Why is climate science political?

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

New derivations for atmospheric lifetimes of some GHG’s

Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry – Prather et al. (2012)

Abstract: “Knowledge of the atmospheric chemistry of reactive greenhouse gases is needed to accurately quantify the relationship between human activities and climate, and to incorporate uncertainty in our projections of greenhouse gas abundances. We present a method for estimating the fraction of greenhouse gases attributable to human activities, both currently and for future scenarios. Key variables used to calculate the atmospheric chemistry and budgets of major non-CO2 greenhouse gases are codified along with their uncertainties, and then used to project budgets and abundances under the new climate-change scenarios. This new approach uses our knowledge of changing abundances and lifetimes to estimate current total anthropogenic emissions, independently and possibly more accurately than inventory-based scenarios. We derive a present-day atmospheric lifetime for methane (CH4) of 9.1 ± 0.9 y and anthropogenic emissions of 352 ± 45 Tg/y (64% of total emissions). For N2O, corresponding values are 131 ± 10 y and 6.5 ± 1.3 TgN/y (41% of total); and for HFC-134a, the lifetime is 14.2 ± 1.5 y.”

Citation: Prather, M. J., C. D. Holmes, and J. Hsu (2012), Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09803, doi:10.1029/2012GL051440.

 

[Old Rocks]

Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."

.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

But there is no rigorous scientific proof of the A part of AGW.

What they endorse is a political statement and a statement of BELIEF and supposition. They are entitled to have those silly opinions. But as scientists, they are obliged to prove it. They haven't. Science is not defined by "consensus."

Fucking bullshit, fellow. The proof was presented by Tyndall in 1859.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

Expected ocean acidification from human actions seems to be unprecedented in the geologic past

History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2, and Ocean Acidification – Zeebe (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: “Humans are continuing to add vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities. A large fraction of the CO2 is taken up by the oceans in a process that lowers ocean pH and carbonate mineral saturation state. This effect has potentially serious consequences for marine life, which are, however, difficult to predict. One approach to address the issue is to study the geologic record, which may provide clues about what the future holds for ocean chemistry and marine organisms. This article reviews basic controls on ocean carbonate chemistry on different timescales and examines past ocean chemistry changes and ocean acidification events during various geologic eras. The results allow evaluation of the current anthropogenic perturbation in the context of Earth’s history. It appears that the ocean acidification event that humans are expected to cause is unprecedented in the geologic past, for which sufficiently well-preserved records are available.”

Citation: Richard E. Zeebe, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 141-165 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105521.

 

[Saigon]

Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

It is lucky that you know so much more about science than all of these silly experts.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW Observer

End-Permian mass extinction may be important ancient analog for 21st century oceans

End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century? – Payne & Clapham (2012)

Abstract: “The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth’s largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans.”

Citation: Jonathan L. Payne and Matthew E. Clapham, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 89-111 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105329.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.

 

[Oddball]

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.

Here's a fact: Nobody can quantify ho much CO2 is natural and how much is anthropologically generated...And all the lists of scientific societies and politicians who buy into the hoax can't change this fact.

 

[saveliberty]

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.

This has already been discussed a hundred times here. Everyone knows the peer group has carefully stacked the deck at the board level to stifle any opposition. Not very much like scientists if you fear challenges to your data, methods and results.

 

[Big Fitz]

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


Come on gentlemen - if your case has so much science behind it - let's see the list of scientific organisations who agree with you.

We've moved on to the "Advertising theory" of debate. Say the same thing over and over again till the other party believes it is true because of repetition.

You going to answer ANY of my grade school debunking of the findings of these Fifty rubes and charlatans who have much money and power to gain by this being 'proven'.

You know, this is just like the Catholic Church dealing with the theory that the Sun orbits around the Earth. All the 'approved' authorites said it is not so and anyone who dare say different must be forced to recant... and that will make it so.

Saigon, your argument is dead.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world.

It is not a difficult choice.

Link to their 'evidence'? Just like when Cold Fusion was touted in the early 1990's, they had to let the REST of the scientific community go over their numbers and repeat the process. Problems keep occuring when the numbers they got from the same data don't match honest research or the models used by the hucksters at say East Anglia University were found to be DELIBERATLY perverted to get a desired result... and then these snake oil salesmen go on to destroy evidence that might have revealed the truth faster.


Pirrelli's Hair Growth Elixir anyone? Stimulating isn't it? Looks like piss. Piss mixed with ink.

 

[saveliberty]

That why you Faithers dropped the term global warming? Ever wonder why the public has a trend toward disbelieving your theories? Can you follow the money and see how the science is corrupt?

 

[westwall]

I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW. Which he decried as a fraud.

I'm aware of the case, and thought it made interesting reading when it came out.

I admire his integrity in doing what he believed, and I welcomed the debate it created.

I don't doubt he is not the only scientist to be a sceptic - but I think we all realise that is a miniscule minority amongst the wider scientific community.

You have the numbers reveresed my friend. The MAJORITY of scientists think it is at best unsubstantiated and at worst widespread, organised fraud. The meme of 97% of all scientists believing in AGW is fraudulent.

That particular bit of propaganda was derived from a survey sent to 3000 scientists. The folks running the survey eliminated all but the climatologists who responded. That left 79 scientists. Of that total only 74 agreed with the biased question. So even with absolute control over who was able to respond to the survey they weren't able to get 100% support.

And that's what you call scientific support.

You need to get out more.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I think we all get it now.

The American Society of Physics does not get physics.

You get physics.

Yes, I do. It is one of the fundamental building blocks of a geology degree. Along with chemistry and higher mathematics. You see dear person, the climatologists claim that only climatologists can understand what they do (hence my continual referral to the high priest relating the WORD OF GOD to the peasants) but what's funny is I can teach any graduate level class they have in a program.

On the other hand, there is not a single graduate level class that a PhD climatologist can teach in any geology program I know of. They would be so far out of their depth as to be ludicrous. A 2nd year geology student would have to teach them what was what.

 

[westwall]

Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it.

And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes.

When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.

And for all of my senility i can run rings around a fraud like you!

 

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TAWkx8o6w&feature=related]The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That why you Faithers dropped the term global warming? Ever wonder why the public has a trend toward disbelieving your theories? Can you follow the money and see how the science is corrupt?

What do you mean "dropped it" ?

global warming - Google Scholar

 

[wirebender]

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.

I doubt that tripe was worthy of any response at all in that it suggested that the conditions of the permian were analogous to the present. During the time of the permian extinction, vulcanism was at a state so much greater than the present that to make a comparison is just stupid.

 

[Oddball]

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!

I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine Michelson Morley altering their data to prove that there was an ether?

Thats how big a fraud AGW is. When the data fails to back their theory, they alter the data