Global warming-or is it?

Zweistein


Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #1,  »Last edited by Cycle
I encourage those interested to review the posts made here and here.


As a result of solar output falling faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, the convective winds containing the Polar Vortex are weakened, allowing the Polar Vortex to 'meander' and dump record levels of snow in more southerly regions (see chart above). This increases the albedo of those regions, whilst the sunless winter Arctic doesn't offset this increase. Thus Northern Hemisphere albedo increases overall, reflecting more sunlight back out to space before it can warm the planet... this is the amplification effect which, given enough snow coverage, tips the planet into glaciation events.


You'll note we're not even at the temperature of the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Roman Warm Period nor the Minoan Warm Period. None of the prior warm periods coincide with a preceding rise in atmospheric CO2 (CO2 lags temperature change at all measured time scales... the increasing global temperature increases oceanic respiration of CO2 in accordance with Henry's Law, as the solubility of gasses in water is temperature dependent). Hence CO2 is not a driver of climate, it's an effect of a climate changing from other causes.

As I described in the thread 'Logic', CO2 has been found to actually cause global cooling. Thus the Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-induced Global Warming hypothesis (and that's all it is... a hypothesis. It cannot be called a theory, it has no empirical substantiation... in fact, the empirical evidence nulls the hypothesis... so it's a falsified hypothesis at that) is not only scientifically implausible, it's scientifically impossible.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation and the Laws of Thermodynamics would be violated if CAGW were true.

The continued pushing of the already well-falsified CAGW hypothesis can mean only one thing... it's not about science, it's about politics. And it's a scam. A scam designed to blame you for global warming, so the politicians can tax and control you to a greater degree.

In short, the CAGW proponents have conflated causation and correlation. They've conflated the correlation between the recent Solar Grand Maximum's (F10.7 flux peaked at ~230) global temperature increase with the increase of CO2 and attempted to state that it's the CO2 which is the cause of that temperature increase.

Of course, now that the sun has entered a quiescent phase (F10.7 flux average 68.43... below 100 denotes global cooling), solar activity has fallen faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, and it will remain in that quiescent phase until at least 2053, we have empirical evidence of global temperature falling by 0.6 C over the past 3 years, global SST (Sea Surface Temperature) falling, global land surface temperatures falling at the fastest rate in recorded history, sea level falling by 2.75 mm over the past 2 years, the typical weakening of the Polar Vortex seen during periods of global cooling (and its resultant record cold and snow in further-south regions), a decline of between 5 and 10 C in the lower and middle mesosphere during the past three decades (ironically, correctly attributed to increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, while ignoring the ramifications of that correct attribution of the cooling effects of CO2), causing thermospheric contraction (leading experts to project that space junk would stay in orbit for as long as 25% longer due to less atmospheric drag)... the CAGW hypothesis and the entire global warming scam is falling apart.

As such, those pushing the scam are scrambling to remain relevant and retain some semblance of credibility... some of them have revised sea level rise projections downward while the more alarmist (such as Mann) have doubled-down, dredging up the old "NY is going to be flooded!" Al Goreism, they were caught adjusting temperature records as they happened in order to try to erase the current cold conditions, they've said the record cold covering most of North America, Asia, Europe and even extending to:

- there being more than 15" of snow in the Sahara Desert,

- many frosts during summer in southern Brazil (they're calling it the "Year Without A Summer", a tribute to the year 1816),

- a record cold Australian winter,

- the heaviest snow in Naples, Italy in 50 years,

- the beaches of France being covered in 6" of snow (for the first time in 30 years),

- summer snow in New Zealand.

...was just a "hole" in global warming, and they've actually stated "That snow outside is what global warming looks like."... yeah... in liberal NewSpeak, "Cold Is The New Warm".

Their cognitive dissonance must be clanging in their skulls like a bell on an old-timey fire truck... or it would if they actually believed the BS they shovel at the hoi polloi.

I have a most apropos adage: "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be attributed to greed."

The world currently spends $1,000,000,000 (one billion US dollars) a day in attempting to "prevent" their claimed (but in actuality, nonexistent) anthropogenic global warming... and the Paris climate accord, if fully implemented, would cost upwards of $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion US dollars), while by its own admission only "postponing" their claimed (but in actuality, nonexistent) anthropogenic global warming by 4 years.

In other words, Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-induced Global Warming (CAGW) is the largest scam ever perpetrated upon the world.
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #2,  »Last edited by Cycle
Nothing to see except a whole bevy of peer-reviewed scientific studies which reveal CAGW as a scam.

