Remember me
▼ Content

The failure of climate change theory



Page 1 of 4123>>>
The failure of climate change theory03-10-2013 07:09
kuts muth
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
All faith based theology should be privately funded to survive the long run. If not then their is no real or legit faith base to evangelize with determination and due diligence.

Climate Change; A religious cult. They have a grouped set of theories all linked together. That is Theology. Theories are in fact falsifiable; that's why we call it theory. They worship their god named environment. They have a savior named go-green. They prophecy flood famine and destruction. They preach whatever optimal pollutant of the decade to be sin. They offer eternal harmony of the life cycle through repentance of sin and acceptance of their savior. The name of their big church is EPA but there are many others. And we pay for this with our taxes, blood, sweat, and tears in the USA which is unconstitutional. It is against the law. It will eventually fail.

None of what I said above means that it is a false religion or that it is the truth. However, it is a religion. People don't like to be forced into paying for a religion with money or jail time and or rules and regulations, policies of the all powerful church. This is very old and proven objection that is 100% justifiable. It is the kind of thing that starts wars.

In addition, to force others with government to accept any kind of religious view is tyranny. To force them to pay for it is dictatorship tyranny.

The theology of climate change must be limited to the private sector if it is to survive in the USA. It is simply wrong to do this any other way and will become detrimental the survival of this religion in the long run if it is left in the public tax an legal sector. If left in the public sector it will die along with the people who have faith in it. And it might not be a peaceful death.
01-12-2013 08:35
YahooMike
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Is it a religion when we just had the warmest decade globally since record keeping began, or that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record, or that 2013 is shaping up to be in or near the top ten warmest years

99% of published climatologists agree that the current acceleration og GW is human induced http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/

it was the religious devout that were convinced that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. It is the devout Christians and republicans who cry the loudest denying AGW
Edited on 01-12-2013 08:41
02-12-2013 06:55
Wb
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Kuts muth isn't making sense. Peer reviewed science is not religion. Passion based on the science of an issue is valuable..passion without science, is, well, a random shot in the dark.
The IPCC projection of a 2 - 4.5 C rise in earths avg temp, with greater increases over land, deserves an energetic rational response based on the peer reviewed science ... Kuts muth's comments don't qualify.
02-12-2013 23:51
PeterOleKvint
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
YahooMike wrote:
99% of published climatologists agree that the current acceleration og GW is human induced http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/


A climatologists are a supporter of the (catastrophic) man-made global warming. Not a science branch.
If one of 1% of climatologists have one serious argument against the theory, so it has declined. How was science in the god old days.
11-12-2013 11:03
Allan
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
To be fair which side of the debate is the religious side.

Both sides are based on faith. How many deniers understand the science? How many green radicals understand the science?

I would say few to none.

Yet what do people who understand the science say? 98 % of scientists who have published peer review journals in related fields believe in man made global warming

So which side can be argued to be based off logic instead of faith

The deniers who side with 2% of those who are qualified? Or the radicals?

Personally I am just following science. More central people need to do the same. Listen the science and then act appropriately
12-12-2013 23:27
PeterOleKvint
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Allan wrote:
To be fair which side of the debate is the religious side.

Both sides are based on faith. How many deniers understand the science? How many green radicals understand the science?


Niels Bohr was denier, because the greenhouse effect of CO2 was inconsistent with his atomic theory. Niels Bohr was a scientist.

One of the problems today is that science is so specialized that most lose track when they come out of their little area.
There is therefore no scientists who are expert in all aspects of a catastrophic man-made global warming.
13-12-2013 08:41
Allan
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
PeterOleKvint wrote:
Allan wrote:
To be fair which side of the debate is the religious side.

Both sides are based on faith. How many deniers understand the science? How many green radicals understand the science?


Niels Bohr was denier, because the greenhouse effect of CO2 was inconsistent with his atomic theory. Niels Bohr was a scientist.

One of the problems today is that science is so specialized that most lose track when they come out of their little area.
There is therefore no scientists who are expert in all aspects of a catastrophic man-made global warming.


I don't understand the reference to a scientist who died 30 years ago. Must be to left field for me. I agree with your point regarding specialisation, but having said that look at iPads. No one understands it so it must not work? But it does work. Science is about building on the work of others.
These complicated theories have credence because they come together to give us amazing inventions. You can of course pick and chose which theories to believe.... But.... I don't think you can ignore experts and expect your views to have relevance
13-12-2013 12:19
PeterOleKvint
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
Allan wrote:
PeterOleKvint wrote:
Allan wrote:
To be fair which side of the debate is the religious side.

Both sides are based on faith. How many deniers understand the science? How many green radicals understand the science?


