Science vs Global Warming

[BobRyan]

I like this guy (At least what he says that is science driven) - anyone else heard of him?

 

[morse86]

The word of God stands alone. Has anyone not read of the various pestilences, famines and "climate change"??

I mean if you want global warming, read the book of the revelation...there's some real climate change by God...when he burns up 1/3 of the earth...or how about he destroys the earth???

Science today is all about tax payer funding. A $cientist has their boss...they must "pr$ove" the agenda or find another job....good luck cause of the PHD debt they needed to take out in loans.

It's no longer observable repeatable science..it's just math equations disconnected from reality or alibi academic cell style science.

 

[BobRyan]

The word of God stands alone. Has anyone not read of the various pestilences, famines and "climate change"??

I mean if you want global warming, read the book of the revelation...there's some real climate change by God...when he burns up 1/3 of the earth...or how about he destroys the earth???

Science today is all about tax payer funding. A $cientist has their boss...they must "pr$ove" the agenda or find another job....good luck cause of the PHD debt they needed to take out in loans.

It's no longer observable repeatable science..it's just math equations disconnected from reality or alibi academic cell style science.

As the scientist in the video points out.

 

[Tanj]

it's just math equations disconnected from reality or alibi academic cell style science.

I'm doing what now? What the heck is alibi academic cell style science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the video is refuted right here:

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

The moral of the story. Even Nobel Prize winners can look foolish when they speak on matters outside of their area of expertise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word of God stands alone. Has anyone not read of the various pestilences, famines and "climate change"??

I mean if you want global warming, read the book of the revelation...there's some real climate change by God...when he burns up 1/3 of the earth...or how about he destroys the earth???

Science today is all about tax payer funding. A $cientist has their boss...they must "pr$ove" the agenda or find another job....good luck cause of the PHD debt they needed to take out in loans.

It's no longer observable repeatable science..it's just math equations disconnected from reality or alibi academic cell style science.

Why do you think it is not "observable repeatable science"? By the way, most people that use that phrase have a very poor understanding of the scientific method. That is an incorrect synopsis of the scientific method.

 

[USincognito]

Why do you think it is not "observable repeatable science"? By the way, most people that use that phrase have a very poor understanding of the scientific method. That is an incorrect synopsis of the scientific method.

The only people who use that verbiage in this discussion are those who think science is limited to mixing two chemicals in a beaker on a lab table.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only people who use that verbiage in this discussion are those who think science is limited to mixing two chemicals in a beaker on a lab table.

Cookbook chemistry is fine if one realizes its purpose. It confirms basic concepts in chemistry, and if one goes on it gives one an introduction to methods used in real chemistry. But it is clearly not the end all and be all of chemistry. It is the bare inkling of a beginning.

 

[BobRyan]

And the video is refuted right here:

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

The moral of the story. Even Nobel Prize winners can look foolish when they speak on matters outside of their area of expertise.

He was the "welcomed genius" for the church of global warming in 2011 on the American Physical Society, where his peers had elected him a fellow to honor his work.
War of words over global warming as Nobel laureate resigns in protest

But suddenly when he says "he wait a minute I smell a rat" well then suddenly "he does not know anything".

In the article the first "sign of the rat" was that they were using religious terms not scientific ones (as he also points out in the video - a point never refuted even in the article link above).

"The society, which has 48,000 members, has adopted a policy statement which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."

But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."

In the video he points out that the exact weight of the proton can be controverted but oddly enough in the religion of global warming - global warming is incontrovertable".

Then he shows that even Al Gore admits that over the past 100+ years the average temp has only gone up by .8 (point 8) not even by 1 degree.

His conclusion? Well then we are remarkably stable.

His suspicion -- nobody knows that the average temp has gone up by 1 tenth of 1 percent in a given year because we cannot measure it at that level. He points out that are almost no readings taken at the south pole when calculating "the average" -- as compared to warmer climates.

He smells a rat in this religion of climate change.

In the video he asks for taking a look at climate change over the past 200 years and then over the past 8000 years as a comparison. It is leveling off by comparison.

 

[AirPo]

I like this guy (At least what he says that is science driven) - anyone else heard of him?

I hope you didn't have to pay for that.

 

[Halbhh]

I like this guy (At least what he says that is science driven) - anyone else heard of him?

Weather/climate is a complex system, meaning there are so many pieces, including unknown ones, so it will not be entirely predictable. Since mathematically it cannot be predicted, it's more of a What's the Trend for us to observe even though we will continue to try to account for more of the factors and continue to try to model it (regardless of how well or poorly).

So, data is the one clear thing that can be pinned down. What's the data though? Here's a reliable source:

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was the "welcomed genius" for the church of global warming in 2011 on the American Physical Society, where his peers had elected him a fellow to honor his work.
War of words over global warming as Nobel laureate resigns in protest

But suddenly when he says "he wait a minute I smell a rat" well then suddenly "he does not know anything".

In the article the first "sign of the rat" was that they were using religious terms not scientific ones (as he also points out in the video - a point never refuted even in the article link above).

"The society, which has 48,000 members, has adopted a policy statement which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."

But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."

In the video he points out that the exact weight of the proton can be controverted but oddly enough in the religion of global warming - global warming is incontrovertable".

Then he shows that even Al Gore admits that over the past 100+ years the average temp has only gone up by .8 (point 8) not even by 1 degree.

His conclusion? Well then we are remarkably stable.

His suspicion -- nobody knows that the average temp has gone up by 1 tenth of 1 percent in a given year because we cannot measure it at that level. He points out that are almost no readings taken at the south pole when calculating "the average" -- as compared to warmer climates.

He smells a rat in this religion of climate change.

In the video he asks for taking a look at climate change over the past 200 years and then over the past 8000 years as a comparison. It is leveling off by comparison.

Yes, we know that he is terribly ignorant about the science. By the way, when one falsely claims that something is a religious belief they are in effect putting down their own religious beliefs. A logic that too many science deniers have a tough time understanding.

But I am glad that according to you that gravity is "incontrovertible". As is the germ theory of disease, the laws of thermodynamics, atomic theory, nuclear theory etc. and so on. What you and he made was an equivocation fallacy. The scientists were addressing lay people and using lay terms.

But thanks for admitting that global warming is real. Yes, over the last 100 years temperature went up 0.8 degrees Celsius, or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. To you that might not seem to be a lot but it represents a large change over that short of a period of time and worse yet is that the rate keep increasing. Understanding math is important to understand AGW.

Do you know what a Gish Gallop is? That is what you just did. It is an improper debating technique where all sorts of mistaken and false claims are made in the hope of awing an opponent. If you want to discuss this let's do so properly. One concept at a time. Are you willing to do that.

We could start with the basics. Do you know how the greenhouse effect works?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weather/climate is a complex system, meaning there are so many pieces, including unknown ones, so it will not be entirely predictable. Since mathematically it cannot be predicted, it's more of a What's the Trend for us to observe even though we will continue to try to account for more of the factors and continue to try to model it (regardless of how well or poorly).

So, data is the one clear thing that can be pinned down. What's the data though? Here's a reliable source:

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And one must not conflate weather with climate. Weather can swing strongly. Climate is predictable since it is an average behavior over long periods of time and broad areas. One hot day or one cold day neither confirms nor denies AGW. The trend of number of new "hottest" days and new "coldest" days does support AGW since it shows that new hottest days worldwide far exceed new coldest days.

 

[Yekcidmij]

And the video is refuted right here:

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

The moral of the story. Even Nobel Prize winners can look foolish when they speak on matters outside of their area of expertise.

good point...lest conservatives be forced to agree with everything Paul Krugman says....

 

[Aardverk]

And the video is refuted right here:

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist.

Ivar is using common sense, based on more knowledge that the average person, rather than hugely complicated, unproven computer models based on data that most of us are not even allowed to see. We are just expected to trust 'them'. The refutation by dana1981 is arguing, "most scientists agree" - which certainly is not science. I tried following the link in that 'refutation' to Anderegg but it does not show the same information and Anderegg makes the point that a study along those lines may be useful. Is dana1981 simply making it up or did they cite the wrong source. How on earth is one meant to read that graph of scientists & publications anyway? It makes little sense as it is.

I will repeat it, the 'most scientists agree' argument - is not science. I accept that the anthropogenic global warming theory is complex but where is the dumbed-down version? All we get is the REALLY dumbed-down version with no scientific explanation. Why not? Does anyone fancy trying to explain it?

I have always been concerned that the Vostock data and the benthic forans data both show that temperature increase precedes CO2. Also, you can see from the 100,000 year cycle that long-term temperature increase effectively levelled off about 10,000 years ago. The reason for that has never, to my knowledge, been explained and all that appears to be happening now is that normal cycle temperatures are simply catching up - having levelled off. Graphically, it looks like a simple 'rebound' and the temperature is no higher than other historic peaks. Another factor from those studies is that temperature decreases coincide with higher dust in the atmosphere and visa versa. In recorded history, high dust-counts coincide with large volcanic eruptions yet these FACTS are dismissed as significant factors even though we have no reliable way of knowing about major eruptions in pre-history.

I am also concerned by the strange notion that "water vapour cannot drive global warming". That is simply untrue. Water vapour may increase for many reasons and once started, it IS self sustaining to a large extent. A simple cause of some increase in water vapour is irrigation. There is no better way to transfer heat from the ground to the atmosphere than pouring water onto a hot desert.

Irrigation is dismissed by climate scientists with the short-sighted comment - "irrigation causes a local cooling effect, which is good". Doh! Where do they think the heat went? Even worse, I have many times watched the clouds form at night over the large irrigated areas in California. Not only has the irrigation very efficiently transferred heat from the ground to the air, the clouds then act as a blanket preventing the ground heat being radiated out into space. Next morning, the sun evaporates the clouds back into water vapour - an extremely potent greenhouse gas millions of times more common that CO2.

Any scientist care to educate me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ivar is using common sense, based on more knowledge that the average person, rather than hugely complicated, unproven computer models based on data that most of us are not even allowed to see. We are just expected to trust 'them'. The refutation by dana1981 is arguing, "most scientists agree" - which certainly is not science. I tried following the link in that 'refutation' to Anderegg but it does not show the same information and Anderegg makes the point that a study along those lines may be useful. Is dana1981 simply making it up or did they cite the wrong source. How on earth is one meant to read that graph of scientists & publications anyway? It makes little sense as it is.

I will repeat it, the 'most scientists agree' argument - is not science. I accept that the anthropogenic global warming theory is complex but where is the dumbed-down version? All we get is the REALLY dumbed-down version with no scientific explanation. Why not? Does anyone fancy trying to explain it?

I have always been concerned that the Vostock data and the benthic forans data both show that temperature increase precedes CO2. Also, you can see from the 100,000 year cycle that long-term temperature increase effectively levelled off about 10,000 years ago. The reason for that has never, to my knowledge, been explained and all that appears to be happening now is that normal cycle temperatures are simply catching up - having levelled off. Graphically, it looks like a simple 'rebound' and the temperature is no higher than other historic peaks. Another factor from those studies is that temperature decreases coincide with higher dust in the atmosphere and visa versa. In recorded history, high dust-counts coincide with large volcanic eruptions yet these FACTS are dismissed as significant factors even though we have no reliable way of knowing about major eruptions in pre-history.

I am also concerned by the strange notion that "water vapour cannot drive global warming". That is simply untrue. Water vapour may increase for many reasons and once started, it IS self sustaining to a large extent. A simple cause of some increase in water vapour is irrigation. There is no better way to transfer heat from the ground to the atmosphere than pouring water onto a hot desert.

Irrigation is dismissed by climate scientists with the short-sighted comment - "irrigation causes a local cooling effect, which is good". Doh! Where do they think the heat went? Even worse, I have many times watched the clouds form at night over the large irrigated areas in California. Not only has the irrigation very efficiently transferred heat from the ground to the air, the clouds then act as a blanket preventing the ground heat being radiated out into space. Next morning, the sun evaporates the clouds back into water vapour - an extremely potent greenhouse gas millions of times more common that CO2.

Any scientist care to educate me?

"Common sense" is the claim of those that have no clue. But sure, I will gladly help you. Let's do this properly. What problem do you have with ice core temperature data? The quick answer is to your complaint is that it is not that simple. Different parts of the world warmed faster than others. This article explains it much better than I can:

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

But here is just one graph from it where it shows that Antarctic temperatures closely match CO2 levels and there was a lag in temperatures for the globe overall:

The red line is Antarctic temperatures. The yellow dots are CO2 levels and the blue is global temperatures. When you have questions it is best to check multiple sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One point on water vapor. Water vapor is not seen as a driving force since it is short term. It acts as a magnifying source. A change in CO2 levels will increase the heat slightly which will increase water vapor and that will in turn raise temperature even more. Within limits there is feedback, but that is controlled by the base temperature set by CO2. A cold snap can remove quite a bit of the water vapor from the atmosphere and then it will have to build up again form its base. Carbon dioxide is long term. It gets removed from the atmosphere very slowly. That is why it is more of a concern for long time warming than either water or methane.

 

[Halbhh]

One point on water vapor. Water vapor is not seen as a driving force since it is short term. It acts as a magnifying source. A change in CO2 levels will increase the heat slightly which will increase water vapor and that will in turn raise temperature even more. Within limits there is feedback, but that is controlled by the base temperature set by CO2. A cold snap can remove quite a bit of the water vapor from the atmosphere and then it will have to build up again form its base. Carbon dioxide is long term. It gets removed from the atmosphere very slowly. That is why it is more of a concern for long time warming than either water or methane.

Makes sense. An interesting question in my mind is are there tipping points. For instance, one hypothesis I saw many years back was that warming temperatures in tundra regions like Siberia would greatly accelerate the decomposition of plant matter there, resulting in a huge release of methane, itself a potent green house gas. Another one is how when arctic ice cover is reduced, then the open water absorbs more sunlight than the ice it has displaced. Are there powerful positive feedback mechanisms that are able to drastically accelerate warming is such an interesting question. Another fascinating aspect is how deep ocean upwelling is so important to a yearly average temperature, and not too predictable either, with the heat capacity of the oceans about 1100 times that of the atmosphere. We could have quite a wilder ride than many realize, seems a possibility, once oceans have warmed enough. (and just so you know, that's a specific forecast from Christ, as best I understand it)

 

[Aardverk]

"Common sense" is the claim of those that have no clue. But sure, I will gladly help you.

Thank you Subduction Zone. Unfortunately, by showing a very recent 22,000 year graph, you seem to be implying that the Vostock and benthic forens data is irrelevant. Both of those studies show temperature rise preceding CO2 & CH4 rise many times over the last 400,000 years. If you want to draw conclusions from the data, the whole 400,000 year period is vastly more significant statistically that just selecting the last 22,000 years. Please also look at the dust figures.

Pretty multi-colour graphs with misleading scales are easy to produce but why are we not allowed to see the data? Do YOU personally have access to the data? Have YOU been able to analyse it or are you just relying on almost meaningless graphs of a fairly recent and undeniably anomalous period? I don't mean data on pdf either. You can't analyse that. Again I am not trying to catch you out, I really am trying to find someone who can give me access to the raw data.

The last 22,000 years (on that graph) is pretty meaningless. Almost half of that period was the anomalous 10,000 year 'static' temperature that I mentioned earlier. In all the previous 100,000 year cycles that 'static' period did not exist. Why didn't it happen this time? Who knows, but it looks as if temperatures are currently just playing 'catch-up' from whatever held back the natural increase.

In the 70's 'most climate scientists agreed' that we had peaked on the 100,000 year cycle and were heading down for another ice-age. How reliable were 'most climate scientists' then? How reliable are 'most climate scientists' now? 1970 to 2018 is again a meaninglessly short period in terms of the 100,000 year cycles. For all we know, we have already gone past the 'tripwire' that causes temperatures to fall back to another ice-age every 100,000 years - whatever that tripwire may be. Very recent years are irrelevant. In 50 years time we may well be looking back at this nice warm period wishing it would return.

I don't mean to be critical of you but you have not explained anything yet, you have simply pointed to one article. I am not trying to catch you out but do you actually understand the theory beyond the simplistic 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas' argument? If you do, how about rising to the challenge and explaining it - rather than relying on someone else's articles and 'most climate scientists agree'? I don't expect you to do it all in one go but if you can start to explain it, we could then have a far more interesting discussion getting deeper and deeper into the detail and the 'proof'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you Subduction Zone. Unfortunately, by showing a very recent 22,000 year graph, you seem to be implying that the Vostock and benthic forens data is irrelevant. Both of those studies show temperature rise preceding CO2 & CH4 rise many times over the last 400,000 years. If you want to draw conclusions from the data, the whole 400,000 year period is vastly more significant statistically that just selecting the last 22,000 years. Please also look at the dust figures.

Pretty multi-colour graphs with misleading scales are easy to produce but why are we not allowed to see the data? Do YOU personally have access to the data? Have YOU been able to analyse it or are you just relying on almost meaningless graphs of a fairly recent and undeniably anomalous period? I don't mean data on pdf either. You can't analyse that. Again I am not trying to catch you out, I really am trying to find someone who can give me access to the raw data.

The last 22,000 years (on that graph) is pretty meaningless. Almost half of that period was the anomalous 10,000 year 'static' temperature that I mentioned earlier. In all the previous 100,000 year cycles that 'static' period did not exist. Why didn't it happen this time? Who knows, but it looks as if temperatures are currently just playing 'catch-up' from whatever held back the natural increase.

In the 70's 'most climate scientists agreed' that we had peaked on the 100,000 year cycle and were heading down for another ice-age. How reliable were 'most climate scientists' then? How reliable are 'most climate scientists' now? 1970 to 2018 is again a meaninglessly short period in terms of the 100,000 year cycles. For all we know, we have already gone past the 'tripwire' that causes temperatures to fall back to another ice-age every 100,000 years - whatever that tripwire may be. Very recent years are irrelevant. In 50 years time we may well be looking back at this nice warm period wishing it would return.

I don't mean to be critical of you but you have not explained anything yet, you have simply pointed to one article. I am not trying to catch you out but do you actually understand the theory beyond the simplistic 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas' argument? If you do, how about rising to the challenge and explaining it - rather than relying on someone else's articles and 'most climate scientists agree'? I don't expect you to do it all in one go but if you can start to explain it, we could then have a far more interesting discussion getting deeper and deeper into the detail and the 'proof'.

Please provide a source for your claims so that I can know exactly what you are asking about. And if you need to see the data then you will probably have to go to the original peer reviewed material and that will cost a few bucks. Why be suspicious? If the data was misrepresented don't you think that some of the deniers would find out? There are deniers that do have access to the peer reviewed sources. If you are a student at any major university you can find it through the university libraries. I can only provide a limited amount of info for you.

Also at this point it looks like you are only making excuses for not accepting the findings of scientists. Why would you do that?

EDIT: And I really would like to see your source for the 1970's claim. A couple of scientists predicted an ice age was coming back. Nowhere near a consensus agreement. It made good copy so the newspapers hyped it up. The public press often gets science wrong. It is easy to get misled at times.

Second Edit: I can find some of the data for you, but it is not that simple. Follow this link and you can download all sorts of data on ice cores:
Ice Core | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)