I've got 30 peer-reviewed studies showing no link between CAGW and hurricane intensity / frequency.

I've got 285 peer-reviewed studies from 2017 alone showing that global temperature is not correlated to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I've got several retractions of studies from some of the heavyweights pushing the CAGW scam.

I've got a few attempts by those pushing the CAGW scam to SLAPP-suit anyone questioning their anti-science rhetoric... all of which were either dismissed (with prejudice) or dropped.

I've got ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 showing attempts at colluding to change the peer-review process to 'pal-review' and to exclude data from an IPCC report because it didn't fit the narrative.

I've got one university spending a half million dollars to fight an FOIA request for their climate 'scientist's' data.

I've got a climate 'scientist' committing contempt of court in Canada for refusing to release the falsified data he used to testify before Congress with.

I've got 'red team/blue team' debates in which the climate alarmists get beaten badly every single time, despite sending their best people to do the debating.

And on top of all that, I've got science on my side... you cannot refute that CO2 is transparent to downwelling radiation and very nearly transparent to upwelling radiation... so just how is 0.041% of the atmosphere, which is nearly transparent to all radiation except that which corresponds to a blackbody temperature of approximately -81C (CO2's absorption spectrum) warming anything at all?

It's amazing how the scientific method wins out over hand-waving, rhetoric, alarmism and falsehoods. Every. Single. Time.

What've you got? A stubborn insistence upon denying scientific reality? :D

massive

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #3,  »
they cant even accurately predict the weather , if they did , theyd be fortune telling

Zweistein

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #4,  »
CO2 is food for plants, nothing else. Now, what happens when you lower co2 in the atmosphere?

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #5,  »
The plants die.

All of them.

All plants dead.

The end.

 :rofl:

PeakPositive


onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #7,  »Last edited
Nothing to worry about, LOL
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-12-drought-south-increase-since-fall-dry-outlook
Quote
Drought Has Expanded Rapidly Across the Southern U.S. Since Fall and the Outlook Into Spring Is Worrisome
Drier-than-average conditions have impacted much of the South since early fall, resulting in a rapidly expanding drought across the region. Unfortunately, this trend in below-average precipitation is expected to continue into early spring.
The latest data released by the U.S. Drought Monitor this week showed that almost 58 percent of the contiguous U.S. is seeing at least abnormally dry conditions.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-08-united-states-2017-third-warmest-year-noaa
Quote
2017 Was Third-Warmest Year on Record for U.S
In 2017, the United States had its third-warmest year in 123 years of records, with record warmth felt in a handful of states in the South, according to a just-released government report.
I think many other countries will be laughing when the southern U.S. see's massive crop failures again but it won't be the U.S. farmers who are seeing ever increasing water shortages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-about-to-hit-a-water-crisis-2015-4
Quote
A looming national issue
While the rest of the US hasn't been ordered to reduce water use, that doesn't mean we have a free pass to use as much water as we want. Many states — 4o out of 50 according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office— have at least one region that's expected to face some kind of water shortage in the next 10 years.
I think CO2 and supposed climate change is the least of your worries and it could be an interesting summer. At the end of the day there is a great deal of speculation on both sides however I think all can agree that something is happening.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #8,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 02:35 PM
Nothing to worry about, LOL
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-12-drought-south-increase-since-fall-dry-outlook
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-08-united-states-2017-third-warmest-year-noaaI think many other countries will be laughing when the southern U.S. see's massive crop failures again but it won't be the U.S. farmers who are seeing ever increasing water shortages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-about-to-hit-a-water-crisis-2015-4
I think CO2 and supposed climate change is the least of your worries and it could be an interesting summer. At the end of the day there is a great deal of speculation on both sides however I think all can agree that something is happening.
The following is from a post I made on another site:
Quote
The Symptoms of Global… Warming?

Here’s an interesting article… the vicious cold which large swaths of the world finds itself beset with due to a weakened polar vortex has been claimed by the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks as “DUUURRRHHH! Pruuf!” of CAGW. Al ‘ManBearPig’ Gore himself said this was ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’.

“For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast.”

