Remember me
▼ Content

IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started


IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started16-02-2017 03:53
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
How Climate Alarms Started


Curiosity about AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming has been around for millennia. Even ancient Greeks debated whether cutting down forests would bring more or less rainfall. It was in 1859 that an English scientist first supposed that water vapour and CO2 - carbon dioxide trapped heat in the atmosphere. The idea was expanded in 1896 by a Swedish scientist who said that burning of fossil fuels such as coal added CO2 to the atmosphere and would raise the temperature of the Earth.

In the 1930s it was assessed that the US and North Atlantic regions had warmed significantly. In the 1950s some scientists started looking further into the possibility of AGW. In 1960 a young scientist established that the temperature was rising year by year.

An idealistic "new-age", greenish mood began in the 1960s with young people protesting environment damage and smashing things to "save the planet". Environmentalism picked up steam in the 1970s. Scientists starting raising the stakes saying that dust and smog were clogging the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and cooling the world. An analysis of Northern Hemisphere statistics showed a cooling trend had begun in the 1940s.

Scientists started advocating that there was a severe threat and agitated for funding for research with state of the art computers. The age of computer modelling had begun.

International programs began to assemble data. Expeditions across polar ice caps to retrieve ice cores started. Swamps were tested. Tree rings were analysed. By 1979 instead of cooling, computer models consistently showed a trend towards severe global warming. It was thought the planet was probably going to warm by about 3 degrees Celsius.

A study of the Greenland ice cores showed that large and sudden temperature changes had happened in the past, though these are now thought to be more regional than global. A new theory emerged that it only takes a small "trigger" to induce a catastrophic change to the global climate e.g. a change in the composition of the atmosphere.

Things suddenly started to look more serious regarding human survival. In 1985 the UN sponsored a meeting of scientists in Austria who concluded that increased greenhouse gases could cause nasty global temperature rises. Some scientists such as Swedish activist and meteorologist Bert Bolin began agitating for something to be done to save the planet from greenhouse gases. Influential and rich businessmen such as Maurice Strong were involved.

By 1988 public concern at the time was rising including for example the hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica and how it might ultimately affect the worlds climate systems.

The IPCC

A number of people were eventually appointed to map out a framework for some kind of organisation to look into the matter and by 1988 the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created by the United Nations with the support of the United States.

The IPCC comes under the UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme and the WMO - World Meteorological Office. It has direct input into the UNFCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which is an international treaty for stabilizing world greenhouse gas emissions

Structure: It was deliberately framed as a political and bureaucratic organisation rather than scientists to control the research.

Purpose: Its stated purpose was to prepare reports based on available scientific information or assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.

Mandate: On the surface it all sounds very noble, but the IPCCs mandate went on. It was not to study climate change in the round, or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It was to specifically find and report on any human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact."
See: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/abouttheipcc/

This is where I believe the whole system was flawed from the beginning. They zeroed in on only one potential cause of an observed change of global temperatures measured only over the last 150 years or so, some recordings of which might be considered dubious. By doing so and by continuing to do so they are unrealistically funnelling everyone's focus into an area which may – or may not – be the real cause of the problem, if one actually exists.

Today the IPCC is a massive organisation but the leadership only has a small bureau of 34 people. These people are bureaucratic public servants not scientists themselves as such. The Panel itself has 195 members which meet every year and consists of representatives from various countries, usually government representatives but again, not necessarily scientists. The whole organisation by its structure and nature is bureaucratic and political, not scientific.

Given that the focus was now drawn to AGW, governments around the world started seeking advice to which the IPCC responded with various reports. Thousands of non-paid scientists from various scientific disciplines around the world were also drawn into it and contributed voluntarily as authors, contributors and reviewers, which they still do.

From these, the IPCC prepares:
Summary for Policy Makers: A guide for governments which converts the sometimes highly technical scientific writings into more easily understood language.
Assessment Reports: Published every five to seven years, the last one was the Fifth Assessment Report published in 2014.
Earth Summits: Such as those held at Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto, Bali, Bonn and Copenhagen between 1992 and 2009. These are also political by nature so of course any agreements between nations can be difficult to reach. In fact the Copenhagen Earth Summit is considered by many to have been a complete flop.

