England Court PROVES "climate change" is a FARCE

[Vox]

seems like YOU don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Until YOU and your cohort prove that a TRACE gas in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, there is nothing to discuss.

So far NOBODY has proven it.

Hysterical speculations are not PROOFS.

Why all of your CO2 warmers are specifically concentrated on the trace gas is understandable - the dire need to connect something not related to human activity to that activity in order to punish that activity and make money

I don't know why you're laughing, unless it's at your own mindless parroting of what other people say. The fact that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant to the discussion. There are plenty of studies that show that Earth's climate would be much cooler, if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, the important factor in the equation is the % increase NOT the absolute increase. Learn some science before making yourself look like a fool again, please. All the hysterical claims are actually coming from the deniers. Their ignorance would be really funny, if it weren't so sad and potentially dangerous to us all.

except the plot of the increase of the temperature depending on the concentration is NOT linear. And actually with increased concentration of the CO2 the warming effect DIMINISHES


According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.
The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.

Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).

The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is acknowledged by the IPCC


Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial diminution effect with increasing concentrations effect exists, it certainly does not go out of its way to emphasize it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that they attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their primary message -“man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change”.
The IPCC certainly does not explain these devastating consequences for the CAGW theory in their Summary for Policy Makers. This is because the IPCC is an essentially political organization, that is solely tasked with the promotion and presentation of man-made Climate Change from CO2 emissions, as an accepted and non-contentious fact for world’s politicians.
This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago.

From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approaching 400 ppmv, only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remains.

This can only give rise to a maximum of a further of ~+0.21°C. Thereafter beyond 1000+ ppmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.

It is for this irrefutable physical fact that the widely held alarmist policy ambition

“to constrain man-made temperature increase to only +2.0 °C”

could in fact never be reached, however much more man-made CO2 was emitted.

It is impossible to ever reach the much vaunted policy upper limit of +2.0 °C that has been promoted by politicians as a target upper limit of temperature effect caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A load of crap.! Have you even bothered to read the report? Have you read the current summary yet?

""The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem."

.

yeah, so... Einstein stood or fell on his differential equation model of time and space. Newton stood or fell on his ignoring the random statistical nature of friction. Your car runs on a computer. Your insurance company stands or falls on their computer models of risk. BP Oil prices and profits stand and fall on their supply and demand models. The ballistics for war ships stand and fall on computet models. The Apollo Space program and the space shuttle program stood and fell on computer models.



So, all you've proven is you don't understand science.

What, you think we still use sliderules and hand cranked adding machines?

Relativity has been ruthlessly tested for the last 100 years and has passed every test. AGW avoids the lab like Dracula meeting the morning Sun

 

[freedombecki]

While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.

Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.

I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.

Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com

" the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60%"

Well, there you go. Proof that you are an idiot that can't do math, percentages, and fractions. A 60% increase of nothing is nothing.

Why should anyone consider anything else you have to say as meaningful, given your incapable of the simplest things?

Can't you at least try? You did go to school like the rest of us, didn't you?

But the polar ice caps aren't "nothing", stupid. They not only exist, they have expanded by 60%...

How dumb are you exactly?

It's pretty obvious your links went unread.

Ignorance is such bliss.

 

[Vox]

In other words they LIE to US all to impose the CO2 emission limits on the industry, and the rising concentration of the CO2 does not matter anymore.

Nice, isn't it?

 

[Londoner]

Reagan predicted petroleum supplies would always be plentiful enough to keep oil below $4 gallon - especially when it came to middle eastern supplies which are being choked by competition from China and India. He said this when there was ample evidence of an approaching global oil peak. He said this when there was a growing movement to transition into a more diverse energy basket, including conservation, so that future generations would not be hostage to expensive oil. He said this while he was funded by big oil. Like the anti-Climate Change movement, Reagan also had the backing of conservative think tanks, judges and scientists.

And we are now paying the price for buying into Reagan's strategic lies about petroleum.

Does that mean Al Gore is right, or that this judge's very loose interpretation of his work is wrong?

Nope. I could give a shit about Global Warming because I think we're long past the due date on addressing it. I just know that the business community has a massive interest in undermining any finding that predicts that carbon emissions will increase the frequency and power of the super storms that recently put parts of New Jersey and NYC under water. Yes, Al Gore is a loon, but the Republican propaganda machine is just as invested in the issue, for reasons that have nothing to do with science or truth. I'd hate to be a water boy for either camp.

 

[Contumacious]

A load of crap.! Have you even bothered to read the report? Have you read the current summary yet?

""The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem."

.

yeah, so... Einstein stood or fell on his differential equation model of time and space. Newton stood or fell on his ignoring the random statistical nature of friction. Your car runs on a computer. Your insurance company stands or falls on their computer models of risk. BP Oil prices and profits stand and fall on their supply and demand models. The ballistics for war ships stand and fall on computet models. The Apollo Space program and the space shuttle program stood and fell on computer models.



So, all you've proven is you don't understand science.

What, you think we still use sliderules and hand cranked adding machines?

JUNK science, that is.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then by all means cite one that claims that everything in the Arctic is fine.

Here is your comment:

Back it up.

To get you started, here is a graph showing the pattern of Arctic ice...

NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource

Go back and read the my responses, your argument has most likely already been debunked.

And when called to site a reference, none is given. Instead, like a typical uneducated moron, you have nothing.

Shut your mouth, [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION]:. I whipped one of your fellow acolytes so badly in this thread, he didn't come back. Not one post. As for your links:

1. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...throwing-in-the-towel-on-agw.html#post7890052

2. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...throwing-in-the-towel-on-agw.html#post7890089

3. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...throwing-in-the-towel-on-agw.html#post7890114

4. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...throwing-in-the-towel-on-agw.html#post7890122

5. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...throwing-in-the-towel-on-agw.html#post7890139

And stay down.

 

[Saigon]

TK -

I'm not sure quite what your point is on this thread, but I would recommend taking a look at the NOAA site and reading some of the overviews there to try to get up to speed. At the moment you seem to be making "points" that are obviously factually invalid and have no scientific basis at all, and then claiming to have won the debate.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

On September 13, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2013. The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest* in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high on September 18, tied with last year’s maximum.

On September 13, 2013, sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year. In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will now climb through autumn and winter. However, a shift in wind patterns or a period of late season melt could still push the ice extent lower. The minimum extent was reached two days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK -

I'm not sure quite what your point is on this thread, but I would recommend taking a look at the NOAA site and reading some of the overviews there to try to get up to speed. At the moment you seem to be making "points" that are obviously factually invalid and have no scientific basis at all, and then claiming to have won the debate.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

On September 13, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2013. The minimum ice extent was the sixth lowest* in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, sea ice extent reached a record high on September 18, tied with last year’s maximum.

On September 13, 2013, sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year. In response to the setting sun and falling temperatures, ice extent will now climb through autumn and winter. However, a shift in wind patterns or a period of late season melt could still push the ice extent lower. The minimum extent was reached two days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15.

LOL. The NOAA is just as bad as the IPCC. You really believe I'm going to sit here and accept that? I'll take raw science over government funded science any day of the week. Besides, who was it who said the ice caps would completely melt away by 2013? Who said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035? Who said there would be a 1.0 C rise in global temperature in the next century? We hare not even at 1.0 C now! We are barely at 0.8 degrees C for the past almost 18 years! Global temperature anomaly does not respond to CO2 levels. Because CO2 plays an insignificant role in atmospheric chemistry even at 398.58 ppm. In fact, dinosaurs live in higher concentrations of CO2.

The melt of sea ice is cyclical. You should have already seen that the moment you saw the chart. Look at the "V" pattern. Normally you would expect to see it going all the way down. But sea ice melts are always cyclical, they respond to rises and drops in temperature and wind patterns, not to the amount of CO2 in the air. I suggest you read your own links before you post them. Nowhere does it mention that "AGW" played a role in this.

If you have good eyes, check this chart:

And then do some research on the Vostok, Law Dome and Dome C core sample analyses.

This is a quote from a poster on Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Take a look at this Vostok ice core:

The CO2 levels associated with past interglacials is 180 to 300 ppm, well below where we are now.

325 kya when CO2 went from 200 to 310 ppm, what did the temperature trend show? It shot up 3 or more degrees, didn’t it? The problem is that contemporary CO2 levels were already at 280 ppm during the Little Ice Age and have risen to 385 ppm; however, we’ve yet to see any hint of an equivalent temperature trend, not even latent heat in the seas (oh sure, there’s some, but it’s not piling up at the rate predicted).

OTOH look at this chart:

Light oxygen, isotopic Oxygen-16 is used to reconstruct paleoclimate b/c glaciers lock up light oxygen and reaches a minimum as ice ages reach an arid maximum.

If you superimpose the light oxygen data (flip & stretch) over the past 200ky, (that’s easy to do even with MS Paint) you’ll see that the light oxygen trend line matches more closely to the paleo temperature trend than does the paleo CO2 trend where CO2 & temperatures periodically slip out of tight correlation (between 80 - 110kya and 160 - 180 kya).

( superimposition of the light oxygen chart over the Vostok chart).

Eyeball analysis time: There are two discontinuities between CO2 & temperature that aren’t discontinuities between Light Oxygen and temperature.

Can you see the point? B/c of its evaporative and water-forming nature, light oxygen availability is a direct reflection of water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. So what’s the dominant driving agent? Is it CO2? Is it water vapor?

This is why climate agnostics aren’t won over by the pro-AGW paleoclimate studies, they seem anecdotal. If CO2’s effect were consistently strong (and it’s causes steeper temperature changes at lower concentrations) then temperatures would follow more closely to the CO2 line, but they don’t, temperatures follow the water vapor line (and vice versa). What CO2 effect there is is inconclusive.

CO2 may play a role, but it isn’t dominant throughout the paleo record. Just b/c it correlates doesn’t mean it causates.

Our current 380 ppm CO2 level isn’t reflected by the paleo data, contemporary CO2 levels have surpassed the level of spectral absorption that has been claimed to have caused that much warming in the paleo record. And the more CO2 is added to the air, the less additional effect it has in a trend of progressively diminishing returns.

Something’s inconsistent with the theory that CO2 drives temperatures.

More proof of against your fallacy:

I am way more versed on this subject that you would care to admit. Take your argument and go.

 

[Political Junky]

On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

Climate change: this is not science ? it?s mumbo jumbo - Telegraph

 

[Saigon]

TK -

You really believe I'm going to sit here and accept that?

If you are interested in the topic, and interested in science, then yes - I would believe that you would sit there and use the best sources available.

If you are not interested in the topic, and only interested in politices, then no -I would believe that you would rely on blogs, half-baked theories that you don't believe yourself, and outright lies.

The melt of sea ice is cyclical.

The fact that the Arctic partially melts and refreezes according to the seasons does NOT mean that it also melts and refreezes according to some mythical thousand year clock.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for that claim whatsoever, and any Sceptical site will explain that for you fairly clearly.

The Arctic melts because something causes it to do so, and only because something causes it to do so. We know what that it, how it functions, and there is very, very little disagreement or dispute around that.

I am way more versed on this subject that you would care to admit. Take your argument and go.

Um...I think not. I mean no offence to you as a person when I say that you seem to be simply lost on this topic. Just grabbing and posting charts from blogs and jumping to wild conclusions that any school kid could rebut are hardly the stuff of greatness.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK -

You really believe I'm going to sit here and accept that?

If you are interested in the topic, and interested in science, then yes - I would believe that you would sit there and use the best sources available.

If you are not interested in the topic, and only interested in politices, then no -I would believe that you would rely on blogs, half-baked theories that you don't believe yourself, and outright lies.

The melt of sea ice is cyclical.

There isn't a (literate) person on this board who believes that sea ice melts according to some mythical thousand year clock - you, least of all I imagine. The Arctic melts because something causes it to do so - not because it looks at its watch and decides it better start melting.

I am way more versed on this subject that you would care to admit. Take your argument and go.

Um...I think not. I mean no offence to you as a person when I say that you seem to be simply lost. Just grabbing and posting charts and jumping to wild conclusions any school kid could rebut are hardly the stuff of greatness.

I missed the part where you rebutted my argument. All you did was call them "lies." Seems to me I'm right, Saigon. The ice does melt at a cyclical rate, your own chart proved that. You are outmatched and you don't care to admit it. Would you care to rebut my argument instead of calling me names and dismissing my charts as lies? You are quite the intellectually dishonest type, Saigon.

 

[Saigon]

The ice does melt at a cyclical rate, your own chart proved that.

According to the seasons, yes, of course it does.

According to some thousand year cycle, no, of course it does not.

Climate changes when, and only when, something causes it to do so.

Would you care to rebut my argument instead of calling me names and dismissing my charts as lies?

I have referred you to the most reliable scientific sources available, and you have refused to look at them.

To be honest, I don't see a lot here to rebut anyway - just saying "oh, it's natural" hardly explains an accelerating pattern of decline.

If you are interested in the connection between CO2 and temperature, then read something about it from a genuine scientific source you trust, and that will help you to understand what is being claimed and what is not. At the moment it is very clear that you don't really get what scientists claim about rising temperatures.

This article explains some of where you are going wrong with the link between CO2 and temperature:

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've also delved into Paleoclimatology, which conveniently allows me to read Oxygen isotope decay charts like this one, which debunked AGW from the very beginning. You still using hockey stick charts over there, Saigon? Can you explain to me why the IPCC omitted the Law Dome series from its AR4 report? Oh yeah, that's climategate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The ice does melt at a cyclical rate, your own chart proved that.

According to the seasons, yes, of course it does.

According to some thousand year cycle, no, of course it does not.

Climate changes when, and only when, something causes it to do so.

Would you care to rebut my argument instead of calling me names and dismissing my charts as lies?

I have referred you to the most reliable scientific sources available, and you have refused to look at them.

To be honest, I don't see a lot here to rebut anyway - just saying "oh, it's natural" hardly explains an accelerating pattern of decline.

Well all this tells me is that you don't have a rebuttal, just a bunch of grandstanding and obfuscating.

Good night (or morning rather), Saigon.

 

[Saigon]

TK -

At the moment you have not presented anything to rebut.

As I said earlier, claiming that the accelerating collapse of the Arctic ice is "cyclical" only makes senses if you can present clear evidence of that cycle.

So far your argument seems to be that we should take your word for it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The ice does melt at a cyclical rate, your own chart proved that.

According to the seasons, yes, of course it does.

According to some thousand year cycle, no, of course it does not.

Climate changes when, and only when, something causes it to do so.

Would you care to rebut my argument instead of calling me names and dismissing my charts as lies?

I have referred you to the most reliable scientific sources available, and you have refused to look at them.

To be honest, I don't see a lot here to rebut anyway - just saying "oh, it's natural" hardly explains an accelerating pattern of decline.

If you are interested in the connection between CO2 and temperature, then read something about it from a genuine scientific source you trust, and that will help you to understand what is being claimed and what is not. At the moment it is very clear that you don't really get what scientists claim about rising temperatures.

This article explains some of where you are going wrong with the link between CO2 and temperature:

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Oh I'm sorry, CO2 is not responsible for temperature change. Not a chance.

New paper finds ?up to 30% discrepancy between modeled and observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere? | Climate Depot

But please tell me how what you just linked me to is "a reliable scientific source." The website you linked me to is run by John Cook, a Climate Physicist from the University of Queensland. He has a preconceived bias towards AGW, his posts are nowhere close to neutral. You need to know who you're dealing with before you insult my intelligence again.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK -

At the moment you have not presented anything to rebut.

As I said earlier, claiming that the accelerating collapse of the Arctic ice is "cyclical" only makes senses if you can present clear evidence of that cycle.

So far your argument seems to be that we should take your word for it.

And you should expect me to take yours? You've been lying to me the entire time. And this is where you storm out of the room, with the excuse "there is nothing to rebut." How obvious. You lost and now you try to save face with that garbage?

Ever hear of the Milankovich Cycles? Or something called the Tidewater Glaciation Cycle? Lets all do the Jedi Mind Trick and say "these aren't the cycles you're looking for." Oh by the way, here's the 1000 year cycle you asked for:

Broecker used changes in oxygen isotopes in deep-sea cores, analyzed by Emliani during 1955-1966, to point out the sawtooth nature of glacial cycles—a slow cooling followed by rapid warming. (Shown here are four different cores, with variation of oxygen-18 toward the right representing higher temperature. Time runs downward in thousands of years Before Present.)

From Broecker & van Donk, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics (1970) p. 171,
reproduced by permission of American Geophysical Union.

And I will repeat that the Vostok ice core data itself proved that ice melt was cyclical:

That is the end of your argument.

 

[Saigon]

TK -

No, I am not asking you to take my word for it.

I am suggesting that you read some of the best science we have available, and take it seriously.

On the Arctic, that is probably NOAA: NOAA Arctic Theme Page - A Comprehensive Arctic Resource

If you read that, it will at least get you up to speed on what is being claimed and what isn't, rather than just flailing around like you are now.

 

[Saigon]

Oh I'm sorry, CO2 is not responsible for temperature change. Not a chance.

New paper finds ?up to 30% discrepancy between modeled and observed solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere? | Climate Depot

But please tell me how what you just linked me to is "a reliable scientific source." The website you linked me to is run by John Cook, a Climate Physicist from the University of Queensland. He has a preconceived bias towards AGW, his posts are nowhere close to neutral. You need to know who you're dealing with before you insult my intelligence again.

Climate Depot? Seriously?

Honestly....here you are attacking a qualified climate physicist for "preconceived bias" and then presenting a blog as your alternative? Do you know who Marc Morano is, by any chance?! He was a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show in the early '90s - he is NOT A SCIENTIST.

The paper I linked to gives you a fairly good overview of what scientists are saying. I don't expect you to believe it, but it would at least help you understand what is being claimed.

Try and post with a little common sense.