Niels Bohr was denier, because the greenhouse effect of CO2 was inconsistent with his atomic theory. Niels Bohr was a scientist.

One of the problems today is that science is so specialized that most lose track when they come out of their little area.
There is therefore no scientists who are expert in all aspects of a catastrophic man-made global warming.


I don't understand the reference to a scientist who died 30 years ago.


Because denier or skeptic today will have its funding cut off. This is, for example. happened to Bjorn Lomborg. Science men who today are more uncertain on man-made global warming hiding.
Allan wrote:
Must be to left field for me. I agree with your point regarding specialisation, but having said that look at iPads. No one understands it so it must not work? But it does work. Science is about building on the work of others.
These complicated theories have credence because they come together to give us amazing inventions. You can of course pick and chose which theories to believe.... But.... I don't think you can ignore experts and expect your views to have relevance


You must choose what level of detail you want disproved. For pure nonsense can not be disproved.
13-12-2013 12:32
Allan
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
PeterOleKvint wrote:

You must choose what level of detail you want disproved. For pure nonsense can not be disproved.


My point was I am not arguing the science. If 1000 people smarter than me, who have dedicated their lives to answering a question say one thing....

To believe otherwise is faith. The original post suggested climate change was a religion. I am arguing the opposite. The suggestion that climate change is false is the religion... Believing Science is just accepting the world as it is.
06-01-2014 13:12
Liam1156
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Climatologists are being payed to say that humans have caused climate change. They would be put out of a job if they said otherwise.
01-02-2014 21:15
joshuah
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
YahooMike wrote:
Is it a religion when we just had the warmest decade globally since record keeping began, or that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record, or that 2013 is shaping up to be in or near the top ten warmest years


The warmest decade globally according to NCDC/NOAA data was 2001-2010 with average anomaly of 0.597. However the temperatures are leveling off, the average anomaly from 2004-2013 was down to 0.591, and the rate of increase per decade has dropped to 0.1 degree Celsius, which is not even a pace of 1 degree of warming per century, much less 2 to 6. See calculations here.

This is all despite a predicted acceleration of increase. Reality has failed the models.
11-09-2014 17:20
GP1JLS
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Liam1156 wrote:
Climatologists are being payed to say that humans have caused climate change. They would be put out of a job if they said otherwise.


But what they say is true, explain the increase in the earths temperature and increase in natural disasters? The melting of polar ice caps have greatly increased and the decrease of Polar Bears? Give me reasons why that isn't GW, some people say it is a part of nature or natural but it isn't. Over the last decade the increase of cars and the human population has risen dramatically. Thus we are now putting out more pollution to meet the demand for the increase in population. Thus proving that GW is real and is happening everyday.
24-09-2014 08:22
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
GP1JLS you are exactly what is wrong with this subject.

1. But what they say is true, explain the increase in the earths temperature:
0.85c increase since 1850. Natural variation? I cant explain it per say. However it hasnt even warmed 1 celcius. Its a blip on the historical climate data, statisticaly insignificant.

2. and increase in natural disasters?
Prove it.
There is no proof of increased disasters. There is an increase in the speed information travels. 100 years ago, you wouldnt know what happened 1 town over until the next day. Today you know what happened halfway accross the world, within seconds.

3. The melting of polar ice caps have greatly increased
Indeed it has warmed by 0.85c. There is nothing alarming about the melting, only conjecture on the subject.

4. and the decrease of Polar Bears?
Prove it.

5. Over the last decade the increase of cars and the human population has risen dramatically. Thus we are now putting out more pollution to meet the demand for the increase in population. Thus proving that GW is real and is happening everyday.

Correlation does not equal causation (look it up)
23-11-2014 18:14
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
kuts muth wrote:
All faith based theology should be privately funded to survive the long run. If not then their is no real or legit faith base to evangelize with determination and due diligence.


This is a collections of otherwise meaningless buzzwords. What would constitute a non-faith-based theology? And the poster may be confused. Theology is a science, an objective study. It does not require faith and does not involve worship. It is entirely possible to be an atheist theologist. What is a "legit faith base" and where is such required? Where is there a requirement that evangelization be conducted, much less conducted with "determination and due diligence"? And due diligence? Good grief.

The First Amendment guarantees that our government will not fund the practice of any religion. That gets bent and infringed upon occasionally, but for the most part that has held a firm line since the Republic was founded. It's relevance to AGW, climate change, its study or the responses we make to its threats, however, is essentially non-existent

kuts muth wrote:
Climate Change; A religious cult. They have a grouped set of theories all linked together. That is Theology.