Growth of the IPCC

The IPCC stated making a name for itself with its first Assessment Report (AR) in 1990 which clearly stated that human activity was likely to be the cause of unprecedented global warming. Subsequent ARs have all highlighted mankind's culpability and each new report has successively been more alarmist that the previous one.

In 1995 the IPCC allowed the convening lead author, activist Ben Santer to rewrite a section of Chapter 8 – Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes in the Second Assessment Report. It was done in alarmist terms which said that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate".

This is allegedly a complete opposite to what was actually stated in the conclusion to Chapter 8 by the scientific authors. Santer declared he was only responding to comments on the draft from various governments, scientists and NGOs.

The world's press, ever keen for alarmist sensation picked up on the theory of AGW. Politicians responding to media and public pressure picked up on it. It was picked up by the NGOs of environmentalist movements and by idealists. Over time, the world began to just accept anything the IPCC said as totally true – without question. The focal point for all things climate change related was now well and truly on AGW.

The IPCC today holds the esteemed position of being among the world's leading authority on climate change if not the leader, yet technically it should only be on issues related to the potential of AGW activities. Its summaries and reports of scientific papers are being read by governments, environmental and scientific organizations all around the world. Many regard these papers as the ultimate truth and use it to justify expenditure on reducing "dangerous greenhouse emissions". Whether we actually need to do so for global warming is still debatable but it would be nice to reduce smog.

That by itself probably wouldn't be too much of a worry if there were equally notable organisations to provide transparent, steadying, counter views by those who are looking at world's climate systems as a whole. But any scientist or organization brave enough to put a hand up risks the incurring the wrath of the whole of the alarmist system, including public media and commentary which simply swamps any voice of dissent.

IPCC – Bias?

The material coming out from the IPCC is undeniably slanted towards AGW. They don't try to deny it. There is little effort made to try and find other solutions. So is the IPCC biased? Technically yes though remember they still operate within their mandate. But let's explore just a few examples that might point to it.

In 2010 the Dutch Government stated that the IPCC had a "tendency to single out the most important negative impacts of climate change" in its summaries to policymakers. Apparently they do highlight the positive aspects but they get drowned out by the negatives and mentioned less in the summary.

In 2014 a Dutch professor Richard Tol resigned from the Climate Panel because he believed the consequences of climate change were being systematically over-estimated and alleged it was more concerned with the environment lobby than the science.

Also in 2014 Dr Robert Stavins was a Co-Coordinating Author for AR5 – the IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report. He said that under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased. As an example he said that during group deliberations, the assembled government representatives would only approve the text if certain "controversial" items were removed i.e. read uncomfortable for any single government. Allegedly about 75% of the text was removed.

He went on to say, "I fully understand that the government representatives were seeking to meet their own responsibilities toward their respective governments by upholding their countries' interests, but in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
You can read the full text here: http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

Bottom line is that the IPCC is a by its nature a political body that must be considered biased towards AGW. As such it is not only flawed in its approach to the problem of global warming, but unsuitable for use in its role as the leading authority for climate change advice to world governments on how to shape their environmental policies.

How Could It Happen?

Why is it that an organization tasked to focus on only one potential aspect of a potential global warming threat can become the ultimate accepted authority on all things relating to it?

Here are some theories based on known facts ...

Environmental alarms about global climate change began to surface at a time when environmental sentiment was fashionable. Bucket loads of money started to become available in all sorts of ways to those who promoted the cause. There was superb marketing by the IPCC and a host of influential people willing to further the cause of AGW in some form or other. The idealistic took up the call. There was and continues to be strong coverage by an ever willing media for anything alarming or sensational.

Politicians and the bureaucrats who advised them simply didn't have the scientific education or even enough scientific smarts to tell the difference between the actual scientific reports and the manufactured ones. They relied on what they were told. The same can be said of the general public who can be highly susceptible to political or media spin.

I believe that ordinary citizens by and large, habitually accept whatever information is presented by the media, at least in Australia. I know that's a very general statement but unfortunately we still tend to trust the media to be factual.

And that can be at any level of our society. There was a prime example last year when an Australian Prime Minister reacted to a TV media news story by almost immediately calling for a Royal Commission. It was a gross knee-jerk reaction without checking further into the matter.

