The Global Warming Scam Is Being Exposed

[HitchSlap]

Correction, it was CCA (Co-Cordinating Lead Author) Robert Stavins from Harvard in the Chapter 13 of the AR5.

Ah, so he was the guy who got the coffee and donuts for the lead authors.

Got it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do people think the recent Warming Period after the Little Ice Age eventually became due to CO2 in the atmosphere?

Why do we think that increasing a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lead to warming?

Do you really need an answer to that question?

Do you stlll not understand the greenhouse effect?

 

[hurste1951]

Why do people think the recent Warming Period after the Little Ice Age eventually became due to CO2 in the atmosphere?

Two of the proposed causes for the LIA are solar variability and volcanic activity.

AFTER about the 1950's the solar factor FAILS to track with temperature.

Further there is some evidence that the LIA may have also had some help from the change in the Thermohaline Current in the North Atlantic which may have been impacted from the warming of the MWP (MEdieval Warm Period) which may have caused Greenland ice sheets to do some melting pumping more fresh water into the N. ATlantic (think about that when you wonder if it can possibly get cold due to warming...the answer might very well be yes, locally, and in Europe).

In addition the Black Death took out a HUGE swath of population causes changes in land use. Land use, if you were to read the IPCC reports is actually one of the potential causes of our current global climate change woes.

Causation through correlation is all the hypothesis can be.

Correlation in this case is predicated on a relatively robust understanding of the PHYSICAL reasons.

If I correlate FORCE to ACCELERATION and find that the slope is mass I should not be surprised since F=ma.

A correlation underlain by a rational explanation that fits physical laws is actually a GOOD THING.

Even the stuff you bring up about the LIA helps us better understand why AGW is more likely real than not.

 

[Heissonear]

And then when the "Science was Settled" we followed the scientific data produced from satallites and balloons and found. .......... Oh, it stopped warming 18 years ago and counting.

If CO2 was truely causing "Global Warming" since 1978, and for some reason natural factors "stopped" warming the earth, then the CO2 induced global warming would have continued beyond 1998, particularly beyond 2010.

That's what the so called climate experts said and showed in their computer models.

Let's not forget the history of what these climatologists SAID and simply sweep such experts work and CONCLUSIONS under the rug. THEY ALL GOT IT WRONG!

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanESM/CanESM_TR_400.jpg

 

[Heissonear]

Oh, Global Warming by CO2 now means no increase in Earth's atmospheric temperature.

Hot means cold

Droughts mean snow storms

Man-made Global Warming means no increase in warming

I get it. What ever happens now is due to CO2 induced Global Warming! A Eureka moment!

Dupsters.

Some "scientists" twist everything in order to push their agenda.


.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, Global Warming by CO2 now means no increase in Earth's atmospheric temperature.

Global temp has not gone back down to the same temps as the 1850's. Global warming is continuing.

I get it. What ever happens now is due to CO2 induced Global Warming! A Eureka moment!

Do you really think that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 30% is going to have no effects on global temperatures?

No one is saying that every bit of warming is due to CO2. What scientists are saying is that the majority of warming is due to human causes.

 

[hurste1951]

Oh, Global Warming by CO2 now means no increase in Earth's atmospheric temperature.

Hot means cold

Droughts mean snow storms

Man-made Global Warming means no increase in warming

You are wrong.

But more importantly you should also know that localized cooling can also occur as the overall average increases. This is why it is called "Climate Change" (even though the overall average is increasing, local areas can see varying weather.

Dupsters.

Some "scientists" twist everything in order to push their agenda.

I'll say. You seem to be twisting the science to push your "agenda". Thankfully there are many of us on here who will attempt to keep BOTH sides of the story out there.

 

[Aldebaran]

Global temp has not gone back down to the same temps as the 1850's. Global warming is continuing.

Your stubborn adherence to this flimsy idea despite all the evidence to the contrary is, shall we say, "admirable".

Do you really think that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 30% is going to have no effects on global temperatures?

Nature balances things out. Carbon dioxide increases, plant consumption of it increases. Nature abhores a vacuum. Always has, always will.

No one is saying that every bit of warming is due to CO2. What scientists are saying is that the majority of warming is due to human causes.

So why did the warming stop 18 years ago? Population of humans hasn't exactly decreased during that time. Nor has technology. In fact, it has increased greatly. China has become a bigger polluter during that time than ever before.

 

[hurste1951]

Nature balances things out. Carbon dioxide increases, plant consumption of it increases. Nature abhores a vacuum. Always has, always will.

You betray a failure to appreciate the system. I might remind you that one of the earliest analyses of excess CO2 found that nature has a limit to its buffering capabilities.

In the case of CO2 there are natural sinks and sources called the CARBON CYCLE.

When you flood the system with too much CO2 the sinks can't re-absorb it fast enough. And before you know it you have something like the End Permian Extinction where greenhouse gases may have caused the extinction of 95% of the earth's biodiversity.

So it really helps in cases like this to understand that while nature can take care of itself, sometimes that "care" means getting rid of us. But if that's the solution that seems the "easiest" on the ol' pocketbook then I guess we have to deal with that.

So why did the warming stop 18 years ago?

Likely short term changes in the Pacific Ocean circulation. The heat is still building up and the energy is still there. A lot of it is going into the oceans right now, but it's still there. Which shouldnt' be a surprise since energy can't be created or destroyed without some change in mass.

 

[Heissonear]

Global temp has not gone back down to the same temps as the 1850's. Global warming is continuing.



Do you really think that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas by 30% is going to have no effects on global temperatures?

No one is saying that every bit of warming is due to CO2. What scientists are saying is that the majority of warming is due to human causes.

You do not get it. You need to study more to comprehend when some answers your question and shows error in your post.

Again, no warming for 18 years and counting. This cannot happen when we apply and only use what you have posted. Whst we see is natural factors still account for what we observe.

You keep saying CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Dah, we know that.

You say it is a GHG. Dah. You think we missed that?

You say "what is it then doing". I reply to you "so far nothing". Look at the real world data, the earth-atmosphere system, in which the earth is 3/4 covered with water. What is happening? For 18 years no warming.

Were we in a natural warming period after the LIA before addition CO2 by man was added to the atmosphere? Yes.

Did those natural factors stop? No.

Has the natural factors become over ridden by CO2 GHG effects? Has the effects of CO2 taken over? No.

All evidence seen can can still be plainly AND more accurately be explained by natural factors, even the past 18 years and this is the second winter in a row showing real arctoc intensity - severe earth cooling - the opposite of heat accumulation.

Cooling is not warming.

Snow is not droughts.

Get it. The "CO2 took over" you say "has to happen" is not happening.

Donyou realize all of the elite climatologists that studied and made scientific projections in the 1980's and 1990's about CO2 induce Global Warming have had their prediction made null. That mean their predictions did not happen. That means the expert climate science knowledge they had failed them. Their science was full of error and apparently incomplete. What they predicted did not come to pass. The Science is not Settled. It is obvious.

So far you have not got this. Think before you post again.

 

[hurste1951]

Again, no warming for 18 years and counting. This cannot happen when we apply and only use what you have posted.

Incorrect. Many things have been posted and noted that can account for this "pause". Including but not limited to changes in the Pacific ocean circulation.

Also as noted elsewhere the heat is still there and it's going into the ocean sink.

Whst we see is natural factors still account for what we observe.

True! The Pacific Ocean cycle is probably a natural event. And it won't change the trend to global warming one whit because the Pacific Ocean circulation status it is now in will likely NOT LAST FOREVER. Our continued pumping of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere will ultimately show up again. Just as it did in the 1970's after we removed a lot of the sulfate aerosols we had put into the atmosphere.

You say "what is it then doing". I reply to you "so far nothing"

This is incorrect. The energy that is being absorbed by the additional CO2 has to go somewhere. It can't just "disappear" and do "nothing". Unless one wishes to toss laws of thermodynamics.

Look at the real world data, the earth-atmosphere system, in which the earth is 3/4 covered with water. What is happening? For 18 years no warming.

You missed your own point here. The warming is going into the oceans. You know the part you just mentioned that covers 3/4 of the earth's surface.

Were we in a natural warming period after the LIA before addition CO2 by man was added to the atmosphere? Yes.

Yes and after the mid 1950's the various factors that may have accounted for some of that warming are no longer counting for warming but the warming continues. Hmmmmm.

Did those natural factors stop? No.

WRONG. The solar flux after the 1950's cannot account for the warming. Last I heard the general volcanic activity is incapable of accounting for the warming.

Has the natural factors become over ridden by CO2 GHG effects? Has the effects of CO2 taken over? No.

Wrong again. That appears to be EXACTLY what has happened.

All evidence seen can can still be plainly AND more accurately be explained by natural factors

WRONG again.

, even the past 18 years and this is the second winter in a row showing real arctoc intensity - severe earth cooling - the opposite of heat accumulation.

Fail. One cannot use a single isolated weather event to prove or disprove AGW.

Cooling is not warming.

This has been explained to you before but I'm glad to explain it to you again.

Let's talk Little Ice Age. There's some evidence that the warming in the northern hemisphere during the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) may have melted some of the ice on Greenland which put more fresh water into the North Atlantic which moderated the GULF STREAM (Thermohaline Circulation) which may have lead to the Little Ice Age cooling.

The history of the Gulf Stream shows many times of "reorganization". It is possible that if sufficient ice from Greenland melts and puts fresh water into the North Atlantic because the globe is WARMING it will reorganize or even SHUT DOWN the Gulf Stream which will lead to LOCALIZED COOLING IN WESTERN EUROPE.

Western Europe is currently warmer than it should be due to it's latitude and location on the western side of a continental mass. The REASON western Europe is warm is because of the Gulf Stream.

Surely this science isn't beyond you. It's pretty simple stuff. But don't just believe me, read it here:

http://www.climate-talks.net/2004-ENVRE130/Open-Letter/19971128-Science-Broecker.pdf

Donyou realize all of the elite climatologists that studied and made scientific projections in the 1980's and 1990's about CO2 induce Global Warming have had their prediction made null.

Wrong again. The predictions have held up relatively well. Again there is no SINGLE PREDICTION. There are a family of prediction scenarios.

You should read the IPCC before criticizing it. You will find that just about every single claim you have ginned up as NOT being discussed by the scientists has been in the IPCC reports from the beginning.

So far you have not got this. Think before you post again.

Perhaps you should read what others write. But I and Loudmouth and others on here can keep shooting down your screeds as necessary.

Just keep posting. It's easy target practice.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do not get it. You need to study more to comprehend when some answers your question and shows error in your post.

What error? Have global temps gone back down to what they were before the Industrial Revolution? Yes or no? If they haven't, then global warming is still with us. It hasn't stopped.

Again, no warming for 18 years and counting.

You keep saying CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Dah, we know that.

You say it is a GHG. Dah. You think we missed that?

Then what do you think happens when we trap more heat in the atmosphere? Do you think the Earth is somehow able to violate the laws of thermodynamics?

You say "what is it then doing". I reply to you "so far nothing".

Temperatures are STILL higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution when we started pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. What it has done is raise global temps.

For 18 years no warming.

For 150 years, warming.

Has the natural factors become over ridden by CO2 GHG effects? Has the effects of CO2 taken over? No.

Evidence?

All evidence seen can can still be plainly AND more accurately be explained by natural factors, even the past 18 years and this is the second winter in a row showing real arctoc intensity - severe earth cooling - the opposite of heat accumulation.

Evidence?

Cooling is not warming.

So you are saying that winter disproves global warming?

 

[Army of Juan]

There's currently a heat wave in Australia

Heatwave hell as 5000 dead bats drop from trees in Casino, northern NSW | NT News

 

[Heissonear]

There's currently a heat wave in Australia

Heatwave hell as 5000 dead bats drop from trees in Casino, northern NSW | NT News

You know, it must be caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. It is amazing what it cannot do!

Or DISINFORMATION!

 

[Aldebaran]

You know, it must be caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. It is amazing what it cannot do!

Or DISINFORMATION!

Let's not forget that the United States, all 50 of the states (57 if you're the president) have had below normal temperatures for the entire past week. Balance, my friend. Balance.

 

[hurste1951]

Let's not forget that the United States, all 50 of the states (57 if you're the president) have had below normal temperatures for the entire past week. Balance, my friend. Balance.

This isn't how science works. You cannot take one weather event to prove or disprove global warming.

It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Strathos]

This isn't how science works. You cannot take one weather event to prove or disprove global warming.

It just doesn't work that way.

Tell them that as many times as you want, it will never sink in.

 

[hurste1951]

Tell them that as many times as you want, it will never sink in.

But Heissonear is so quick to take news organizations to task when they associate a particular weather event with AGW blowing it out of proportion.

So it doesn't make sense when he does this sort of thing.

 

[Heissonear]

What is scientific stupidity?

Who will believe it?

Well we have been taught that hot means cold, droughts mean snow storms, and Global Warming mean no earth temp increase in 18 years, BUT we have another one!

It has turned out that the CO2 trapping of Earth's emission of longwave radiation really is not the source and cause of Global Warming as first taught!

This means reduction in longwave radiation leaving earth really means an increase in longwave radiation leaving, and it is really shortwave IR directly heats CO2 and the earth.

Another Eureka moment, CO2 works opposite to what it is suppose to - and the Settle Science mean Unsettled Science!

So says the new MIT study!

PNAS | Mobile

Researchers show that a canonical view of global warming tells only half the story.

Genevieve Wanucha | Program in Atmospheres Oceans and Climate

November 10, 2011

In a paper out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, MIT researchers show that this canonical view of global warming is only half the story.

“While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.

One way the study can be useful is in guiding what researchers look for in satellite observations of Earth’s radiation budget, as they track anthropogenic climate change in the decades to come. “I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen,” Donohoe says. “We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”

Things about the effects of CO2 are becoming very clear, yes?

Dupsters present Iies with trash science since their Settled Science did not work as hypothesized. They still want us to jump when they say jump.

Dupsters. Liars. Story tellers of what will come to pass.

These authors present trash science to explain why their predictions and Settled Science was wrong.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well we have been taught that hot means cold, droughts mean snow storms, and Global Warming mean no earth temp increase in 18 years, BUT we have another one!

It has turned out that the CO2 trapping of Earth's emission of longwave radiation really is not the source and cause of Global Warming as first taught!

According to who? You?

This means reduction in longwave radiation leaving earth really means an increase in longwave radiation leaving, and it is really shortwave IR directly heats CO2 and the earth.

What are you babbling about? Please explain how increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will capture LESS of the IR photons being radiated by the surface of the Earth. What you are proposing goes against the most basic physics.

Things about the effects of CO2 are becoming very clear, yes?

We do not have an absolutely clear idea of what will happen due to warming. What we do have a clear idea of is CO2 is causing warming. You try to confuse the two to cast doubt on the warming.