This is complete nonsense in every regard. Climate change is a process taking place in the Earth's climate. It is obviously the wrong class to be considered a religion, cult or otherwise; neither is the study of climate change or the belief that human activity is responsible for some aspects of contemporary climate change or that those changes represent a threat to human culture and infrastructure. And every branch of science has groups or sets of theories which are linked together. If kuth muts contention were correct, all science - all knowledge would be a religion - or a theology - as he continues to misstate. Just FYI Mr Kut:
THEOLOGY: the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

kuts muth wrote:
Theories are in fact falsifiable; that's why we call it theory.


Theories are falsifiable. That is not why we call them theories.

kuts muth wrote:
They worship their god named environment. They have a savior named go-green. They prophecy flood famine and destruction. They preach whatever optimal pollutant of the decade to be sin. They offer eternal harmony of the life cycle through repentance of sin and acceptance of their savior. The name of their big church is EPA but there are many others. And we pay for this with our taxes, blood, sweat, and tears in the USA which is unconstitutional. It is against the law. It will eventually fail.


Neither the study of global warming, the theory that that warming is anthropogenic, a concern for the threat that warming represents or possessing and a desire to act to prevent it involve representing the environment as a deity or worshiping it. It is the practice of good science and the realization that this science is telling us that an activity of ours is altering our environment in a way that threatens our well being and that of almost every other species on the planet. It is the realization that the health of the human species is tied to the health of the Earth's environment no less than for any other species.

We will pay the costs of global warming one way or another. Working to prevent it will costs orders of magnitude less than ignoring it until crops fail, till water supplies dry up and the ocean is lapping at our knees.

kuts muth wrote:
None of what I said above means that it is a false religion or that it is the truth.


The only people attempting to argue that it's a religion are those who oppose it. So let's not be dishonest or insincere.

kuts muth wrote:
However, it is a religion.


It quite obviously is not.

kuts muth wrote:
People don't like to be forced into paying for a religion with money or jail time and or rules and regulations, policies of the all powerful church.



Then thank goodness no such things are taking place.

kuts muth wrote:
This is very old and proven objection that is 100% justifiable.


It was dreamed up within the last few years as part of the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign. It is patently false and therefore most assuredly not provable or justifiable.

kuts muth wrote:
It is the kind of thing that starts wars.


AGW could well lead to wars, but it won't be because any rational person believes it to be a religion.

kuts muth wrote:
In addition, to force others with government to accept any kind of religious view is tyranny. To force them to pay for it is dictatorship tyranny.


No one is forcing anyone to accept any particular view. Government, however, is obligated to use the best possible information to act in the best interests of it populace. Right now, the best possible information says that global warming is being caused by human activities and that it represents a threat to our well being for centuries to come. That obligates government to act. That is not tyranny or dictatorship. It is good governance.

kuts muth wrote:
The theology of climate change must be limited to the private sector if it is to survive in the USA. It is simply wrong to do this any other way and will become detrimental the survival of this religion in the long run if it is left in the public tax an legal sector. If left in the public sector it will die along with the people who have faith in it. And it might not be a peaceful death.


Complete and utter nonsense. And the death threats and threats of violence have no place in a civilized debate.
RE: Gore's inconvenience28-11-2014 05:28
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Gore's inconvenience - atmospheric co2 has increased as predicted but global temperature has not. When I google "global average temperature chart" I find they all show a relatively flat line since 2000.
On http://www.climate.gov/ I find the quote:
"The "pause" in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century.
I refer to the published climate model forecasts, the kind of visual data used by politicians, voters and the general public. A list of these models is posted by the IPCC at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/...
I find that none of these models forecast the climate experienced so far this millennium.
See chart at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
That significant change in climate was not predicted. It is still hot but it isn't getting hotter. We need to reevaluate our models to account for the recent data but we should not deny it or fight over it, we should learn from it. If we keep using the same models we will keep making the same mistakes. The information cited on climate.gov is being factored into the models and will, no doubt, help increase their accuracy. I think the lesson learned is carbon is less a player than originally thought as other factors flex their muscles. The science is all but settled.
When Al Gore coined the term "inconvenient truth" global warming was inconvenient, true and undeniable but today it's cause and driving forces are up for debate. Had the predictions been more accurate we wouldn't be having this discussion. Climate is defined as a weather cycle of 20 to 30 years. We are now on the cusp of that definition with the present day pause.
Being a Florida resident, I watched 20 years ago as the competing hurricane prediction models were shown separately on the map as a storm approached. As the models got better there were less of them on the map and finally a single "cone of probability" was shown. Now that cone is getting smaller and more reliable. The Governor uses that information to evacuate areas for safety and any misstep will put his political future in jeopardy . The same is true of our lawmakers now making climate change laws. We will hold them responsible for their choices. A crippling carbon tax with no following global warming can change the political climate of the country. No action and an a climate disaster has an even worse price.
I would not want a single Mom in Idaho to pay $5.00 a gallon for gas if I wasn't very sure her children would benefit from her sacrifice.
28-11-2014 17:19
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
einnor wrote:
Gore's inconvenience