As the IPCC became the leading authority of climate change, then alarmist predictions multiplied. Few challenged them because they were coming from such august bodies, institutions and scientists regardless of their field.

The situation was made worse because the IPCC then and now still rely on computer modelling on just the last 150 years or so, an insignificant amount of time in climate time scales.

Let's not forget that the use of computers to find solutions ultimately depends on the data that's fed into it. There has undoubtedly been a temperature rise since industrialization but I wonder what the result would be compared to the last (say) 100,000 years if we take the Milankovich cycles into consideration?

By 2000 governments started to create policies to stop AGW, probably one of the most common ones to date is some kind of carbon emissions trading scheme which penalises those who emit dangerous gases.

By 2005 the number of climate sceptics prepared to start speaking out increased. By 2009 several pillars of support for AGW had started to fall, which will be examined in later posts. Two of the most striking perhaps was a finding by a High Court Judge in the UK who found 9 major errors in Al Gore's, "An Inconvenient Truth".

And in December 2009 an incident now known as Climate Gate surfaced with the news that the Climate Research Unit - CRU had been doctoring emails. This may have been blown way out of proportion by selective fact picking, but we'll look at this again in due course. But when mud is thrown some of it sticks.

Scientists are human beings like the rest of us. There can be no doubt there are people on both sides of the debate that have been corrupted to some degree. The issue can provide funding for programmes, institutions and university departments, and also bring fame and influence. Today it has become evident that there has and continues to be a lack of scientific discipline and moral scruples by individual scientists as to what the true focus of science should be – to discover facts.

Regarding the IPCC - it is not my intention to cast felonious aspersions on the IPCC or to those that work within it or connected to it. And at the end of the day, some of the material they receive from scientist sources must surely be either inaccurate or misleading. I am sure most of those people act in good faith and believe what they are doing is for the good of mankind.

But for reasons discussed above it's why I have included them as being an untrustworthy source to cite in any debate about the actual cause(s) of global warming.

Sources:

1. Book "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by sceptic Professor Robert M. Carter
2. The Discovery of Global Warming: http://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm
3. An Economic View of the Environment: http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/


Russ Swan
Issues on Climate Change
http://www.issuesonclimatechange.com
Edited on 16-02-2017 04:15
16-02-2017 17:18
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
The entire problem is right here in these lines.

There was and continues to be strong coverage by an ever willing media for anything alarming or sensational.

Politicians and the bureaucrats who advised them simply didn't have the scientific education or even enough scientific smarts to tell the difference between the actual scientific reports and the manufactured ones. They relied on what they were told. The same can be said of the general public who can be highly susceptible to political or media spin.

Edited on 16-02-2017 17:20
16-02-2017 18:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
rwswan has presented a good overview of the politics behind AGW. But he hasn't leaned nearly hard enough on those that have committed these acts of forcing unscientific political views upon the public. 80% of the members of IPCC are professional politicians. And since the majority of the world are second and third world nations these politicians aren't worried about AGW - they are worried about getting a cut of the first world abundance.

In the 60's. the drug addled generation was looking for absolutely anything to deny the way that civilization worked. Most people are cowards at heart and they didn't want to go to Vietnam. We had no business there to begin with but JFK and then Johnson made their supporters VERY rich via war.

While the flower generation were busy killing themselves with illegal drugs and using drugs that handicapped their minds they were the one's that became "the media". And the media began taking on more and more a liberal/socialist bend. "I don't know how to do anything so you should pay my way."

Environmentalism became a popular movement but the overwhelming majority of "environmentalists" knew absolutely nothing about it. With total ignorance they could be part of a new "science" that promised to save man from himself. And himself always turned out to be the older generation and anything they have done as normal. Hunting had always been a "manly" sport and now became something that only an outcast would do. Just as today the media is attempting to overturn the 2nd Amendment because guns frighten them. A government cannot seize control of a country in which the number of hunters in one state is larger than the numbers of all of the military combined.