{ASIDE: And there is drought in Africa… South Africa has declared a national emergency due to drought; there is drought in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia which UNICEF has said threatens 18.4 million people; OxFam says 30 million people in Yemen and Nigeria are on the brink of starvation due to drought. Zimbabwe and Uganda are also experiencing drought There’s also drought in India which the Indian government is attempting to ameliorate by teaming up with an Israeli firm to extract drinking water from thin air. Central America has severe to exceptional drought watches stretching from Baja, Mexico to Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima, and Michoacan further south. And of course, scientists working in the Middle East are predicting “endless mega-droughts”.}

So that quote above looks pretty damaging to global warming skeptics, no? Except for the one sentence preceding it…

“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling.”

That’s from Time magazine, Jun 24, 1974.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060721203314/http://time-proxy.yaga.com:80/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

You’ll remember the 70’s as the era when the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempted to tell everyone they’d be buried under a mile of ice in less than a decade, unless governments threw money at the “experts” so they could spread coal dust on the poles ‘to save humanity!’. Now a lot of those same sort of Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are denying anything of the sort, saying Spock hosting a program extolling ice age freeze-porn was a “myth”, that the Newsweek, Time and hundreds of other articles weren’t “scientific studies” (yeah, but they were based upon those “scientific studies”… remember?).

“The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA’s senior climatologist: ‘The forecast is for no change.'”
– Time Magazine, 1977

Hundreds of articles were written and many TV shows were aired, based upon the NOAA prediction of continued cold. They even trotted out Howard Kronkite (the most trusted man in America?) to push the ice-age scare:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

And of course, you had the ever-ubiquitous humanity-hating anti-capitalists saying we needed to get rid of democracy ‘so we can save humanity’… same as today. Nevermind that capitalism has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty in the past century, whereas their socialism has killed more than 124 million and impoverished even more in the past century. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In point of fact, the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks admitted to what they now call a “myth”:
“One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2 C cooling.” – Climatic Change, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp. 159–183, June 1985 Thomas R. Stewart, Michael H. Glantz

So the NOAA was pimping an ice age when they thought it’d get them more government money, and now they’re doing the same for CAGW, all while denying any involvement in what the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks now call a “myth”, despite their quotes from that period being readily available.
And in other news, it's been discovered that a very basic, very fundamental, very elementary 'error' was made in climate models... the climate modelers assumed no feedback forcing for surface emissions for all the years prior to the industrial age, yet assumed a very large feedback forcing for the minor temperature change (and thus the surface emissions) after the industrial age... they attempted to attribute two different effects to the same thing.

To cover for this (and to still allow them to blame CO2 for the completely natural warming), they jacked up the feedback forcing for water and CO2, while lowering the forcing for our only source of energy, the sun... the IPCC report has a nearly zero solar effect in their models.

The only global warming taking place is in the computer models of the IPCC and their politicized ilk. In the real world, empirical evidence shows the planet is cooling. In effect, they're asking you to disbelieve your own lying eyes, and rely upon them... and any time someone does that, it's usually a prelude to some sort of abuse being perpetrated against you.

You've been lied to. Don't be gullible. Figure things out for yourself. Don't rely upon the so-called 'experts', because they have an agenda.

Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/
The parties will not be able to dismiss our result lightly. To refute it, they would have to show that our pre-industrial feedback fraction f = 0.08, obtained by theoretical means rooted in mainstream control theory, is incorrect; that our industrial-era value f = 0.05, obtained empirically from IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to date and from the HadCRUT4 temperature record, is also incorrect; that our campaign of ten empirical calculations giving a mean feedback fraction f = 0.12, is incorrect; that the rate of observed warming over the past 68 years is either incorrect or irrelevant; that the rate of observed warming this century to date is also either incorrect or irrelevant; that the results from our test rig are inapplicable; that the results from a government laboratory are likewise inapplicable; and, above all, that it is justifiable to assume that control theory is wrong and that, per impossibile, 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.

We do not believe in magic.
You'll also note the pre-industrial era feedback forcing fraction was higher than the industrial era feedback forcing fraction. That alone negates CAGW... while also corroborating what I'd said previously about CO2 actually causing global cooling.

The recently ended Solar Grand Maximum, according to the climate 'scientists', had absolutely nothing to do with temperature change... in reality, our increased anthropogenic CO2 emission partially offset the solar forcing-caused temperature increase.

In other words, if we hadn't dumped all that CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet would have warmed more than it did.