This discussion has nothing to do with Al Gore.

einnor wrote:
atmospheric co2 has increased as predicted


There was never ANY doubt that it would. The only question was whether or not humanity would be able to reduce the rate of increase to some extent. The answer to that question so far has been "no".

einnor wrote:
but global temperature has not. When I google "global average temperature chart" I find they all show a relatively flat line since 2000.


Like this one?:



What do you think of the massive drop in 1942 from which temperatures didn't recover for another 37 years? Did that mark the end of global warming? Did that convince the world's climatologists and other scientists that the Earth wasn't getting warmer? That the greenhouse effect wasn't real? No, no and no. Why not? Because the system has noise. The warming from anthropogenic CO2 is real but relatively small. Over time it has been sufficient to cause the observed warming. But other variables in the system are capable - on a transient basis - of overcoming its effects. In the case of the current hiatus (and possibly the 1942-1979 hiatus) changes in tropical wind patterns have caused warmed ocean surface waters (where 90% of all solar heating goes) to be subducted into the deep ocean. Cooler waters from the depths have replaced it. Thus the warming of the deep ocean (>700m) has accelerated while the temperatures of the ocean surface (SST) has dropped. As an additional point to consider, satellite observations continue to show a growing imbalance between the amount of radiation striking the Earth and the amount leaving it. The Earth is still accumulating solar energy at an increasing pace.

einnor wrote:
On http://www.climate.gov/ I find the quote:
"The "pause" in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century.


No one in mainstream science is denying the facts.

einnor wrote:
I refer to the published climate model forecasts, the kind of visual data used by politicians, voters and the general public. A list of these models is posted by the IPCC at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/...
I find that none of these models forecast the climate experienced so far this millennium.
See chart at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png


Dr Spencer's work here is a fabricated deceit of the first order. Read http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html for a good explanation of what Spencer has done here.

einnor wrote:
That significant change in climate was not predicted.


That's true. But that failing refutes neither AGW nor the greenhouse effect. It only points out that our knowledge of the myriad functions within the Earth's climate is incomplete. An enormous amount of study has been taking place attempting to discern the cause of the hiatus and at least four different studies, beginning with Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalen 2012 point to the mechanism I noted above. The Earth is still heating, but much of that heat is being moved to the deep oceans.

einnor wrote:
It is still hot but it isn't getting hotter.


It is getting hotter, just not on the Earth's surface (and that mostly the ocean's surface) as rapidly as it was before 2000.



einnor wrote:
We need to reevaluate our models to account for the recent data but we should not deny it or fight over it, we should learn from it.


Climate modelers are aware of that. They have always been aware of that. That's what they have always done with their models.

einnor wrote:
If we keep using the same models we will keep making the same mistakes.


You should brush up on the practice of modeling.

einnor wrote:
The information cited on climate.gov is being factored into the models and will, no doubt, help increase their accuracy.


Thank god you told them.

einnor wrote:
I think the lesson learned is carbon is less a player than originally thought as other factors flex their muscles. The science is all but settled.


The warming from added CO2 has always been one of the smaller factors, but it is preciesely the case of the tortoise and the hare. Numerous factors are able to overcome greenhouse warming from CO2 ON A TRANSIENT BASIS. In the long run, however, CO2 is warming the planet and will continue to do so at an increasing rate.

einnor wrote:
When Al Gore coined the term "inconvenient truth" global warming was inconvenient, true and undeniable


Al Gore has nothing to do with this debate. AGW is supported by the work of scientists, thousands of them.

einnor wrote:
but today it's cause and driving forces are up for debate.


The almost innumerable processes taking place within the Earth's climate will always be up for debate. The cause of the warming we've been experiencing over the last 150 years are not. As time has gone by and as our knowledge has increased (through the work of thousands of scientists in thousands of peer reviewed studies) our certainty that human CO2 emissions and deforestation are the primary cause of that warming has done nothing but increase.

einnor wrote:
Had the predictions been more accurate we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Like this:



and this:



and this:



and this:


Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line).

einnor wrote:
Climate is defined as a weather cycle of 20 to 30 years.


No it is not.

CLIMATE:the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

einnor wrote:
We are now on the cusp of that definition with the present day pause.


