Why is climate science political?

[skookerasbil]

This thread effectively stopped being a debate after post #'s 175 - #178 on page 12. Those posts represent absolute truths from a place called Realville, USA. Everything after is static............clutter perpetuated by folks who simply cannot accept that these is actually linkage between politics and the "real science". As I have said repeatedly in this forum for over two years now...........in 2012, nobody cares about the science anymore. If we are to assume, the "real science" is suppossed to compell the people who make public policy to embrace radical reductions in greenhouse gases via schemes like Cap and Trade........then the folks who embrace the "real science" are losing and losing huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of the hardline environmental radicals will stretch any thread out 1,000 pages if they have to so they can get the last word in edgewise and hope that is the lesson the reader takes from the whole thread. These people are experts at distraction and throwing volumes of drivel at any subject. Interested parties need to be aware...........

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What a dumb fuck you are to state such a thing. Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 was about 280 ppm for thousands of years. Now it is at 395 ppm. Did you ever take a science class in high school?

 

[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.

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.

Oh sure, all the scientists from all the differant nations and political systems in the world are in on one big conspriracy to fool poor little you. Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.

What a damned fool you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Guess what? I know quite a number of Phd Geologists that would blow you right out of the water with your idiotic pronouncements, Walleyes.

Both the American Geophyisical Union and the Geological Society of America unequivocally state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Since you claim to be a member of the former, when are you going to present your papers disproving AGW? I would like to know, so I can be present.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

 

[Old Rocks]

This thread effectively stopped being a debate after post #'s 175 - #178 on page 12. Those posts represent absolute truths from a place called Realville, USA. Everything after is static............clutter perpetuated by folks who simply cannot accept that these is actually linkage between politics and the "real science". As I have said repeatedly in this forum for over two years now...........in 2012, nobody cares about the science anymore. If we are to assume, the "real science" is suppossed to compell the people who make public policy to embrace radical reductions in greenhouse gases via schemes like Cap and Trade........then the folks who embrace the "real science" are losing and losing huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of the hardline environmental radicals will stretch any thread out 1,000 pages if they have to so they can get the last word in edgewise and hope that is the lesson the reader takes from the whole thread. These people are experts at distraction and throwing volumes of drivel at any subject. Interested parties need to be aware...........

Steve, the people at NOAA are doing there absolute best to learn more about the forces of weather, because as the weather becomes more active due to the increased energy in the atmosphere, earlier and more effective warnings are needed. Ask the people in Joplin, Missouri about that need.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

Interesting. A free market energy blog. A second winter of a double La Nina, and the US really had no winter. Just a few storms. But the issue is exagerated. Well, we will see about that this summer, and when the next inevitable El Nino occurs.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

Oddly enough, I think that these people will be shut down in the not too distant future. And it will have absolutely nothing to do with what environmentalists think or feel about them.

Physical Review C - Cold fusion reaction of ⁵⁸Fe + ²⁰⁸Pb analyzed by a generalized model of fusion by diffusion

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/11682-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-quantum-fusion-hypothesis.html

 

[skookerasbil]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

Oddly enough, I think that these people will be shut down in the not too distant future. And it will have absolutely nothing to do with what environmentalists think or feel about them.

Physical Review C - Cold fusion reaction of ⁵⁸Fe + ²⁰⁸Pb analyzed by a generalized model of fusion by diffusion

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis | Falls Church News-Press Online

distraction Ray............and you know it too!!

 

[code1211]

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.

Regarding the permian, we know the temperature was already high when it started and that it shot up like a rocket.

Why did it come back down?

For exactly the same reason that it will come back down, very slowly, measured in tens of milenia, when we stop putting GHGs in the atmosphere. Chemical weathering of rocks, and removal of CO2 in the ocean by the single celled animals and plants. However, in the Triassic, after the P-T extinction event, it took millions of years for the ocean life to come back to where it had been.

There are some chapters in this book that describe what we know concerning the events before, during, and after the P-T extinction event.

Part II: Now

That's not an answer to what i asked. I asked why the temperature shot up so fast AND why it dropped at the same break neck pace.