But as everything else that liberals/socialists/environmentalists do it was pure unadulterated hypocrisy. They wanted YOU to stop eating meat but they want steak for themselves. They wanted YOU to stop driving a car but they wanted the sports sedan with the largest most powerful engine. They wanted the "billionaires" taxed but not themselves. They wanted YOU to live in the dark at night while they lit entire cities with 100 times more illumination than was necessary. (All of the bridges in the San Francisco bay area are covered in lights. Most of which are for decoration and not for safe illumination of the roadway.)

California had a two and a half year long drought and the politicians using false AGW "science" took NO efforts to inspect and repair the dams and other power infrastructure. Now the perfectly normal heavy rain season set in and we have entire towns being evacuated because a dam spillway wasn't properly designed because it would never be used anyway. Only by luck we had a five day break in the rains which allowed them to drain enough water out of the dammed reservoir to allow the normal spillway which is also broken due to lack of maintenance to handle the expected rains over the next month and the end of the wet season.

In the USA and apparently in Great Britain, the Democrats here and the Liberal Party there have used AGW in a blatant attempt to build larger and stronger governments. To bring in as many minorities as possible and to promise them anything to retain them as liberal voters.

But as in everything else - the stupid can control nothing. And the worm has finally turned. And it has turned to such an extent that people like Surface Detail dare not speak his twisted mind in public for fear of personal reprisal. In the USA as jobs grow and more Americans get back to work the carefully orchestrated divisions of race, color and creed will disappear again.

The media is already feeling the impact as advertising is dropping like a rock. Large scale companies are simply using their reputations to attract customers and not media advertising that is now blowing up in their faces some more and more Americans will not buy anything advertised on an lying, cheating media.

A local Federal appeals court even allowed an appeal against an Executive Order where neither the originating Judge or the Appeals Court cited THE LAW that gave them the power to do so. We're back to the Stench from the Bench is making me Clinch. Liberals do not believe that power lies in the laws of this land but in the mere fact of holding office.

AGW is not long for this world. It was a false hypothesis from the start and after it FAILED it was proclaimed a FACT.
16-02-2017 18:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The entire problem is right here in these lines.

There was and continues to be strong coverage by an ever willing media for anything alarming or sensational.

Politicians and the bureaucrats who advised them simply didn't have the scientific education or even enough scientific smarts to tell the difference between the actual scientific reports and the manufactured ones. They relied on what they were told. The same can be said of the general public who can be highly susceptible to political or media spin.

Exactly. The idea that there is any significant doubt among scientists about the reality and seriousness of AGW is purely a media fabrication. Unfortunately, though, people prefer to get their information from newspapers and political websites than from scientific journals and papers.
16-02-2017 18:26
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??
16-02-2017 19:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??

Every field of human study has a few mavericks and contrarians. The fact that you refer to them as "whistle blowers" is testament in itself to the power of the media.
16-02-2017 21:43
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??

Every field of human study has a few mavericks and contrarians. The fact that you refer to them as "whistle blowers" is testament in itself to the power of the media.


Yep, Pythagoras was quite a maverick when he called the earth round.

The fact that someone that has the intelligence such as yourself, with the inability to apply it correctly, is testament in itself to the power of the media.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
16-02-2017 22:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??

Every field of human study has a few mavericks and contrarians. The fact that you refer to them as "whistle blowers" is testament in itself to the power of the media.


Yep, Pythagoras was quite a maverick when he called the earth round.

The fact that someone that has the intelligence such as yourself, with the inability to apply it correctly, is testament in itself to the power of the media.


I think that's stretching things to say that Surface Detail has any intelligence. After all of his commenting he has yet to give us any credentials beyond being a British Liberal. I would think that that in itself would disqualify him for having even a passing acquaintance with intelligence.
16-02-2017 22:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??

Every field of human study has a few mavericks and contrarians. The fact that you refer to them as "whistle blowers" is testament in itself to the power of the media.


Yep, Pythagoras was quite a maverick when he called the earth round.

The fact that someone that has the intelligence such as yourself, with the inability to apply it correctly, is testament in itself to the power of the media.

Meet another maverick: Samuel Rowbotham, English inventor and founder of the Flat Earth Society.

So which maverick do you suppose the AGW deniers resemble more closely? The Greek maverick, who was actually able to demonstrate through experiment and observation the validity of his opinions, or the English maverick, who was apparently able to "counter every argument with ingenuity, wit and consummate skill" and left his audience feeling that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated."
16-02-2017 22:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just how many skeptic scientist and whistle blowers do we need to show you? What is your number??

Every field of human study has a few mavericks and contrarians. The fact that you refer to them as "whistle blowers" is testament in itself to the power of the media.


Yep, Pythagoras was quite a maverick when he called the earth round.

The fact that someone that has the intelligence such as yourself, with the inability to apply it correctly, is testament in itself to the power of the media.


I think that's stretching things to say that Surface Detail has any intelligence. After all of his commenting he has yet to give us any credentials beyond being a British Liberal. I would think that that in itself would disqualify him for having even a passing acquaintance with intelligence.

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.
16-02-2017 22:33
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
My bad. Knowledge and intelligence are 2 different worlds. As stated before, most here have far more science back round than I ever will. But I will call BS if you "scientifically" show me that you can knock over a grain bin with a slingshot and a rock. My point is that despite my tiny amount of basic knowledge, I still see right through the propaganda.

One argument that was never finished with Surface Decal and Wake that I would like to see continued is Wake's claim (and mine) of man made CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. Those are fascinating numbers that anybody should be able to understand (with the exception of Litebeer).

I bring it up here because I honestly can't remember which thread it was in but I think SD ran from the issue a bit.

Surface Decal-
What percent of all CO2 is man contribution?
16-02-2017 23:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.


The Sun is a main sequence star. The temperature has been more or less the same since shortly after it's ignition. This does not mean that the Sun's output is flat but that it varies the same since severe geomagnetic storms are normal for a star and the Sun is SURPISE! a star.

This is because the TEMPERATURE of the surface is powered by the same hydrogen/helium fusion that it was created with. Your ideas of what "facts" are is distorted by your lack of any education.

The Sun is about half-way through the stable part of it's lifespan. The Earth formed LONG after the ignition and stabilization period of the Sun. Hanging from the trees like that doesn't make you Tarzan, it just makes you look ridiculous.

As for your stupidity about the geologic temperature record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

The order the record to more averaging has occurred due to the weight of the geologic strata above so you have to draw and AVERAGE though the entire train.


This is more plainly shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If I were you I wouldn't be so openly stupid. You sound like a lawyer.
Edited on 16-02-2017 23:07
16-02-2017 23:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
My bad. Knowledge and intelligence are 2 different worlds. As stated before, most here have far more science back round than I ever will. But I will call BS if you "scientifically" show me that you can knock over a grain bin with a slingshot and a rock. My point is that despite my tiny amount of basic knowledge, I still see right through the propaganda.

One argument that was never finished with Surface Decal and Wake that I would like to see continued is Wake's claim (and mine) of man made CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. Those are fascinating numbers that anybody should be able to understand (with the exception of Litebeer).

I bring it up here because I honestly can't remember which thread it was in but I think SD ran from the issue a bit.

Surface Decal-
What percent of all CO2 is man contribution?


Remember that David slew Goliath with but a stone.
16-02-2017 23:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
My bad. Knowledge and intelligence are 2 different worlds. As stated before, most here have far more science back round than I ever will. But I will call BS if you "scientifically" show me that you can knock over a grain bin with a slingshot and a rock. My point is that despite my tiny amount of basic knowledge, I still see right through the propaganda.

One argument that was never finished with Surface Decal and Wake that I would like to see continued is Wake's claim (and mine) of man made CO2 percentage in the atmosphere. Those are fascinating numbers that anybody should be able to understand (with the exception of Litebeer).

I bring it up here because I honestly can't remember which thread it was in but I think SD ran from the issue a bit.

Surface Decal-
What percent of all CO2 is man contribution?

This graph shows how the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has varied over the last 10,000 years:



The data come from analyses of ancient air trapped in cores of ice taken from Antarctica and, for the last few decades, from direct measurements at Mauna Loa. It's slightly out of date; the CO2 concentration is now about 405 ppm.

It is quite clear that the sudden jump over the last 150 years or so is completely uncharacteristic, and it's very hard to think of an explanation for this other than the obvious one: that it results from human emissions due to industrialisation. If humans did not exist, the concentration would still be about 280 ppm.

Humans are therefore responsible for 405 - 280 = 125 ppm of CO2. As a percentage of current all the CO2 in the atmosphere, this is 125 / 405 * 100 = 31%.
16-02-2017 23:12
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
LOL! Goliath was a big dude but no grain bin.
16-02-2017 23:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.


The Sun is a main sequence star. The temperature has been more or less the same since shortly after it's ignition. This does not mean that the Sun's output is flat but that it varies the same since severe geomagnetic storms are normal for a star and the Sun is SURPISE! a star.

This is because the TEMPERATURE of the surface is powered by the same hydrogen/helium fusion that it was created with. Your ideas of what "facts" are is distorted by your lack of any education.

The Sun is about half-way through the stable part of it's lifespan. The Earth formed LONG after the ignition and stabilization period of the Sun. Hanging from the trees like that doesn't make you Tarzan, it just makes you look ridiculous.

I've already shown you this:



You can see that the luminosity of the sun has been increasing over almost all of the Earth's history and will continue to do so. This means that it is putting out more and more heat. Or do you think the astrophysicists are part of the conspiracy too?
16-02-2017 23:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.


The Sun is a main sequence star. The temperature has been more or less the same since shortly after it's ignition. This does not mean that the Sun's output is flat but that it varies the same since severe geomagnetic storms are normal for a star and the Sun is SURPISE! a star.

This is because the TEMPERATURE of the surface is powered by the same hydrogen/helium fusion that it was created with. Your ideas of what "facts" are is distorted by your lack of any education.

The Sun is about half-way through the stable part of it's lifespan. The Earth formed LONG after the ignition and stabilization period of the Sun. Hanging from the trees like that doesn't make you Tarzan, it just makes you look ridiculous.

I've already shown you this:



You can see that the luminosity of the sun has been increasing over almost all of the Earth's history and will continue to do so. This means that it is putting out more and more heat. Or do you think the astrophysicists are part of the conspiracy too?


Just out of curiosity - are you totally unaware that it shows the TEMPERATURE as flat? Excuse me but did I talk about luminosity? Are you aware that there IS a difference?

Why don't you change your pen-name to DUHHHHHHHH?
16-02-2017 23:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:

Remember that David slew Goliath with but a stone.



If we are referencing the bible you do have the jawbone of an arse to help you slay those pencil-heads with their pesky facts.

Arsehole.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-02-2017 23:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.


The Sun is a main sequence star. The temperature has been more or less the same since shortly after it's ignition. This does not mean that the Sun's output is flat but that it varies the same since severe geomagnetic storms are normal for a star and the Sun is SURPISE! a star.

This is because the TEMPERATURE of the surface is powered by the same hydrogen/helium fusion that it was created with. Your ideas of what "facts" are is distorted by your lack of any education.

The Sun is about half-way through the stable part of it's lifespan. The Earth formed LONG after the ignition and stabilization period of the Sun. Hanging from the trees like that doesn't make you Tarzan, it just makes you look ridiculous.

I've already shown you this:



You can see that the luminosity of the sun has been increasing over almost all of the Earth's history and will continue to do so. This means that it is putting out more and more heat. Or do you think the astrophysicists are part of the conspiracy too?


Just out of curiosity - are you totally unaware that it shows the TEMPERATURE as flat? Excuse me but did I talk about luminosity? Are you aware that there IS a difference?

Why don't you change your pen-name to DUHHHHHHHH?

The sun's output is what heats the Earth, and that's what we were talking about originally. The greater the luminosity, the greater the output. Luminosity depends on both surface temperature and radius. As it ages, the sun is slowly expanding and increasing its luminosity, thus heating the Earth ever more strongly.
16-02-2017 23:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

You have made a series of statements on this forum that are simply and demonstrably false, ranging from your assertion that the sun's output has remained constant since just after the formation of the Earth to your claim the Earth is currently colder than at any time in the last million years.

Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own facts. You are, quite simply, a liar.


The Sun is a main sequence star. The temperature has been more or less the same since shortly after it's ignition. This does not mean that the Sun's output is flat but that it varies the same since severe geomagnetic storms are normal for a star and the Sun is SURPISE! a star.