Climate is the amalgam of numerous continuous processes. It possesses no cusps.

einnor wrote:
Being a Florida resident, I watched 20 years ago as the competing hurricane prediction models were shown separately on the map as a storm approached. As the models got better there were less of them on the map and finally a single "cone of probability" was shown. Now that cone is getting smaller and more reliable. The Governor uses that information to evacuate areas for safety and any misstep will put his political future in jeopardy . The same is true of our lawmakers now making climate change laws. We will hold them responsible for their choices. A crippling carbon tax with no following global warming can change the political climate of the country. No action and an a climate disaster has an even worse price.


I am also a Florida resident, of 43 years. I can never recall seeing more than one cone of probability and since it is likely that both our recollections go back further than the widespread use of powerful computers to model hurricane tracks, our earliest memories would be of predictions made, essentially, by hand.

You are absolutely correct that no action bears a higher price than unneeded action: enormously higher. You are incorrect when you suggest that evidence and objective science tell us that the former and the latter have even approximately equal odds. The world is going to get warmer. Sea level is rising and that rise will accelerate. Inaction is a bad choice from every basis.

einnor wrote:
I would not want a single Mom in Idaho to pay $5.00 a gallon for gas if I wasn't very sure her children would benefit from her sacrifice.

[/quote]

How much would you be willing that she pay for anti-lock brakes or traction control functions in her car? How much would you be willing that she pay for safe and reliable medications from her pharmacy? How much would you be willing that she pay for safe and wholesome food from her grocery? For a fire department that can prevent her house from burning to the ground? From a police force that can protect her from criminal harm? From a military that can protect her from invasion by a foreign aggressor?

Five dollars for a gallon of gas is a pittance. The cost she will pay for our inaction dwarfs that by several orders of magnitude.
Edited on 28-11-2014 17:23
07-12-2014 10:11
einnorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Cue Stick Chart


A cup is half full as it is being filled and half empty when being drained. Simple logic.
Attached image:

07-12-2014 13:16
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Look at that data between 2008 and 2010. Temperature are screaming up!

And they taste like cherries.
04-02-2015 03:50
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
What does theology have got to do with climate change? I don't see any connection between a faith based theology and a climate change theory. I don't even see a need to fund this belief. I mean this thing just shows up on itself, its like self sustaining.
04-02-2015 13:51
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
To what theology do you refer?
05-02-2015 03:18
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Abraham3 wrote:
To what theology do you refer?


I am not sure what the original post meant. Maybe we can ask him to clarify what he intend to convey. Anyways, I don't want to be off topic so better back to the climate change theory discussion.
07-02-2015 22:15
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
What he meant was that he believes the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not supported by any evidence. Any review of the literature or the IPCC's assessment reports would show that claim to be utter nonsense. But this charge that global warming is a theology is a common one among deniers. The same was used by Intelligent Design proponents arguing against evolution.
28-03-2015 17:35
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
YahooMike wrote: "Is it a religion when we just had the warmest decade globally since record keeping began, or that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record, or that 2013 is shaping up to be in or near the top ten warmest years"

This statement has often bugged me as a misleading argument. If, since average temperatures have been recorded, the globe got warmer by 1 degree C between 1950 and 1998 then obviously record warm years would be in the last decade or so. That is like saying that because it is warmer, the temperature must be rising! This is misleading and tempts the public to believe that we are on our way to cooking whereas it has only got warmer by 1 degree C and has now paused.

Those that support the Medieval Warming period theory say that average temperatures were higher in the past....(and we are still here!) but that was before the scientific recording of temperature so it may not count.

Another annoying error in the debate are statements that use the term "Climate Change Deniers". Very few people deny that climate has changed. The proper term that should be used is "Anthropogenic Climate Change Deniers."
29-03-2015 04:58
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
FriendOfOrion wrote:
YahooMike wrote: "Is it a religion when we just had the warmest decade globally since record keeping began, or that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record, or that 2013 is shaping up to be in or near the top ten warmest years"

This statement has often bugged me as a misleading argument.


Despite the fact that it was true?

FriendOfOrion wrote:
If, since average temperatures have been recorded, the globe got warmer by 1 degree C between 1950 and 1998 then obviously record warm years would be in the last decade or so.


It's no longer 1998. Deniers (yes I use the term) have been harping on the last decade's slowdown in surface warming as the end of the AGW theory and many claim that it proves the greenhouse effect doesn't exist; that CO2 does not cause warming.

The comment you quoted concerned 2013, not 1998. I think it fully justified to point out that temperatures are STILL rising and STILL setting records.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
That is like saying that because it is warmer, the temperature must be rising!


Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but if it has gotten warmer, then yes, the temperature must be rising. Have you not heard the hue and cry claiming that these things are NOT taking place?

FriendOfOrion wrote:This is misleading and tempts the public to believe that we are on our way to cooking whereas it has only got warmer by 1 degree C and has now paused.


That we have warmed 1C is significant. Your implication that it is not is... misleading. The only thing that has slowed (not stopped) is the increase in surface warming. The increase of the globe's total heat content as well as the radiative imbalance at the Top of Atmosphere (ToA) continue to accelerate.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
Those that support the Medieval Warming period theory say that average temperatures were higher in the past....(and we are still here!)


I have never heard of anyone who rejected the idea of a Medieval Warm Period. However, few of any experts on the subject believe temperatures then were higher than are current temperatures (I participated this very morning on a rather in depth argument about where five different experts fell on this precise question and 4:5 said it is hotter now). And even were they, the point is completely irrelevant to the discussion of AGW. The contention that the primary cause of our current warming is human GHGs and deforestation has no reliance on planetary history: it neither requires history to provide an example nor attempts to rewrite all historical temperature transitions as GHG-driven. There are numerous forcing factors pressing the Earth's temperature both up and down. AGW does not deny that in the least. Save for fiery cataclysms such as the Chicxulub Impact at the KT Boundary, at no time in the Earth's past has CO2 been produced at the rate at which we have put it into the air by the combustion of fossil fuels over the past 150 years. There simply is no historical precedent for the current situation.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
but that was before the scientific recording of temperature so it may not count.


It forces a proxy reconstruction, but so does more than 99% of human history. We do not possess a significant amount of instrumented records.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
Another annoying error in the debate


Excuse me, but your original contention was that they were misleading, now you term them errors. The statements at the lead of your post are NOT in error, they are facts.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
are statements that use the term "Climate Change Deniers". Very few people deny that climate has changed. The proper term that should be used is "Anthropogenic Climate Change Deniers."


I consistently use the term AGW denier. As in any topical conversation, the meaning of widely shared terms broaden and smear. However, I'd be very surprised if you could find anyone with the slightest, actual confusion regarding what deniers in this context actually deny. What such people actually believe to be happening may be a more difficult question, but what they deny is common knowledge among almost anyone who might come across such terms.
30-03-2015 14:51
Common Sense
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I hear a lot of people saying that temperatures have risen by 1 C. Compared to what average? Where I live, scientist say at one time there was a glacier here. It must have been a lot colder then and the climate must have dramatically changed since then.
A couple of points I'd like to make: Scientists looking for the smoking gun of CO2's in the upper atmosphere, couldn't find them. If it had been there, believe me, that's all you'd be hearing in the news. Then they said that it must be a ground level phenomenon. Second. Again scientists say that during the history of this earth, ice has only been on it 10% of the time. Could it be that we are still slowly coming out of the last ice age, and we still haven't reached the earth's average yet?
Seems to me that the science isn't settled yet.
30-03-2015 18:29
FriendOfOrion
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Abraham03 Replied:
FriendOfOrion wrote:
YahooMike wrote: "Is it a religion when we just had the warmest decade globally since record keeping began, or that 2012 was the tenth warmest year on record, or that 2013 is shaping up to be in or near the top ten warmest years"

This statement has often bugged me as a misleading argument.


Despite the fact that it was true?
FriendOfOrion replies: It would be inferred by most people reading it that we are headed for the hottest temperatures ever and we don't even have records far enough back to verify that.

FriendOfOrion wrote:
If, since average temperatures have been recorded, the globe got warmer by 1 degree C between 1950 and 1998 then obviously record warm years would be in the last decade or so.


It's no longer 1998. Deniers (yes I use the term) have been harping on the last decade's slowdown in surface warming as the end of the AGW theory and many claim that it proves the greenhouse effect doesn't exist; that CO2 does not cause warming.

FriendOfOrion replies: What do you think of the much mentioned logarithmic relationship between Temperature rise and CO2 concentration? If this graph is true then the temperature rise around the 400ppm CO2 mark would be minimal and decreasing.

Meteorologist Roy Spencer says that CO2 conc. follow temperature rise. Is that not possible?
31-03-2015 03:07
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
FriendOfOrion replies: It would be inferred by most people reading it [recent record temperatures] that we are headed for the hottest temperatures ever and we don't even have records far enough back to verify that.


That was not what was stated or claimed. If someone makes that inference, they are failing to comprehend what was written or have no grasp of the history of instrumented temperature records. If you think that reason to cease to keep track of temperature records, then I would have to disagree.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm
[b]Dana Nuccitelli states
The IPCC addressed this question [how fast will atmospheric CO2 rise] by examining a number of different anthropogenic emissions scenarios. Scenario A1F1 assumes high global economic growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels for the remainder of the century. Scenario B1 assumes a major move away from fossil fuels toward alternative and renewable energy as the century progresses. Scenario A2 is a middling scenario, with less even economic growth and some adoption of alternative and renewable energy sources as the century unfolds

In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100. It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv. This will result in an accelerating rate of global warming, not a linear rate. Under Scenarios A2 and A1F1, the IPCC report projects that the global temperature in 2095 will be 2.0–6.4°C above 1990 levels (2.6-7.0°C above pre-industrial), with a best estimate of 3.4 and 4.0°C warmer (4.0 and 4.6°C above pre-industrial average surface temperatures), respectively.
RE: How is this not the reason for all of it?02-04-2015 03:43
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
This is actually where I meant to post this:

This is a plot of the 100 year moving average of sunspot activity vs 100 year moving average of temperature (see attached). The two are bound together and have increased steadily for the last 100 years. This is like asking why its getting warmer in your house when you've been turning up the thermostat daily for weeks. Isn't it obvious?

The sun is putting out more energy (long term average) than any time in recorded history.
Attached file:
svtdata_1.pdf
02-04-2015 03:57
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
https://www.google.com/search?q=sunspot+index&biw=1093&bih=545&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=q5EcVZ_pIcylNsmngJgO&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#imgdii=_

Check this collection and see if you can find anything that resembles your posted graph.
02-04-2015 04:02
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Yes. These are all looking at shorter time frames. There are no correlations year to year, 10 year, 20 year...there are only correlations at 80-100 years and the correlations are very strong. The spreadsheets I've attached elsewhere duplicate these charts. It's all coming from the same source so of course the results are the same.
02-04-2015 04:10
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Then there is the point that the increase in TSI has not been adequate to produce even 10% of the observed warming.
02-04-2015 04:43
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Here's one of the charts you suggested I look at (see attached). Examine it, looking at 80-100 year segments from beginning to end and tell me in what year the maximum area under the curve occurs. Hint: look at the chart I posted a couple replies back.

Earth's black body temperature is approximately 255K. A temperature increase of 1K is a 0.4% change. So a 0.4% change in solar output extended over 80-100 years could explain all of the temperature increase observed. Solar irradiance (read as energy output) is proportional to sunspot count. During a normal 11 year cycle the sun's irradiance varies by approximately 0.1%. During longer period cycles, you get the 0.1% caused by the 11 year cycle oscillating on top of the longer 80-100 year cycle and you can easily get to the 0.4% number.

The last 100 years has been the most extended period of heightened solar output recorded since 1659 when looking at long term averages (80 t0 100 years).
Attached image:

02-04-2015 19:04
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
I think of this analogy regarding the global warming subject:

Your house is hot. Your thermostat has been rising on its own, daily for months. Not wanting to accept the idea of the thermostat controlling the heat in your house, you blame the heat on the windows you are using. To back this claim up, you consult the window repair man to see what he thinks. Shockingly he agrees with you. Your windows are causing your house to overheat. Now there is a consensus. After all is said and done, you get new windows, he gets your money and we all get screwed because we could have just waited for the thermostat to finish doing what it's going to do anyway....meanwhile the thermostat has been steadily falling.

Global warming is real. I have no doubt about that. The sun is the only source that heats this planet (with minor exceptions). When the sun is more active, more heat is input into our planet. When that increased heat is input long enough it can affect the temperature. During short cycles, there is no measurable effect because the oceans regulate the planet's temperature. It takes a very long time to substantively change the ocean's temperature on a global scale. I took a look last night at the 100 year average temperature deviation from the long term average. It's approximately 0.5C higher than the norm. This, based on my previous argument (see above post) equates to a 0.2% temperature change for the planet. 0.2% solar output is in fact in the range to be expected for long term irradiance deviations.

I'm not against the clean energy movement and I support and even profit from the industry having engineered many recent energy projects here in Alaska. However, when I see scientists who stand to gain substantial and direct financial benefit from their findings and who stand to gain nothing and in many cases lose everything by pointing to the obvious, my antenna goes up and I start to look at what the real situation is. I suggest you all do the same.

If my hypothesis is correct, we are currently right at or just past the peak solar output to be expected. From here, its a long slide to colder temperatures for the rest of our lifetime. Keep in mind though, we're only talking about 0.5C change so the world is not ending. So carry on.
Edited on 02-04-2015 19:05
02-04-2015 22:27
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
A little backup for my statements:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Attached image:

03-04-2015 00:30
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Here's a longer term illustration of the solar activity. I've illustrated the 200+/- year cycle that corresponds with the 100 year (half cycle length) moving average measure I was speaking of in blue. There is also a much longer period that can be seen (in green) also peaking about now with a period of approximately 1200 years just from a quick look. Point being, the sun has cycles on top of cycles. When multiple cycles reach a peak or valley, we have extremes in temperature. Right now we are at the peak of 80 year, 200 year and 1200 year cycles.
Attached file:
longterm.pdf
04-04-2015 00:19
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Do you actually believe that you're the only human on this planet that's checked to see if that irradiance could have caused the observed warming? There are ten thousand PhDs ahead of you here and they did not arrive at your conclusion.

Where did you apply Earth's albedo or atmospheric effects to your TSI figure?

From AR4

These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). These data sets indicated quasi-periodic changes in solar radiation of 0.24 to 0.30% on the centennial time scale. These values have recently been re-assessed (see, e.g., Chapter 2).

The TAR states that the changes in solar irradiance are not the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown large feedbacks in the climate system.

From Chapter 2 of AR5

2.3.1 Global Mean Radiation Budget
Since AR4, knowledge on the magnitude of the radiative energy fluxes in the climate system has improved, requiring an update of the global annual mean energy balance diagram (Figure 2.11). Energy exchanges between Sun, Earth and Space are observed from space-borne platforms such as the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES, Wielicki et al., 1996) and the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE, Kopp and Lawrence, 2005) which began data collection in 2000 and 2003, respectively. The total solar irradiance (TSI) incident at the TOA is now much better known, with the SORCE Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument reporting uncertainties as low as 0.035%, compared to 0.1% for other TSI instruments (Kopp et al., 2005). During the 2008 solar minimum, SORCE/TIM observed a solar irradiance of 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 compared to 1365.5 ± 1.3 W m–2 for instruments launched prior to SORCE and still operating in 2008 (Section 8.4.1.1). Kopp and Lean (2011) conclude that the SORCE/TIM value of TSI is the most credible value because it is validated by a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated cryogenic radiometer. This revised TSI estimate corresponds to a solar irradiance close to 340 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth's sphere.

Global mean energy budget under present-day climate conditions. Numbers state magnitudes of the individual energy fluxes in W m–2, adjusted within their uncertainty ranges to close the energy budgets. Numbers in parentheses attached to the energy fluxes cover the range of values in line with observational constraints. (Adapted from Wild et al., 2013.)

The estimate for the reflected solar radiation at the TOA in Figure 2.11, 100 W m–2, is a rounded value based on the CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) satellite data product (Loeb et al., 2009, 2012b) for the period 2001–2010. This data set adjusts the solar and thermal TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to be consistent with independent estimates of the global heating rate based on in situ ocean observations (Loeb et al., 2012b). This leaves 240 W m–2 of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth, which is nearly balanced by thermal emission to space of about 239 W m–2 (based on CERES EBAF), considering a global heat storage of 0.6 W m–2 (imbalance term in Figure 2.11) based on Argo data from 2005 to 2010 (Hansen et al., 2011; Loeb et al., 2012b; Box 3.1). The stated uncertainty in the solar reflected TOA fluxes from CERES due to uncertainty in absolute calibration alone is about 2% (2-sigma), or equivalently 2 W m–2 (Loeb et al., 2009). The uncertainty of the outgoing thermal flux at the TOA as measured by CERES due to calibration is ~3.7 W m–2 (2σ). In addition to this, there is uncertainty in removing the influence of instrument spectral response on measured radiance, in radiance-to-flux conversion, and in time–space averaging, which adds up to another 1 W m–2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

For a thorough discussion of TSI and global warming, try Chapter 2 of WG-I, the Physical Science Basis of AR5.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf This is a bit big, but it's ONLY Chapter 2. About 35 MB.
Edited on 04-04-2015 00:20
07-04-2015 02:07
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Obvious lack of correlation here...
Attached image:


Edited on 07-04-2015 02:08
08-04-2015 01:14
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Just to illustrate the difference. 10 year sunspot number literally has no correlation with 10 year moving average of CET, unlike the 80 year and 100 year, which explains why it's always dismissed as a potential cause. The sun is more active now than in the last 9000+ years and has been steadily increasing its output for the last 100 years. I'm not really interested in arguing it further, since everyone's mind is made up on where they stand on the issue. Food for thought.
Attached image:

RE: The failure of climate change theory - not all data show increasing TSI08-04-2015 01:49
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)





Edited on 08-04-2015 01:52
08-04-2015 01:51
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
That's not even half the timeframe I'm looking at. Look at area under the curve, not local trends. Look at the area under the curve within the red box.
Attached image:


Edited on 08-04-2015 02:04
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate The failure of climate change theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N23717-11-2019 08:15
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact