Arctic sea ice ‘to melt by 2015′
Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”
Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around.
“It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”
Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015' - Telegraph
—–
BBC News – 27 August 2012
Professor Peter Wadhams, from Cambridge University, told BBC News: “A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016.
“I was one of those scientists – and of course bore my share of ridicule for daring to make such an alarmist prediction.”
BBC News - Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says
—–
Guardian – 17 September 2012
Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.
Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years | Environment | The Guardian
——-
Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”.
What climate scientists talk about now - FT.com
——-
The Scotsman – 12 September 2013
Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert
“The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.
“The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.”
Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert - The Scotsman
——-
Arctic News – June 27, 2012
My own view of what will happen is: 1. Summer sea ice disappears, except perhaps for small multiyear remnant north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, by 2015-16. 2. By 2020 the ice free season lasts at least a month and by 2030 has extended to 3 months…..
Arctic News: When the sea ice is gone
——-
TheRealNews – 29 May 2014

 

[Heissonear]

More bad news for Global Warming Alarmists.

Global warming doomsayers have issues confronting reality

2014 could be the hottest year ever, enthused reporters, environmentalists and government delegates as they descended on Lima, Peru for a UN global warming gabfest, hoping against hope for good news after 18 straight years in which temperatures refused to climb. The increase reported by the World Meteorological Organization for the first 10 months of 2014 — released to give the UN gathering some gravitas — wasn’t enormous, just one-hundredth of one degree warmer than the previous record. But beggars can’t be choosers, especially among determined doomsayers, for whom hope springs eternal.

These upbeat doomsayers — maybe a majority of the 8,000 in attendance from 196 participating countries — had little else to cling to. In the Arctic, the ice cover is now greater than it’s been over the average of the last 15 years. In the Antarctic, the prospects for gloom are sadder still — the sea ice cover is at an all-time high, having set records the last three years in a row. Worse — as underwater robots have just discovered — the ice is much thicker than previously thought. Oh sure, the doomsayers can ordinarily console themselves with computer models showing all this ice is an anomaly — that it should have melted long ago. But what good are computer models by the world’s top climate change scientists — all consensusing one another — when the population at large becomes each year harder to rouse to panic?

Now, as the global warming enthusiasts are packing their bags to leave Lima, bad luck threatens to nose them out of even their one-hundredth-of-one-degree edge. The figures for November — month number 11 — have just come in and it looks like the U.S. is once again betraying the cause: November 2014 with its polar vortex saw almost 9000 record lows, ushering in a record extent of snow cover for North America. To compound the bad luck, the polar vortex has crossed the Atlantic to inflict the U.K. with what’s being billed there as the coldest winter in a century. Barring a miraculously balmy December, the Lima attendees fear, that one-hundredth-of-one degree lead will now be lost.

- See more at: Lawrence Solomon: Hottest Year Ever? Not Quite | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)