The pseudo science of man-made global warming...

[ScienceRocks]

I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol

 

[Ernie S.]

It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.

I'm sure you recall many of the conspiracy theories that your favorite fake news sits have fed to you. They're all fictional, but then, this is the post-truth world, where much of the population believes that truth is whatever their political party defines it to be, no matter what the evidence says.

If we go back 20 years, there has been either no increase, or a slight decrease, depending on who's computer model produces the results.

Good example. That claim is flatly by the directly measured data, but much of the population still believes it, solely because of their politics. The real data -- based on these things called "thermometers" that directly measure "temperature", with no models required -- shows a steady strong warming for the past 50 years.

[/QUOTE]So, you ignore the point I made and post more fake data. OMG!!!! your graph looks like a hockey stick!

 

[Ernie S.]

I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol

Show me a controlled experiment with results that can be duplicated.

 

[SSDD]

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.

Interesting....now that the wheels are falling off the AGW crazy train, you seem to forget that you wackos have been claiming that it is the primary control knob for climate.

 

[SSDD]

"It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".

There is no "fast warming" right now...there is no proxy study which suggests that the present is in any way warming at an unprecedented rate...Greenland ice core data show periods which warmed much faster and became warmer than the present.

It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming.

Sorry hairball...there is no "directly measured" anything that supports the claim that CO2 emissions are causing any warming what so ever...but if you feel that there are such measurements, feel free to post them.

 

[SSDD]

I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol

Got any actual quantified measurement of a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science?....of course you don't...nor will you ever....and yes, since you believe in it even though it has never been measured...you are the dumb one...

 

[Crick]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

So, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL

Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

And your links?

Oh looky here... a moonbat dropped a bunch of shit and claims that they prove global warming by their political statements...

Your appeals to you make believe authorities is bull shit Old Fraud.. It reminds me of an idiot who is told the bottle doesn't contain poison, the empirical evidence of the labels says it does, and yet the idiot believes the fantasy and drinks the bottle any way, cause they said it was ok and were in consensus... And they were the authorities...

I love it. The retired cop who claims to be an "atmospheric physicist" rejects the expertise of the world's national science organizations. The irony is incredible.

 

[SSDD]

I love it. The retired cop who claims to be an "atmospheric physicist" rejects the expertise of the world's national science organizations. The irony is incredible.

Says the custodial engineer who claims to be an ocean engineer but can 't make heads or tails from the simplest of graphs....and who, when all is said and done has nothing more than a logically fallacious appeal to authority to fall back on.

 

[Crick]

Says the man with the intelligent photons and matter that routinely violates special relativity.

 

[ding]

I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol

You are a moron. I did not say that there was no greenhouse effect. I said the rise in CO2 has not been proven to be the cause of our temperature increase. The cause of that is that we are in a an interglacial cycle.

 

[basquebromance]

the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!

 

[ding]

the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!

Climate is an extremely complex phenomenon to model. They don't understand the role water vapor plays. The "A" series forecasts have unrealistic CO2 emission forecasts that yield unrealistic forecasts for atmospheric CO2 using models which don't properly model feedback and consistently underpredict associated temperature and they have groupthink mentality. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[SSDD]

Says the man with the intelligent photons and matter that routinely violates special relativity.

You guys never stop cracking me up...Imagine, thinking that a rock must be intelligent in order to know to fall down when it is dropped...that chemicals must be intelligent in order to know what to react with and how to react with those that they do react with...and that energy must be intelligent to know that it can not move from cool to warm...what a strange world you have invented for yourself....where objects must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics. Tell me some more about your wacky world...

 

[Wuwei]

Tell me some more about your wacky world...

No, you tell us about your world. Why thermal photons can't move from colder objects to warmer objects. There is no scientific reason for that. Photons from thermal radiation can go anywhere. You have no observable measurable repeatable experiment that says they don't. All you have are opinions that science doesn't share.

 

[IanC]

...that chemicals must be intelligent in order to know what to react with and how to react with those that they do react with...and that energy must be intelligent to know that it can not move from cool to warm...what a strange world you have invented for yourself....where objects must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics. Tell me some more about your wacky world...

chemical reactions??? hahahahaha. bad example. they are highly sensitive to local conditions. and to atomic scale interactions. a catalyst can hold molecules in a particular orientation that multiplies reaction rates by orders of magnitude.

radiation detectors also use particular reactions to specific substances and conditions to detect certain types of radiation.

SSDD's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of single atomic scale interactions, and the statistical average of myriad different atomic scale interactions. any predisposition to one favoured result will quickly escalate to overwhelming statistical certainty given the huge numbers involved. a 51-49% split repeated a billion times is a statistical certainty. but any single interration is still only 51-49%. SSDD thinks the statistical certainty means that only the favoured result is possible for all interactions.

radiation is released in all directions. it cannot be altered until it reacts with matter. single photon energy is constantly going in both (all) directions, net energy (heat) only goes in the direction of warm to cool.

 

[mamooth]

But there is an explanation. We are in an interglacial cycle

You don't seem to understand anything about how glacial cycles work. Ice ages end with a fast warmup, then go into a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The warmup ended 6000 years ago. The world had been slowly cooling ever since. That is, until around 1970, when temperatures started spiking up, in opposition to the natural cycle of cooling.

So, can you tell us what natural forces are causing the sudden fast rise in temperatures? Again, it's clearly not the glacial cycles, as those are trying to cause cooling now.

 

[mamooth]

There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years.

That's completely wrong. Stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands are all direct evidence that the current warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

Also, the world hasn't been warming for 200 years. More like 50 years.

How long do you believe it takes for CO2 to heat up our planet?

Events are felt on decadal scales now. For example, the CO2 increase resulting from the worldwide post-WW2 industrial boom resulted in heating visible by around 1970. We're seeing the heating effect of old CO2 now, and we're piling more CO2 on top of it, to cause more heating in the future.

 

[mamooth]

As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.

Then why are you claiming that today?

We're not. Why are you making up such an absurd claim?

Try to argue against what people actually say, instead of what you wish they said, or what someone told you they said.

 

[mamooth]

There was zero cherry picking.

When there's gobs of data out there, and you deliberately ignore it all in favor of one data point that disagrees with all the other, that's textbook cherrypicking. It's what you did.

This is the actual data.

No, it's Spencer's loopy interpretation of the data, which most scientists say is bad science.

There is no hot spot. They said there would be. It's not there.

Just about every scientist in the world says you're wrong, as does the vast preponderance of the data. Refusing to look at the data won't make it go away.

If you really believe that it has been cherry picked and that you have proven anything with two lnks, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show me a plot of the data back to 1979, should it? Put up or shut up. Now run away and hide.

It's funny, that you think requests for data will make us hide. You don't seem to get that we're not like you, and that we can back up everything we say.

This is from Thorne (2008), and it summarizes the decadal trends of various measurement types. They show the upper troposphere warming more strongly than the surface. The tropospheric hot spot, that is.

The data is out there, hundreds of pages of it. Go look at it. I've given you starting points, but there are limits to the handholding we're willing to do.

 

[mamooth]

Show me a controlled experiment with results that can be duplicated.

There are hundreds of lab experiments showing the absorption spectrum of CO2. I suggest you check out the HITRAN database, which lists them in its sources.

Now, if you're saying we need to have a planet-scale experiment, that's pretty dumb. It's not possible to set up a planet-scale experiment, being we don't have spare planets to use as controls.