If the Climate is driven by GHG's and the GHG's cause the temperature to rise, why does temperature drop when the GHG's are at their highest?

You say there is a Cause-effect relation here and that GHG's are the prime driver of climate and yet the evidence does not support your assertion.

In the Permian, the temperature starts out about 14 degrees warmer than today then rises to about 16 degrees warmer than today. The temperature then dropped back down to 14 degrees warmer than today only to rise again over the course of millions of years to the +16 degrees over the level of today.

The pretty obvious nugget in all of this is that we are 16 degrees cooler today than at that time and there wasn't an Industrial Revolution in sight when it was that warm.

You assert that the temperature rose as a result of the GHG's. You have further asserted in previous posts that as the temperatures rise as an effect of GHG's, feed back effects release additional GHG's that add to the effect of rising temperatures.

The feedbacks would have continued if your premise is correct but evidence suggests that the spike of temperature did not persist. Why not?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[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.

What a dumb fuck you are to state such a thing. Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 was about 280 ppm for thousands of years. Now it is at 395 ppm. Did you ever take a science class in high school?

Yup.....I was paying particular attention during the part where we were taught that correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[code1211]

Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.

And we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact, the predictions of the people like Dr. Hansen, have been far to conservative. Not nearly alarmist enough. The Arctic Ice is now where the predictions said it would be in 2050. The Storms of our Grandchildren are already occuring. Given that at the very end of a double La Nina, the global temperature for the month of April was higher than any temperature prior to 1998, and the bottom of the average for this downturn is higher than the high point for any high point in the averages prior to 1998, one can only wonder what the high point will be in the next El Nino.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it is cooling from 2001 to now. Cooling means cooler than it was at a specified point in time. A comparison of temperatures over time.

Here's a power point that might help.

In terms of geologic time, out instrumental record is just about equal to nothing. That said, the warming of 30 years or 10 years are equally specious to hold up as examples. The fact remains, though, that the most recent decade has cooed in real-world actual temperatures. That is, until they are revised upward by the Hockey Team.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/Steffen-...ce - March 2011- QO commentary - 5z (NXP).ppt


<snip>
SLIDE 21 – Global surface temperature anomalies for 2001-2011 as recorded by the Hadley Centre.

Note that global temperature has declined slightly over the last ten years, at a rate of -0.4o C/century by ordinary least squares analysis (blue line, OLS) or -0.06o C/century if temperature is corrected for ENSO variations (gold line; MEI = Multivariate ENSO Index-corrected). In comparison, IPCC’s GCM models project a warming (red line) at a rate of +2.0o C/century.

The HadCRUT3 dataset uses a 1961-1990 baseline for temperature anomaly calculation. As plotted here, the data has been adjusted to a 1980-1999 average temperature baseline.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The importance of this graph is not, per se, that it can be used to make the statement that “temperature has cooled over the last 10 years”. Though that statement is true, the criticism of it that 10 years is far too short a time over which to observe climate change is (in conventional weather/climate terms) also true. But beware then the critic who goes on to say that “of course, if you look at temperature since 1979, it has undeniably warmed”. Again, a true statement, and, again, 32 years is far too short a period to be of climatic significance - representing, as it does, just one climate data point.

Instead, the importance of the data shown in this slide is that, combined with our knowledge of increasing carbon dioxide levels, it comprises a test of the hypothesis that “human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming”. Given that carbon dioxide levels increased from 371 ppm in 2001 to ~390 ppm in 2011, an increase of ~5%, the hypothesis is clearly invalidated by this test. Equally, the test also invalidates the GCM models used by the IPCC of having predictive, as opposed to heuristic, value.

Graphic: Liljegren, Lucia, 2011 (Feb. 19). HadCrut January Anomaly: 0.194C. The Blackboard. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

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.

Guess what? I know quite a number of Phd Geologists that would blow you right out of the water with your idiotic pronouncements, Walleyes.

Both the American Geophyisical Union and the Geological Society of America unequivocally state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Since you claim to be a member of the former, when are you going to present your papers disproving AGW? I would like to know, so I can be present.

The temperatures during this interglacial were warmest about 8000 years ago and have been decreasing as a general trend ever since.

During this whole interglacial, we have vacillated within about a 2 degree range of temperature and are currently dead in the middle of that range. When we are on the cool end of the range, we find global famine, pestilence and plague. On the warm end, we find times of plenty, the advance of civilization and prosperity.

What's my point?

8000 years ago pre-dates the Industrial Revolution. Why was it so warm back then?

If it does warm into the levels of comfort for us hairless apes, what's the problem?

As a side note regarding Interglacials in general, Interglacials always end when CO2 is at the peak of the atmospheric concentration during that interglacial. If CO2 is the prime driver of climate, how can this happen?

If something else is dictating the direction of climate, how can CO2 be called the "Prime Driver" of our climate?

 

[code1211]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

Interesting. A free market energy blog. A second winter of a double La Nina, and the US really had no winter. Just a few storms. But the issue is exagerated. Well, we will see about that this summer, and when the next inevitable El Nino occurs.

Haven't you warned in the past to recognize the difference between weather and climate?

 

[Big Fitz]

The only thing consitant about the chicken littles is their inconsistancy.

 

[westwall]

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.

What a dumb fuck you are to state such a thing. Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 was about 280 ppm for thousands of years. Now it is at 395 ppm. Did you ever take a science class in high school?

Since when does correlation equal causation? And you claim to have attended college. What a farce.

 

[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.

Guess what? I know quite a number of Phd Geologists that would blow you right out of the water with your idiotic pronouncements, Walleyes.

Both the American Geophyisical Union and the Geological Society of America unequivocally state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Since you claim to be a member of the former, when are you going to present your papers disproving AGW? I would like to know, so I can be present.

I doubt that you know any geologists at all. Furthermore, it's your theory, YOU PROVE it. That's the way science works dear boy. I contend that this is all natural. You claim it's not. Present evidence and support your theory. Empirical data only, computer models don't count.

 

[westwall]

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) — MasterResource

Oddly enough, I think that these people will be shut down in the not too distant future. And it will have absolutely nothing to do with what environmentalists think or feel about them.

Physical Review C - Cold fusion reaction of ⁵⁸Fe + ²⁰⁸Pb analyzed by a generalized model of fusion by diffusion

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis | Falls Church News-Press Online

Oddly enough, yet another Hansen prediction is proven false. Oh when oh when will he ever get one right?


"Climate alarmist James Hansen has long predicted the catastrophic tipping point of global temperatures from human CO2 emissions. His predictions include the seas will soon be boiling and a significant increase of extreme weather events, due to the excessive warming of the tropical atmosphere.

The excessive warming of the atmosphere over the Tropics is referred to as the AGW 'hotspot' and is the key signature of anthropogenic (by CO2 greenhouse gas) global warming.

Actual temperature measurements of the tropical atmosphere, as shown above, clearly indicate that the catastrophic 'hotspot' does not exist. Additionally, empirical evidence has the tropical atmosphere cooling over the last 15 years, at a -1.2 degree rate by year 2100, which is exact opposite predicted by IPCC climate models and the "experts," such as James Hansen."

C3: Connect The Dots: Global Warming Predicted Hotspot Over Tropics Is Non-Existent Latest Data Confirm

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way Ray........you're way behind in the science in other energy area's................ever hear of LENR?

http://cryptogon.com/?p=29111

Free energy research............we wont know about it though for a long time. Why? Politics!!!


http://cryptogon.com/?p=29111



There will be a day when people look back upon the early 2000's and laugh about some of the suggestions for energy, like solar and wind. They'll be punch lines in comedy routines years from now. 50 years from now, the science then will look upon the science now as the science now looks back upon the science 100 years ago. Which is why this business of wrecking economies trying to put square pegs in round holes ( wind and solar) is so outlandish as not to be believed.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh sure, all the scientists from all the differant nations and political systems in the world are in on one big conspriracy to fool poor little you. Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.

What a damned fool you are.

Not all the scientists in the world are on the Review boards of climate journals. We're talking about a small coterie of pals whose shenanigans were exposed in the Climategate emails.