Another stake in the heart of CAGW:

The work of Niels Henrik David Bohr (1922 Nobel prize winner) proved that when a gas absorbs electromagnetic radiation it does not heat the gas, it causes the electrons in the molecule to gain energy and move to a higher orbital radius (higher potential energy, which is released (when the electron subsequently drops to a lower orbital radius) in the form of photons of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron). And since the photon emitted is the same wavelength as the photon absorbed, there is no extra energy with which to increase molecular kinetic energy (heat). E=hf is a well-established relation, known as the Planck-Einstein relation.

Gasses heat by conduction, which results in the molecule moving at higher velocity (higher kinetic energy)... that is the heat we can measure with a thermometer.

In other words, for CAGW to be true, we'd have to tear down everything we know about quantum mechanics.

So even quantum mechanics proves that the CAGW hypothesis is total bunkum.


Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #9,  »
Quote from Cycle on March 19th, 04:27 PM
You've been lied to. Don't be gullible. Figure things out for yourself. Don't rely upon the so-called 'experts', because they have an agenda.
The beautiful thing in all this is:

The elite stick to a plan, forever.  If global warming doesn't work, they'll back-off and come at you again with climate change, but it's the same gig every time.  The chutzpah these guys have is completely over-the-top.  If you fail to see that, then you're really not paying attention, because it's right in your face.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #10,  »Last edited
As an argument one could take climate change out of the equation. So lets say the record heat waves and drought are a short term phenomena of less than 50 years. That does not change the fact that all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution. As we all know acid rain is beyond dispute and based on decades of science. It is based on basic science found in any high school text book. Thus even if you could dodge the climate change bullet mother nature still has a full clip and your going to lose. Then we have those large yellow clouds of toxic smog hanging over every major city for all to see due to fossil fuel pollution. Toxic clouds everyone is breathing which has now been linked indirectly to more deaths than all other diseases combined. I remember the first time I flew into LAX, a monument to human arrogance with pavement and buildings and millions of people all covered in a thick yellow toxic smog as far as the eye could see in every direction... it was mind boggling.

So you even if long term climate change is not directly linked to burning fossils fuels that in no way changes the fact that burning fossil fuels is destroying the environment and it is killing people. It is a dirty filthy toxic and primitive way to transform energy and every intelligent and modern society is moving away from them. So in effect... the argument for or against CO2 induced climate change has little relevance when compared to the massive number of problems associated with burning fossil fuels.

Here is an interesting read on the subject.
Vaclav Smil -- "Energy and Civilization: A History".

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #11,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 07:57 PM
As an argument one could take climate change out of the equation. So lets say the record heat waves and drought are a short term phenomena of less than 50 years. That does not change the fact
For some value of "fact".
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 07:57 PM
that all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution.
https://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/changes-river-chemistry-affect-water-supplies
Quote from https://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/changes-river-chemistry-affect-water-supplies
Over time spans of 25 to 60 years, two-thirds of the rivers had become significantly more alkaline and none had become more acidic.
Whoopsie... seems you've been caught chugging the libtard koolaid again. Don't you ever check your "facts" before you post? :D

It seems Mother Nature has no problem counteracting the tiny amount of "acid rain" we cause.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2249/report.pdf
Quote
The increase in New England and New York occurred primarily before the mid-1950's. Since the mid-1960's, there has been no significant change in the acidity of precipitation in this region.

The decrease in pH from 6.05 in the mid-1950's to recent (1978) values of about 4.1 was attributable almost entirely to the decrease in alkaline dust.
Seems it has more to do with less dust being kicked up, rather than any anthropogenic cause. You'll note the 4.1 pH value was from 1978, right about the time that anthropogenic emissions of acid rain-causing pollutants was at its worst... it's since rebounded to an average of 5.5 to 5.8, depending upon several factors (such as temperature of the rain, location collected, etc.).

If you insist upon being alarmist and promulgating incorrect information, you can expect that others will take you to task for it.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #12,  »Last edited
Okay cycle
If I have to be the only adult in the room before Matt has to close yet another thread then so be it. It seems obvious you have no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult. Good luck with that.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #13,  »Last edited by Cycle
That's why I said, "It seems Mother Nature has no problem counteracting the tiny amount of "acid rain" we cause.".

The alkaline rock will never be gone... it's ubiquitous. Your lack of sense of scale is showing again.

Further, your reading comprehension problem has reared its ugly head again:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2249/report.pdf
Quote
The increase in New England and New York occurred primarily before the mid-1950's. Since the mid-1960's, there has been no significant change in the acidity of precipitation in this region.

The decrease in pH from 6.05 in the mid-1950's to recent (1978) values of about 4.1 was attributable almost entirely to the decrease in alkaline dust.
Here's some more info:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1966.tb00236.x
Quote from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1966.tb00236.x
Since 1957 more than 200 samples of rain water have been analysed at the Meteorological Observatory of Dresden‐Wahnsdorf. At four mountain summit stations and one coastal station fog water was sampled and analysed.

The yearly mean of the pH has remained constant since 1958.
Oh look, US emission of 'acid rain' causing pollution has been dramatically falling:


Further, your lack of knowledge of chemistry is showing:


You should be embarrassed. You specifically said:
Quote from onepower
...all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution.
That has quite obviously been proven incorrect.
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #14,  »
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 08:34 PM
Okay cycle
If I have to be the only adult in the room before Matt has to close yet another thread then so be it. It seems obvious you have no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult. Good luck with that.
Presenting facts corroborated by peer-reviewed studies is "no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult" to you.

You've been wrong about everything you've posted thus far... Occam's Razor asserts that you're simply tired of being proven wrong, rather than your transparent attempt at playing the part of "the bigger man". ;)

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #15,  »
I was going to make a public post, but I'm pretty sure Russ is already annoyed enough about the other thread and where that one went.

But I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F


And if fossil fuels aren't such a problem then why don't we just continue burning them and see what happens, Flack it...

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #16,  »
Cycle,

You're pretty good at digging up data.  What do you have in regards to ozone, specifically the ozone layer?

I keep hearing about ozone layer depletion and I'm quite curious as to whether this is solar related or some other cause.  There was a big push a while back about fluorocarbons and how freon and other such pressurized gases released into the atmosphere where causing major damage.  I never really bought into the story, but I'm still curious what you might know about it.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #17,  »Last edited
Quote
You've been wrong about everything you've posted thus far... Occam's Razor asserts that you're simply tired of being proven wrong
That is your personal opinion and I disagree because the premise of most all of your posts is that a cause (fossil fuel related pollution) has had literally no effect on the environment. Not only that but in many cases you have proposed that the cause has had an opposite effect to that known to the scientific community.

In any case your opinions are in disagreement with the consensus of the scientific community and in fact the premise of most all science which is that every cause must have an equivalent effect. I guess the obvious place to start is...

1) Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on people?

2)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on plants and animals?

3)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on the atmosphere or our water bodies?.

Here is an informative link to what actual scientists think---
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WrETtE2Wy70


Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #18,  »Last edited
Apoc4lypse
Quote
I was going to make a public post, but I'm pretty sure Russ is already annoyed enough about the other thread and where that one went.
But I'm just going to leave this here.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov…/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
There in lies the problem and cycles claims directly contradict what may be the largest scientific research institution on the planet filled with the best scientists. So who is one to believe?.... tens of thousands of the best scientists using the latest state of the art equipment "or" some anonymous guy on the internet who is afraid to post his real name.

You see real scientists with real credibility use there real names and they take responsibility for their claims unlike this absurd nonsense we see on the internet where ... b0B302 thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax because XYZ.com posted some fabricated and misleading data.

In my opinion anyone who claims to have compiled data or facts who is afraid to post their real name has zero credibility.

PeakPositive

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #19,  »
Happy 1st day of Spring and its snowing here, Burrrr!

If truly worried then plant some tree’s you can always chop them down for heat or if it get to warm you can use them for shade to cool off.

 :thumbsup:   :popcorn:

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #20,  »
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
That is your personal opinion
It also happens to be the opinion of the authors of those multiple peer-reviewed studies, and a great number of scientists and physicists throughout history.

So you deny Henry's Law, the Stefan-Boltzman Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the underlying premise of quantum mechanics, is what you're saying... right? What are you going to replace all those carefully empirically derived theories with? Magic?

We don't believe in magic. :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
and I disagree because the premise of most all of your posts is that a cause (fossil fuel related pollution) has had literally no effect on the environment.
I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that those pushing the CAGW scam are trying to attribute the contemporary temperature increase 100% to CO2, which is not only scientifically implausible, it's scientifically impossible. The proof of that is in the thread above.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
Not only that but in many cases you have proposed that the cause has had an opposite effect to that known to the scientific community.
I haven't just "proposed" it, I proved it.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
In any case your opinions are in disagreement with the consensus of the scientific community
If it's science, there is no consensus. If there's a consensus, it's not science. Science is not done by consensus, so your attempt at appealing to authority in this fashion fails from the outset.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
and in fact the premise of most all science which is that every cause must have an equivalent effect. I guess the obvious place to start is...

1) Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on people?
Your failure to appreciate the fact that the climate is dominated by the water cycle, not the carbon cycle, is noted. Not very scientific of you. :(

Did you know the IPCC can't even fully keep track of the carbon cycle? They call it the "net imbalance" problem... they can't account for 1.6 Gt +- 1.4 Gt / yr of CO2.

Did you know the IPCC has claimed carbon dioxide atmospheric residence time is as long as 250 years? If that's true, why does the graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration rise and fall on a semi-annual basis (take a gander at the chart from Moana Loa Observatory)? If what they said were true, the graph line would be smooth... in fact, CO2 residence time has been found to be ~5 months.

You'll note the two factors above are related... I'm sure you can do the research on CO2 fertilization to figure it out.

Do you believe the 37 Gt anthropogenic CO2 annually significantly changes the 759 Gt natural respiration of CO2? Especially given that plant uptake of CO2 has increased substantially with the observed global greening?

Do you not realize that CO2 is essential to all life on the planet, and we're very near the lowest the planet has been in the past million or so years? We go much lower, and plants won't be able to pull CO2 out of the air. When plants die, animals die, including humans.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
2)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on plants and animals?
The planet has greened. Do you believe plant life expanding its area by 2.5 times the size of Australia is detrimental to plants?

Did you not realize that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration means a plant doesn't have to open its stomata as often nor as long, making it able to survive with less water?

Do you believe with the observed global greening, that plant-eating animals have somehow suffered?
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
3)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on the atmosphere or our water bodies?.
You've already been embarrassed on the water bodies issue... your cheap ploy of returning to the same topic you've already conceded defeat on is shoddy debating tactic.

The water bodies are becoming more alkaline, not more acidic. The oceans have a much larger pH variance on a daily basis than is ascribed to the changes caused by humanity throughout its entire history.

But if you wish to be embarrassed a second time on the same topic, I'll accommodate you. :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 06:43 AM
Bahahaa! The Union of Concerned Scientists... the same group who just recently leapt to the ramparts to defend the climate scientists' practice of not making public their data, stating that to make their data publicly available would open the scientists up to scientific scrutiny of their methodologies? Honestly? This is the best you've got?

The scientific method requires that a scientist's methodology be open to scientific scrutiny. If it's not, science is not being done.

So in siding with the UoCS you're asking everyone to forego the scientific method and instead rely upon the unaccountable 'scientists' and their hidden data and methodologies... honestly, if you keep shooting yourself in the foot like that, people are gonna start thinking you're on my side. :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #21,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 07:52 AM
Apoc4lypse
There in lies the problem and cycles claims directly contradict what may be the largest scientific research institution on the planet filled with the best scientists.
Who says that? Oh yeah... those very same scientists... but they're not biased or anything.

So you're essentially making a plea to authority, while completely ignoring the actual underlying science which proves CAGW is nothing more than a scam... that's recursive logic... how's that working out for ya? :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 07:52 AM
So who is one to believe?.... tens of thousands of the best scientists using the latest state of the art equipment "or" some anonymous guy on the internet who is afraid to post his real name.
Your so-called "consensus" is anything but...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/21/ooops-not-al-31-scientific-societies-actually-signed-the-aaas-consensus-letter/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/21/ooops-not-al-31-scientific-societies-actually-signed-the-aaas-consensus-letter/
The American Physical Society has explicitly rejected the discussed letter: “The American Physical Society did not sign the letter because it was presented as a fait accompli, and there are significant differences between the letter and the APS Statement on Earth’s Changing Climate.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.
The actual consensus (depending upon which study you're looking at) ranges from 0.54% to 66%, but in no cases was it the claimed 97%. And to get that 66% figure, they excluded a great number of studies which didn't fit the narrative:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Sometimes the truth hurts. You've been lied to. You were gullible enough to believe the lies without bothering to check for yourself whether they were true or not. Now you're burying your head in the sand and denying science so you don't have to face that reality. Deal with it.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 07:52 AM
You see real scientists with real credibility use there real names and they take responsibility for their claims unlike this absurd nonsense we see on the internet where ... b0B302 thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax because XYZ.com posted some fabricated and misleading data.

In my opinion anyone who claims to have compiled data or facts who is afraid to post their real name has zero credibility.
Ironic, given that you're posting under a pseudonym. :D

Doubly ironic, given that you've just sided with the Union of Concerned Scientists and thus defended their desire to keep climate scientist data and methodology hidden from scientific scrutiny... apparently all you need is a name, not the data, nor the methodology. :D

The names of all the scientists are in those multiple peer-reviewed studies in the thread above. Your straw-man argument thus fails.

Here you go... educate yourself:
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/

The data says the planet was warming from a Solar Grand Maximum, that it has now ended, and that global temperature is dropping, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration continue increasing... how do you explain that in your fairy tale anti-science world?

Because in the world of science, it's easy to explain.

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #22,  »Last edited
Okay I will take a stab at this, first science is when a bunch of intelligent people or experts look at the data and determine how accurate it is and what it means. Then they share what they found with each other to form a consensus or common agreement.

For example:
Quote
The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.
So you can claim whatever you want, you can blame it on unicorns for all it matters however the greater majority of all experts on this planet disagree with everything you have said. The fact is you have proven nothing... nada.
Your cherry picking data which is not real science and if you ever went before any real experts they would reject it so fast it would make your head spin.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #24,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on March 20th, 01:23 AM
Cycle,

You're pretty good at digging up data.  What do you have in regards to ozone, specifically the ozone layer?

I keep hearing about ozone layer depletion and I'm quite curious as to whether this is solar related or some other cause.  There was a big push a while back about fluorocarbons and how freon and other such pressurized gases released into the atmosphere where causing major damage.  I never really bought into the story, but I'm still curious what you might know about it.
The ozone layer is a pretty difficult subject... it's an ionized oxidizer, so it'll latch onto pretty much anything. Thus, there can be any number of chemical causes for its decline.

But looking at what generates ozone in the lower stratosphere, we know that it's UV from the sun:


That's complicated by the creation and destruction mechanisms for ozone... particularly pressure. With an increase of UV-B, atmospheric expansion pushes the zone for ozone production away from its optimum by shifting optimum pressure downward, thus ozone creation decreases because the less-dense air allows UV-C (the only type of UV which has the energy necessary to generate ozone) to bypass the zone of optimum pressure.

We know that prior to 1999, the UV output of the sun had risen significantly (remember all those warnings about skin cancer and such?). We also know that recently, as the sun has slid into a quiescent phase, its UV output has dropped significantly.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826152217.htm
Quote from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826152217.htm
Results of a new study link a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the sun's ultraviolet radiation levels.
{ASIDE}
You'll remember my discussing the thermospheric shrinkage which is projected to cause space junk to remain in orbit for as long as 25% longer than previously predicted due to less atmospheric drag... the above is the reason why, exacerbated by the empirically observed and scientifically accepted cooling caused by increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.
{/ASIDE}

You'll note that global temperature is also tied to solar UV output. That's because the "solar constant" isn't so constant as we had believed... the UV output of the sun varies greatly between solar maximums and solar minimums.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Woods-Solar-UV-Variability.pdf
Solar Ultraviolet Variability Over Time Periods Of Aeronomic Interest
Thomas N. Woods and Gary J. Rottman
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Quote from http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Woods-Solar-UV-Variability.pdf
The solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a primary energy source for planetary atmospheres and is also a tool for remote sensing of the planets.
{ASIDE}
That goes back to my post above, which states that a gaseous molecule absorbing electromagnetic energy does not increase its kinetic energy, it increases its potential energy, which is then released in the form of photons of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron, and since photon wavelength is correlated to photon energy, there is no extra available energy with which to increase molecular kinetic energy (heat). This is how astrophysicists can determine what molecules make up an exoplanet's atmosphere. Gaseous molecules can only obtain or shed heat (kinetic energy) via conduction (collision, usually with the ground or water), not by absorption of EM energy. Thus the CAGW hypothesis fails, as one of its base claims is that CO2 is absorbing EM radiation and causing heating of the atmosphere.

Now, one may be asking... "But... but... but... the temperature changes as one goes up in altitude! How does it do that? Hmmm? HMMMM??"

And I'd encourage you to become more scientifically literate by studying up on adiabatic lapse rate, as well as the effects of stratospheric ionizing radiation. :D
{/ASIDE}

Anyway, since the solar UV output has waned due to the weakest solar cycle in more than 100 years and due to it falling into a solar minimum (and with a good possibility it will fall into a Grand Solar Minimum), there is less ozone created.