This is because the TEMPERATURE of the surface is powered by the same hydrogen/helium fusion that it was created with. Your ideas of what "facts" are is distorted by your lack of any education.

The Sun is about half-way through the stable part of it's lifespan. The Earth formed LONG after the ignition and stabilization period of the Sun. Hanging from the trees like that doesn't make you Tarzan, it just makes you look ridiculous.

I've already shown you this:



You can see that the luminosity of the sun has been increasing over almost all of the Earth's history and will continue to do so. This means that it is putting out more and more heat. Or do you think the astrophysicists are part of the conspiracy too?


Just out of curiosity - are you totally unaware that it shows the TEMPERATURE as flat? Excuse me but did I talk about luminosity? Are you aware that there IS a difference?

Why don't you change your pen-name to DUHHHHHHHH?

The sun's output is what heats the Earth, and that's what we were talking about originally. The greater the luminosity, the greater the output. Luminosity depends on both surface temperature and radius. As it ages, the sun is slowly expanding and increasing its luminosity, thus heating the Earth ever more strongly.


They can have a go at me for not being a scientist all they like but I think I can remember this from watching a Carl Sagan documentary when I was a teenager, not to know this basic fact while claiming to be a scientist is extraordinary.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: The sun's output is what heats the Earth, and that's what we were talking about originally. The greater the luminosity, the greater the output. Luminosity depends on both surface temperature and radius. As it ages, the sun is slowly expanding and increasing its luminosity, thus heating the Earth ever more strongly.


What you were complaining about is that I said that the Sun's temperature was STABLE. Is this your crab walk out from under your ignorance?

Tell you what - you also claimed that the Earth wasn't getting colder over time.

Now explain those charts showing that the Earth has been getting colder over time and your conception of the sun growing and luminosity making lots more heat on the Earth.

We're all listening to you Bill Nye the Science Guy.
17-02-2017 00:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The sun's output is what heats the Earth, and that's what we were talking about originally. The greater the luminosity, the greater the output. Luminosity depends on both surface temperature and radius. As it ages, the sun is slowly expanding and increasing its luminosity, thus heating the Earth ever more strongly.


What you were complaining about is that I said that the Sun's temperature was STABLE. Is this your crab walk out from under your ignorance?

Tell you what - you also claimed that the Earth wasn't getting colder over time.

Now explain those charts showing that the Earth has been getting colder over time and your conception of the sun growing and luminosity making lots more heat on the Earth.

We're all listening to you Bill Nye the Science Guy.


You don't know about the snowball earth theory?

That's kind of proof that the earth has not been steadily getting colder all the time. Over tens of millions of years the movement of the continents probably has the most profound effect, but that does not explain the current warming.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 00:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The sun's output is what heats the Earth, and that's what we were talking about originally. The greater the luminosity, the greater the output. Luminosity depends on both surface temperature and radius. As it ages, the sun is slowly expanding and increasing its luminosity, thus heating the Earth ever more strongly.


What you were complaining about is that I said that the Sun's temperature was STABLE. Is this your crab walk out from under your ignorance?

Tell you what - you also claimed that the Earth wasn't getting colder over time.

Now explain those charts showing that the Earth has been getting colder over time and your conception of the sun growing and luminosity making lots more heat on the Earth.

We're all listening to you Bill Nye the Science Guy.

I don't care what you said about the sun's temperature. We're not interested in that. We are interested in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that depends on the sun's luminosity. Your original claim was that the sun's output (i.e. luminosity) was stable, and that is incorrect.

And no, I've never claimed that the Earth isn't getting colder over time. I just disputed your claim that it is currently colder than any time in the last million years. This is simply not true.
17-02-2017 01:42
rwswan
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
For Gas Guzzler:
>>What percent of all CO2 is man contribution?
Perhaps you might be interested in this:
http://issuesonclimatechange.com/greenhouse-gases-a-perspective/
17-02-2017 02:41
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1838)
Thanks rwswan,
I've seen all this, I just wanted to hear a solid claim from surface decal.....and then make some popcorn and sit back and watch Wake shred it. It's quite entertaining, and educational. I've learned more on here in week than I ever did in class.
17-02-2017 10:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks rwswan,
I've seen all this, I just wanted to hear a solid claim from surface decal.....and then make some popcorn and sit back and watch Wake shred it. It's quite entertaining, and educational. I've learned more on here in week than I ever did in class.

You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.
17-02-2017 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.
17-02-2017 17:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.
17-02-2017 19:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.


Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?
17-02-2017 19:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.


Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?
17-02-2017 19:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.


Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?

Sorry, I thought the phenomenon of ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption was common knowledge. See, for example, here:

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem
17-02-2017 20:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.


Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?

Sorry, I thought the phenomenon of ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption was common knowledge. See, for example, here:

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem


Nobody should be surprised that again you need to have your hand held to prevent you from playing with yourself.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/
17-02-2017 20:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
You don't need Wake to tell you what to think. Use your own intelligence.

What, apart from human emissions, could possibly have caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase so dramatically, by 125 ppm, over the geological instant of the last 150 years? Where has the CO2 come from? There has been no massive volcanic activity, no asteroid impact. There has, however, been an enormous increase in human consumption of coal and oil - sufficient, in fact, to easily account for the spike in CO2.


But you need people you know nothing about to tell YOU what to think. All they have to do is have the NASA or NOAA label. But then when scientists connected to those same agencies say that they are full of crap you ignore them. That's what is known as political motivation on your part.

Where is the CO2 coming from? From the oceans dummy. As the temperature warms NORMALLY the CO2 that is in the oceans is released. But apparently you aren't bright enough to have actually compared the warming and the CO2 rise.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

But there's no need for you to even look at it since you don't believe science. Your life is politics.

An interesting theory, but immediately disproved by the fact that the CO2 concentration in the oceans is also increasing (along with their acidity). The oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.


Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?

Sorry, I thought the phenomenon of ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption was common knowledge. See, for example, here:

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem


Nobody should be surprised that again you need to have your hand held to prevent you from playing with yourself.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

Thanks for another link confirming my point.
17-02-2017 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Surface Detail wrote:
Can you explain why you demand references but are the last one to provide them?

Sorry, I thought the phenomenon of ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption was common knowledge. See, for example, here:
...deleted propaganda...
[/quote]

Link War! Learn to think for yourself instead of stealing the arguments of other people that aren't here to make their case.

CO2 dissolved in ocean water largely remains CO2 dissolved in ocean water. A very small amount of it actually turns to carbonic acid. This acid is absolutely necessary for the lives of shellfish and corals. It allows lime deposits to be dissolved in solution so these animals have the calcium they need to build their shells. Without this acid, the limestone would never go into solution. The ocean water essentially acts a ballast for carbon dioxide. Most carbon dioxide in the air comes from the ocean water as part of an equilibrium between the air and water.

Ocean water is alkaline. You cannot acidify an alkaline. You can only neutralize it.

You only acidify neutral or acidic solutions.

It pays to keep your head out of the Scripture of Church of Global Warming that constantly tries to redefine words, including 'acidify', ;science', 'logic', 'data', and 'history'.

BTW, the shellfish and corals are doing just fine. The recent die-off on the Great Barrier Reef involved only a portion of the reef, was caused by predatory activity (starfish and the like), and will recover in a couple of years. Coral is a LOT more resilient than people give it credit for.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-02-2017 22:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
[b]Wake wrote:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

Thanks for another link confirming my point.


Thanks for proving that you didn't even read it.
17-02-2017 22:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

Thanks for another link confirming my point.


Thanks for proving that you didn't even read it.

Of course I read it but, apparently unlike you, I am able to comprehend English.

The caption to the first image says:

One of the largest unknowns in our understanding of the greenhouse effect is the role of the oceans as a carbon sink. Much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is soaked up by the oceans, but changes in the climate are altering this absorption in surprising ways.

The article confirms that the oceans are indeed absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but it then goes on to make finer points about the distribution of and likely limits to this absorption.

The fact that the oceans are currently absorbing some of the CO2 emitted by humans is completely uncontroversial, even among scientists sceptical of its warming effect.




Join the debate IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
uniting nations - IPCC TABLES1314-03-2020 07:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC314-01-2020 21:44
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact