Global Warming---Oops!!

[KWCrazy]

It may be currently in a "flat" region, but that is NOT a "cooling" trend.

It's been cooling for the last 15 years.
Cooling is not warming.

In science there's a little thing called a REGRESSION LINE which, in order for you to claim it is "cooling" would require you to provide a statistical proof of a NEGATIVE SLOPE to the line.

...records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.
source

So are you telling us that basic physics and chemistry is a lie too?????

Science isn't a lie, but scientists DO lie.

"Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
Ease of fabrication
In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data."

Science is replete with frauds.

 

[1Sam15]

It's been cooling for the last 15 years.
Cooling is not warming.

No...cooling is a NEGATIVE TEMPERATURE TREND. (Please don't make this into a joke discussion).

...records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.
source

OK, just let me know when they actually start suspending the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the First Law...you know the one about energy creation and destruction. I'm looking forward to a world in which energy can simply "disappear" in a system.

Science isn't a lie, but scientists DO lie.

And guess which of the two of US has actually seen CO2 doing its work as an IR absorber?

Did you say 1Sam15? Well yeah! That would be the guy!

You see for many years I worked with a piece of equipment called an FTIR. This is a thing which shoots an IR beam at a sample in a cell that has atmospheric gases in it. In order to use this equipment I had to run a "background" every few runs in order to subtract out the big honkin' peak that represented atmospheric CO2 absorption which would blot out a lot of the peaks I needed to look at my sample.

So if the CO2 is absorbing the IR, where did that energy go?


Because that is what is happening in the atmosphere. Only because of humans we have pumped a LOT more additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

And did you ask yourself which of the two of us has actually TAKEN AN ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY COURSE? Well, if you said 1Sam15 you were right again!

Guess what started happening about 1850 with the advent of massive industrialization and massive fossil fuel burning by humans?

If you said the 13C/12C isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon in CO2 started to DROP exactly as it would be expected to if you were looking at a massive burning of fossil fuels you would be RIGHT too!

"Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding,

Well, I've been in the sciences now for about 31 years and I guarantee you that one does not get a good reputation by LYING.


In fact...that's a one-way ticket to the unemployment line in the sciences.

and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.

Ask yourself: which of us has actually published in a peer-reviewed journal? If you say 1Sam15 YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN! Bravo!

The real difference here is I know your point is complete BS. I've actually published there. And believe me, if you fabricate you WILL be caught out sooner or later.

If you are found to be WRONG you will be found out sooner later.

I once reviewed an article that was critical of an article I had written. They found that I had failed to take a particular thing into account (quite by accident, I was not partaking of any dishonesty). When I saw that in fact the most important thing I could think to do was RECOMMEND PUBLICATION OF THE ARTICLE.

I was actually GLAD someone had found an error in my paper. Why? Because I care about the science.

YOU may not understand what it means to be a scientist but that doesn't give you free reign to critique how science works. Especially when you demonstrably show so little understanding of it.

Ease of fabrication
In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes;

PLease, KW, just stop now. You are so out of your depth you are going to make everyone on here with any experiences in the sciences spit coffee on their keyboards! Just STOP!

 

[Edial]

Sharon, can I ask you honestly how much science training have you had?

Clearly the only global warming person you know is "Al Gore". He's not a scientist. Don't listen to what he says.

Listen to the thousands and thousands of independent scientists who have been working on this for the past 60 years all across the globe.

Today about 97% of the earth's climate scientists disagree with YOU.

And the rest of us who are other types of scientists, who couldn't care less about Al Gore, also find the science to be pretty solid.

So ask yourself: "Do I have enough science background to decree this to be 'lie'?"

Here are a couple of problems I have with what you say here.
I don't have a science background. However, I am an engineer, so it's kind of close.

I always thought science was an exact set of studies.
Why are there 97% of climate scientists and not 100%

If Al Gore is wrong why didn't ALL of the 97% disagree with him, since he carries the torch for Global Warming?

And if they do not dare to disagree because the grants are coming from people like Gore, (and I do understand that) why is their opinion should still be important?

I guess I am from the old-school science where numbers should not lie.

Thank you.
Ed

And Happy New Year!

 

[trunks2k]

I always thought science was an exact set of studies.
Why are there 97% of climate scientists and not 100%

Because in pretty much any science, you will find some people in that field that disagree with the consensus. Especially if there are politics in play. It's just human nature.

And if they do not dare to disagree because the grants are coming from people like Gore, (and I do understand that) why is their opinion should still be important?

Fame and money in science comes from disproving the currently held consensus. If you want to talk about where the real money is in regards to climate change, that's from companies that would rather see climate change not exist or not be a big deal.

The fact remains that, as Sam has stated, CO2 absorbs IR. The energy absorbed has to go somewhere (i.e. heat). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing due to human activity. That's basic science. Nobody has shown otherwise.

 

[KWCrazy]

No...cooling is a NEGATIVE TEMPERATURE TREND.

And a rock is "a hard place."
Negative temperature trends are the opposite of positive temperature trends, which means that the temperature is cooling, not warming. That's what I said. We could make ourselves sound even more special by talking about a reduction of thermal units or a reduction in the aggregate amount of thermal radiation relative to previous measurements, but it's only saying the same thing. Coolin' ain't warmin.'

OK, just let me know when they actually start suspending the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the First Law...you know the one about energy creation and destruction. I'm looking forward to a world in which energy can simply "disappear" in a system.

Oh, please. Every time I mention thermodynamics I get bombard by internet scientists who claim that the laws aren't really laws, but that the exceptions haven't been observed yet. After all, "there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations."

The first law of thermodynamics proves that the universe absolutely positively could not have been created via natural law.

The second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal because it is in a constant state of decay (or increasing entropy).

The third law of thermodynamics proves that beginning with a vacuum devoid of matter with nothing to generate heat, nothing happens.

The laws of thermodynamics preclude the natural creation of the universe. Since most scientists and internet scientists believe that the universe came into existence by natural means, it demonstrates that they only believe in these laws when it suits them. If these laws aren't absolute, then there are no laws.

If you said the 13C/12C isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon in CO2 started to DROP exactly as it would be expected to if you were looking at a massive burning of fossil fuels you would be RIGHT too!

Every single "climate change" model has failed because the amount of human contribution to the environment is minimal. We no longer have raging forest fires burning millions of acres every year. We've made great inroads into fighting forest fires, and if we could log the old growth forests we'd do even more.

The Mt St Helen eruption put more pollution into the air in one event than mankind has in his entire history. The effect was to lower the temperature by one degree for one year. The fact is, climate change alarmists are promoting junk science. The world knows about the conspiracy and fraud that researchers were caught perpetrating. If there was truth to the science, they wouldn't have needed to lie about it.

Please keep your good reputation intact and don't associate yourself with this great and heinous fraud.

 

[1Sam15]

And a rock is "a hard place."
Negative temperature trends are the opposite of positive temperature trends, which means that the temperature is cooling, not warming.

Are you joking here? So if the temperature today is the same as it was yesterday you would say it is COOLING from yesterday to today????

I would love to discuss REGRESSION STATISTICS with you but clearly you don't even understand what the words "heating" and "cooling" mean.

That's what I said. We could make ourselves sound even more special by talking about a reduction of thermal units or a reduction in the aggregate amount of thermal radiation relative to previous measurements, but it's only saying the same thing. Coolin' ain't warmin.'

Love your use of hypertechnical language there. Very impressive.

Oh, please. Every time I mention thermodynamics I get bombard by internet scientists who claim that the laws aren't really laws, but that the exceptions haven't been observed yet.

So just answer me where the energy goes.

Every single "climate change" model has failed because the amount of human contribution to the environment is minimal.

What a great claim! Only there's scientists (again) who disagree with you.

"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past."(SOURCE HERE)

If you have any science to back up YOUR claim, please post it.

Oh and as to "human contribution being minimal", well of course just about every climate scientist on earth disagrees with you.

And you want proof of that?

Again, don't let FACTS stand in your way.

We no longer have raging forest fires burning millions of acres every year.

OK, I'll take your word for it. But which of us has lived within a mile of raging wildfire that took out a HUGE swath of Southern California? If you said 1Sam15 again you'd be right!

And then you can take it up with the Australians.

We've made great inroads into fighting forest fires, and if we could log the old growth forests we'd do even more.

The Mt St Helen eruption put more pollution into the air in one event than mankind has in his entire history. The effect was to lower the temperature by one degree for one year.

If you wanted to impress me with your knowledge of the science you would have mentioned Pinatubo. Which, ironically enough provided PROOF of our global climate models!

The fact is, climate change alarmists are promoting junk science. The world knows about the conspiracy and fraud that researchers were caught perpetrating.

Except every single one of the numerous independent reviews of your beloved climategate e-mails failed to find any evidence of fraudulent manipulation of data.

Yet we keep hearing you denialists repeat the same old tired untruth.

If you haven't heard that before, then consider yourself EDUCATED.

Just one more denialist who will now have to face either repeating something they KNOW to be a lie now or honestly dropping the Climategate silliness.

Please keep your good reputation intact and don't associate yourself with this great and heinous fraud.

And please keep your reputation in tact and don't associate yourself with any FACTS.

 

[1Sam15]

Here are a couple of problems I have with what you say here.
I don't have a science background. However, I am an engineer, so it's kind of close.

I always thought science was an exact set of studies.
Why are there 97% of climate scientists and not 100%

Since you are an engineer have you ever met any engineers who disagree with something?

I took a course from a well-respected geologist who had some serious reservations about "plate tectonics". In the 1980's. About 20 years after plate tectonics was pretty much settled science.

If Al Gore is wrong why didn't ALL of the 97% disagree with him, since he carries the torch for Global Warming?

Why do you keep talking about Al Gore? Who CARES about Al Gore except the denialists who know NO ONE ELSE in the climate sciences.

Al Gore is a meat puppet. Honestly who cares what Al Gore says or does who disagrees with him or not?

And if they do not dare to disagree because the grants are coming from people like Gore, (and I do understand that) why is their opinion should still be important?

So you don't know where NSF grants come from? (Hint: the Vice President doesn't dole them out.)

My wife works for organizations who deal with the numerous, numerous, numerous panels employed by the NSF to make grant decisions. Guess who my wife has NEVER MENTIONED ONCE in regards to this? Yeah, the VP.

I guess I am from the old-school science where numbers should not lie.

I don't see the numbers lying anywhere. Can you show me numbers lying?

 

[Edial]

...

The fact remains that, as Sam has stated, CO2 absorbs IR. The energy absorbed has to go somewhere (i.e. heat). The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing due to human activity. That's basic science. Nobody has shown otherwise.

Do we know that all this heat is due to human activity?

There were a number of ice ages ...

 

[1Sam15]

Do we know that all this heat is due to human activity?

Analysis of the various climate drivers finds that when one factors in BOTH natural and HUMAN drivers the data lines up.

In fact Natural-only doesn't really fit the data.

Numerous "attribution" studies have lead the scientific community to agree that human-induced warming is significant.

There were a number of ice ages ...

And the next one driven by Milankovich Cycles (orbital variations) appears to be about 6000 years overdue.

What could possibly be different between NOW and the LAST Glacial advance (the Wisconsinin Advance)?

Oh, I know! HUMAN ACTIVITIES which have pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels which have shifted the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon composition exactly as one would expect from burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale....and that is different from the previous 10,000 year trend!

 

[Edial]

Since you are an engineer have you ever met any engineers who disagree with something?

Not really.
They disagree with a way to get to a conclusion, but the conclusion is there, in a textbook, numbers.

Why do you keep talking about Al Gore? Who CARES about Al Gore except the denialists who know NO ONE ELSE in the climate sciences.

I am not a denialist, yet I care what Al gore is pushing because he carries the torch behind Global warming.
What are you saying?
Who else was as influential in promoting global Warming but Al Gore?
Look at me. I know of it because of Al Gore.

Al Gore is a meat puppet. Honestly who cares what Al Gore says or does who disagrees with him or not?

It is VERY important who disagrees with him.
Don't you believe that the reputation and authority of the 97% would increase if they disagree with Al Gore?
If they know he is wrong and do not say anything what good is their word?

So you don't know where NSF grants come from? (Hint: the Vice President doesn't dole them out.)

My wife works for organizations who deal with the numerous, numerous, numerous panels employed by the NSF to make grant decisions. Guess who my wife has NEVER MENTIONED ONCE in regards to this? Yeah, the VP.

Of course. But IF there is a phone call from a VP - everything changes.
Ask your wife.
They have tremendous influence.

I don't see the numbers lying anywhere. Can you show me numbers lying?

I don't know numbers. I am completely illiterate in this.
What I do know however is that 97% apparently act like 1 for not standing up against Al Gore who they apparently know is wrong in many points.

 

[Edial]

Analysis of the various climate drivers finds that when one factors in BOTH natural and HUMAN drivers the data lines up.

In fact Natural-only doesn't really fit the data.

Numerous "attribution" studies have lead the scientific community to agree that human-induced warming is significant.

OK.
So what is the percentage of the human vs natural?

And the next one driven by Milankovich Cycles (orbital variations) appears to be about 6000 years overdue.

What could possibly be different between NOW and the LAST Glacial advance (the Wisconsinin Advance)?

Oh, I know! HUMAN ACTIVITIES which have pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels which have shifted the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon composition exactly as one would expect from burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale....and that is different from the previous 10,000 year trend!

But don't you think a better question should be what happened during the last 7 ice ages when there was no man-made CO2?

 

[KWCrazy]

But don't you think a better question should be what happened during the last 7 ice ages when there was no man-made CO2?

We don't know exactly, but we know it was all Bush's fault.

 

[1Sam15]

OK.
So what is the percentage of the human vs natural?

Most of it in the last 50 years is likely caused by humanity (SOURCE)

But don't you think a better question should be what happened during the last 7 ice ages when there was no man-made CO2?

No. Because the last several ice ages appear to be related to a number of factors. A lot of inpact from Milankovich Cycles. But there's also been releases of CO2, in some cases following natural warming reservoirs of CO2 like the oceans put out more CO2 and further drove warming.
CO2 is both a leader and a lag.

There are a HUGE number of natural climate forcings to choose from. Scientists already know a great deal about those. And yet, somehow, even when you read the IPCC you'll see EXTENSIVE discussion of NATURAL climate drivers...and yet...somehow....the impact of humanity comes to the fore.

Here's a study where the scientists attempted to reconstruct the past temperatures using the NATURAL forcings and the HUMAN forcings.

Remember, these models DO NOT HAVE WARMING BUILT INTO THEM. They use "first principles" and found that the only way to fully explain the past 150 years worth of temperature is if one takes into account the HUMAN factors....and in fact "Natural forcings alone" cannot reproduce the warming we've seen in the last 50 years.

(From IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other)

 

[Edial]

We don't know exactly, but we know it was all Bush's fault.

I better get outta here ...
Happy New Year to ALL.

 

[1Sam15]

I am not a denialist, yet I care what Al gore is pushing because he carries the torch behind Global warming.
What are you saying?
Who else was as influential in promoting global Warming but Al Gore?
Look at me. I know of it because of Al Gore.

Interesting. Personally I know about it because of the scientists. Scientists like Roger Revelle, Hans Suess, Jim Hansen, Peterson, Karl, Broecker and of course during my schooling getting my degrees in geology. And a while working at Columbia University's earth science organization.

I'm not saying I didn't learn anything from Al Gore, but if all I used was Al Gore I'd be in a pretty weak position.

Everything Al Gore spoke about I went and looked up the REAL science.

I highly recommend forgetting Al Gore. It only makes ones points look superficial.

You are an engineer, you can easily handle the REAL stuff.

It is VERY important who disagrees with him.

Not really. Because all the earth scientists I've worked with and around and all the papers I've read in the real science don't even mention Al Gore.

If you can find a systematic study of who disagreed with Al Gore, then please present it.

I personally couldn't care less about Al Gore and I'm guessing all the scientists couldn't either.

Don't you believe that the reputation and authority of the 97% would increase if they disagree with Al Gore?

What parts do you want them to disagree with? Al Gore may have painted a hyperbolic picture on SOME aspects but on many he was just reporting what the scientists have already found.

Future predictions range even within the hardcore science community. Jim Hansen has taken some pretty strong positions about our potential future.

Of course. But IF there is a phone call from a VP - everything changes.
Ask your wife.
They have tremendous influence.

LOL. Just asked her. SHe pointed out that NSF funding comes out due to Congressional oversight of the budget.

Constitution fail!

I don't know numbers. I am completely illiterate in this.

Then how on earth could you make the insinuation that the numbers are lying??????

What I do know however is that 97% apparently act like 1 for not standing up against Al Gore who they apparently know is wrong in many points.

This is a meaningless point. Can you tell me where you get some implicit agreement between the scientists and everything YOU disagree with over Al Gore's statements?

This is just smeared out mushy non-thought.

 

[1Sam15]

I better get outta here ...
Happy New Year to ALL.

Good! Because I just wasted some time FINDING SOME REAL SCIENCE FOR YOU and answering your questions!

I would hope to god you would run away and NOT EVEN LOOK AT IT!

That way your mind will be PURE and FREE FROM SOMEONE ACTUALLY EXPLAINING IT TO YOU.

Why do people like me BOTHER with you "skeptics"?

You run away the FIRST SIGN of science.

I was actually addressing your point in a reasoned and rational manner.

Oh but DO RUN AWAY!

This is absurd!

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ask the Chinese ship that is stuck in the ice about global warming. All a farce and Al Gore built his millions on a big lie.

Hi Sharon, perhaps you'd like to read the thread first.

 

[Edial]

Good! Because I just wasted some time FINDING SOME REAL SCIENCE FOR YOU and answering your questions!

I would hope to god you would run away and NOT EVEN LOOK AT IT!

That way your mind will be PURE and FREE FROM SOMEONE ACTUALLY EXPLAINING IT TO YOU.

Why do people like me BOTHER with you "skeptics"?

You run away the FIRST SIGN of science.

I was actually addressing your point in a reasoned and rational manner.

Oh but DO RUN AWAY!

This is absurd!

No, no, no.
Don't take it the wrong way!
I simply did not want to get involved into Bush debates.
How would it look like if an admin gets involved in that.
Go on, please.

 

[Edial]

Most of it in the last 50 years is likely caused by humanity (SOURCE)



No. Because the last several ice ages appear to be related to a number of factors. A lot of inpact from Milankovich Cycles. But there's also been releases of CO2, in some cases following natural warming reservoirs of CO2 like the oceans put out more CO2 and further drove warming.
CO2 is both a leader and a lag.

There are a HUGE number of natural climate forcings to choose from. Scientists already know a great deal about those. And yet, somehow, even when you read the IPCC you'll see EXTENSIVE discussion of NATURAL climate drivers...and yet...somehow....the impact of humanity comes to the fore.

Here's a study where the scientists attempted to reconstruct the past temperatures using the NATURAL forcings and the HUMAN forcings.

Remember, these models DO NOT HAVE WARMING BUILT INTO THEM. They use "first principles" and found that the only way to fully explain the past 150 years worth of temperature is if one takes into account the HUMAN factors....and in fact "Natural forcings alone" cannot reproduce the warming we've seen in the last 50 years.

(From IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other)

I appreciate this.

But the sources are working for some reason off a hypotheses that warming is due to CO2.

Why not solar flares?

Look at what the Russians said in 2007 ... (just looked it up) ...
Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming | Russia | RIA Novosti

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

They said in 2007 that temperatures would decrease in 2012-2015.

I looked it up and temperatures did decrease last year.

So, why not solar flares like the Russians say and not CO2?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[SharonL]

If you google 'scientists who disagree with global warming' - you will find more scientists that disagree than agree. But they are never brought out.